Purple sunset
PDF Week 17/2016: Canon 7D, 50mm (on 18-200mm lens), 0.3 sec, f5.6, ISO 100.
He was an artistic sunrise that could not be reduced to purple rain. This morning the news that Prince has died is all over the media. When there is such a thing as commercialised music to be refreshing, Prince's music warranted a shower of innovative ideas combined with what we were used to. Some of his music was like a nudibranch for ears, tormenting at times when radio stations didn't know the limits of hammering the colour purple into our brains, smearing the beautiful make-up in that much rain. If not for the reigning of commercial pop culture, I'd be tempted to kiss Prince's musical legacy goodbye. And I know that many of my friends are among the mourners.
The colour purple stands for more than music and motion pictures. It doesn't do justice to reduce today's theme and the legacy of Prince to purple. Nevertheless, I decided to present my picture 'Purple sunset' for Photo Discussion Friday, today. Sadness comes from this photo for me personally. These days, many photographers have started to introduce their photos trying to dispel a curse - disclosing their involvement in the Adobe pact and its use for artistic purposes. It feels ridiculous to even mention it because it serves no purpose other than to ask for recognition of a photo, not even the photographer (who normally is an expert in Photoshop and photo manipulation).
Here I declare what should be obvious and irrelevant (but is not any longer): this photo came out of the camera exactly like this, is totally unedited, totally unmanipulated, no colour correction, no filters, just changed from raw format into jpg and copyright watermark added. The purple is true, the sunset colours real, the focus deliberate - as true as it gets on your computer screen.
'Nature as Art' was the theme for a competition. Let me spare you my interpretation and thoughts why this photo fits that bill for me. It was rejected, not even considered to be looked at properly. It did worse than about 99% of all the competition entries. It must be bad - so bad that it fits my bill of being discussed here. And yet, I love the photo with all its imperfections or maybe because of them. I love that the photo is honest, I love the interaction within a colour scheme, the communication of forms and lines. I love the dreamy blurriness. That is why I deemed it fit to be judged by people who I attest a fine photographic background.
The biggest gift of photography as art, to me, is not the true depiction of reality but to transpire a sense of feelings and to create a mood by which the photographer manages to connect to other people. Some forms of photography are like music. You need to listen to them and feel them. Adobe culture seems to have lost that connection. We only listen to patterns, tunes and rhythms we know and recognise. Like at music concerts, it is often the unbearable loudness and the hysterically cheering and stampeding crowd that quality is measured with. We often block tunes if there is too much of controversy in it. Prince was a star to balance that act and often managed to have the crowd follow his experimental leads.
With respect to photos, more and more, I disconnect with perfect focus, contours and colours. I am bored with the rules of the game, with the same repetitions and phrases that I personally use. To me, it feels like we are in a Neo-Realism in terms of photography. For the Adobe cult, it is not even about careful preservation of a perceived reality any longer. It is moreso about creating the perfectly artificial photo of what us as artists think the rest of the world thinks reality looks like or should look like. Maybe inspired by the Canadian Prime Minister, we could call it a Quantum-Realism, where we don't really know anything about reality but everything about the statistical probability of it and how we can make it work for us.
The many ear worms we hear daily on the radio are not supposed to block our antennas (rhinophores) for the voices around us that are true and real. They might, however, make the pendulum of art swing into some areas and forms that are hard to digest. But I am sure that we will see some deconstruction and reconstruction, some failed and some successful experiments in the future. Prince was a king to make this a rather smooth and pleasant experience. May he rest in peace and away from all the noise.
Patrik, Brisbane, 22/4/2016
Patrik, Brisbane, 22/4/2016
Das Ausbrechen aus den Regeln ist der Übergang vom Fotografen zum Künstler... und Du hast auch den Mut, das Ergebnis zu zeigen. :-)
ReplyDeleteDas Foto ist nicht schlecht, weil die Jury das so sieht. Diskussionen was gut oder schlecht ist, haben wir auch schon geführt, das ist immer subjektiv. Nachdem ich letztes Wochenende ein paar tausend Fotos durchgesehen habe, war die Frage, was ist gut und was nicht, zentral. Bei einigen Bildern weiss ich schon nach dem Abdrücken, dass es gut sein wird, bei anderen erkenne ich erst mit der Zeit den Wert. Interessant sind auch "instant" Reaktionen von Betrachtern.
Bei Deinem Bild muss ich allerdings gestehen, dass ich den Entscheid der Jury verstehen kann. Dass es kaum bearbeitet ist, macht es nicht besser. Aber eben, das ist nur meine Meinung.
Adobe-bashing finde ich zudem nicht wirklich angebracht. Viele Kameras haben die Bearbeitung bereits in Programmen eingebaut, da kommt das Bild bereits bearbeitet aus der Kamera, da braucht man kein Photoshop. Raw-Daten sind auch nicht das genaue Abbild, sondern geben Farben gedämpft wieder. Das zu korrigieren ist legitim.
Das meine 5cent zum Thema
Es gibt eben viele verschiedene Moeglichkeiten 'gut' zu definieren. Fuer mich ist es interessant zu ergruenden, warum und in welchem Kontext Fotos 'gut' sind. Dass mir dabei viele Leute nicht folgen koennen und wollen (nicht einmal sollen), ist mir bewusst. Ich kann die Jury verstehen und auch Dich.
ReplyDeleteZum Adobe-Bashing muss ich vielleicht klarstellen: die haben (oder hatten vor ihrer Cloud-Zeit) ein tolles Produkt, das Fotographie veraendert. Ich mag Photoshop-Kunst und verfolge einige experimentelle Kuenstler (nein, nicht den Herrn Giersmann). Fuer mich ist eben Realitaetsnaehe bei Kunst absolut kein Kriterium. Alles darf, nichts muss - solange es der Aussage und dem Ausdruck dient. Adobe ist leider zum fehlgeleiteten Quasi-Monopolisten geworden, der ab und zu Fehlcode auf die Rechner der Kunden laedt. Viel Vergnuegen mit dem CC-Schund uebrigens! Das Adobe Produkt war nicht mein Kritikpunkt. Vielmehr die Anwendung und die Veraenderung der Fotographie-Kultur. Da ist eigentlich gar niemand schuld. Das ist wie mit den Point&Shoot Kameras, die Millionen von Menschen davon abhalten, sich mit Fotographie auseinanderzusetzen. Man muss sich jetzt entschuldigen, ein violett-rot-oranges Foto ueberhaupt zu zeigen, wo eben die Natur Kunst gemacht hat, anstatt Adobe.