these portraits look back at us and embody a louder voice in the discourse of the gaze
November 4, 2010 7:26 PM Subscribe
Is photography Art?
Photography's interesting because, you know, it's a new form, and a set of aesthetic criteria have not emerged yet.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:54 PM on November 4, 2010
Photography's interesting because, you know, it's a new form, and a set of aesthetic criteria have not emerged yet.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:54 PM on November 4, 2010
There are some pretty badass portraits in there. The effect of seeing them in such concentration is intoxicating. Could easily spend all night with this. Thank you.
posted by Scientist at 10:36 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Scientist at 10:36 PM on November 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Photography's interesting because, you know, it's a new form, and a set of aesthetic criteria have not emerged yet.
Threeway Handshake, maybe you mean "as compared to painting, which is approximately 40,000 years old", but photography has been with us for 160 years or so now. Not really "new".
And, I'd say: aesthetic criteria have definitely emerged. Same thing for the newer art form of movies, a mere 100 years old.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:30 PM on November 5, 2010
Threeway Handshake, maybe you mean "as compared to painting, which is approximately 40,000 years old", but photography has been with us for 160 years or so now. Not really "new".
And, I'd say: aesthetic criteria have definitely emerged. Same thing for the newer art form of movies, a mere 100 years old.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:30 PM on November 5, 2010
« Older Tickling the fancy of those who tickle the ivories | Look at that focaccia-ing tumblr blog. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Probably the best answer to the question that was answered so well so long ago that it sounds stupid now: Is photography Art?
posted by kozad at 7:47 PM on November 4, 2010