http://rachaelashe.com/2006/04/30/image-fatigue/ The art of Rachael Ashe Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:58:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://rachaelashe.com/2006/04/30/image-fatigue/#comment-110 Todd W. Tue, 30 May 2006 13:32:53 +0000 http://rachaelashe.com/?p=77#comment-110 I was re-reading this article today and am now interpreting it in light of something I'd read subsequently, Arthur Danto's "The End of Art". While I don't think Mr. Smee explicitly understands it, he has obliquely hit on something very insightful. The introduction of digital processes, particularly extreme examples such as Loretta Lux's portraiture, is pushing photography in the same direction that the other traditional arts took about a century ago, that is away from representation into a inwardly focused exploration of "what is photography like?", rather than its traditional emphasis of "what is the world like?" This reemphasis and mimickery of traditional arts is where the real danger to photgraphy as an art form lies. I was re-reading this article today and am now interpreting it in light of something I’d read subsequently, Arthur Danto’s “The End of Art”. While I don’t think Mr. Smee explicitly understands it, he has obliquely hit on something very insightful. The introduction of digital processes, particularly extreme examples such as Loretta Lux’s portraiture, is pushing photography in the same direction that the other traditional arts took about a century ago, that is away from representation into a inwardly focused exploration of “what is photography like?”, rather than its traditional emphasis of “what is the world like?” This reemphasis and mimickery of traditional arts is where the real danger to photgraphy as an art form lies.

]]> http://rachaelashe.com/2006/04/30/image-fatigue/#comment-84 Gail Tue, 02 May 2006 07:03:02 +0000 http://rachaelashe.com/?p=77#comment-84 What Christina says brings to mind something I told someone recently, that once you open up Photoshop and have a look at the techniques used to digitally edit a picture, you never look at a magazine or any commercially-driven packaging the same way again... whether it's motion picture or still. What Christina says brings to mind something I told someone recently, that once you open up Photoshop and have a look at the techniques used to digitally edit a picture, you never look at a magazine or any commercially-driven packaging the same way again… whether it’s motion picture or still.

]]> http://rachaelashe.com/2006/04/30/image-fatigue/#comment-83 Christina Tue, 02 May 2006 05:09:51 +0000 http://rachaelashe.com/?p=77#comment-83 I agree with your take on it. It's not like people couldn't/can't manipulate a photograph's "unique relationship to reality" when actual darkrooms are involved. Admittedly digital technology makes it easier, but this seems to be making audiences (both art-loving and not) more aware of how photographs can deliberately present a distorted reality. I think that's a good thing. I agree with your take on it. It’s not like people couldn’t/can’t manipulate a photograph’s “unique relationship to reality” when actual darkrooms are involved. Admittedly digital technology makes it easier, but this seems to be making audiences (both art-loving and not) more aware of how photographs can deliberately present a distorted reality. I think that’s a good thing.

]]>