|Does photography have the recognition that it should have in contemporary art museums?
I would say so, yes. Photography can create a piece just as stunning as a paintbrush (or any other media) has.
Only to an elite few. Lesser known and worthy photographers are every bit as worthy as those artists of other media.
No, absolutely not.
I think so. Good art photography is always pushing boundaries of subject and technique. I think contemporary art museums recognize it as an essential part of their collections.
yes.its getting better...I saw a photography exhibition on "the Worker" at the Getty that was awesome. All B+W old photos.
No, because there is still a stigma of "its just a photograph"...yes...sometimes it is, but sometimes it much much more.
Probably not as much as it should, but it isn't badly shown. I would like to see more.
Although I tend not to wander around art museums.
No. I'm not sure people have been groomed to see photography as an art form. It was very controversial in the beginning (19th century/early 20th) whether photography was art or purely scientific. There was quite a fight over it.
Now, with mass media and the inundation of images we face daily. A brain has to sort out so much visual information that an artistic photograph just becomes another thing to be sorted. It's unfortunate, but true.
It's why I began taking blurry/bokeh photographs on purpose. I was tired of sharp images that I could easily dismiss. I wanted to see beyond what was obvious. To me they are meaningful, but I'm sure some people just think they are junk.
Photography is an incredibly valuable art form.
I think so.
It's getting better I think. There is some way to go, but we'll get there, I have no doubt.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>