Man invented this apparatus which put the portrait painter out of business. Instead of a subject sitting for hours, they
pose once and in a matter of seconds their portrait is complete. Okay, maybe a little bit longer for those nostalgic polaroid people.
But for the majority of humanity, photography has reduced the act of creating an image to pushing a button on a machine.
Wait about 5 more minutes and your pictures appear on your computer screen. So, heres the question. Is photography really art?
Is an image that took, lets say 2 hours to create (1 hour photo is not always reliable) really an art form?
Can it be ranked with the canvases of Picasso or the music of Debussy or the works of Michelangelo?
Where does photography lie in the spectrum of art? Posted by Michelle. If you boil it down, photography is a moment of reality captured as a still image.
To some theorists, this would be the ultimate art form. As long as the camera isn’t set to any crazy settings that distort proportions or turn the sky purple,
photography is the epitome of mimetic art. There are, however, many ways in which photography can be manipulated to create different effects.
With software like photoshop an image can be altered to show almost anything imaginable. And all photo software comes with tools that can change
the tint, sharpness, brightness etc… of the images. Many times photos don’t even originate in mimesis. Some photographers set their
cameras to take pictures which reflect reality, while others use shutter speed and aperture settings to alter the appearance of the image as it is being captured.
One of my favorite types of photography is black and white photography, which is definitely not an accurate portrayal of reality.
Come and join us as we show you how best to have a moment lived for a second and third and forth……………time.