Photography and Art


Friday, April 9th, 2010 - Nicholas Calcott

So here’s a question that I think gets at what is essential in photography – is photography fundamentally ‘different’ from other forms of representation or is the fact that there is a ‘photography world’ and, for example, this is a ‘photography blog’ just a unique consequence of historical and market forces?

I don’t mean to jump into the debate set off by the Paul Graham essay that recently made the rounds which is essentially arguing for greater photographic inclusion in the art economy. I mean to ask whether there is a reason why we’re all working in, arguing about, and obsessed by this one specific medium and not any other beyond the fact that we happen to find ourselves in it.

Is photography special?

See:
This ancient post
Christopher Rauschenburg on Concientious
Blake Andrews on La Pura Vida
Eyecurious’ take
And, like, the history of writings on photography. People seem to forget this, but Barthes’ and Sontag’s writings on photography were and are still important because their core arguments are that things represented in photography are fundamentally different than things represented in other medias. Does this still ring true, now, when photography is much less an exceptional machine made representation and more part of a general media landscape characterized mostly by its accessibility to anyone regardless of their tools and rather seamless distinctions between mediums?

Also, tangential but unrelated: When are we gonna see an iPad photobook? Will it still count as a photobook?

Also: iPad magazine aps.

Tags: , ,

    Comments are closed.