Photographs, unlike other forms of art, are not well suited to express the universal, as they record precisely an image taken at a particular moment of a particular subject. Problems arise however when dealing with subjects of history. Photographs recording moments in time are rarely symbolic, unless there is some deeper meaning to the moment itself. But recording a particular moment is not creating a symbol of a universal idea. However photographs can be artistic, but it requires more than snapping photos of events to make art out of photography.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75fc1/75fc1ebb8beb58bfb7b9918329716ed5766a840a" alt=""
Another way photos can be symbolic is to strip them of particularity by choosing a subject which is unknown to the viewer, leaving only the expression of the portrait or an action that seems to express simply an idea, or an emotion. Photos of objects in decay for instance can symbolize loss of hope, while a flower sprouting through the crack could express the opposite.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a687c/a687ce21648651d21b017aaa1433d38a7001f335" alt=""
Photographs can be art, but it is very difficult for them to express universals, especially when they are used to simply record the history of a particular individual. So if for instance a monument to a person were to use nothing but photographs to memorialize a person, that memorial could be nothing more than a family album, recording the deeds, but not making any statement or conveying any universal notion beyond the particular events. Stripped of meaning, it becomes a history lesson and not a work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment