Ross Litscher wrote:

> Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in
> >
> > >>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> > >> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
> >
> I think the quote is entirely wrong, atleast in my current time and space.

I think (but I may be wrong) that what Glen is saying is that art and perfection
(as defined by the technical rules that apply in one particular field) are
different things. If you obtain something that is perfect according to what is
generally considered as perfection (here represented by "prettiness",
"sharpness" and "good exposure"), then you have failed, because what you've
done, as agreeable, as well-crafted as it can be, will lack the "little"
something, the odd stuff that will turn it into art (of course, most people
don't want to turn everything into art, which is wise). Roland Barthes, in his
essay on photography titled the "Chambre Claire", called this odd stuff the
"punctum", for example a small, unexpected detail that shouldn't be there if the
picture was actually perfect. The problem is that since this has already been
known for a long time, many artists add punctums or apply "un-perfection" in a
so deliberate way that it becomes a mere gimmick (or another extension of
perfection), thus blurring the edges even further.

G.

Post a reply to this message