This is not to say that photography is easy, or less valuable than other art forms - merely that the artist's input is so separate from the output. Photographs combine the simplest, most potent form of creation (the artist's "eye" for composition) with a very cold technical process (the chemical and physical principles with which a camera captures and records light). Even though the camera does all the physical work of image creation, it deserves none of the artistic credit. A camera cannot differentiate between a "good" photo and a "bad" one. It simply records a scene when asked. Cameras are just as happy to take a picture of your feet as you're fiddling with their settings as they are happy to record a sunset or a rose blossom.
But the technology behind the camera does determine one very important thing: the limits of the artist's choices. (For instance, none of the cameras I've used have been good at capturing night scenes, so I stopped taking pictures at night).
Of course, all mediums limit the artist in some ways. Besides the characteristics that define different mediums (acrylics dry faster than oils, etc.) there are always expensive tools designed to make creating art easier (using a genuine sable brush instead of a Dollar Store brush, using canvas instead of paper, etc.)
My cousin was at an art school orientation where a lecturer mentioned that some types of paint can cost hundreds of dollars, at which point her dad leaned over and whispered "Don't use those kinds."
And art history is filled with artists who made the best of what they had. Toulouse-Lautrec painted some of his most famous works on cardboard. Kurt Schwitters made gorgeous assemblages from scraps of trash he found in the street. Pollock used house paint instead of oils.
A true artist can make art from anything. Of course, this ingenuity comes at the cost of convenience. That really expensive brush makes curves much easier than a cheap brush. The costly paints last longer and don't fade.
And some artistic mediums are impossible to get into without serious investment. Try making your own printing press or loom out of scrap materials and you'll find that the cost in free time may not be worth the savings in price.
But because the quality of the photographs you take is so dependent on the camera you have, photography is more dependent on technology and therefor money than any other medium.
Some demonstration is in order:
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my first digital camera (my mom's old hand-me-down). I used this camera for years because I so fervently believed that an artist's creativity was the most important factor in art creation, and that a good eye could make up for shoddy technology any day. Also, I rarely ever looked at my photos full-size and so I never noticed those angry little red and blue dots. Those dots are caused by a lot of technical issues that can best be summed up as "Your camera sucks." Cheap cameras just tend to have these problems in low-light conditions. They dots can be edited out in Photoshop, but that's a huge pain that you don't have to deal with if you have a better camera.
This is a cropped section of a full-size photo from my current camera, a Kodak EasyShare Z915. I'm very happy with the camera overall, but as you can see, when you zoom in on a photo, it looks like a mottled mass of pixels. Also, there is a limit to how much the photos can be blown-up. I can get a gorgeous glossy 9" by 12" but if I wanted something poster-size for an exhibition it would look all pixelly.
Just for reference:
This is a section of a full-size shot from my little sister's real-deal several-hundred-buckaroos professional camera. You know, the ones with the giant zoom lenses that make you look like a tool if you take them anywhere.
As you can see, even at maximum magnification, you can't even see the pixels. It still looks clear.
Of course, my sister barely ever uses that camera, because she's terrified that she'll break it. The Kodak that I use for all my of photos fits in my pocket, so I take it everywhere. As a result, I have a much better eye for composition than my sister simply because I take so many more pictures (and photography is learned by doing). Even so, some of my sister's blandly composed pictures still wind up looking gorgeous because her camera lens is so good at capturing details and handling different lighting conditions. Also, she can make prints as large as she darn well pleases.
In the final analysis, the camera you buy depends on what you're going to use it for. If you're only going to display your photos online, then even the cheapest camera should be able to produce a decent looking photo. Cheap cameras can also be great if you plan to use a photo as the basis for a work of digital or glitch art. In fact, some really terrible cameras (like old cell phone cameras) mangle and distort images in really interesting ways. If you plan to make small prints for friends, family, etc. than a good DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera can be had for under $200. And if you're going to do gallery shows, you'll probably want to bring out the big guns.
But I don't think of all the photos I took with my old camera as being obsolete or worthless. I could still "salvage" most or all of them if I decided to put the time into editing them. But there's a trade-off between time and convenience. Why put several hours into 'fixing' an old photo when I can take a new photo that's perfect as-is? Ultimately, I still think that an artist can make great art with humble materials, but the cost in time may not be worth the payoff when just a little more cash investment can result in instantly better results. And I have cameras to thank for that insight.
No comments:
Post a Comment