To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree with re_re, the medium has nothing to do with art. I actually had this discussion with a friend this summer (really, a friend of a friend). She was one of those purist types that feels that art should be done in analog formats. The thing that really surprised me was that she felt that water color paintings were too juvenile and were an inferior medium, even though she conceded that it was a very difficult medium to master.
It seems to me that people who believe that art is dependent on the medium are not artist, but rather technicians. For example, this girl seemed a lot less concerned with getting shots that were emotionally compelling or thought provoking as she was having technically correct photos. She went so far as to tell to hold still so she could get a candid picture of us. Mind-boggling. It was like watching Data read poetry.
I also worked in videography for 3 years. It was blatantly obvious when watching raw footage/edited videos who actually understood and cared about the art of filming/editing, and who felt that filming was just a point and shoot sorta thing. No amount of technical knowledge is able to put feeling into a technically perfect, but otherwise boring/emotionless shot.
Art isn't about mediums, mediums are just a tool of an artist. The concept of medium being an ends unto itself is only a scape-goat for people who lack the vision to see art.
A quick look around the internet will find a thriving and very aesthetically pleasing collection of photographs made with "toy" and other inexpensive cameras. A good artist can take the inherent limitations in their tool and use them to advantage.
http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Photography/Techniques_and_Styles/Toy_Came...






Member since:
2005-07-06
the equipment only plays a small part in the end product, the artist's creativity and skill in editing ultimately make the end product art.