Sally Mann & Twaddle
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet writes:(refering to a post by Thomas C. Waters)
> THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS A HEAP OF TWADDLE ! ! !
No David, the above was not a heap of twaddle. It was my opinion about
the topic at hand. Your opinion may be different than mine, but that
doesn't make you right.
Please feel free to disagree with me, but why not leave the
condescending judgements out.
The purpose of discussion is for people to share their varying views.
I have the ability to respect your views... do you think you can find
the dignity to respect someone else's???
> A photo is intended to say what it says, the
> vehicle of delivery is secondary. Reality is
> the opposite of your set/subset arrangement.
[about 90 lines deleted]
David Rosen comments in further repy:
First I admit that even in my use of "emphatic" language
I should have said "the above paragraph supports a widely
held notion that is, nonetheless, PURE TWADDLE !" This
change would avoid any personal attack on TW [none intended].
I do mean that he subscribes to an erroneous idea, but I don't
mean to accuse him of originating it. This is the difference
between his being victim vs perpetrator. I do not accuse him
of malice or being perpetrator. I do think he is victimized
by a widely propogated bogus idea.
The *twaddle* in question was a paragraph insisting that only
the "fine print" permitted full appreciation of fine photos,
that even art photo books were insuffiicient. Somewhere in the
deleted 90 lines , TW implies that I seemed unaware that the
thread is about Fine Art Photography and that my reply had not
addressed this. My response of *twaddle* to the "holiness" of
original fine prints was directed sqarely at the Fine Art Photo
aspect of the thread.
The mystique of the fine print is far out of proportion and my
post *did* allow that a fine print is always the pinnacle of
experience of any given image. But I *AM* addressing the fine
art aspect when I knock the fine print from its pedestal.
The modern book printing system is capable of presenting an image
in all its glory and nuance. It may not allow the final degree of
"intimate contact" that an original print offers, but that is like
the difference between orchestra section seats and middle of the
fourth row seats. The stage performance in either case is still
intimate. TW's stance seems to say that if you don't have orchestra
seats, you are just watching a video, or at least from the rear
balcony !
I really don't mean to be explaining the quality of modern book
printing. I mean to debunk the "Fine Print Cult". Neither do I
suggest that *ordinary* magazine or text book photo repros give any
sort of *experience* of the image, these levels are merely reference
sketches of images. But the idea that *only* a fine original print
can deliver the full experience of the image is bunk [twaddle].
Sally Mann's images in particular are the type that may even deliver
MORE in a book than as "Fine Prints". She is no slouch technically
and produces very long scale renditions of her images. A book of the
quality level of Aperture monographs will carry that experience to the
viewer, along with the emotionally laden message that actually survives
even at the magazine repro level.
A fine book is a finshed product and often is the work of art. It brings
the full experience of the "photographic-ness" of the image and also
arranges the image in context with other images. Each image in the book
*IS* a fine print and has the artist's approval. The single image as a
museum grade fine print is, I have already admitted, yet another increase
in the experience. But it is a very minor difference and poking about
with your eye finding exquisite delicious little tonal inflections, that
are even slightly beyond the best book page, may be an experience unique
to the "fine print", but it is the same whether the the image can justify
its existence by content and message, or whether one just plants his
tripod where St. Ansel has done and follows all the procedures to yield a
fine print. Both routes yield a print that tantalizes the eye, but the
Sally Mann print presents some content, while the "Nuevo-Ansel" print is
only a demonstration of technical prowess.
I submit that even where there is content and a truly moving message, the
"fine book" delivers the whole story, while the museum grade print is just
another fancy package, delighting the eye only slightly more than the fine
book. As a highpriced collector's rendition of the image, this much
"icing on the icing on the cake" is expected. But to say that the book
cannot give the image its full due while the museum print can, is bogus,
like saying that only a rich oil painting can convey the ultimate
experience, while acrylics are second rate and watercolor is for sunday
painters.
BTW, I am not speculating as I have pored over more original prints in
galleries and museums than most people get access to. The problem is that
the difference in the viewer's experiencing abook image vs a fine print is
a small difference, and centers on aspects of the viewing experience that
often do nothing to support the artist's reason reason for showing us this
picture. That is why I said that a picture that can't make it in a good
book, but can only be experienced as a "fine art print" is no picture at
all. It's just a negative exposed to a "subject" in order to execute a
fine print so as to have the [admittedly pleasant] experinece of making
and viewing a super print. But this is an empty frame, containing
glorious tonality and subtlety for its own sake and not as a delivery
vehicle for the picture the artist wants to show us. There is in that
example no artist to show us anything, just a technician demonstrating
competence.
Regards, David Rosen
dr8192@albNYvms
dr8...@uacsc1.albAny.edu
Thomas C. Waters
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
> First I admit that even in my use of "emphatic" language
> I should have said "the above paragraph supports a widely
> held notion that is, nonetheless, PURE TWADDLE !" This
> change would avoid any personal attack on TW [none intended].
> I do mean that he subscribes to an erroneous idea, but I don't
> mean to accuse him of originating it. This is the difference
> between his being victim vs perpetrator. I do not accuse him
> of malice or being perpetrator. I do think he is victimized
> by a widely propogated bogus idea.
Again, David misrepresents what I have said. But I have no need to
argue with him, if he is going to put words in my mouth, and think his
way of thinking is the only right way. It isn't worth the time.
Thomas C. Waters
The views expressed here are mine, take what you like and leave the
rest.
******************************************************************
* Send any direct replies to: twa...@pitt.edu
*
******************************************************************