Photography and Photography and ArtisticPhotography

Marius De Zayas a writer who became an essayist for camera work had
and wrote strong views about art, photography and artist photography; his
views came from an educated experience in this world.
De Zayas was a fan of photography moving from the sometimes static
and lifeless style of pictorialism to a more abstract style which meant
considering things characteristics or even there general qualities he
believed in this transition enough to show the work through the 291
gallery.
De Zayas believes that photography and being able to take photographs
is not an art, I would say that this is very accurate in todays age where
billions of random (almost pointless) photographs are taken, for example
on my phone I have a photograph of my brothers food shopping this is
not Art this is just a visual message to me about how uninspired he was
feeling about meals that week, billions of these types of photos are taken
worldwide and they are not art because
1) They are not intended to be Art
2) there is no art to what has been achieved, it is purely a convenience
De Zayas Quote
Art is the expression of the conception of an idea; Photography is the
plastic verification of a fact.
The difference between the idea and nature and where that fits with Art
and photography; what I believe DZ is trying to say in the following
paragraphs is that Art is guided by the imagination into Art using the
traditions, rules and guides of composure that have been created over
time by our predecessors, other Art is viewed by the artist to help him
express his idea/thoughts etc. Photography can be used however it
wishes, there are new ways/things that can be achieved it is un-governed
by these conventions it has broken free from the traditional, it has
scientific capabilities.
DZ believes that Art is no longer Art that all is left is the label because it
has moved away from what it was originated to be which was to prove the
truth of religious forming/conception and to devote itself to a portrayal of
its form form is created with the use of imagination and that is because
imagination goes further than realization.

He believes that whilst art only speculates with form and does not use
imagination then it will not meet its potential it is not truly art.
Art is not meant to be accurate; this is an argument that is often had in
the local art society that my uncle is a part of when they
paint/draw/sketch each other or objects in some of their meetings or bring
their work in to be viewed by their peers those that deliver work with pin
point accuracy are often harshly criticised and are asked what the point is
when they could achieve the same result by using a camera, but I, like my
uncle, believe that there is an Art to doing that and being able to do that
is a skill but is it a work of Art?
A work of Art means having your own twist on reality surely?
DZ goes on to talk about epochs the beginnings of distinctive periods
and how art of each epoch is recognised by a particular expression of form
it is a part of the development of man, but what about our epoch now in
our time? I have believed for a long time that the last distinctive period
we had was in the 1980s (but whether this is accurate in the world of Art
Paintings sketching photography sculpting I cant say because I dont
know enough) everything after the 1980s clothes films toys and shoes
are mostly replicas of things that have come before, there are few things if
anything that is totally new and unique, its almost like we have run out of
fresh ideas which is how De Zayas feels about contemporary art.
The true artist is obsessive and constantly seeking inspiration the
conservatives in the museums of Art and the Progressives in the
ethnographical museums, both of these are built on the past, this is not
necessarily a bad thing, learning from the past and adapting ides is how
humans evolve but adapting is exactly Zayas point; the only artist of our
time who attempted to find a new form was Picasso, but searching and
creating a new form are different and it appears that Picasso had trouble
splitting reality from imagination and only saw in the fantastical to him
his imagination was his reality that is how he saw what was around him.
It appears that Picaso is not on his own with this trait as Europeans have
run many experiments asking African negroes to draw from nature, this
showed that they ALWAYS take from a form only what impresses them
from a decorative point of view so therefore creating an abstract
representation (I cant help wondering how they performed such
experiments making them so sure this is an accurate conclusion as it is
quite a statement to make.

DZ believes that as we as a human race adapt and progress and become

civilised and we lose the ability to be abstract, we conform, we as
humans are now a breed of observers which has replaced impressions.
All this boils down to what you see and how you see it.
When I think of this I think of Lowry, the beginnings of Lowrys work
(before his mother died) where based on real life true settings in his local
and surrounding area (the mills for example) but his representations of
these scenes where quirky and although very clever and detailed in places
they were not a true representation of form, the people take the look of
well-made stick men and the buildings they almost had a childlike
approach and finish to them.
For Art, for true art you need imagination, when using this with all of your
humanly qualities (such as comparison, memory and judgment), but
imagination takes you further from the true reality of form what
something truly looks like to the average eye to the average person.
Zayas is convinced that to fully and correctly appreciate the reality of
form, it is necessary to get into a state of perfect consciousness, that it
can only be transcribed through a mechanical process.
I spoke earlier about the local art association and the artists/members that
capture people/things with pin point accuracy, down to the shadows, I
have had the opportunity to see some of this work and I often think that
they capture the reality better than cameras and they can do it without
quite so many barriers in their way; if you apply De Zayas theory these
people can get into a state of perfect consciousness, be totally aware of
their surroundings, they in this state are almost mechanical.
Art has a reputation of confusing people, some people will take the time to
look at the picture and try and figure it out but there are many that do
not wish to work so hard, they want to see something and know
automatically what it is/where it is and what it means - for these people,
for most people for most people they are relieved that with photography
the veil of mystery is being removed and they will finally understand
and know exactly what theyre looking at; in De Zayas mind, in his
opinion, he believes that Art offers emotional/intellectual truth and
photography offers the material truth. Art is about how the artist feels
and photography helps you realise how you the viewer feels; these
statements are the beginning of the divide and differences that De Zayas
continues on to explain about photography and Art.
Photography is here to give a concrete representation of reality it is not
meant to be a form of expression; however the plot thickens and his

opinions are elaborated (further down), maybe these arent just his
opinions but the view and opinions gathered together by the many.
My favourite statement throughout this essay is Photography is not Art,
but photographs can be made into Art, I have always believed that there
is a difference between the two, that one is not the same as the other, but
there are so many people that do not see the difference; I see the
difference because I do not see myself as an artist but as a photographer
and do so for the same reasons De Zayas highlights I do not try to
attach my feelings, emotions or messages to my images, but this doesnt
mean that I dont have emotions/feelings about my photography, when I
photograph I switch off and I just look (although when I for example
decide to use a specific lens I look at other peoples work to see how far
they have pushed it, the different ways they have used it) I dont
generally have preconceived ideas of the outcome I just shoot and keep
shooting until after I am happy with what I have achieved, this is not
artistry though because as explained thoroughly before an artist uses
form, his surroundings, his subjects his lighting to work with his
imagination with his concept of an idea to portray a message or an
emotion.
But things are not always this black and white and I do not think it is a
clean straight line that separates the photographer and the artist
photographer we are a breed that feel emotion and whether it is intended
or not, sometimes it will seep into our work and it will guide our choices in
not always obvious ways, for example if the day has been terrible and you
go for a walk with your camera to capture whatever you can that catches
your eye then the weather changes and it reflects your mood, you are not
disappointed that the sky looks dark heavy angry instead you switch off
look at it and without really thinking about it you enhance it, you lower the
settings and you bring out the darkness of the shadows on the land and
the texture in the sky and this can be repeated again in the editing suit
when you are set to edit and complete the image.
You cannot completely remove emotion and feeling even when in regards
to the photographer there may at some be (point or even at every
point) emotion attached to that image and sometimes it may even come
across to an onlookers eye, but in the most part it is the artist and the
artist photographers that attach the feeling, that attach the message,
they are the ones that want you to look and see not just the objects not
just the people but the everything but for me when I show someone an
image I want them to see whats right in front of them to see it for what it
is to make something amazing we dont have to paint it with light
(although I do love images like that) we dont have to have fireworks go

off over a park to represent this that and the other, just walk into the park
at sunset or twilight and just stop thinking and look.
After reading this with all of the information involved I dont believe one
aspect of Art is more important than the other, each has its place and its
importance I think its important to know and understand your place
within the different categories but at the same time not to let that be
something that governs your work or the type of work that you do.