Go Digital
Rex the Strange
than welcome:
It's with some regret and misgivings that I contemplate the future of
traditional silver nitrate photography when compared with everything
that the digital age has to offer. I mean, really, first there was
George Eastman's "Box Browning" making the need for a chemistry degree
redundant for taking a photograph. Cameras became smaller and smaller,
emulsion technologies became more accurate (including color) so now
there is no doubt - you shoot it, we print it. All of this technology
has rendered photographic creativity an impotent eunich.
But is it? If you had been alive when Leonardo DiVinci was painting the
Sistine Chapel and said, "Hey Leo, there's a better way. Why spend
three years of your life with a brush when you could use a 'camera
obscura' to create the outline and then you just paint by numbers?"
Certainly possible as such technology had been extant since the time of
Aristotle. Do you think Leo would have gone for it?
Original manuscripts of famous artists fetch tens of thousands at
auctions. How much would someone pay for the original scribblings of
John Lennon as he sat to pen "Strawberry Fields Forever?" Why would you
pay that much when I can give you the words and music neatly typed in
wordperfect detail and impeccible, unmistakable musical notation?
There are several answers and each one testifies to why traditional
photography will always have a place in the world (for example, as
digital becomes more prevalent and silver nitrate becomes more of an
"antique black art" it will, thus, become more highly prized). Firstly,
it's original, just as John Lennon's manuscript is original. You don't
want the words and music to "Strawberry Fields" - you want to know that
you hold a piece of paper that John Lennon held. Hell, it could be a
shopping list - it really doesn't matter as to what is on the paper -
it's the fact that he once held it.
Sound ridiculous? Possibly, but the fact remains that, although he took
a lot of flak for the statement, there was a lot of truth to his
assertion that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" and, in many
ways were treated as such. But this is misdirecting us from the
argument at point - there are many other examples of the "original is
valuable" mentality. The Mona Lisa is priceless, but has been
represented in alternate form, ad nauseum (it's not a difficult task to
find a copy of the Mona Lisa). Similarly, the theft of Edvard Munch's
"The Scream," while often charicatured and represented in alternate
form, was considered a grave loss to the art community (and Munch
painted four of them - three of which are still in known locations).
So why do we place so much passion in "the original?" There is
definitely the "touching the artist's hand" as noted by the John Lennon
example, but there is something else. Let's assume, for a moment, that
silver nitrate photography did go entirely out of favour. Let's assume
that artists the world over decided that there is no point in painting
pictures because they can get a much closer representation of reality
by using digital photography....
...wait a moment. Why didn't artists do that long before now?
Photography, in some form, has been with us for almost three hundred
years. So why do artists exist? I own an original print of a photograph
of musical legend Frank Zappa. It was a gift from my wife, but I know
it's still valued at over three hundred dollars. Well, that's the
"touch" argument alluded to, before - it's a print of a limited
edition. Hey, I've got a scanner - I can make copies. Well....no not
really, because the photograph is a silver nitrate print, whereas a
scanned and reproduced print would use other technologies that betray
its authenticity.
Not convinced? Well, consider a photographic print of the Mona Lisa.
While technically perfect in every detail, it will never fetch the
price of the original. Now, if you consider that art is simply an
accurate representation of a perceived reality, such as a Campbell's
soup can, then digital photography has it all over all traditional
forms of art. I can accurately represent anything that can be perceived
with the human eye. Henceforth, all artists are out of work.
But wait a moment...let's consider that soup can. If I could just "take
a photograph" of that soup can and have it be just as good as the real
thing, then why did Andy Warhol make such a statement by painting by
hand that which was commercially printed? Surely this is insanity.
Well, um, no, not really. There is, partially, that "first hand" aspect
involved here, but there is also something else going on...inaccuracy!
Serously, let's consider this. We have two very closely related, yet
seemingly contradictory concepts at work here (just like time - Rex
will contemplate this at some time in the future...no pun intended).
That work is highly valued for accurate representation (the Mona Lisa -
her eyes follow you as you move because her pupils are so accurately
represented as focused on the "camera lens") and that work is highly
valued for its inaccuate representation. You could be forgiven for
assuming that this is a bizarre paradox of the art world that makes its
doctrines incongruous with common sense (for example: I don't know
anything about art, but I know what I like).
But really, there is a kind of logic here. I can get a rock anywhere.
Wherever I get one it's a fairly accurate representation of a rock. But
I can't get a diamond anywhere. But when I do get one...it's a fairly
accurate representation of a rock. So what's the difference? Rarity,
certainly. But these days we can make diamonds. They're called "cubic
zirconia" and they're almost perfect in every detail. In fact, they're
too perfect. Some hunk of compressed carbon dug up from a two mile deep
mine in Africa will always fetch a higher price than a cubic zirconia.
Why? Because it's imperfect. Anyone who has seen the original "Pink
Panther" movie will realize that. The Pink Panther was so valuable
because it had a distinctive imperfection - a defect that looked like a
pink panther.
So we can assume that there are three elements (so far) that define the
value of art...well, there's a fourth, desirability, but that seems to
stem from the first three, and they are: the first hand (for want of a
better term - I'm not an art major...well, I am, but a major in
literature, not graphic art, so I'm not totally sure of the
terminology)...hey, maybe if I put it into Latin it will sound more
impressive. Let's call it the Prima Manus (which, I'm sure you've
worked out, means "first hand").
This is probably the most important part, but next there is the
accurate representation. Now, certainly, the likes of Jackson Pollack
throw a wrench in the works, here, but this really wasn't crucial to my
argument, anyway. Suffice it to say, that he represents a different
genre of the art world - one that has no real, tangible, basis in
reality except for the concept of complimentary color. For an
equivalent in another art form, consider some of Paul Simon's music,
which he creates lyrics for, not because there's any deep meaning, but
simply because it "sounds good."
Finally, there is inaccurate representation (and Mr Pollack may come in
here, too - sadly I'm not overly acquainted with the background meaning
of his works - they do look like maniacal scribblings of a lunatic with
a good sense of linear mathematics and a grasp of the color wheel...to
which Rex the Strange says "hey, way to go - very expressive and two
thumbs up!")
But I digress...
Go digital! Absolutely. If you want to show Aunt Mary-Jane the kiddies
opening presents at Christmas. Then you will have picture perfect
images of what really went on at that time with no interpritation or
personality. No art.
Not even that. Photography has pretty well been bastardized since
George Eastman took your precious rolls of film into his laboratories
and "did all the rest." Go digital if you want to show Aunt Mary-Jane
the kiddies opening presents at Christmas. But go photographic (and do
your own processing - defects and all) if you want to create: "Kiddies
Opening Presents."
Be sure to over-expose it...or make sure there's some dust on the lens
of the enlarger...or be sure to make it just slightly a titch out of
focus with a bright light source behind it. Or...what the hell!? Move
the camera violently while taking the picture and blur it while
enlarging. Put your hand over the photo lens while enlarging and, hey,
has anyone tried what will happen if you add grape juice, white wine or
110 proof bourbon to your developing fluid? Try doing that with your
digital picture!
I've developed two pictures in my darkroom so far that I'm very proud
of and, trust me, they both suck big-time from a photographic accuracy
stand point. One is a print of my backyard taken from a pinhole camera
made from a USPS packaging box and the other is my father and my
daughter, taken with too much exposure and out of focus from a
one-hour-lab negative.
I've also taken several pictures with my wife's digital camera (which I
bought her for Christmas) of kids, family, my darkroom (just drips with
irony, doesn't it...kinda like Andy's soup cans). But I'll autograph
the pinhole backyard and "dad and daughter" and, if any of the
thousands of photographs I have or will take survive a thousand years
from now, I'll bet those are it. They're certainly not perfect and
that's what gives them that intangible quality of being "art"
enrique o via PhotoKB.com
>I posted this on rexthestrange.com some months ago. Comments are more
>than welcome:
>But is it? If you had been alive when Leonardo DiVinci was painting the
>Sistine Chapel
?!?!?!?!?!?!? Leonardo Da Vinci has no paintings in the Sistine Chapel. The
wall paintings are by Perugino, Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and a lot of other
painters. The "ceiling paintings" are by MICHELANGELO Buonarroti. So The
Last Judgement over the altar is.
> "Hey Leo, there's a better way. Why spend
>three years of your life
Five years to complete the ceiling, eight years the Judgement....as you can
see...a little bit more. ....and it seems he never worried about it.
>with a brush when you could use a 'camera
>obscura' to create the outline and then you just paint by numbers?"
>Certainly possible as such technology had been extant since the time of
>Aristotle. Do you think Leo would have gone for it?
Sure!!!! You're right. Aristotle made the first camera osbcura which we know
about in order to study the nature of the light phenomena. And...Leonardo Da
Vinci rediscovered the c.o. giving it another use....as auxliary device in
drawing and painting. So Alberto Durero did...and many other artist .
The fresh paintings on walls and ceilings were made using auxiliary drawings
which were transferred to the actual place being finally painted by the
artist ....or others....so you can see, man....they painted "by numbers".
> Let's assume, for a moment, that
>silver nitrate photography did go entirely out of favour. Let's assume
>that artists the world over decided that there is no point in painting
>pictures because they can get a much closer representation of reality
>by using digital photography....
You're sooooo wrong! In which stone is carved that Art, in general way, and
painting or, even, photography particularly are to "get a much closer
representation of reality"? Who does say it?
>This is probably the most important part, but next there is the
>accurate representation. Now, certainly, the likes of Jackson Pollack
.....Jackson...the painter is POLLOCK........Mr. Pollack is the movies maker
(director).....they both are "artists" but in diferent Arts. Is your mind
betroying you?
And so on....
Dear, your intention is surely good, you're, may be, traying to defend the
freedom to use the "photographic media" for self-expressiveness, but your
speech is made of such a bunch of mistakes, "common places" (ideas) about ART
and PHOTOGRAPHY so extensively repeated as the truth, that taking it
seriously is impossible.
Chemical photography will be an "antique black art" in the similar way
painting was when the first photography arose...or so antique black art as
engraving, etching is respect to oleo on canvas...
ART is all about the human soul so...who does need to defend the media you
want to use?
--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Fedor Pavlovic
"enrique o via PhotoKB.com" <fo...@PhotoKB.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:54A481...@PhotoKB.com...
> Rex the Strange wrote:
>>I posted this on rexthestrange.com some months ago. Comments are more
>>than welcome:
>
>>But is it? If you had been alive when Leonardo DiVinci was painting the
>>Sistine Chapel
>
> ?!?!?!?!?!?!? Leonardo Da Vinci has no paintings in the Sistine Chapel. The
> wall paintings are by Perugino, Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and a lot of other
> painters. The "ceiling paintings" are by MICHELANGELO Buonarroti. So The
> Last Judgement over the altar is.
orcodio ! diglielo !!!
Rex the Strange
enrique o via PhotoKB.com wrote: [ a bunch of stuff ]
Thank you for being an incredible pendant.
This was written more as a stream-of-conciousness dialog than an actual
argument so it's bound to be littered with little errors - so I mixed
up a couple of people and misspelt some things. I think the crux of the
argument is still strong, though, that imperfection is one of the
things that makes art art.
Rex the Strange
enrique o via PhotoKB.com wrote: [ utter crap ]
Oh, by the way, to give you a little of your own back, your grammar is
for s--t.
Little Green Eyed Dragon
"Rex the Strange" <roger...@widgetinc.com> wrote:
> enrique o via PhotoKB.com wrote: [ a bunch of stuff ]
>
> Thank you for being an incredible pendant.
>
> This was written more as a stream-of-conciousness dialog than an actual
> argument
Could have fooled me, I thought it was a troll.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
enrique o via PhotoKB.com
>enrique o via PhotoKB.com wrote: [ a bunch of stuff ]
>
>Thank you for being an incredible pendant.
Nothing at all.....I never thought that using a basic knowledge could be
considered as "an incredible pedantry".
>This was written more as a stream-of-conciousness dialog than an actual
>argument so it's bound to be littered with little errors - so I mixed
>up a couple of people and misspelt some things. I think the crux of the
>argument is still strong, though, that imperfection is one of the
>things that makes art art.
No disrecpectul attitude was intended. But....You're still wrong in lots of
your statements.
Imperfection ISN'T one of the things that makes art ART. Imperfection makes
only a think different from other very similar one . That difference gives
the piece a monetary value in the ART BUSINESS but not an "Artistic Value".
enrique o via PhotoKB.com
You're probably right about the grammar of my standard english.
Pero seguramente mi inglés es todavía bastante mejor que tu español. De modo
que el resto de la discusión podemos hacerla en la noble lengua de Cervantes.
Sin acritud.
Javi L
It sounds pretty childish to complain about his plain English. May be he
wasn´t lucky enough to be born in an english spoken country.
Anyway he surely has spent much more time studing english than you among art
books.
Just admit he hit you right in the middle.
"Rex the Strange" <roger...@widgetinc.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1127246721.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Gregory Blank
"enrique o via PhotoKB.com" <fo...@PhotoKB.com> wrote:
> De modo
> que el resto de la discusión podemos hacerla en la noble lengua de Cervantes.
> Sin acritud.
He he. :-)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Rex the Strange
> Imperfection ISN'T one of the things that makes art ART. Imperfection makes
> only a think different from other very similar one . That difference gives
> the piece a monetary value in the ART BUSINESS but not an "Artistic Value".
I don't disagree with that statement and I never meant to suggest (or
even imply) that imperfection is the sole attribute of art, but one of
many. As a photographer I deal very closely with replication but I
still consider it art. However, colorising or filtering or somehow
"altering" the image can increase its artistic value if done in an
artistic manner (which, of course, is highly subjective) while, at the
same time, decreases its representation of reality.
Rex the Strange
> It sounds pretty childish to complain about his plain English. May be he
> wasn´t lucky enough to be born in an english spoken country.
>
> Anyway he surely has spent much more time studing english than you among art
> books.
>
> Just admit he hit you right in the middle.
Why would I do that? He complained about my spelling so he opened the
discussion to literary correctness. And, no, he didn't hit me in the
middle. He was pedantic about my errors which not actually ever
refuting the actual argument. As a former teacher I would give his
essay a D.
Rex the Strange
> que el resto de la discusión podemos hacerla en la noble lengua de Cervantes.
> Sin acritud.
No hablo Español, sino que convengo con "sin la pieza de la amargura".
(Translation courtesy of Alta Vista Babel Fish - it's probably
terrible, but as I said, No hablo Espanol)
But seriously, while we're at it, why don't you denounce John Keats for
inaccuracies as it's clearly obvious and well known that in his poem
"On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer" he attributes the crossing of
the Isthmus of Panama and the discovery of the Pacific Ocean to Cortez
(one of your countrymen?) whereas it was Balboa who made that
discovery.
The point being that inaccuracies do not necessarily render a work
worthless.
enrique o via PhotoKB.com
>discussion to literary correctness. And, no, he didn't hit me in the
>middle. He was pedantic about my errors which not actually ever
>refuting the actual argument. As a former teacher I would give his
>essay a D.
Wooowwwwwwwwwww.......Alta Vista's translation is even worse than my english!!
!!!!! (Just kidding)
With all my respects to you....There's no need to refute your arguments about
the decision to go -or not- digital.
It's just a personal election which should fit a working method or a
"artistic vision".
I'm sorry to say it but I think your vision about Art is epidermal,
superficial. I'm not saying "superfluos" or "vain".
I think that vision is biased by the "market -of-the-art-thing".
Respect to this statement from you:
>As a photographer I deal very closely with replication but I
still consider it art. However, colorising or filtering or somehow
"altering" the image can increase its artistic value if done in an
artistic manner (which, of course, is highly subjective) while, at the
same time, decreases its representation of reality.
May be here lies other of the great misconceptions about photography.
Photography isn't about reality but
oneself. The landscape photography in the begining was mainly "topographical".
People photography was to preserve somewhat a family memory. Pictorialism
wanted to give photography another status...the one of Art Work. This led to
a greater and more emotional involving of the photographer in his/her own
work. (Grosso modo explained...you can see and read about it in the superb
"1000 Photo Icons" from the George Eastman Collection. Ed. Taschen.....btw....
mainly about american photography).
Being it so, photography is no more about reality but the photographer's
interpretation of it. From Alfred Stieglitz's Equivalents, through the "very
realistic" Ansel Adams' work or Weston's, Minor White, etc....citing only
some of the greater american masters. From Minor White is the concept of
"Equivalent" (using the name given by Stieglitz to his clouds series) which
states that the photographic image is -or should to be- somehow an answer
related (equivalent) to a feeling or mood. (Grosso modo again). Chris Johnson
(A.Adams and Imogen Cunningham's pupil) said about photography (extracted
from a Ted Orland's text in the very noble language of Cervantes....so...
sorry for the translation........): "One photographs what one sees,
one sees what one feels, one feels what one is, so ...one photographs what
one is".
This has been an absolute pedantry, but let me be a little bit more pedant....
.
Trying to capture the "reality" with the camera is metaphisicaly impossible
(LOL) .Neither the camera, the lens, the film don't "see" like you (or me)...
which is the real vision?....its or yours?...nor the eyes really see.
Eyes and mind are fooled many times in the daily life so...again....which is
the reality you try to capture o depict with your photos?, the one in front
of your lens or the one behind your camera into your gaze, into yourself?
Think about it....
BTW, I can't remeber if I had the red pill or blue one.....
--
Message posted via PhotoKB.com
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/photo-darkroom/200509/1
enrique ortega from spain via PhotoKB.com
>refuting the actual argument. As a former teacher I would give his
>essay a D.
I'm traying to earn my A.
You said:
>Go digital! Absolutely. If you want to show Aunt Mary-Jane the kiddies
>opening presents at Christmas. Then you will have picture perfect
>images of what really went on at that time with no interpritation or
>personality. No art.
That's a narrow minded approach to the digital world...and to the
photographic world. The way the snapshoters (digital or photochemical) do....
Go digital if you want to make digital Art or Art with digital means or
whatever digital.
Some people going digital, making art in digital,... some examples of the
very few I know....
From Maggie Taylor (Jerry Uelsmann's wife) using the scanner as camera to
John Paul Caponigro. From Barry Thornton traying to define his Elements of
Transition (to digital) to Dan Burkholder and his digital negatives for
alternative processes. ...or the spanish photographer Jose M. Mellado making
fine digital B&W.
Digital in very different ways.... as you can see:
http://www.maggietaylor.com/
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/
http://www.mellado.info/
>Not even that. Photography has pretty well been bastardized since
>George Eastman took your precious rolls of film into his laboratories
>and "did all the rest." Go digital if you want to show Aunt Mary-Jane
>the kiddies opening presents at Christmas. But go photographic (and do
>your own processing - defects and all) if you want to create: "Kiddies
>Opening Presents."
Lots of pictures from the 18th century showing the equivalent to your current
"Aunt Mary-Jane
the kiddies opening presents at Christmas" (please, read familiar scenes with
no artistic intention) are
considered art now.
"Doing your own processing-defects and all-" ISN'T a guarantee to get an art
work. The example: myself.
>Be sure to over-expose it...or make sure there's some dust on the lens
>of the enlarger...or be sure to make it just slightly a titch out of
>focus with a bright light source behind it.
I bet all my photo gear that you are not able to find those thing you say in,
let's say, Adams' work....or other minor traditional (not digital)
photographers. The lack of skillness or a bad craftmanship don't become you
an artist.
>Or...what the hell!? Move
>the camera violently while taking the picture and blur it while
>enlarging. Put your hand over the photo lens while enlarging and,
Another commonplace. European dadaism and surrealism proposed a kind of
spontaneity in means and attitude to get the artwork. Photograms, collages,
solarizations are considered artwork now....you know....Moholy-Nagy, Man Ray..
.
>has anyone tried what will happen if you add grape juice, white wine or
>110 proof bourbon to your developing fluid? Try doing that with your
>digital picture!
The american photograper Jack Spencer does all kind of treatments (cutting,
scratching, dropping down chemical products) to his photographic paper to get
one of the most personal, unique and marvellous photographic artworks I know..
.always IMHO. No notice about the wine or bourbon.
You can exactly imitate those things or other similar ones with your software.
...if you (me/one) have got the necessary skills.
>I've developed two pictures in my darkroom so far that I'm very proud
>of and, trust me, they both suck big-time from a photographic accuracy
>stand point. One is a print of my backyard taken from a pinhole camera
>made from a USPS packaging box and the other is my father and my
>daughter, taken with too much exposure and out of focus from a
>one-hour-lab negative.
That's not the issue. I do exclusively B&W, process the films by my own, do
my own developers, fixer and toners. I take pictures of my daugther too and
tray to make fine prints or them but I'm way far to get and artwork.
Your statement (and mine) only reveals lots of effort, courage or work....
nothing else....nothing less...but not artistical quality....necessaryly
(necessarily?)
> But I'll autograph
>the pinhole backyard and "dad and daughter" and, if any of the
>thousands of photographs I have or will take survive a thousand years
>from now, I'll bet those are it.
I'd autograph all my work...no shame to do it. One's work is one-self with
the best and the worst.
How can you be so sure about the survival of some photographs over other
ones? Survival depends not only of the material support....I guess.
Lots of bad processed prints are ruined in less than a year and paper and
acetate are so weak.....
>They're certainly not perfect and
>that's what gives them that intangible quality of being "art"
Commonplace again. Perfection or lack of it don't give any quality of being
art. That quality comes from the fact the WORK (whatever the art) fits the
sensibility of a society and his people, in the present or in the future.
It comes from the fact that WORK talk to the viewers about their problems and
dreams, their life or death, their own personal, social, cultural, emotional
reality. That 's ART.
Disclaimer:
I'm not a digital photographer at all, I'm not sponsored by the people
mentioned and I don't believe Ansel Adams is God.
Best Regards
Rex the Strange
I got about halfway through your refutation and I'm beginning to think
you have entirely missed my point. Let's take these things one at a
time:
> I'm traying to earn my A.
You are getting there - these are more coherent arguments than
criticising my misspellings or errors in naming people but, again, I
think you're missing the point. What inspired me to write this piece
was what I wrote in the first line:
"It's with some regret and misgivings that I contemplate the future of
traditional silver nitrate photography when compared with everything
that the digital age has to offer."
Translation: traditional photography is going the way of the dodo and
it's a damn shame (for the same reason you stated later):
>You can exactly imitate those things or other similar ones with your software.
>...if you (me/one) have got the necessary skills."
As to what actually constitutes art - as I said before, this is highly
subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure. As for the
comment about bourbon and shaking the camera etcetera, which I think
you took far too literally, the point was that I think art is often the
result of experimentation and that there are ways that you can --more
easily-- experiment with film than with digital prints! Sure you can
duplicate the same effects with Photoshop, but that's wrote
duplication, not the artistic interpritation that can only come from an
experimental mind.
Many of your other points I don't dispute (such as your example of
turn-of-the-century Christmas photographs being considered art today).
Obviously art is amorphous, thus the famed "starving artist" idea - the
idea that art is only valuable after the artist has died (which, of
course, is a gross generalism based on Van Gogh).
But again, that's not the point! So, what is the point? That despite
the prevalence of digital photography in the modern world, despite the
fact that all photography is duplicable through the digital medium,
there will ALWAYS be a place for traditional photography for the
artist. That's all I was trying to say.
rts.