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

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Of course, because that is just the way it is in the real world.

 

[KenS]

I believe The 'real difference is that photography with film requires (at least) a modicum of 'acquired craft' on order to 'produce the final 'piece of art' with digital (it seems to me, anyway) to be a case of quickly 'frame', then 'press the button' and 'get things right' using computer software.

Ken

 

[DonJ]

I believe The 'real difference is that photography with film requires (at least) a modicum of 'acquired craft' on order to 'produce the final 'piece of art' with digital (it seems to me, anyway) to be a case of quickly 'frame', then 'press the button' and 'get things right' using computer software.

Ken

That may be true with respect to the printing process, but if you’re asserting that skilled digital photographers pay less attention to composition and exposure, I’d disagree.

 

[KenS]

That may be true with respect to the printing process, but if you’re asserting that skilled digital photographers pay less attention to composition and exposure, I’d disagree.

I never asserted 'anything' derogatory about the how and what 'skilled digital photographers' expose.. and I never will. 'To each his own' has directed my impressions of digital capture.

I do have a small Casio digital camera.. and use it to record a scene that looks like it might be worth-while re-visiting with either my 8x10 (or my somewhat easier to humph around my monorail Linhof 4x5 and a few film-holders holders loaded with the film of my choice) for when the 'light is right' AND from the 'best' position (in my mind) and direction from which I should make the exposure.

What 'bugs' me more is when I'm 'setting up' and under the dark-cloth, is the casual passer-by's "Why don't you just get yourself a 'good' digital camera and save yourself the 'cost',.. your time, and your effort".

On top of 'that', I have been exposing film for some 60+ years (of which some 30+ were spent as a 'Professional' working for a Government Research institution and acquired my 'professional' "Board Cerification" (by examination by an 'Examination Board' of my 'peers') and eventually 'elected' as a Fellow of that professional organization for my 'contribution of quality 'imaging' in the 'field' of which I was employed

After my 'retirement' I took the opportunity to attend the nearby University and EARN my BFA degree. (free of cost, since I was over 65 years of age.

Ken
Who may 'legally' add the 13 'earned 'letters' after my name (but usually I don't

 

[Wayne]

Blurists? How would you describe that demographic.

They are the demographic that squawks at any labeling of photography that could suggest whether an image is digital or analog or some variation thereof.

 

[reddesert]

Some artists discuss process because it's intrinsic to their project. For example, there are at least a couple of people who turn entire rooms into camera obscuras or pinhole cameras and make images. Hiroshi Sugimoto did those long exposure images of classic movie theaters where the image is made throughout the movie, so the screen is a glowing white, and is theoretically the record of the entire movie, although of course you can't see the details: https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/new-page-7

I'd say that in cases like this, where the artist makes a strong argument that the process is intrinsic to the image, it's useful to know how the image is made. (Notice that I didn't say film vs digital, because that's not necessarily the distinctive part of the process.) There are also people for whom image manipulation is a key part, and people for whom un-manipulated images are key, and so on.

If the OP wants to argue that making the image entirely analog is a necessary part of his/her process, that's fine - put it in your artist's statement. But don't ask arts organizations, curators, or viewers for special Brownie points just because it's film, without making a convincing argument that it matters.

 

[faberryman]

They are the demographic that squawks at any labeling of photography that could suggest whether an image is digital or analog or some variation thereof.

Didn't know those people exist. Never ran into any.

 

[Wayne]

Didn't know those people exist. Never ran into any.

Keep your eyes open.

 

[removed account4]

Didn't know those people exist. Never ran into any.

he is talking about me because i would rather see similarities between things intead of differences.

BTW >> OP if you had said "should" instead of MUST i would have been in complete agreement with everything you stated in your title and first post.
i'm not sure if you have local art cooperatives where you live, sometimes they have thematic shows, open calls &c if they don't already, you might be able to convince/ suggest to the board to have an all analog/film based show. it might be tricky where they draw the line ... because some folks might not have a darkroom, and need to use a lab to do their printing, and in order to do that, they need to convert the file to a digital file ...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

If the "art" world weren't as hypocritical as it is, if the granting institutions weren't as hypocritical as they are, we would all be living in a better place, but that is all a pipe dream.

Whatever brings in money to be "given away", will affect decisions how the money is drawn. "Principalists" at the granting desk do not care, they just need to pick which element of their hypocrisy is to be applied. While not true for every case, it is true for many.

 

[Wayne]

he is talking about me because i would rather see similarities between things intead of differences.

It didn't start or end with you. You are just the most prominent local torch-bearer.

 

[DonJ]

I never asserted 'anything' derogatory about the how and what 'skilled digital photographers' expose.. and I never will. 'To each his own' has directed my impressions of digital capture.

I do have a small Casio digital camera.. and use it to record a scene that looks like it might be worth-while re-visiting with either my 8x10 (or my somewhat easier to humph around my monorail Linhof 4x5 and a few film-holders holders loaded with the film of my choice) for when the 'light is right' AND from the 'best' position (in my mind) and direction from which I should make the exposure.

What 'bugs' me more is when I'm 'setting up' and under the dark-cloth, is the casual passer-by's "Why don't you just get yourself a 'good' digital camera and save yourself the 'cost',.. your time, and your effort".

On top of 'that', I have been exposing film for some 60+ years (of which some 30+ were spent as a 'Professional' working for a Government Research institution and acquired my 'professional' "Board Cerification" (by examination by an 'Examination Board' of my 'peers') and eventually 'elected' as a Fellow of that professional organization for my 'contribution of quality 'imaging' in the 'field' of which I was employed

After my 'retirement' I took the opportunity to attend the nearby University and EARN my BFA degree. (free of cost, since I was over 65 years of age.

Ken
Who may 'legally' add the 13 'earned 'letters' after my name (but usually I don't

"quickly 'frame', then 'press the button' and 'get things right' using computer software" isn't derogatory? LOL.

And I have no idea what being bothered while under the dark cloth has to do with this discussion. Maybe hang a sign on the camera that tells people you have a digital too.

Congrats on your BFA and the other ten letters.

 

[removed account4]

"quickly 'frame', then 'press the button' and 'get things right' using computer software"

Hi DonJ
If one replaces "get things right" with send to the magnum photo lab -- I think quickly frame and press the button and get things right is what Henri Cartier Bresson did.

It didn't start or end with you. You are just the most prominent local torch-bearer.

its too bad you and it seems others spend so much time magnifying minisucle differences in things that have no consequence in their own practice of photography and call people names because they would rather find commonality than magnify and dwell on the differences...

<< sad

 

[DonJ]

Hi DonJ
If one replaces "get things right" with send to the magnum photo lab -- I think quickly frame and press the button and get things right is what Henri Cartier Bresson did.

IMO, the differences in work habits are much more dependent on the format being used (LF, MF, 35mm/digital) than they are on the recording medium (film vs. sensor).

 

[Lachlan Young]

he is talking about me because i would rather see similarities between things intead of differences.

BTW >> OP if you had said "should" instead of MUST i would have been in complete agreement with everything you stated in your title and first post.
i'm not sure if you have local art cooperatives where you live, sometimes they have thematic shows, open calls &c if they don't already, you might be able to convince/ suggest to the board to have an all analog/film based show. it might be tricky where they draw the line ... because some folks might not have a darkroom, and need to use a lab to do their printing, and in order to do that, they need to convert the file to a digital file ...

I think there is a legitimate critique of some funding bodies because they are obsessed with 'digital culture' as if it's still 1998 & they seemingly cannot understand why younger/ emergent artists using photography tend towards the analogue in choice of materials and practices. There will be a rather undignified scramble as the middle aged administration tries to catch up with a younger generation's practices.

But that's rather aside from the sense that this thread seems to be full of rather entitled moaning that narrowly ideological use of a tiny spectrum of analogue materials alone makes someone's work 'special'. It can aesthetically enhance and catalyse already strong ideas producing texture, colour, tone, a wabi-sabi perfect imperfection that digital origination lacks, but a roll of 35mm film alone does not make someone specially worthy of funding.

 

[faberryman]

If the "art" world weren't as hypocritical as it is, if the granting institutions weren't as hypocritical as they are, we would all be living in a better place, but that is all a pipe dream.

Whatever brings in money to be "given away", will affect decisions how the money is drawn. "Principalists" at the granting desk do not care, they just need to pick which element of their hypocrisy is to be applied. While not true for every case, it is true for many.

Explain the elements of this hypocrisy you see. And what is a principalist?

 

[faberryman]

Who may 'legally' add the 13 'earned 'letters' after my name (but usually I don't

Do you have a link to your website where we could see your work.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Explain the elements of this hypocrisy you see. And what is a principalist?

Sure, principalist is one who tries to be or was put in a position of a ... principal, and the way he goes about his business does not appear to match the implied qualification of position held/given. A rampant case to me within granting institutions. Of course that is just my experience/opinion/position on this and no, I am not being derogatory in any way, shape or form. In fact I am being nice.

Hypocrisy comes from different principles applied to granting a funding for a project, largely dependent on political climate, how it relates to internal believes of, well ... the principalist, and not least of all - connections. If this isn't hypocrisy, what is?

I do not believe I need to explain hypocrisy of the art world where all too frequently a complete eye sore is promoted to stardom. Sure it is all very subjective as art should be, and this is how I object to this subjectivity. We could however, rid the museums and exhibits of visually disturbing displays of inability with work that is worth looking at. But so long as snobs drive the industry, we have no chance of getting there.

 

[removed account4]

I think there is a legitimate critique of some funding bodies because they are obsessed with 'digital culture' as if it's still 1998 & they seemingly cannot understand why younger/ emergent artists using photography tend towards the analogue in choice of materials and practices. There will be a rather undignified scramble as the middle aged administration tries to catch up with a younger generation's practices.

But that's rather aside from the sense that this thread seems to be full of rather entitled moaning that narrowly ideological use of a tiny spectrum of analogue materials alone makes someone's work 'special'. It can aesthetically enhance and catalyse already strong ideas producing texture, colour, tone, a wabi-sabi perfect imperfection that digital origination lacks, but a roll of 35mm film alone does not make someone specially worthy of funding.

But isn't that the way things typically are with funding organizations, granting bodies that have a narrow mission / what grants they are funding. I might be wrong / confused but the grants I have seen typically asks for an artist statement, samples of work, and a detailed technical paper about what the funds will be paying for, and how the project will be viewed by the public and where ( and if there is a co-sponsor for the grant, if they will pony up matching funds ). Maybe I'm not thinking of the right grants or places offering $$ or something different than you, the OP and others are talking about ?

 

[Wayne]

But that's rather aside from the sense that this thread seems to be full of rather entitled moaning that narrowly ideological use of a tiny spectrum of analogue materials alone makes someone's work 'special'. It can aesthetically enhance and catalyse already strong ideas producing texture, colour, tone, a wabi-sabi perfect imperfection that digital origination lacks, but a roll of 35mm film alone does not make someone specially worthy of funding.

And that's the straw man that won't die, and keeps popping up time after time. I don't take anyone or take anyone seriously who makes sweeping claims of implicit goodness of one way over another. That's absurd. But that doesn't mean there aren't differences worth noting, despite strident claims to the contrary.

 

[Wayne]

its too bad you and it seems others spend so much time magnifying minisucle differences in things that have no consequence in your own practice of photography

I don't believe you are in a position to say what is or should be of consequence to myself or others.

and call people names because they would rather find commonality than magnify and dwell on the differences...

<< sad

You are the guy who was saying there are "too many purists in the world" just the other day, so that's ironic. Perhaps it was meant as flattery? Anyway, blurist is an accurate and rather humorous play on purist, if I wanted to be nasty I could have done so. Lighten up. We all have the right to our opinions, and nobody kicked your dog.

 

[removed account4]

We could however, rid the museums and exhibits of visually disturbing displays of inability with work that is worth looking at. But so long as snobs drive the industry, we have no chance of getting there.

Hi Witold

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you have written, if I have, sorry about that .. but what you have proposed is exactly what people did when they burned Catcher in the Rye, and Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer and hundreds of other books that were deemed disturbing.

It seems ( again, maybe I am misunderstanding you .. ) that you are suggesting that only happy, pretty, thoughtful artwork is displayed in museums? ... IDK life is disturbing, and difficult to watch, and always has been .. maybe its me, but I find Ann Geddes portraits and Thomas Kincade paintings to be more disturbing than their polar opposite, which might be something like a David Lynch movie.

John

 

[removed account4]

But that doesn't mean there aren't differences worth noting, despite strident claims to the contrary. <... > I don't believe you are in a position to say what is or should be of consequence to myself or others.
You are the guy who was saying there are "too many purists in the world" just the other day, so that's ironic. Perhaps it was meant as flattery? Anyway, blurist is an accurate and rather humorous play on purist, if I wanted to be nasty I could have done so. Lighten up. We all have the right to our opinions, and nobody kicked your dog.

i'm not allowed to make conclusions regarding people whose work and the ultra harsh commentary i have seen during the last 15- 20 years ... and there aren't too many purists? lighten up? thats kind of funny, LOL HAHAHA !

have a great day !

 

[Wayne]

i'm not allowed to make conclusions regarding people whose work and the ultra harsh commentary i have seen during the last 15- 20 years

Not from me.

 

[DF]

This thread has become something never intended nor imagined.
It originally was about TWO (2) things - film, and the other, Arts Organizations - nothing more or less, not another never ending debate on the merits of film and/or digital.
Nevertheless, I still believe there's nothing wrong or harmful to recognize film specifically.
The notion of "....it's not the process... but the end product..." or however it goes, well sorry, I don't completely agree.

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...

This is not a digital vs. film debate - It has been turned into one.. "rallying the troops" -