This prompt also reminds me of a point made by Peter Glendinning a couple of years ago: Aristotle once poked around with the science of optics and lenses, but eventually dropped the subject in pursuit of other interests. Imagine then, if he did discover the lens, and perhaps, the camera, we could have had pictures on Jesus, Caesar, Muhammad, and countless other historical figures which we rely on statues or drawings to even imagine what they looked like (which we have no proof are even accurate). This point is kind of a ramble, but it's an interesting "what-if" thought nonetheless.
To me, a photograph is a moment in time more than a physical object. This is a kind of vague definition, but there are so many questions than follow it. Why was this particular moment selected by the photographer? Does it mark some point in history? Is it something that could every be recreated again? Even artistic decisions such as composition, exposure, etc. reflects how the photographer feels in that very moment, and how they want to world to view it even years down the road. It could also reflect overall trends of society at the time of the shot. To me, this very moment in time is beautiful, and the amount of significance the photographer decides to give the moment is what makes it an art.
No comments:
Post a Comment