Photography and Performance

The questioning of photography as an art form is a particularly interesting argument to me. Since the advent of photography, it has been hotly debated as an art - or non-art - form. "Performing the Moment" addresses this, along with the evolving role photography plays in performance art. It is "mechanical" in nature, and thus can only be considered a form of documentation. Yet, photography can have astounding visual impact - oftentimes beyond that of painting and other forms of visual art. Photography has an inherent "realness" that cannot be achieved by virtually any other means. A photograph has the ability to capture detail so accurately that the viewer rarely questions whether the subject of the photo is an actually recorded moment in time. But it is because of this also, that photography as an art form is questioned. Without the apparent hand of the artist present, or his interpretation of a subject physically present, how can the viewer communicate with the artist through his work? The viewer can see the strokes of a painter (as mentioned in the text), but not in a photograph. I disagree with this view - simply because a photographer has the ability to capture his subject in a split second (most of the time), does not mean the elements of color, composition, style, and scale are not just as carefully considered as in a painting. Photography, like many art forms, has many methods. Some are more purely scientific and objective, while some are radically abstract and interpretive. This is one of the reasons why photography will ultimately find a substantiated place in the art world.

Abstract photography - art photography:
http://www.pbase.com/image/76235012
http://www.pbase.com/image/75748008
http://www.pbase.com/williamgruner/image/56433043
http://www.pbase.com/khtaylor/image/57755102
http://www.pbase.com/ctfchallenge/image/52084453
http://www.pbase.com/mrutter/graphic