Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 8, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Scott McLoughlin wrote: > By comparison with music, photography > seems to lack an adequate language to describe it to > others (a shared or even common language). From my point of view - photography is first a visual art (or craft). If true the language of visual art criticism and appreciation works to discuss it. And, I believe, that even with photojournalism and documentary photography one can discuss it with the language of visual art in the same way that one can discuss journalism with the language of writing. Yes there is another layer in journalism - ethics, truth, veracity of sources, etc. However, under that is the quality of the writing. > What's the equivalent in photography? We have stuff like > the rule of 3rds, but that isn't nearly adequate to describe > "the geometry" in HCB's photos. We would want a language > sufficient to describe it in a way as to help others see > it (the geometry of HCB's pics, just for example). You're referring to composition. You can find many texts on composition as it relates to the visual arts. > normative judgements. You know, like today we can say > things like "very sharp" or "perfect focus on the eyes", but > I don't think the language we have today can express what > makes a good photograph a good photograph. Surely you jest. There are acres of printed pages on what makes a good photograph, technically, aesthetically, and emotionally. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com