Suhit Gupta
12-19-2005, 09:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/Art-Science.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/Art-Science.shtml</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Photography consists of two separate elements: art and science. It is through the successful combination of these two elements that the creation of world-class photographs can be accomplished. Yet art and science differ greatly in their aim and their practice. In fact, they are so far apart as to present serious difficulties if their respective qualities are not known to the photographer. The science part of photography includes technique and equipment. The artistic part of photography includes the photographer's artistic goals, his vision, inspiration and the use of art-related concepts. These two parts need to merge seamlessly for the creation of a successful world-class photograph to take place. If one or these two parts dominates the other the result is either a technically excellent photograph without much artistic interest, or a very artistic photograph lacking technical excellence."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/Anasazi_Gold.jpg" /><br /><br />I was quite amused by the following statement from the article -- the first of these two scenarios is much more frequent. In other words, there are many more technically perfect photographs out there lacking artistic content, message, or vision. I often look back at photographs that I take and I think about how I wish I could make them pop more. I mean, they are great (not to toot my own horn or anything :)) from a focus and lighting and angle point of view, but I feel like I am missing an invisible something that normally bring professional photos to life. I am looking forward to part 2 of this article.