Conversation last night; Should be those who can make under any psychiatric condition. Works’d not be done with nor from that condition. She told if I can take some good pieces under awful mental condition, it’s the ability of mine surely. She insisted again; Photography isn’t fine art like paintings or sculptures, but it also should be done.
I still wonder, so I have to think over much more, though, anyway I understand photography works are quite different from other works. Because of its property; actuality and reality; objectivity; outputs through machines not from hand works.
What is “fine art”? Must it be those from nothing? Or are they the synthesis of everything people have done for expression?
Photography can draw only pictures out of oneself; just only surface. Must it be the answer of it? I can’t think it’s enough. If so, how can we explain about pictures of Arbus? Or main stream of photography in this world today?
Now we’re living in the era after so long from the age that of “Picturesque”.
Some say that the era in which the discussion whether Photography is “fine art” or not should hold had been over, though, many still think it’s not. Photography can’t draw abstract; but if it’s the reason, one might only mention about the function of cameras. They can be poetry.
