“Because a photograph is so generous, it portrays everything you put in front of it uncritically. It has a great negative capability. It can portray some pretty horrific things with an incredible amount of poise. In the histories of art of the 18th and 19th centuries, there are prioritized lists of what is valuable, history painting is the best, then religion and mythology lower down, portraiture, genre scenes, then the bottom is still lives… any old thing… throw it on a table and make a painting of it.
I think in photography, the values are reversed. It’s very difficult for a photograph to convey history because it’s only taken from one perspective. It’s always a diminishment of history, whereas with objects and ugly things, the photograph is just another object or ugly thing. It can really equal or elevate those everyday, ugly, quotidian things into a different status through the quality of the attention of the photographer. Things can be elevated into things that are truly moving and beautiful.”
I think in photography, the values are reversed. It’s very difficult for a photograph to convey history because it’s only taken from one perspective. It’s always a diminishment of history, whereas with objects and ugly things, the photograph is just another object or ugly thing. It can really equal or elevate those everyday, ugly, quotidian things into a different status through the quality of the attention of the photographer. Things can be elevated into things that are truly moving and beautiful.”
— Tim Davis in an April 2008 interview
(Source: whitehotmagazine.com)
-
suzydickie liked this
-
jonahrosenberg posted this
