While reading and thinking about photography questions come up. Questions I don’t have answers to yet. For now theorizing on photography equals doubt to me. The thoughts are random and incoherent.
I don’t advocate straight photography. I do practise it (and a bit formalism)
Formalism in photography, Like listening to music without concern for lyrics?
Formalist like Guernica from Picasso because of formal organization, horror of and suffering in war are aesthetically irrelevant. I can understand that point of view.
Realism, expressionism, formalism, activism, etc. originality, good composition, craftsmanship, etc. craftsmanship is seen as a separate criteria, while I think it’s the base. Craftsmanship comes before art.
Likes and dislikes on photos are irrelevant. I rather have an argued comment.
I’m very liberal in what artist want to do, what they say, what they call art and where to present it. I only have my doubts when public money should be spent, when it’s okay to use tax payer’s money. And i’m not talking about dislike or controversy, but the benefit for society. The ‘elite’ might not be the best people to judge, democracy in art subsidies is not going to work as well. But all art should have its podium. Freedom of speech. What criteria? A government should also not support, what doesn’t need support.
Every subject is possible in photography. In my thinking i always come back to ‘show of craftsmanship’.
Two years ago I bought photo:box, originally Italian, edited by Roberto Koch. A waste of money I thought at that time (besides maybe a small amount of pictures). The more I look and read, the more I appreciate.
William Eggleston. Color photography pioneer. I just can’t see anything in his work. Just snapshots of every day subjects according to critics ‘loaded with meaning’