Out of all the places we usually go to, few sceneries and objects deserve our attention and overwhelm us. These places possess a quality called beauty. We are often attracted to things which are an aesthetic delight to the eye and after encounters with them, we may seize every chance to capture them and try to hold on to them. That is why we have invented cameras. Taking photographs may satisfy our urge for possession sparked by the beauty of a place or an object. How impressive a design that allows us to hold on to beauty with a click of the shutter. But what harm does photography possibly do? If photography is to be criticised, it is not so much about photography itself, but it has everything to do with how we employ the art of photography.
But this art has been significantly changing. We witness, on the streets in Hong Kong, an uprising of artistic movement. Art no longer restricts those who only have God-given talents. The teenagers have an urge to say, 'Anyone Can Be Photographers'. It reminds me of the Pixar cartoon called 'Ratatouille' which The owner of the restaurant, Gustav, also writes a book named 'Anyone Can Cook'. Encouraged by a similar democratic vision of being artists, it is not uncommon in Hong Kong to see teenagers taking photographs everywhere. We often see in those photographs a bunch of teenagers showing a 'V' gesture to remember their union. We may also see them taking photographs of the food that they eat. Sometimes, even a piece of rubbish on the street may be intriguing to them as an object of beauty. This motive may be understood as their appreciation of the beauty of still life but somehow worthy of some degree of suspicion.
What, then, is wrong with photography? Instead of employing the art of photography as an conscious effort of seeing and of noticing the minutest details of the scenery, they have developed a new style of photography which may be called 'snapshots'. They use the medium as an substitution. They pay less attention to details due to their blind worship of technology. They invest faith in their digital cameras that they automatically assure them the possession of beauty. They have no patience to notice every minute detail in the photograph. What they do is just plugging in the memory stick to their computers so they can upload the photographs to facebook and blogs. They do so not out of promoting beauty, but in order to show themselves off so they can receive more comments from friends.
We glance over the newspapers published in Hong Kong. It is not surprising that we see more images than words on them. However, it is true, images may stimulate our mind and urge us to remain sober of the horrors of wars. But the flooding of images on newspapers not only prevent us from appreciating the author's style of writing, but also weakens our ability to comprehend and analyse the readings. I was surprised when I first glanced over a German newspaper with only few images on it. Little wonder why it is the hometown of philosophers. Images alone, unlike books, cannot teach us to think independently. Words, after all, are the sole tools that we rely on to think clearly.
Photographers teach us to look at things with an aesthetic eye and a good writer urges to attend to the minutest details that we may neglect. They open up our minds to see things rather than merely look, by making conscious effort to notice elements and understand the constructions of a scenery. Taking snapshots blur the distinction of looking and seeing. It promotes our laziness in noticing details. It condemns our literacy by a few clicks. Whether we should take pleasure in a stroll in an art gallery or spam the internet with snapshots, only the future can decide. For my part, I'd rather die sooner.
W
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment