Would you visit this exhibition?

[BeBMan]

An exhibition called 'Sight Unseen' has opened at the California Museum of Photography which showcases the work of twelve blind photographers from around the world.

The curator of Sight Unseen, Douglas McCulloh, explains how visually impaired people are able to capture such beautiful images.

???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8065984.stm

There's also a vid report, dunno if the photo guys approved it though.

[-Jrabbit]

...dunno if the photo guys approved it though.

Neither do the photo guys know WTF images are actually being used. Great scam.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Would you visit this exhibition?

Yes. Blindfolded.

[SlowwHand]

All joking aside, this is pretty amazing.

[Winston]

No. I'm not an exhibitionist.

[Dinner]

I wouldn't pay but if it was free I'd go.

[OzzyKP]

???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8065984.stm

There's also a vid report, dunno if the photo guys approved it though.

Awesome stuff. I like the commentary.

[Traianvs]

I remember an exhibition recently held in Centre Pompidou about emptyness.

An entire story of the building was dedicated to the theme, lo and behold: there was nothing in it. Nada, noppes. I seem to recall it was a cooperation by a number of 'artists' too, which makes it all the funnier of course.

Read this article about it.

[Straybow]

"modern art" at least the blind photographers have something

[Imran Siddiqui]

All joking aside, this is pretty amazing.

QFT

[SpencerH]

An exhibition by blind photographers demonstrates the problems I have acknowledging photographs as "art". It seems to me that photos by blind photographers is no more "art" than paintings produced by elephants or other animals (including small children). One may appreciate (like) a piece, no matter the source. That's a question of personal taste. What makes it "art", however, is the artists context/input/will. In the case of abstract painting, for example, clearly their is a world of difference between the intent of "bessie the elephant" and Jackson Pollock. One may purchase and mount a "bessie original" on the wall and appreciate it every day, but it's not "art".

Certainly, some photography is "art". In the case of blind photographers, however, I dont see how their intent can be manifested in a photograph, at least not without the aid of sighted "helpers". I suppose it could be compared to many pieces of art where artisans or students are employed to finish a piece started or concieved by a "master". In those cases, however, the "master" has already established their place as an "artist", and I'm not sure that has happened here. Just how would a blind photographer judge whether the photo reflects their intent?