Fall 2012 Tu/Th History of Photography

Can app be an art? Nowadays, I feel like anything can be an art. If you would’ve asked me this question 10 years ago, I would have said there is no way an app on an electronic device can be considered as a form of art. Art is something that takes a lot of work, that takes time to publish, and that people go see at exhibitions in certain places of the world. We are so modernized, that everything we use now and are going to use in the future  is going to revolve around technology. I think that the idea Edward Burtynsky had of putting his work into an app was a great one. This allows his work to be seen by all of more people than it would be seen if it were in an exhibition in one city. This app makes it easier for people to share with others and to be able to zoom in to every single photo and see all the special details up close and personal. .Another great advantage the app has is that you could hear exclusive audio of Edward explaining all the photos, you wouldn’t be able to hear  him explain his work if you went to one of his exhibitions. He captured great images of what’s going on in the environment around the world, something the app can help show more people around the world and make people realize what’s happening.

Well, there are a couple of reasons why today people are returning back to “wet-plate collodion.”  According to the sources (video ad and newspaper article) the quality behind this technique is unique and cannot be compared with today’s smart phones cameras (iphone).  The photographer for Louis Vuitton’s new clothing campaign,  Sam Taylor-Woods, explains that many of the photos taking under the “wet-plate collodion” have a sentimental value and a high quality which it makes it impossible to find in any photography.  She also says that under this technique, everything looks the same in its original or natural state.  Additionally, Taylor-Woods mentions that, one of the characteristics of this technique is that it requieres a lot of time and patience, which is why the quality and value of the “wet-plate collodion” is incomparable.  Moreover, in the newspaper article it says that this technique is hard to replicate because of all the high quality of the photograph.  Based on both readings, I think that this “wet-plate collodion” technique has such a sentimental and historical value that photographers want to revive and show to the public than even though we no longer use this technique the quality is unique and priceless

This questioning of art reminds me of what we learned at the beginning of the semester; where in the mid 1800’s photography as a form of art was being questioned. Look how far we’ve come and now question mediums of art that are new to us.
In my opinion the app “Oil” can be considered art. It has the qualifications of an art book, just that the form of publishing it is different and more modern. I find it interesting that the app has audio files because it gives you an insight of the photographer’s vantage point. It surpises me much cheaper the app is compared to the actual book, its a pretty smart idea to not make the app $128 because then no one would buy it, $9.99 is a good price but I think it lowers the value of the art because it makes it accessible to everyone at loses its exclusivity in some way.
Overall the images make a big impression on what going on in the environment that sort of scare me. I think Burtynsky does a magnificent job capturing the great images, the angles he uses and the distance from where he takes the shots create a mental reaction.

Who is to say what is or is not art? Nowadays, the word art seems to be thrown around a lot. Back in the days, there were rules to what is considered art, but thanks to artists’ like Duchamp and his upside down urinal, art has changed. Because he said it was art, it was art. Same thing today; art can be all kinds of things and each person will view art differently.

I believe an app is an art of its own. To create an app, a lot of creativity, work, and time is put into it. If the app “Instagram” is considered art, then why would Edward Burtynsky’s 218 page book not be consider an art? The only difference is that it is in an app form and not in the physical form. However, it is still in a digital form and with technology developing more and more each day, I think more and more things will become digital.

I view the Burtynsky: Oil app is a vehicle Burtynsky uses to present his work. Like his award winning book or gallery show exhibitions, the app provides its own unique way to experience Burtynsky’s photographs and thoughts on his work. Through the interactive capabilities of the app users can experience Burtynsky’s images in a way they couldn’t in his book or by attending an exhibition. While I would classify the app – as well as the book and show – as attaining some level of art, I would not put the medium Burtynsky uses to display his images on the same level as the actual art it exhibits. When Burtynsky was creating his art did he do it with the intention of displaying his images on an iPad app? No, he was shooting with the purpose of presenting his images as photographs printed on paper. To reproduce his images in an app (and book) Burtynsky sacrificed elements like color, scale, resolution, and texture. In return his work gets access to a larger, and possibly younger audience. A fair trade if the message behind the art is more important than the art itself.

Just 7 months ago my friend got a chance to visit me. He lives in different country and it was his first visit to the USA, his first time seeing New York. I took him to Manhattan, expecting to see his excitement about skyscrapers and city infrastructure in general. To my surprise he was more excited to see people. He said that he loves observing vibrancy in human appear. Probably for the same reason Walker Evans called his project “A Project for Love”; he could document people’s looks in confined space, capture their aspect under the same conditions (just like a scientific experiment subjects), and enjoy peculiarity of their expressions as much as conditions allowed. It is not surprising then that the approach to make such “investigation” should be disguised.

All of us have, to a certain degree, the same tendency, as Walker Evans had, to observe our fellow humans. Despite appear that we put on, we can’t completely hide ourselves under garments and accessories. Our expressions, especially under certain circumstances such as in the subway, do show that we are indeed humans, and not workers, actors, parents and rappers. Just like faces of people in Walker’s photographs, faces of people I meet in subway (70 years later) don’t indicate any difference. Despite outward appear we didn’t change inside.

The way I see it, art is any piece of work that is aesthetically pleasing to the viewer’s eye.  Edward Burtynsky’s app version of his art book Oil, I consider art.  It is still Burtynsky’s work and his photographs, the only difference being that it is displayed through a different medium, instead of the usual physical photo.  There is no definitive meaning to art, it can vary from person to person, but one thing that is definitive about art is that art is something that is aesthetically pleasing to the viewer’s unique eyes.  One person might find a chair that a carpenter builds to be a beautiful work of art or a painting a painter painted.  Each person has their own opinion about what art is like to them and express what they experience when they look at a piece of art.  An app is a creation that is created by a team or individual, which contains content varying from games, videos, book and other forms of entertainment.  That is what art is, it is visually entertainment, it occupies our mind and we concoct various ideas as to how, what, and why this piece of art is created for.  The app provides photos of Burtynsky’s Oil, while you don’t get the physical photos, it still provides you with the actual photos by virtual means and more than the physical book actually does.

Do you think the app can be considered an independent work of art? In my opinion app can be art, a matter of fact anything can be considered art. Who is actually sure what art really is? For example in early 1800’s photography wasn’t consider as art cause it didn’t involve any painting, sketching or canvas it didn’t require “skills”. You didn’t have to be the greatest artist out there to create art. With a box, a lens, a glass, and some sunlight you can create art easily. Art has changed over many centuries; it evolved over time with technology.

 Art is all about creativity, and expression. And if anyone ever tried to create an App it requires lots of creativity and time. Another example that people debate over the recent year about art is graffiti. Many graffiti art require time and imagination which contain artistic elements like color and composition. People are slowing accepting the “new art form” which involves the use of technology. In conclusion I believe anything that has creativity, and a form of expression is considered art. Everyone has their own opinion on whats art really is, it all depends on how the viewer view the art by.