|Does photography have the recognition that it should have in contemporary art museums?
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.
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.
I think photography in general does not have the same admiration or respect that it once did. I would think we could probably pin that on digital image manipulation artists trying to pass off their work as photographs.
That's a deep question. I would have to research this to give an apprpriate answer.
I don't really know.
| 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 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>