Arts Organizations Must Pay Specific Attention To FILM/"Analog" Work

[Pieter12]

I know of several artists that incorporate photocopies into their work. Does that invalidate them as painting or art? Is sculpture that incorporates found objects not sculpture? This is all BS whining by someone who thinks the "purity" of film and analog prints is somehow superior to other photographic methods. Because Robert Frank and Duane Michals wrote on their prints and negatives, have they somehow violated that "purity"?

 

[warden]

Arts Organizations Must Pay Specific Attention To FILM/"Analog" Work
Like it reads. Especially in the area of Arts Grants.

I think Arts Organizations should give grants to photographers who use film, limited to people who use black and white film, specifically T-Max 400 film, and only medium format. But only photographers that live in my city, and specifically on my street. Thank you all for your valued support. Where's my check?

 

[Luckless]

I might be missing something in the logic going on here, so let me try my own example to see if it works the way it looks like you're trying for...

....because those who DISagree tend to make THEIR opinions known - such as this post.

You must pay me a tithe in the name of Art.

I spelled it with a capital A, so you know this is serious.

If you disagree with it, then clearly it is a sign that many people support this idea.

Is that how this works? ... Maybe?

---

But really, I don't see any reason why film work deserves specific attention from any arts organization beyond those with a dedicated mission to support film related arts.

Film based art is no more or less of an art form than any other image based art. Demanding specific support for film in the general arts community is about as useful as expecting sculpture done in a specific material or with some arbitrary tool needs specific broad support in the arts community...

 

[jtk]

Film isn't an art form. It barely even leads to an art medium...

 

[removed account4]

Film isn't an art form. It barely even leads to an art medium...

interesting observation !
since 1839 photography has suffered this problem, nothing has really changed in 181 years, except now there are more sophisticated sometimes less hands on ways of making photomechanical illustrations.

 

[DF]

I know of several artists that incorporate photocopies into their work. Does that invalidate them as painting or art? Is sculpture that incorporates found objects not sculpture? This is all BS whining by someone who thinks the "purity" of film and analog prints is somehow superior to other photographic methods. Because Robert Frank and Duane Michals wrote on their prints and negatives, have they somehow violated that "purity"?

I am not nor EVER been "one of those who think the purity of film....blah....blah....etc."
This is a common projection of those who shoot digital.when in the company of those who shoot film.
Tell me - can you sight or give an example of this sort of 'superior attitude?
I'd like to see - I'd be the first to set them straight.

 

[DonJ]

I am not nor EVER been "one of those who think the purity of film....blah....blah....etc."
This is a common projection of those who shoot digital.when in the company of those who shoot film.
Tell me - can you sight or give an example of this sort of 'superior attitude?
I'd like to see - I'd be the first to set them straight.

You’re hilarious.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

So without further ado, why not tell us why you think film must be promoted by arts organisations?

I don’t think they must but that there’s a bias in favour of film anyway, both by practising artists and those who choose what gets displayed in galleries or printed in photobooks.

This may be because film is intrinsically more artistic in the sense that using it involves Pye’s ‘workmanship of risk’.

In fact, David Pye’s book on The Nature and Art of Workmanship can be read as a defence of using film. If you’ve ever wondered why film feels more satisfying or grain seems important, this book will crystallise your thoughts.

 

[AgX]

I don’t think they must but that there’s a bias in favour of film anyway, both by practising artists and those who choose what gets displayed in galleries or printed in photobooks.

I did not experience such bias.

And at shows of contempory photography I see analog work as a tiny fraction, mostly not at all.

 

[Craigus]

This thread vibes of someone who feels that their work should receive more recognition because it was produced in a medium that is more challenging than digital.

If the work is good enough the medium used to create it is inconsequential to most. Perhaps people who use analog/film mediums would appreciate it more, but that extra appreciation from 'those in the know' should in no way be forced onto others.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

And at shows of contempory photography I see analog work as a tiny fraction, mostly not at all.

I suppose it depends what you mean by “contemporary photography” and “analog work”. For the latter, I don’t mean to imply darkroom prints. The prints are usually derived from a scan of the film. As for contemporary photography, I don’t mean “amateur photographers” (hobbyists), who indeed use digital almost exclusively. I mean photographers at the coalface of the art world right now, for better and worse.

For example, if you look through Mack’s current photobooks, I think you’ll find film well represented. By my reckoning, the majority.

The last four photobooks I bought were:

The Pillar – Stephen Gill
Not sure if film or digital capture, but Gill has used film in the recent past and made a big deal of it (for example, developing the film in energy drinks or inserting live insects into the camera to record their shadows on the film).

Message from the Exterior – Mark Ruwedel
Film and importantly so.

I walk toward the sun which is always going down – Alan Huck
Film.

Were It Not For – Michael Ashkin
Not sure if film or digital.

So that’s at least half film.

Alec Soth, perhaps the most influential photographer alive, uses film. One of my favourite documentary photographers, Chloe Dewe Mathews, uses film. Film is everywhere at Paris Photo each year. Etc.

Note I’m not saying any of this should be so. Just that it appears to be so.

 

[AgX]

Samual, what I referred to were my experiences at visiting art museums, art galleries, art academies, national election shows of best photo student, the off art scene, showing work of the last 5 years. You and my experiences are different, maybe not only due to region, but maybe also due to perspective (you included photo books).

And amongst the analog work the majority were photograms. Also some pinhole photography.

 

[Luckless]

Has anyone produced a well rounded "Survey of Recent Contemporary Art Mediums" paper lately?

The science geek in me is curious about what the numbers might look like. However I think a project of that kind of scale would need some people with close ties to large national/international organizations to get properly kicked off.

 

[JWMster]

I'm going to differ with McLuhan in a know nothing sort of way (if that's what I'm doing) and say the media isn't an art form by itself. Otherwise, I guess I could go to my hardware store and call their paint rack the "art gallery". Of course that's foolish... so there's more to it than that. If that's what jtk means, fine. Otherwise, did someone say "harsh"?

Watercolors, pastels and charcoal are their own medium and because they're "soft" require different handling, framing, etc. Often they're not shown with the others but separately. Do I want to go look at charcoals? Um.... fairly, I find sketches less appealing unless I get to see the sketches near the actual art works they were often part of.
Similarly, I will say that... for many years (load your arrows now), I didn't think of B&W photography as art per se and with color photography it was just pretty pictures. I was a neanderthal, and found that part of an art gallery.... challenging. Discovery through participation has changed my view and today I look at it differently, and realize the skills involved... though my own perspective is that I'm not sure how to look at digital and whether the artist is a collage specialist, special effects artist, programmer, or what. Many images are amazing, but maybe photography is only the starting point. So it's a new medium. Film photography... is and isn't the same. Audrey Bodine was "photoshopping" Caribbean skies into his Chesapeake Bay photographs back in his darkroom in the 1930's.

Galleries will do what they want. Artists will as well. Have fun.

 

[DonJ]

I knew Bodine often added skies, but I didn’t know they were imported. It was done quite skillfully based on my closeup inspections.

(BTW, I’m sure you know it’s “Aubrey”)

 

[JWMster]

Yeah. Mental slip. His family is still around selling his photos. I have a book or two of them. Especially like the Maryland corn fields and the Western Maryland RR shots. His shots on the Bay were great.

 

[Wayne]

Like it reads. Especially in the area of Arts Grants.

I got a regional art institute to require "photographers" to state more specificity about process than "photograph" on displayed photographic works. Does that count? That curator is gone and I doubt they are still doing it, because blur is the word.

 

[removed account4]

I've applied in the past - with an emphasis that If my wares got onto public display, that it'd be made clear that what they're looking at, was made from/shot strictly from film AND to encourage those to give it a try who have never, and those who've been away for awhile, to come back because it is still alive and well.
What in the world is wrong with that....??

what do your personal wishes

emphasis that If my wares got onto public display, that it'd be made clear that what they're looking at, was made from/shot strictly from film AND to encourage those to give it a try who have never, and those who've been away for awhile, to come back because it is still alive and well.

have to do with arts orgainizations being required to pay special attention to FILM/"analog" work?

personally, i get kind of tired of people who use film / analog based materials who want to beat the crap out of people who don't. i get tired of those who insist that because a photographic print was made with silver gelatin paper or hand coated something or other, it is so much better than everything else, even if the photograph is terrible.
sure, if it is a great image made with film and paper &c then speical attention should be paid attention just like if it is a great image made with a digital camera people should pay attention. we live in a day and age where less than 1% of photographs from any medium are worthy of attention.
and before you go on and on about how i bash film users and i am some sort of hater, i've been using film for more than 4 decades, i make my own photo emulsion, i've been coating my own glass plates since the 1980s and i've been using a digital camera and photo shop since the 1990s. these arguments about special attention must be paid to film or labels to segregate do more harm than good if you ask me. an image being able to stand on its own no matter how it was made is what matters, not the gear used to make it.

 

[DF]

what do your personal wishes ( emphasis that If my wares got onto public display, that it'd be made clear that what they're looking at, was made from/shot strictly from film AND to encourage those to give it a try who have never, and those who've been away for awhile, to come back because it is still alive and well. ) have to do with arts orgainizations being required to pay special attention to FILM/"analog" work?
personally, i get kind of tired of people who use film / analog based materials who want to beat the crap out of people who don't. i get tired of those who insist that because a photographic print was made with silver gelatin paper or hand coated something or other, it is so much better than everything else, even if the photograph is terrible.
sure, if it is a great image made with film and paper &c then speical attention should be paid attention just like if it is a great image made with a digital camera people should pay attention. we don't live in a day and age where less than 1% of photographs from any medium are worthy of attention.
and before you go on and on about how i bash film users and i am some sort of hater, i've been using film for more than 4 decades, i make my own photo emulsion, i've been coating my own glass plates since the 1980s and i've been using a digital camera and photo shop since the 1990s. these arguments about special attention must be paid to film or labels to segregate do more harm than good if you ask me. an image being able to stand on its own no matter how it was made is what matters, not the gear used to make it.

And Yet Another Projection - "....who want to beat the crap out of those who don't...."

 

[DonJ]

And Yet Another Projection - "....who want to beat the crap out of those who don't...."

You can’t swing a dead cat on this site without hitting a thread where a subset of film users do exactly that, to the extreme of claiming digital images aren’t even photography.

Do you read anything here, or just post rants about not being treated as if you’re “special”?

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

So without further ado, why not tell us why you think film must be promoted by arts organisations?

Just repeating the question in case DF missed it.

 

[removed account4]

And Yet Another Projection - "....who want to beat the crap out of those who don't...."

i'm making another "projection"?
you posted a digital vs analog thread to rally the troops. in years gone by there would have already been a fist fight, tables broken, defenestration and godwin would have been mentioned... thankfully this site has matured and people might be able to have an actual discussion about interesting things that matter in the 21st century.

It is interesting that you ( and others ) believe that film / chemical photography should be singled out and given special status with arts organizations. can you please discuss why ? what makes chemical photography so distinctly different that it needs special status? ( and is color photography using film also to get special status, or not unless processed with a traditional enlarger? )
this discussion isn't new, but it is always interesting where people draw the line...

 

[macfred]

...

 

[Wayne]

I've applied in the past - with an emphasis that If my wares got onto public display, that it'd be made clear that what they're looking at, was made from/shot strictly from film

Nothing wrong with that.

AND to encourage those to give it a try who have never, and those who've been away for awhile, to come back because it is still alive and well.
What in the world is wrong with that....??

Nothing wrong with that either, if you just mean to encourage people to try by having your work labeled
as such. If you get any more forceful than that, its likely to have the opposite effect.

However I have to agree with others that unless its an analog photography organization they have no obligation whatsoever to "promote" analog photography in any way. I think politely encouraging all arts organizations and galleries to require detailed labeling on displayed art as I mentioned above (without being forceful-just calmly explain that as a collector and connoisseur, its important to you) is the best we can do. That way people can see it and decide for themselves if its something they want to investigate further. It has the added advantage of irritating the living hell out of the blurists.

 

[faberryman]

It has the added advantage of irritating the living hell out of the blurists.

Blurists? How would you describe that demographic.