When the camera takes over for the eye by roberta smith
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/arts/design/at-the-venice-biennale-art-is-a-photo-op.html?_r=1&ref=arts
Recently the majority of art viewers are taking their experience in through a small frame. Although a sculpture may stand in the observers presence the goal does not seem to be the viewing of the art in order to contemplate its meaning but instead to capture an experience, to add an cultural event notch to their belt or facebook pictures. Is this really the goal? or does the availability of cameras not only enable but encourage the viewer to filter the artists work into their own artistic interpretation. Do cameras help the viewer become an artist themselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that with so many people being able to "take pictures" and create art. It starts to make it "easy" . And the thousands of hours a "true artist" puts into mastering his or her craft, can often seem pointless when just anybody can Become an artist if they have a camera. That's just a personal opinion.
But going back to what you are actually saying, I was wondering if the artist take this into consideration when they are creating their work. No longer are most people going to look at it with their own eyes, but they are going to look at the work through a camera. Seems kinda sad, but, i guess adapt or die, right?
Sorry for the bad grammar and stuff, but sometimes when I use my iPad, it's hard to type.
Post a Comment