Photograph history - comparison with art - etc...

[nikolas]

Heh...

5 minutes after making my welcome thread, I'm here asking for help.

Very short introduction for who I am and off we go, in hopes that I'll get the help I need.

My name is Nikolas Sideris (my website can be found at my signature) and I'm finishing my PhD in composition next year. I'm working on a piece for Solo Piano for my PhD, and actually in my analysis I could use a bit of knowledge about early photography, the birth of photography, early uses, comparison with painting (art. The obvious), etc...

A bit more specific:

I'm trying to establish that there is a connection between the relationship binding each pair of "general arts":
i. photography - art (visual art, painting)
ii. cinema - theatre (I live in the UK, ok? )
iii. recorded music - live music

I'm aiming to prove that in rough terms art gave birth to photography. That early uses of photography (first uses at least), were pretty much aimed to "replace" if you want painting, in creating the perfect picture (perfect icon of the real world).

Samewise my guess is (which I've still to research on) that film (cinema) was firstly used in late 19th century or very early 20th, as no more than a variation of theatre. That, lacking all technological advances, maybe even montage, it was nothing more than visualisation of things that could be seen in the theatre (ok, a bit too much, but I hope you get what I mean).

With music this applies already: In classical music, any recorded music (apart from electronic, which I will talk about later) is in fact a faithful, as much as possible (digital or analogue) of a live performance. Nothing more. In electronic music, it's not a capture of a live performance, but never the less the idea of being able to performe it live, still remains.

And before you flame me with the above silly comparisons, let me clarify that over the past 100+ years photography and cinema have evolved into independant arts, rightfully imho (and probably everyone elses as well (<-only a reservationist would like to NOT call photography an art), and this has happened mainly through the use of technology. So whilst the dependence with the "mother art" (theatre and painting) has been lost, there is no the dependance in technology, which does not appear in the "mother arts".

On the contrary in music this does not apply. Recorded music is NOT considered a new, different art. It still depends on the "mother art" (live performance), in order to produce a good result (so that star performers ARE born and made, and created and nurtured) and the dependency in technology ends to the faithful capture of the live sound.


____________

This is a photography forum! You have guessed it that I want to concetrate in photography in this case.

How do you feel about the comparison (early) photography vs art (painting)? Is it fair to say that the two are connected? And that over the years they grew apart, through the use of new tehniques in photography? That photography is no longer the art of the faithful reproduction of the visual, but rather a creative output of the photographer, through analogue (camera lens, shatters, etc) or digital (PS) means?

Apart from the discussion which this will probably spring:

Is there any bibliography you would recomend me about the comparison of photography - art? Any ideas on where to get them (the university library should have it, but still, links are always better). Anything else to comment?

Thank you for your time reading this mamoth second post. Hope it will create a bit of discussion.

 

[Jas]

A number of the current most prominent UK landscape photographers will have explained how they were influenced by art and the light and how it was shown on a picture by artists to highlight or emphasise a particular part of a picture. Therefore, the connection you mention about art influencing landscape photography has been established by some of the photographers I have mentioned below.

Try this First Light: A Landscape Photographer's Art by Joe Cornish and Charlie Waite
and this
Working The Light: Landscape Photography Masterclass by Eddie Ephraums, Charlie Waite, Joe Cornish, and David Ward

to start with. I'm sure I read about 'the moment' one or more of them realised the connection regarding light in landscape art and photography and they do mention which particular piece of art influenced them, but I cannot remember which of the two books it was in. It won't give you all of the answers and what you are looking for is hidden in some of the text, but if the answer was easy to find then everyone would have a PhD!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

There is indeed a strong connection between photography developing from early painting, If my memory serves me right. (Please excuse my lack of formal education, I may be a little off, have chosen the wrong artist etc)
For example, I think it was the American painter 'Whistler' who used mirrors and frames to make compositions of his subjects that he could use/copy when making a painting of the subject.
In doing so, he was understanding and conquering the problems of true perspective in an attempt to make life like paintings.
(e.g. The Whistlers Mother painting, around 1870 I think)

At the time it was quite a revelation, people found this new painted method uncanny and unnatural ...mainly because it provided a view which was close to how a real view would look to the human eye, which had not been seen before... he may have, you could argue, have introduced one of the ripples on which photography was born

It would be also be possible I think, to argue that Whistler was in some way an early capturer of true and accurate perspective images ... Just like a photographer.

I hope there some accuracy to my waffle.

 

[Chappers]

The "Camera Obsura" was a used by artists to draw and trace images, which they then painted. It was a simple darkened room with a small hole to let in a beam of light. It produced an inverted image, much in the same way as pin hole camera does. This obviously is where we get the phrase camera from.

Also modern photography as we know it was developed by Fox Talbot, due to the frustration he felt by not being able to draw and sketch as well as his wife and sisters in law

 

[nikolas]

Hey! A bit of discussion! Great! Thanks all!

Jas, will check the books, and no it's not easy doing a PhD, but I find that forums (such as this one) can be miraculous helping in some ways. Not everything on the plate, but a small nudge can be very helpful!

Whistler is a name (and his art) that I will research upon as well. Thanks Adam. I do feel that indeed there is a strong connection, apart from the aparent stuff "both visual, both 'standing arts', etc". Adam, I would imagine that you've given me enough info (even if the name is not correct) to research and find what you are refering to. Thanks again

And chappers, also very useful.

I won't be quoting you or anything, nor you can count as 'proper bibliography' (no matter how I'd wish), but I find that my "hunch" is correct and there are indeed things to research on. Thanks all!

(and of course keep the discussion going by all means!)

 

[Garry79]

Have you read Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography by Roland Barthes or On Photography by Susan Sontag? Both well worth a read for inspiration on the theory of photography.

 

[Garry79]

I'm aiming to prove that in rough terms art gave birth to photography.

I assume that you are also examining the concept that science gave birth to photography? You need to address this as part of your argument.

 

[nikolas]

Garry,

I've not read anything yet. As a composer I started of with the relation between theatre and cinema. I will get the books you mention.

As for your 2nd post: Yes. It's what made photography a different art as far as I'm concerned. Sure technology made possible photography in the first place, but still primarily it must've been used as some kind of art branch, rather than a different art as it is today. Same with cinema. Primary uses didn't use technology (since it was non existant) but mainly a bit more advance uses of theatre (and a bit more realistc, copycats if you want of real images in photography) as opposed to art, which gave in to the artistic pressure (impressionism for example and the aim to... slightly time related outputs... Go figure... ).

Anyways, I find that photography, as well as cinema, as well as recorded music, are connected to technology, whereas the "original" (I refer to them as "mother arts" in my first post here) are not. The major difference is that photography and cinema have take advantage of the technological 'miracles' we have today. Music has not. Music is still stubbornly aiming to reproduce the live performance... (talking about concert hall music more than pop music).

Anyways, thanks Garry. Yes I'm already addressing this part.

 

[barsbyart]

Hi nikolas!

Interesting thesis you're working on. Good luck with it.

Okay... Yes, scientific advances allowed photography to come about but it was still guys dabbling (What can I do with this?) sort of thing.

Art has always influenced photography; we still use compositional basics that any Old Master would understand and photography has influenced Art - the Impressionist movement = a backlash against the realistic science/art of photography? Why paint a 'photo-realistic' image when you can actually photograph it?
Strange to say todays scientific advances (Photoshop, etc) now allow us to take our pin-sharp, true-to-life photos and make them impressionistic!!!! :bonk:

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

I have an interesting book by David Hockney "Secret Knowledge: rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters" ISBN 0-500-23785-9 published by Thames and Hudson which discusses the use of mechanical and optical devices to produce painted pictures over the centuries.

A good source of 'binding' material for your thesis?

Anthony.

 

[nikolas]

barsbyart: Thanks. Hope it goes well too!

And what you mention about PS (Adobe... brrr...) is only too true... Heh...

Anthony: Well worth a look.

Will visit my college the next few days so I'll come back filled with books mentioned here. I really think they should have most of these...

Thank you all! And glad to see that I'm not just imagining things, relationships and connections, but others do too!

 

[mobilevirgin]

Nikolas

I don't by any means claim to be an expert on this sort of thing. And I've certainly never thought these issues through to the extent that I can offer any properly informed opinion. Some of what follows is probably by way of example, rather than a general statement of universally accepted wisdom.

A lot of early photographers (and film makers) realised quite quickly that the tools they had at their disposal were especially well suited to documenting every day life and scenes of people going about their daily business. I'm particularly thinking of Mitchell & Kenyon (in a (moving) film context) and Albert Khan in a still photo one. Mitchell & Kenyon could fill cinemas in Lancashire by showing films that did little more than show people walking down the street, or leaving work. Its art, sure, but it was so far removed from theatre that its difficult to see a real connection. Their aims were not arty - they were documentary (and money making - they became very successful in that respect).

Khan, too was driven by a documentary sense rather than an art one.

I'm not trying to debunk your hypothesis, but I've been having a little think about it since I read your post earlier today. And I reckon these are the sort of issues that need to be factored into your thesis.

However, having said all of that, no thesis on this sort of subject is complete without at least a nod towards Pierro della Francesca. An absolute master (in the 15th century ffs) of composition and perspective that still applies to photography today. He was a fine painter and a mathematician to boot. Some of the geometry in his paintings still requires even knowledgeable mathematicians to put a hot towel around their heads while trying to work him out.

Another interesting aspect to think about is the golden ratio - or Fibonacci sequences. I'm not quite sure how it fits with your ideas, but again, its another example where the same rules that make a good painting make a good photo.

So, to answer your original question, at least as it applies to visual arts - I'm not entirely convinced that photos / film were originally used to replace paintings / theatre. From what I understand (which may not be much), they were first seen as having a different, less art orientated use. Although I suspect that as time has gone on, the recognition of film / photos as art has gained acceptance.

I hope this gives you something to consider. Its certainly an interesting exercise and I wish you well with your researches, whichever way you eventually fall off the fence.

MV

 

[barsbyart]

Having just read MV's post above. It should be remembered that a lot of what we now consider 'Art' was in fact commercial - the Squire would have portraits painted of his wife and his favourite horse! Even the Old Masters had to eat.

Mitch+Ken were giving people a new experience (and making money). So does that make it Art, Theatre or Commercial? It's the BIG question - 'What is Art'? (or Theatre?) When you pose/mock-up a photograph what's the difference between that and a movie? Apart from the fact that one is a single image - you're still trying to tell a story. The links are there because they're all just variations on a theme. The underlying theme is Communication.

I'm glad someone elae has heard of Fibonacci - I use F sequences in my paintings of butterflies to create depth and interest.

I try to use (or at least, be aware of) the GM and Rule of Thirds in my togging.

 

[nikolas]

Oh I've heard of Fibonacci as well and the golden ratio and use it in my music all the time. In music it's almost "quite common" actually!

Let me clarify a few things just in case.

My thesis is actually almost non existant. Yes I do a PhD, a practical PhD in composition. Which means that I research on... composing and in the end my thesis will be 8-9 pieces of music at high quality (whatever that means really), as many recordings and some 1000s of words commentary on these. The issue I'm discussing here is a small branch to the commentary for one of the 8-9 pieces (not sure if it'll be 8 or 9 ). So, MV, no worries to debunk my thesis.

In classical music, recorded music is in essence a photocopy, a photograph of the live performance. Nothing else happens, or very very rarely. And further more it is highly imprtant that performers are able to play in the way that CDs do: With NO errors whatsoever. This is why you see so many pianists working so hard to achieve perfection. It's an illusion given by the recordings!

Which is where is different with cinema and photography:

Would anyone really build the whole industry on selling DVDs from theatrical productions? Hardly! It's absurd! Would anyone consider building a huge industry, such as the music industry is, by making photographs of paintings and selling them? Not that it doesn't happen but it's really limited! Yet you see 1000s of CDs coming out each year (or even each month actually!) with live performances! In effect it's the same thing of taking a camera and filming the theatre, or taking a photo of Guernica and selling it to people!

I find the above a bit disturbing to be honest...

And I hope I'm not complicating things further with this thread...

 

[barsbyart]

Which is where is different with cinema and photography:

Would anyone really build the whole industry on selling DVDs from theatrical productions? Hardly! It's absurd! Would anyone consider building a huge industry, such as the music industry is, by making photographs of paintings and selling them? Not that it doesn't happen but it's really limited! Yet you see 1000s of CDs coming out each year (or even each month actually!) with live performances! In effect it's the same thing of taking a camera and filming the theatre, or taking a photo of Guernica and selling it to people!

I find the above a bit disturbing to be honest.

Hi nikolas.

Not quite sure what you find disturbing. Are you saying that CD's of live performances are making life difficult for classical musicians by creating a demand for perfection that the musicians are struggling to achieve? Surely that's why classical music buffs have multiple recordings of a piece because each performance is slightly different? CD's just make it accessible for those who weren't there or 'keepable' for those who were. Memories fade. Personally, I would always prefer a live-recording to a studio mix where the performers may have never even met each other.

However, I'm not qualified to comment on your music thesis and won't do so. Can only comment on photography and art which are my fields. The visual arts of theatre, painting and photography have always been a subtle blend of expression and commercialism.

My wife is a qualified teacher and she finds there is a staff-room attitude of snoberry against comics (they're not real books) but comics are still reading matter and anything that gets kids reading is good - you can always build on it.

I guess I'm saying that in any field links exist and to try to divorce them entirely (tog from painting, movies from theatre, whatever) is pointless. Some skills are transferrable and they're all about one thing - communication.

I think this may have gone away from the point of your op so will stop.

 

[HanC]

Hello!
You've probably done this already but i reckon the best thing apart from talking to people on here is to go to your uni library and type "art,photography," or whatever into its catalogue search engine. I just did that at mine and it came up with 100 or so books so there must be quite a lot available. Then just spend a while finding the books and looking through them a bit to see if they look appropriate. It will probably help you collect your thoughts a bit and work out how to structure your argument or whatever.

 

[nikolas]

I think this may have gone away from the point of your op so will stop.

Oh noes! Please don't stop! If the thread is interesting, who cares where it goes? Sure it might go slightly off topic, but...

Problem here, is that I can't tell you the whole idea... So I can't explain 100% what I'm after and you're battling to understand from bits and pieces. But do keep in mind that all questions or doubts you post, only help me build up my case, or abandon it.

Different arts have different characteristics, attributes and require different skills:

Arguably cinema does not require the actor/ress to have memory skills, while theatre is based pretty much on that skill, amongs other things. Some people might argue that cinema actors are generaly "less actors" (to which I don't agree) than theatrical ones, only because the techniques of cinema can hide certain issues...

You don't need to know the skill of the brush with photography. etc...

With music the same applies. A live performer needs to be able to perform live throughout, without an error usually. Needs to be able to have memory like an elephant (as in most live acted situations). In a recording, none of these apply. You can edit, and edit. With cpmputers today you don't even need to abide by the laws of acoustics. Want a flute to sound louder than the rest of the orchestra banging hard? You got it! Add a little volume, etc...

So, my idea is that while photography and cinema have evolved to different arts altogether, and they carry some skills from other arts (as usually happens) they also have unique characteristics which add to the fact that indeed it's a new art. Montage, effects, other cinema techniques. Without them it wouldn't be cinema! They play tremendous importance. Same with photography! Digital alteration, lens, disturbance of light, etc. Without these it wouldn't be photography anymore!

And of course there is no back and fourth usually (although it's starting to happen a bit, it takes adaptation). You don't usually take a photograph and turn it into a painting. You don't turn a movie and turn it into a theatrical play. Or a play into a movie and a painting into a photograph. Of course there have been cases, no doubt, but it's not the norm.

With music you get 2 different things, music and recorded music. And these two persist on trying to be the same! What if, someone was to treat recorded music as a new art altogether? What if there was no longer the need for music to be... playable live? Because all music in records, or at least 98% is designed so that it can also be played live. You don't get a piano sonata that can't be played. And if it can't they find ways to make it into the live situation. What if there was no need of that? What if someone was to say "here is a piece of recorded music. It's new, it can't be performed live, it doesn't have to be. It's not the poor cousin of the live performance but something new and standing on it's own. It's not a replicate, but it's unique...::shrug:

To give a simple example: I'm 30, almost done with my Phd (1 year remaining). I've never ever writen anything (classical music/concert hall music I mean, not rock/pop/something else style) that isn't playable. If someting can't be played, it's arguably an error from the composer: "Would this work with a live orchestra? No? Then who will play it? How will you get it performed?" This persistance with playability is something limiting the output of any composer, yet it's there. Any composer you ask (seriously) will tell you that music needs to be performed.

Why not just build an mp3, or something more ellaborate (I'm going for the much more ellaborate actually, still can't share details), that stands as what it is: a recording. No need for live performance, no need for concert hall, no need for playable parts, no need for acoustics limitations, no need for...

____________________

On another issue, it's simply fascinating for me, to see other people, irrelavent to music to be following this thread rather closely. Thank you for that.

____________________


barsby: Tell your wife that I'm having pretty much the same trouble with computer games (I'm working in computer games) and the music I write for them. :-/ Some people tend to be a tiny bit close minded I guess.

 

[barsbyart]

Okay, it seems that I/we don't have all the 'bits and pieces' to grasp exactly what your main idea is so it is difficult to make proper comment. In short then my opinion is this...

In painting/photography the final image is EVERYTHING! It doesn't matter to me who the artist is or what they had to do to achieve the image. (It's often interesting but it doesn't matter - the image works or it doesn't)

Music (currently) is different... you may compose a piece but it needs to be performed every time (or performed and recorded) and to me it's the performance not the composer or even the performers that's important.

You seem to be hinting at music that doesn't need to be performed (by humans) - that would be okay with me if the sound was good. It would actually remove the middle-men and I could be sure that what I was hearing was exactly what the composer intended and not the middle-man's interpretation. Although I do like the inconsistancies of live performances there would be room in my life for both types of music (if done well).

I tend to judge the finished product on it's own merit rather than by genre or by the name of the author/artist/artiste hence my reading and listening tastes are varied and eclectic (people say 'odd').