In a recent New York Times article, Roberta Smith notes the increasingly common use of cameras, especially cellphones by viewers when interacting with art. In particular, she discusses the behavior of visitors to the Venice Biennale, an exhibition of contemporary art that is held every two years. Many countries, including the U.S., are represented with their art displayed in national pavilions. Do you agree with her opinions on the usage of cameras in relation to art? What is your opinion on taking pictures of pictures?
Read Roberta Smith’s NYT article here
Explore the Venice Biennale website and videos of installations in the pavilions
Don’t forget to log in to your OpenLab account and join the class (request membership!) in order to add a blog post.
See instructions on how to “post” and “comment” under “Blogging Guidelines” above.
Please post your responses by Thursday, September 15.
Art is beautiful, and if your photograph has art in it, it becomes ten times more powerful and effective. People take pictures of arts at an exhibition or at a gallery for many different reasons, some take pictures to share with others, for themselves or for their photography. Taking a photo of someone taking a photograph of art also gives off a sense of realism, the photo is not setup or directed its real. Its also powerful because it show interactions and the relationship between human & art.
I agree with you that it does make the art look more real, and people do have a chance to interact with the art works when they are taking pictures. However, on the hand, I think taking pictures of the art works makes people spending less time, less heart, and less thought on appreciating the art works at some degree. Since many people walk into a museum or a gallery having the thought that it’s a short term experience, and they want to record it down for their own, they will actually spend less time on looking at the art work carefully than those who know that they won’t have a second chance to look at all these beautiful works whether it’s in person or on any other mediums. Not having any other chance to look at the art works again could actually lead people to concentrate on the appreciation of the actual piece. For the people who take pictures of the art, most of them might just see one side of the art and neglect the details of the actual piece.
What makes great art is the people who appreciate it and strive to give it meaning and purpose. I feel this article acknowledges the importance of us, the audience. We all have a little artisan inside us that sees something in the world as art, whether it be the Effiel Tower you took a photo of on a family trip or a woman “costumed as a circus juggler.” Real people are praising an artist’s work by taking a snapshot of the piece. They share the same beauty and passion of the work as the artist does creating it. Either the picture is from a cellphone or a Nixon D7000, it rarely matters. It’s not the quality but the audience’s respect and regards that are significant in the long run.
I disagree with Ms. Smith’s opinion. By making the effort to take a photograph of the art piece already shows appreciation for it. They might simply be documenting it like Talbot’s idea was with “Articles of China” where photography was originally meant as a form of art but could also serve for documentation. On the other hand, they probably are taking meaningful, artistic photos from their point-and-shoot (“mini-camera”) or cellphone camera. You do not need a expensive high end DSLR to create art, all you need is to see things differently. “It’s not the camera, it’s the photographer.”
Photographing art can be seen as two sides of a coin. Some people might like to view an exhibtion and remember that moment or that piece of art by simply capturing it in time and others might just simply be comfortable in apperipiciating the art at the moment by just observing it. It all depends on the nature of that person and how they feel about the art work but I do disagree on Roberta Smith’s opinion about the type of camera that is being used. So what if someone is using their camera phone or a mini-camera and not a professional DSLR ? It’s not “the who has a better camera contest” it’s an exhibition of art for pete’s sake. It makes me question if she even went to appericiate the art work at the exhibtion herself or if she just went under investigation to snoop around and inspect the different types of cameras being used by others. I say live and let live and just enjoy and embrace art the way you want to!
People take pictures of art to keep as a memory and show to their friends. Those people are embracing the art and the artist. By showing the pictures to others they can hopefully make their friends appreciate and become fans of art. People also take pictures of art to keep as souvenir or as a token from the exhibition. You can’t possibly remember everything you had seen. You would like to take home your favorite piece of art. The only way you can take it home is by stealing it but nobody wants to do some time for some painting or some statue. People take pictures so they can take it home with them
Taking a picture of a picture is simply documenting in my opinion. Something to evoke a memory. It is hard for me to see it as art personally. Only the original may be considered a true artwork, and any form of replication that tries to conjure up any thoughts, similar or different, is merely drawing from an idea that spawned from the original. It’s basically paraphrasing with a picture. You get a feeling from the original, and try to “edit” it by adding your own “effects”. Whether it’s black and white, sepia, vignette, at an angle, up close, far back, good or bad lighting, motion blurred, or even just straight forward, the feeling that one might try to evoke is an idea brought out by the original. If you get inspired and decide to do something new, now that’s different. That being my opinion, I don’t believe the camera matters. Mini cams, cellphone cameras, polaroids, click n wind, DSLRs, it’s all the same thing. You get a better quality, but all you ultimately have is a memory on a piece of paper.
It’s quite interesting how Roberta Smith mentions how the art of photography has changed in a way. I’ve never really paid attention to specifically how people actually take pictures in this day in age, but she’s right. It’s so much more personal when you’re actually looking into a lens and taking an actual photo of what your are viewing, but when you’re looking at a screen and taking a photo you’re not really looking at every bit and piece that you are photographing. It’s more like just copying what you see instead of making “art”. But then again a lot of people still consider this art because they are capturing angles of images other spectators may not be able to capture. If you think about it, everyone has their own perspective on “what is art”.
(Replying to Hanif’s comment) The good thing about having cameras and being inspired by art work is that you can actually copy what you see, but the thing with cameras is that you can make it your own in a way. No one can take someone else’s art and claim it as their own, but the way they decide to capture it can give them a feeling of originality. Sure they can say “I took this picture of so & so”, but they can also say “look at how i caught the lighting in my new piece I took earlier today”
You all raise good points that fall on a wide spectrum related to art and photography, especially on how Roberta Smith on denigrates the type of personal documentation that occurs in museums and other art spaces. Don’t forget to create your blog posts by going to the dashboard to author a post: see the blogging guidelines at http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/arth11006400f11/blogging-guidelines/. Then you can comment to blog posts by your fellow students!
Roberta Smith ‘s article, “When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye”, published by The New York Times is an article that has several interesting conclusions. In today’s age of information people are looking for exactly that; fast documentation and fast sharing of documentation. People have admired art since before we had photography and when photography became accessible, we documented art. I don’t think that photographers are converting from conventional SLR’s to mini cameras and cell phones. Sure you can take creative images with either a small camera or a phone camera, but the quality and control is very limited. In conclusion, mini cameras and cell phone cameras effective and efficient for documenting, sharing and its portability.
I agree with many of the comments above. Taking a picture of a picture is merely a way of documenting an event for many, but in contrast, the original meaning and interpretation could become skewed as soon as the copy is used to make the analysis or interpretation. Most of the time, an original photo or art piece has special details, angles, colors and textures that can almost never be analyzed from a photo-copy.
jieqchen’s comment above made sense in that the viewer sometimes enters an exhibition with the intent of making it a quick visit simply because he can take pictures of the pieces in the exhibit quickly and if he wants to view them with more attention, he can pop them open at a different time in the comfort of his own home or office. This would work for anyone that simply appreciates art, but for those that interpret and analyze the pieces such as art professors or students, having the piece right infront of them can give them a deeper insight of what the artist was going through and possibly what the artist was thinking too which would make for a better paper!