“It looks just like something out of a movie” seems to be a common compliment. I suppose a compliment that would warm my heart more would be “that reminds me of (insert great work of literature here)” but I suppose I can keep that as a goal, haha.

Thanks for the response, I’m really enjoying the discussion on this blog. It seems many art blogs are curiously lacking for comments.

Thanks for the comment. Those are interesting thing to think about.

When the average person sees a photo that looks professional to them I assume they mean it looks like something from the cover of a magazine. So, yes, those are mostly artificially lit photographs.

That said, I would like to think that the average person can grasp a fundamentally sound photograph even if at first glance it looks like your mother’s snapshot. People use those kind of aesthetics for a reason. It conveys a feelings, either one of intimacy or a quickness, it lets the photographer live in the moment more, whereas using a 4×5 makes the photographer slow down and can remove them from the moment.

I guess what I am trying to say is that a average person can see production, but they may lack the words to describe it as such. For instance, if someone saw a Crewdson photograph they very well might exclaim that it looks like a movie. The reason they would be saying that is because they can see the lighting and production that goes into a movie.

Well, man on the street may be replaced by man on myspace, with this generation.

For example, say a myspace profile picture, the one with the most comments, and the most “Wow! u look grate!” on it, is often one lit by studio lighting. In fact, when people look at such pictures, say of someone who goes to art school and has many different types of photos of themselves, this photo will have as a reply “It’s so professional!”

How professional is it? It’s five studio lights professional… in their mind, the more lights, expensive equipment, etc, the more professional it is. I’ve worked in studio and had magazine covers with this kind of lighting, subject matter unimportant, an onion, etc. But I also shoot with a disposable camera… a 54 year old camera, a polaroid camera, a digital snapshot camera, etc. These photos are still taken by a professional, are they not professional? Not at first glance, to most viewers, for some reason.

Now, though, I often get more emotional impact from less produced, less lit, more “real seeming” images. A video taken with a handheld snapshot camera seems to be a peak into daily life, a “snapshot” taken of a studio model makes it seem somehow more intimate than the medium format digital back shot. It’s something worth playing with, as an artist.

Certainly, since the 70s, these ideas have been pursued vigorously.

In fact, such images are often said to have “anti-aesthetic,” a term which I feel to be an impossibility. Also thrown around too much, “snapshot-aesthetic.” I don’t have any real answers about these issues, but it’s interesting to think about.

I think that photography is just as popular as film in the public’s eye. The difference comes in how it is viewed and perceived. When someone goes to see a film they usually plan to do it, and it is a serious commitment because it takes some time to watch. People see photographs all the time to the extent that it can be ignored fairly easily. I think viewer-ship is pretty equal of the highest art photographs and art films too.

Yes a view camera is simple in how it records light, but to the untrained photographer I doubt that it is easier to use than a digital camera. Also, a pinhole camera or even a camera obscura is more simplistic than a view camera. I do think that today the view camera is partly responsible for the aesthetics of many contemporary photographs. Although I would like to suggest that the camera does not make the picture, the photographer does, so innovative aesthetics should be possible within an antiquated tool.