Beyond the tonal range of the granularity, resolution, detail and sharpness and generally beyond the purely technical aspects all interact to get a photographic result is narrative ... The point of view of the photographer and his relationship with the environment and the time (personal and historical) that will live. The technique evolves over time, but the emotion of the artist in images through its narrative is timeless (because it is frozen forever) and that is what truly gives you value.
Today many people seem baffled by the technical progress and thus confuse this field with the aesthetic, even to make unfair retroactive application of technical criteria. This is how I saw shocked and some even, for example, to use the current parameters to judge as "bad" photos of the 20's. With the forgiveness of those who think, but it seems to me a solemn nonsense. It's like saying a cave painting is bad because the performers did not have a good technique for drawing or perspective did not dominate. Moreover, since today currently offer a wide array of techniques and in the field of arts blissfully raw eclecticism and freedom (which is being developed with great force at least since the early twentieth century, but earlier), is not for nothing illegitimate or even paint as did the cavemen, or children ... Or take pictures with the 20 team and printed digitally, if that's what suits the artistic expression of each individual.
0 comments:
Post a Comment