Saturday, March 26, 2011
I hate society and the media there within. I really do. Here is the stupid part though, to me media is a necessary evil. I can't tell you I refuse to watch television, because i don't. I actually embrace it. I use it as a way to pass time and take my mind off of the evils of life. I watch others fake lives and make believe for the time that its real. Their problems become the focus of that time instead of our own. At least for me anyway. Its a corruption of our minds though. In essence its a brainwashing. It tells us that the dramatized fake realities are normal. It tells us those dramatized lives are reality, when in reality they are not. I watch television knowing this is happening to me. I hate that this is what television does. Media tells us its absolutely necessary to have a counterpart no matter how old you are. This is not true. I believe people need to discover themselves before they embark on a journey with another. Media corrupts this truth though and tells us, no you need a person of the opposite sex to venture life with, always. In turn we watch this through the media and it develops a sort of peer pressure. We feel the need to relate and follow the norm of media. It's interesting. People don't realize television brainwashes them. The government is interesting. I love how hypocritical the government is. I love how hypocritical everyone is. Media is a distraction from real life and it corrupts minds, but we watch it anyways. To bring this fact out is the sole purpose if this post.
I've had this theory for a while that I've been meaning to share. Considering photography to be an art form has long been debated. I have my own view on this as all do. Personally, I am a photographer, I am a creative and artistic individual. First to dive in to this discussion we must first come to common ground on what "art" is. Merriam-Webster's first definition of art is as follows, and I quote, "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation". Dictionary.com's first definition is as follows "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." By these definitions there is no argument that photography can be called art. It also can be called just that, photography. Though it depends on the photographer and his shots. It really is a matter of opinion. I must say though, I have seen many beautiful shots from a camera. Dare I say more beautiful than some famous paintings, which no one dares to say painting is no art form. Some may say, though, photography can be considered art, sure, a lazy man's art. A machine does the work for you! I have a further argument though. Just the way a painter composes his painting, a photographer composes his shot. The only difference? A painter makes the composition from scratch, a photographer has to work with what he is given and make it beautiful. He arranges what he is given in front of him and works himself around that to compose a beautiful shot. Is that easier than placing subjects on the canvas exactly where you want them? It's just different. A painter is a specific type of person, just as a writer is. We are all creative individuals, we simply work with our creative tendencies in different ways, different mediums. Is painting hard work? Sure it is! It takes a lot of hard work, whether mixing colors to perfection, or emulating the real world through paint, it most certainly is work. I argue though, that photography is not easier. Sure you have a device that "paints" for you, but arranging the elements in the shot is the difficult part. Yes anyone can take a picture. But that's what separates an artistic photographer from just any one clicking a camera. Remember our definitions? If someone studies photography, with the goal of producing aesthetically pleasing photographs, it in effect becomes art. When forced not to create on canvas something aesthetically pleasing, but arrange elements in front of you photography becomes work. It becomes art.