(embiggenable) • iPhone
IN A RECENTY ENTRY I WROTE THAT I thought that the medium and its appparatus' most distinguishing characteristic, which separates it from other visual arts, is its inherent / intrinsic relationship to / the real. I also opined that the relationship is both, if you will, a blessing and a curse.
The medium and its apparatus is a blessing inasmuch as its allows a picture maker to find, at the very least, visually interesting picturing opportunities of the real and capture and present them in a very authentic manner. The possibilities are endless as well as everywhere. The medium and its apparatus also allows a picture maker to express a very broad range of picture making intents, all manner of genres from creating memories, creating art and story telling to a myriad of other possibilities.
The curse is to be found in the "public"'s belief that the medium and its apparatus are best used to create literal representations. That is, a "good" picture is, and should be, always about the thing depicted, aka: the referent. The idea that a picture can be a "good" picture in and of itself, regardless / independent of the thing depicted, is not an option on the picture viewing menu.
This is a belief that many a picture maker-with the intent of creating art-has worked tirelessly, since the inception of the medium and its apparatus, to overcome. It has also been the primary roadblock to the medium and it aparatus acceptance as an art rather than a "mere" mechanical craft.
Re: a "mere" mechanical craft. Lest anyone think that only the "public" is to blame for subscribing to the idea that "good" pictures are those with "good" referents, iMio, there are many (most?) "serious" picture makers who believe the same thing and reinforce that idea with the beief that better mechanicals-cameras, sensors, lenses, et al-will create better pictures. They are, indeed, mechanical craftsmen/women and their pictures are rarely the better for it.