Monday, February 18, 2008
Mechanism and Expression
This essay by Franz Roh I found fairly interesting because of not only the content but of how it was written. His use of bold wording throughout his text throws me off a bit. I feel as though they are supposed to have a double meaning or are more important statements. Also his habit of not capitalizing letters after a period really threw me off. I can a recall a couple times I had reread a sentence to see if it was a finished sentence or just a break on the page. I however liked how Roh talked about how cameras were going to be like the next typewriters in the classroom. This statement shows that photography is the more common art that can be used for the general population. It allows the masses to be able to use the camera as more a leisure time activity or as a practical tool used to remember experiences. This shows that “the camera supplies a want of the lower classes” meaning that it is available to the lower classes and not used as a professional item. In fact “it often occurs that photographs taken by the one will always appear uninteresting, though he be skilled in technique, while photoes by the other who considers himself but an amateur and whose work is not technically perfect, yet invariable are of forcible effect.” This definitely supports the idea that the camera is the new modern technology and will be used so regularly that not knowing how to operate a camera would be unheard of. And the idea of a random photograph taken by an amateur can be more appealing and artistic than a professional photograph. In conclusion, the expansion of photography is to everyday life is going to be beneficial to society and not looked upon as a struggling art form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The first aspect of Franz Roh's piece that caught my eye was his lack of capital letters throughout his essay. I thought this to be very interesting because it was a very dada move to do. Also, I thought it tied in very well to his theory that art, and photography in general, are better in the hands of the amateur. In my weird brain, I associated capital letters with that of the art critic, and lower case letters to amateurs. Thus the physical text on the page was somehow strengthening his argument (Am I reading too much into it perhaps?). The second thing I noticed was his very aggressive and sarcastic tone. He calls connoisseurs "misforms of existence." He belittled art critics and he heightened his own ideals. He tackled the concept if whether photography is art with such a confident tone, the reader has no choice but to agree or strongly disagree with him. One thing I enjoyed greatly in this piece is that he actually describes what art is: "if however we understand art as an end in itself, called forth by man and filled with 'expression', good photographs are included." I loved that finally an author says what are really IS instead of what art ISN'T. He makes a very drastic choice of words, yet sticks to it. What could be problematic would then be, what is a good photograph? The cycle of confusion never stops does it? Over all, this piece was highly entertaining because of his rude and unruly tone, which I thought was cool.
Post a Comment