Photography should be,
when we think of it, nothing but an expression of art done while
in a dangerously aggressive medium. When we recall one of
strongest images of the '60s - the photographs taken on
the moon -
do we think of them in artistic terms. They are fulcral documents
of the history of humankind, whose value has to be
considered contextually. If we show them to someone who
hasn't seen them before and fail to tell they were taken
on the moon, by a human being, on the first manned lunar
landing, they will not represent, to that person, nothing
strange rocks. Photos taken underwater had, for
several years, the same contextual value. Had trips to
the moon become vulgar, with thousands of different
people taking millions of photographs of the moonscape,
by now those photos would have lost some of the
contextual value and would have started to be appreciated
in artistic terms. That's what is becoming of underwater
The contextual value of the photos is being
lost as the
underwater seascape is
visited by more and more divers. There are more and more
photographers shooting the same underwater subjects. The need
different view of those subjects has arisen. There is now
the need for an artistic approach; the need to show not the
subjects themselves but, somewhat, the way we feel those
(Have you ever stopped to ponder why image and imagination are such similar words.)
When considering photography, one only gains by studying what master photographers had to say or did do. Let's hear from some:
"Photography is not art"
|"Photograpy is art"
"The photographer's eye is perpetually evaluating. A photographer can bring coincidence of line simply by moving his head a fraction of a millimetre...he composes a picture in very nearly the same amount of time it takes to click the shutter, at the speed of a reflex action."
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough"
"Photography has its own possibilities of expression, as it sought to record a feeling for life."