Wednesday, January 18, 2012

-18- On photography.

A heads up before I start, this post is my opinion only, and you are free to counter argue, tell me I'm wrong and explain why, I don't even mind insults, it's all good. I don't always allow for this kind of free for all, but when I do, it means a big, fat, probably irrational, post is coming up after wards. Just a heads up for next time.

I really, really don't like photography. I like looking at good pictures, but you know what I do next? I look at a different picture. And I'm not a five year old, so pictures don't keep me occupied anymore. Fuck photography, because it isn't really an art form (go ahead, bite me). Yes, I know, pictures are art, and it's true, but photos do not require as much work as paintings and drawings do. A press of a button is not enough to impress me. I understand that you need to set up, find the right shading and scenery, zoom in, and then take the shot, and you can argue about it all you want, but it isn't the same as having to actually MAKE a picture. That's completely different. You can take a class on photography. Tons of people aren't even accepted into art school. In fact, because photography is so easy (go ahead and argue here), most people don't even attempt other forms of art. I say most because I know many people who can do photography and draw, etc. but they are few and far in between, even if they don't want to admit it. 

Now photography has it's benefits; now we have more than just sketches to point out people we don't like, but it is running rampant. I'll ask a question many of you have probably asked before: Just how many pictures of sunsets do we need in this world? There are good photographers and they also take pictures of sunsets, but not all the time. Also, since when are captions so big in photography? I'm not talking about memes, just in general, the whole point of a picture was always that the picture spoke for itself. Taking pictures of something written kills the point. Just write it out, dumbass. And what about black and white? Really now? I thought the whole point of pictures was the quality. If I was a dog, I wouldn't mind, but black and white to me just means that the picture is black and white; there is no artistic venture involved, the picture does not mean more, it's the same fucking thing, just without color.
And what about all those pictures of eyes. This is typically used by ugly girls to focus on a small portion of their face so you don't see that they're really whales in human form. Using a picture of your eye for a profile pic is stupid. Unless I'm an eye scanner, I have no idea who you are, but thankfully, I realize I don't need to know you in the first place. 

Lastly, to come back to a point I already mentioned, what is up with people's fascination with pictures again? Books are no longer appreciated on the same scale as a good photograph. Photo sharing websites are the new big thing. Is this a large society based joke? Some idiot at this point would say "A picture tells a thousand words." Yeah, well then why do we watch movies? Because evidently, one picture from the movie doesn't tell you enough about the story, does it? That's what I'm getting at here, that pictures are childish, they're an amusement, not an art. Pictures are just memory aid for me, but I know not to appreciate them too much. They are a means to an end, they are not the end. Instead of just taking a picture, next time, try writing about what you feel when you take that picture. You'll be surprised when you realize that your picture doesn't contain everything. In fact, it might not even contain anything at all.

Again, you are free to post a rebuttal, insults, anything goes. I know exactly what I wrote.

P.S. Think about it, if this blog were pictures, would you really understand?

1 comment:

  1. I would not say that photography is NOT an art. Legally, it is, and we've considered it an art for a good long time. It's been accepted as such for the past few decades.

    You're not the first to raise this argument. In the mid 1900s this was a major battle and source of controversy in museums, as photographers would attempt to argue that their capturing of specific scenery in specific ways, under specific situations, IS art, and IS talent. Just a different type of talent.

    I concur with your opinion; you say that drawing and capturing scenery with your hands to paper takes more effort, more work, perhaps more talent. It takes a specific mindset and a certain way of thinking and seeing the natural world to recapture scenery in illustration. With photography, once you find the right scenery, it's a matter of simply focusing in on it and taking a picture. I can do that with my 10 megapixel digital camera and it wouldn't look that much different from what the professionals do with their 1500$ setups.

    Photography, to me, seems a profession for those who like capturing moments, and are willing to spends the cash for the setups and the equipment. So it IS a talent, and it does take SOME effort. You need to have the morale and the desire to be so interested in capturing moments that you spend rediculous amounts of cash on it. (Fuckin' hipster.)

    This is the reason why I don't really like JUST capturing moments with a camera. If I'm not going to draw, I'm at least going to create, or emphasize moments through artistic uses, like Photoshop. Professional photographers who are Photoshop certified in capturing specific moments and emphasizing them in just the right ways... THEY have my respect. Not the hipsters who have 1500$ cameras and know how to use them, who suddenly believe they have a career ahead of them. It's like saying a man with the latest Mac model is the one who's going to be the best computer engineer.