Artforum On Photography

[Don_ih]

other forms of photography

Is there a form of photography that does not result in something material, since you need to be looking at something in order to see something. Unless it's a hallucination, that is. But I don't think they quite count as photos. How do you uncouple a photo from its mode of viewing? Being on a screen is not immaterial.

 

[nikos79]

For me the thing that makes photo interesting and defines it is simply time. Photo encapsulates time. And when it doesn't it loses a lot of its magic. When you are in front of something you just need a fraction of a second to record it and to make the photo. You can spend hours or days later in the dark room but the same photo can be taken with a digital camera or your phone and it will still be there. There is no materiality in a photo

 

[Arthurwg]

Is there a form of photography that does not result in something material, since you need to be looking at something in order to see something. Unless it's a hallucination, that is. But I don't think they quite count as photos. How do you uncouple a photo from its mode of viewing? Being on a screen is not immaterial.

Maybe not yet, but maybe soon. The way Tech is going photos may one day be transmitted directly to your brain by Mark Zuckerberg. Indeed, they might not even include an actual visual component.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

My response has been to use Japanese papers proven to last over 1000 years with photographic processes from the 19th century, toned in platinum and/or palladium, which are made primarily as art objects to be held in the hand rather than framed on a wall behind glass or acrylic.

Also subscribe to the Japanese aesthetic, where when they are displayed on a wall, they are displayed seasonally or for shorter periods of time as an association/recognition of a guest, or event.

There is no intension on my part to have them on permanent display; in fact, I would discourage it for reasons other than longevity.

This is mostly theoretical...have not felt a need to seek gallery representation...yet.

 

[images39]

It's not locked because we're an agreeable club.

Especially since the Soap Box was shut down several years ago But I digress...

Dale

 

[Ardpatrick]

Is there a form of photography that does not result in something material, since you need to be looking at something in order to see something. Unless it's a hallucination, that is. But I don't think they quite count as photos. How do you uncouple a photo from its mode of viewing? Being on a screen is not immaterial.

I didn’t say there was an ‘immaterial’ form of photography. That’s a misconstrual of my point (intended or not).

The point is pretty obvious - the materiality of photographs is more significant for certain ideas of photography (f.x. Limited edition Fine Art prints) than it is for other forms of photography (f.x. Photo-journalism).

My point is that these different ideas of photography have always co-existed and actually feed off each other. They are not in dialectic opposition. This is a central historical characteristic of photography - that it’s never been only one thing.

 

[Don_ih]

That’s a misconstrual of my point (intended or not).

No - I honestly thought you were claiming there were immaterial forms of photography.

Anyway, the material nature of art photography is what was being discussed. There is, however, plenty of good reason to be concerned about the material nature of documentary photography, though, if the veracity of the content of the photos is ever called into question. So some various news agencies won't accept anything other than unaltered jpegs from photographer's cameras. That doesn't guarantee there isn't some falsity being portrayed but it eliminates one truth-variable by being the "original" photo.

 

[Don_ih]

My point is that these different ideas of photography have always co-existed and actually feed off each other. They are not in dialectic opposition.

That's very much true. And it's true of all forms of human endeavour. Nothing really exists in isolation.

 

[Ardpatrick]

That's very much true. And it's true of all forms of human endeavour. Nothing really exists in isolation.

Indeed. Your clarification happily accepted.

My point is grounded in looking with an open mind at Photography's various histories. There's always been a diversity of approaches and techniques. It was ever thus, and frankly continues to this day as such. At some point post Steiglitz, there was a push to 'essentialise' photography so it could pass as a Modernist medium to sit alongside Painting and Sculpture etc. Some of those ideas linger, even as photography has persistently disappointed & refused such demands.

 

[Arthurwg]

My response has been to use Japanese papers proven to last over 1000 years with photographic processes from the 19th century, toned in platinum and/or palladium, which are made primarily as art objects to be held in the hand rather than framed on a wall behind glass or acrylic.

I'd love to see them. Maybe post a few?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was at the McMichael Art Gallery a few months ago and there was an installation that was a ~30 year old tv and vcr playing a video over and over. I imagine they don't break it out very often. But it's a single complete work and how it looks is part of what it is. So, Alan's tv had to go with the digital photos, along with whatever is feeding the photos to the tv. Then, ideologically, it's not much different from one of Jeff Wall's lightboxes.

You could pull the transparencies out of Wall's lightbox and shove in a KFC poster. It has a practical application that is similar to Alan's tv.

Photography is interesting because it has the appearance of unlimited instances of the same photo. The reality is more often that there are few genuine instances of a particular photo and many copies. When you look up Pepper 30 you find this:

View attachment 411157
which I just copied from the Wikipedia page. That is itself a digitization of print that was made by Brett Weston and sold at Sotheby's (next to Alan's tv). So, negative shot by Edward, printed by Brett (following the instructions Edward left behind). You can say that the print was authenticated (sort of) but what about the digitization of the print? What about my copy of that copy? We see way way way more copies than originals. Photo books may or may not be approved by the photographer. Scans that end up online are almost certainly not. Anyway, it's interesting. Well, I have a personal interest in copying, anyway.

These digital copies will likely float around long after the paper in the original prints has turned to dust. Well, in some form or other. The likelihood is that, ultimately, there will be no original of any of these things, anymore. Just copies. But who decides when a copy is as good as an original? In Jeff Wall's instance, Jeff Wall does. In Cindy Sherman's instance, Cindy Sherman does. But Edward Weston is dead.

True to form, the first 6 Google image results:

View attachment 411158

Lik's pictures in his galleries are often back-lit displays of chromes. There are many ways to present photos that are art forms that you can buy and hang on your own walls. .

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Lik's pictures in his galleries are often back-lit displays of chromes. There are many ways to present photos that are art forms that you can buy and hang on your own walls. .

Kodak's Colorama display in NYC Grand Central Station is a huge artform of something very similar. 18 feet high by 60 feet wide.

Kodak Colorama - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, Alan, but back then the Colorama backlighting was early generation cool white fluorescents with rather miserable ghoulish color casts, plus high UV output - so the big transparencies themselves had to be replaced at high cost every two years or even more often. But they did tend to select images from serious photographers like Ernst Haas. And way up high, it didn't matter so much that the originals were just 35mm in size, although to reproduce them that big necessarily involved large format film duplicates. It was quite a publicity stunt for Kodak, and required a special Kodak technical facility to pull it off.

Nearby in the same big display venue, a different company was contracted to make huge dye transfer prints (not display transparencies), which fared better in permanence, being replaced after about 20 years, which is exceptional even for DT under those kinds of conditions. Special non-Kodak dye blends were said to be involved.

Since retirement, I lost track of the big picture framing enterprises in this area. You could pretty much factor about a thousand dollars a linear foot for such a service - in other words, a 40 foot wide print would require a $40,000 custom frame job, including the print mounting. That would be for high quality custom workmanship of course, like welded and polished steel framework, overlaid with a nice hardwood veneer. Their building now looks vacant, probably due to a combination of the Covid financial crisis and having moved to the bad side of the tracks where commercial space leases are low, but crime intolerably high.

Bill board style productions have largely transitioned to reprogrammable big digital arrays instead.

What Arthurwg mentioned about images being directly transmitted to the brain reminds me of those 1950's b&w B-rated horror movies, with a disembodied brain floating inside a big saline jar tethered to some tubes and wires for sake of perpetual life. Not a particularly tactile experience, that's for sure.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I'd love to see them. Maybe post a few?

Will in a bit. Wandered down Argyrotype Road for a while, but am going to pick up salt prints again...something about using an 1830's process with 21st century tools on Japanese Washi resonates. Pretty sure 21gsm handmade Gampi is my go-to paper but have a few more to try, just to be sure. Also haven't settled on a heavier handmade Kozo for the backing/support paper.

Posted some photos 'a while back' (if you want a hint at what I do) which can be found by clicking here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/users/murrayminchin.4262/

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah, Alan, but back then the Colorama backlighting was early generation cool white fluorescents with rather miserable ghoulish color casts, plus high UV output - so the big transparencies themselves had to be replaced at high cost every two years or even more often. But they did tend to select images from serious photographers like Ernst Haas. And way up high, it didn't matter so much that the originals were just 35mm in size, although to reproduce them that big necessarily involved large format film duplicates. It was quite a publicity stunt for Kodak, and required a special Kodak technical facility to pull it off.

Nearby in the same big display venue, a different company was contracted to make huge dye transfer prints (not display transparencies), which fared better in permanence, being replaced after about 20 years, which is exceptional even for DT under those kinds of conditions. Special non-Kodak dye blends were said to be involved.

Since retirement, I lost track of the big picture framing enterprises in this area. You could pretty much factor about a thousand dollars a linear foot for such a service - in other words, a 40 foot wide print would require a $40,000 custom frame job, including the print mounting. That would be for high quality custom workmanship of course, like welded and polished steel framework, overlaid with a nice hardwood veneer. Their building now looks vacant, probably due to a combination of the Covid financial crisis and having moved to the bad side of the tracks where commercial space leases are low, but crime intolerably high.

Bill board style productions have largely transitioned to reprogrammable big digital arrays instead.

What Arthurwg mentioned about images being directly transmitted to the brain reminds me of those 1950's b&w B-rated horror movies, with a disembodied brain floating inside a big saline jar tethered to some tubes and wires for sake of perpetual life. Not a particularly tactile experience, that's for sure.

As a young New Yorker who used the subways, I had the chance to go through Grand Central Station occasionally. It was quite a treat to see the newest Colorama. I'm sure the colors for most people were right on, and the whole display was very impressive at least to me. Did you ever see one? Kodak used an in-house photographer for most of the shots that always had a Kodak photography theme usually showing some guy taking a picture or movie of the scene. Here are some sample although the camera is missing on the top right photo. Putting the shooter in the picture is a clever advertising technique, much better than just showing the scene. It puts YOU in the picture. Wouldn't you want to be the Kodak photographer with their camera and film?

"Since it was first displayed in May 1950, over 600,000 people saw the Kodak Colorama each day in New York’s Grand Central Station. From baseball games, and weddings, to NASA’s landing on the moon and of, course those famous 15 babies, the Kodak Colorama evolved from an advertisement for color film into an American tradition that lasted for over 40 years. Though many of the pictures for the Colorama became world famous, the artists, technicians and photographers, many of whom were located in Rochester, were largely unknown to the public."
SHort article and movie about it.

Colorama: The Stories Behind the Pictures

An American enterprise, for the world.

coloramatv.wordpress.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, Alan, the thought of being a Kodak photographer never appealed to me at all. Nor have I ever been to New York. My idea of photography has mainly to been to find solitude, if possible, out in the wilderness for days on end, or even if just an hour finding a private quiet spot somewhere on our local shoreline, or up on one of the hillside behind me. I don't mind a few people being around once in awhile, or even asking questions; but I'm interested in my own compositions, and not someone else's assignments. Of course I done a certain amount of commercial photography and printing, but that was just a sideline for a bit of needed supplementary income.

And as primarily a printmaker, Kodak's idea of color in their corporate self-promotional examples never appealed to me at all. Too dated, plebeian stereotypical, and devoid of nuance. I did certainly appreciate the film products themselves.