Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

[Daniel Grenier]

Fascinating discussions. Flying straight in the face of many views here (and mine), I am applying for a significant grant from a major Arts Council and guess what they want as support material PHOTOGRAPHY applications? SCANS! JPEGs of 72 dpi-thingies max! NO originals allowed! How weird is that!!! :confused:

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Some comments I agree with. Others I do not.

Regarding content: I do not understand what some mean by "content." Do they mean the subject? Here is what Ansel Adams had to say about the "subject." He wrote in his Autobiography how disgusted he was with Steichen's coup de etat at MOMA which ousted Newhall. He said, "IN SHORT EVERYTHING THAT WE FEARED***THE COMPLETE ENGULFING OF PHOTOGRAPHY AS YOU AND I AND N SEE IT AND FEEL IT INTO A VAST PICTURE ARCHIVE OF SUBJECTS." (sic on the CAPS) July 17, 1947, in a letter to Beaumont Newhall.

Photographs simply composed seem to translate well to the web. Complex and subtle ones seem not to. I do not believe photographs cannot be properly evaluated on "content" if by content is meant the "subject." Rereading the postings: Jorge wrote, " I believe the web is such an inadequate medium to show photographs that in fact it acts like a filter or sieve. It removes all other considerations like texture, tonal range, tonal transition, and leaves us merely with the content of the print." And I believe the texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc. IS the content of the photograph. These things are not "technicalities." The "subject" of the photograph is not the content--or is not the whole content and it may not even be a significant part of it. There is such a fundamental difference in our understanding of works of art that it is pointless to discuss this matter further.

Why do Paula and I have scans on the web when we dislike them so much--especially as ours are not good ones? Excellent question.

We posted the scans of some of our Tuscany photographs to try to help make advance sales of the Special Limited Edition of our books--the ones that came with prints at a discounted price--so that we could pay for the printing and binding. When they were posted I did not realize how poorly our photographs would translate to the Internet. And when they were posted I received a great deal of negative feedback. But, fortunately, a sufficient number of people responded positively--and took us up on our offer--and so we were able to pay for our books. Were I independently wealthy, I would not bother with scans of our work. But today, and it will be increasingly true in the future--the Internet is and will become a place where more and more people will buy photographs, and Paula and I need to sell our work to survive. Everything we do is done with significant risk. We have no financial safety net--no savings, investments, and even no health insurance. I'm not complaining at all--it has been my choice--and I'd choose this route again, but constantly hanging out there on the far edge financially (and I well know Paula and I are far from being the only ones so financially positioned), keeps us working way too many hours. I look for opportunities to possibly increase print sales--and the Internet will surely be, at some point, a significant way to do that.

But why are our scans so bad? This is a web site for analog photography. I'll bet that there are very few here who do not have far more experience with digital photography than we do. Maybe none. I have never scanned a print nor used PhotoShop. Scanning and PS are skills to learn that I do not have time for. Younger people than I seem to take to it readily. We do not. We hired someone who told us he knew what he was doing to scan about 4,000 photographs. They looked okay on our screen, but clearly they are not good at all. We are now looking for a new scanner--both a piece of equipment and a person, because we really need to do them all over again. The bad scans are the reason we have not updated our site with new work. It is enough for us to make the negatives, develop them, and make and mount prints. Between that and everything else we do, there is not time to learn the digital world. Not a good excuse in my book, but that's the way it is.

From Will S.: I know you are a busy guy and I hate to take up your time, but this last sentence above seems a little heavy-handed to me and difficult to understand as well. Are those who look at books with art photos in them who do not understand that the reproduction in the book is not really the photo itself, and that the photo is not really the thing itself, denigrating photography as an art?

Yes, they are. If people understand the difference they are not denigrating photography. It is a question of understanding the difference. Have you ever heard anyone say, on looking at a fine photograph, "I could easily do that" when you know they haven't the slightest clue what they are looking at--a photograph?

A bad recording of a piece of music is still music. A reproduction of a photograph is a reproduction, not a photograph, the similarities between them notwithstanding. The analogy between a musical recording and reproductions holds only to a point.

 

[c6h6o3]

Then again there are web sites like Per Volkuarts' (sorry if I mangled your last name Per) or Ron Rosenstock's, where the beauty of the prints comes through even on the web...

Michael:

You should contact Per and find out who did the scans for that site. Get that guy to do yours.

Dead Link Removed

Like, DAMN!

 

[Jorge]

And I believe the texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc. IS the content of the photograph

And here lies our difference in phylosophy. I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo.

Fascinating discussions. Flying straight in the face of many views here (and mine), I am applying for a significant grant from a major Arts Council and guess what they want as support material PHOTOGRAPHY applications? SCANS! JPEGs of 72 dpi-thingies max! NO originals allowed! How weird is that!!!

I have the same problem with Lenswork, Brooks did not want me to send him the pt/pd prints, he either wanted scans 400 dpi, or silver prints.....go figure.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'm going back to the original question.... "Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?".

The more I consider this, the more convinced I am that this is unanswerable... I have no idea, to anything like a reasonable certainty, what is meant by the term, "Technical Brilliance".

"Can the characteristics of a print have an effect on the way a photograph is perceived?" Yes. Of course. To me, obvious - too obvious to even attempt an explanation.
"What charateristics have what corresponding effect on perception ?", is another, far more complex, and very interesting subject ... but not within the confines of what is questioned here.

Now ... I've read, here, that someone is frustrated that some people are not "robust" enough to withstand "discussion of their work" ... and that tip-toeing around was not a `good' thing'. I'll follow that advice, to avoid frustrating anyone, for this instance:

Let us ALL refrain from taking anyone's work, -"Only to illustrate" - something negative. It is far more tactful, to offer our own work, or remain within the confines of our own vocabulary, to describe our position.

Also, I take great exception to the idea of "robustness" - the lack of which is equal to "weakness." To me, there is a polar opposite to that idea - one is not "robust" if one has developed an enhanced level of sensitivity ... and to me that is more important.

I'll make one other statement... sharp criticism, even though one may cloak it under the banner of "only doing it for their own good", can destroy the confidence of some, and have a massive negative effect on the "creative spark" - that spark of desire, so essential to our work. That "spark" is the most important thing, more important to nurture and protect than anything else, including education.

I've re-read this, to insure that there is no "tip-toeing".

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Ed, If one has the spark, nothing anyone will say will be daunting or discouraging. Enlightening perhaps, thought provoking, but not discouraging.

Yes, c6h6o3, those scans are mighty fine. I'll give Per a call.

Jorge: "I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo."

For one thing, Jorge, the photograph is not complete without the "texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc." And it is not the photographs job to tell you anything. It is the viewer's job to try to realize what the work of art is telling him or her--to meet the work of art at least halfway, and maybe more. Any less of an effort by the viewer is laziness.

 

[Jorge]

Jorge: "I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo."

For one thing, Jorge, the photograph is not complete without the "texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc." And it is not the photographs job to tell you anything. It is the viewer's job to try to realize what the work of art is telling him or her--to meet the work of art at least halfway, and maybe more. Any less of an effort by the viewer is laziness.

Like a suit is not complete without the buttons, they dont make the suit. IMO watching a photograph that does not want to communicate something is like reading a book with no plot. Eventually one gets bored with it, and it is not out of laziness.

As I said before it is a shame this thread became about you and your photographic philosophy. The basic difference lies in that you beleive a photograph that forces the viewer to roam with his eyes, as you put it, is good, some like me disagree with this. On the other hand this does not mean we do not "get it", we do get it, we just dont agree with it.

In the end, while discussions like this can be fun and informative, you should realize there will always be people who wont like your photography, not because they do not get it, but because it does not fullfill something for them. There is no reason to stress over this.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, If one has the spark, nothing anyone will say will be daunting or discouraging. Enlightening perhaps, thought provoking, but not discouraging.

Agreed, The "spark" CAN be extinguished, though. I have volunteered to keep it alive, in everyone, when, and wherever I can.

Jorge: "I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo."

For one thing, Jorge, the photograph is not complete without the "texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc." And it is not the photographs job to tell you anything. It is the viewer's job to try to realize what the work of art is telling him or her--to meet the work of art at least halfway, and maybe more. Any less of an effort by the viewer is laziness.

Interesting idea. I have never seen a class in, "How to Look at a Photograph", though. Hmm... does that mean that I should restrict my gallery exhibitions to, "Only those who realize what their job is"?

I consider it to be consummate "laziness" on MY part, to NOT assume the burden of providing enough energy so that the viewer does NOT have to do anything to "get the message". If I succeed, which happens at times, it is a damn fine experience for both of us.

 

[jd callow]

IMHO

A picture that has the intent of providing a message does not have to scream the message to be successful. The image can state its intent load and clear, whisper it in nuanced tones or even hide it under a dozen blind alleys. The point is the message the destination and the path is determined by the photographer. (Sorry if that last bit sounds a tad romantic.) The viewer has to be a participant regardless. To use the music comparison: You can't (dis)like Barry Manalow if you don't listen.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

But why are our scans so bad?

Just one very brief practical point - don't ask me why, but something happens to digital files (maybe just JPEGs) in transmission. Every time I put an image on a website, what looks great on my screen turns out muddy. The answer which I have devised is to lighten my pictures, based on previous experience, and then e-mail them to myself. When the e-mailed picture I receive looks right (which will mean that the transmitted picture is ridiculously light), then I upload it to the website.

Regards,

David

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Thanks, David. Maybe that would help us.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Ed: "It is far more tactful, to offer our own work, or remain within the confines of our own vocabulary, to describe our position"

Two points:
1. Ed, I thought would have ceased the cheap shots by now. I might be more sensitive than you think......................................Naahhh You cannot dent my confidence and generate a response in kind. I am invincible and can fly.
2. The idea of offering ones own work would not work in my opinion. Many would either not have material to make the point or would not think they have the material for many reasons. Very few would think that they are technically brilliant but not good at the other bit and post their work to illustrate the point. We may have prints which we think are technically better than another off the same neg, but the technical element is not clearly separable from the vision/content for that photographer as technique is used to express the vision. We have also taken the image and therefore personally felt what we felt when we tripped the shutter. This completely prejudices us against any objectivity when it comes to what that print embodies or is or is not. We (as the photographer) can bypass looking at the print properly and tap straight into our emotions. This is very different from a third party having to look at one of our images and pull out what lies within. Any one of us could do that of our own images without having to look at all......and that does not make them 'good' to anyone but ourselves.

If the importance of a piece of photographic art is the photographer's vision (regardless of the experience given to third parties) and other people either get it or not (without the photographer either trying to or being able to make this happen), then this does not sit easily with me. It must surely be communicated to people visually. Some of this visual communication should be possible with a less than perfect (ie not the original) repro. If it is not communicated at all in a repro, then there is a value I suspect has nothing to do with the visual and resultant emotional experience. I personally do not think that just because a person has all sort of spontaneous involuntary deep feelings and trips the shutter, that the resultant image necessarily contains all or any of that (no matter how well printed) and is therefore 'good'. It this were not the case, all photographs where the photographer felt things deeply would be good when the photographer felt the print was for them a successful conduit to those original feelings. We would just be the unfortunates who cannot unlock (because to us the communication of that vision was poor - despite perhaps being printed as perfectly as the photographer can). This is a case perhaps of good vision, bad photography as the image does not contain the neccessary clues to allow us to access the photographer’s vision. Seeing as we are discussing photographic art not purely distilled philosophy, this has to be important. There must be a visually accessible conduit if vision is to be communicated through photography. Sure, part of this communication has to be technique. However, if after producing the finest print we can (technically the most appropriate (=best?)for the vision), we still fail to communicate that (stimulating?) vision to others it is not a good start. I would argue that we could still perhaps be a experiencing interesting emotions which others would find wonderful and a valid artistic end vision, but if it isn’t communicated, how can that means of communication (the image) be good no matter how technically good it is?

I agree that more obvious images need less technique to be accessed and understood. There are fewer relationships with single subject images etc etc. I also agree that there can be a huge difference to a print being considered valuable because it captures a rare event or amazing moment compared to something intrinsically beautiful in itself. However surely great photographic art is both about the final product being a wonderful piece of physical art but is also a window to certain emotions/feelings. If the stimulation one gets from photography is triggered by the visual and then the experience continues beyond the visual, for there to be the 'beyond bit' (ie the photographer had a vision) without the visual trigger being successful renders it pointless as photographic art. There is no communication through the chosen medium. If so, then why not replace the print with another medium that better acts as the trigger? A wonderfully executed print has a beauty and intrinsic value (but I think only because it pleases us from a perfection/achievement perspective as photographers), but surely this is only a fraction of the beauty of an image that speaks to us emotionally AND is itself intrinsically wonderful as a work of art?

I can see how an image that hardly speaks to us can be worlds better in the flesh. I cannot see how a print that holds nothing for us at all in reproduction, can please us fully in the flesh. There has to be something to be communicated. I do not think that this something can be so subtle that it cannot be appreciated from a reproduction at all. After all photography has a fairly significant visual component. If this is thought to be narrow, I would suggest that work such as this is no longer photography (or art through the photographic medium), but concept art, where arguably the piece sitting before you has only a cloudy tangental connection to the desired experience beyond. This could be expanded into what would happen when reproductions are so good that one cannot in any way distinguish between the original piece of art and the reproduction. My take on this is that the original is still preferable because of what it additionally represents; in this case the craft of the photographer. It was made in their hands. This however, makes the reproductions no less beautiful and effective at communicating the creator's vision. In this example, you cannot tell the difference! It is just that the original has an additional value attributed to the 'soul of the photographer' having rubbed off on it and 'ownership'. However, this is only so if we know (or incorrectly think) that it is the original!!!!!!! I think there is a strong link to only being able to appreciate an image in the flesh. If that is so, its value is not in the visual and emotional result of the visual stimulus (looking at the print, or to a lesser degree of success a less than perfect repro) but the idea of the print (that one on the wall in the frame and that one only) being individual and something more than this etc etc. Even when reproduction is possible that cannot be distinguished from the original, there will still be a market for originals for the reasons mentioned. These originals are not better as windows into the photographer's vision, but being good little humans we turn to qualities we cannot define as part of an exclusivity/ownership/possession 'thing'. I would lay my money that when reproductions or digital are that good (lets argue archivally too), many contact printers will find themselves in a wilderness and will dislike the idea of reproductions even less when they look the same as the originals they produce. The soul has gone, but this soul was technique in the context of an item, not access to a vision. The technical quality gap will have been closed and an observer CANNOT see the difference. Maybe some are perhaps not aware that when they think of the ‘vision’ they have instilled in the image, that this is merely the pleasing perfect depth, tone etc which as yet cannot be achieved in reproduction…but it will be ! When it happens, their work might become more empty still and completely about having a ‘hand made one’ (sounds rather like craft to me). Then the original will 100% be something to be possessed for exclusivity reasons or reasons that cannot be visually related. It truly becomes a thing. Emotions and feelings are far bigger.........and if a repro has this.....

 

[Tom Stanworth]

As an aside, something MAS said about a student and her images worries me greatly. She showed him two sets, greyer ones and ones with a greater range of tones. He advised her to go with the greyer ones, which he thought were moodier (not subtle in ‘vision’ terms). This to me contradicts much of what has been said. Surely the ‘right’ choice for her (and therefore her aim of her art being a conduit to her vision – which we cannot say is not an orgy of exhilaration as we may not ‘get it ) were those, which were more faithful to her vision, regardless of whether Michael ‘got it’ or not. His advice has merely served to ask her to wear his eyes. It surely will not help her to produce her art, but that which she thinks represents the vision he thinks she has. This is the essence of what I have been saying. Michael has commented as he has in order to help her achieve her aims. Fair enough. We all realise this is the point of a workshop. However, it also suggests that Michael felt certain that he fully understood it (in all its dimensions) and was therefore able to comment. Is it not possible that the work was too subtle and that he did not understand it? Perhaps she felt this but lacked confidence and she has now veered way from true greatness? If she had explained why the contrastier images were to her better (more faithful to her vision) and Michael disagreed, would this not (according to Michael and others’ previous views) mean that he was actually unable to understand it because he was unable to tap into and understand why? Can he know the vision better than her? Can his after the event vision for her work usurp the original vision without him having been there to feel what she felt? Whose work does it then become? If Michael did not have to ‘be there’ then the importance of the link between the reality of the original feeling and the print is zero. A new vision can be inserted? Surely this is now concept art? Retrofitted vision?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

TS: We have also taken the image and therefore personally felt what we felt when we tripped the shutter. This completely prejudices us against any objectivity when it comes to what that print embodies or is or is not. We (as the photographer) can bypass looking at the print properly and tap straight into our emotions. This is very different from a third party having to look at one of our images and pull out what lies within. Any one of us could do that of our own images without having to look at all......and that does not make them 'good' to anyone but ourselves.

MAS: Interesting writing. I've no time to respond to all of it here, but the above does not ring true to me. The maker of the photograph, when looking at the finished work, MUST distance himself/herself from the experience of making it. Anyone who cannot do this--who loves their work because it reminds them of the experience of "being there" and tripping the shutter, cannot be objective about their work and their opinions about their own work are not to be trusted. I'm reminded of a student I had many years ago. She had brought in a photograph of her cat. She loved the photograph. When I asked why, she responded that she loved her cat and it was a great experience making that particular photograph. That had nothing to do with the photograph, as I kindly explained.

Also in this context the following, from previous writing I have done is perhaps not irrelevant.

Although it is the reality of the subject before you that captures your attention, the feeling one has while photographing is determined by myriad factors. The physical reality before you—the very real three-dimensional space, the light, the colors, the sounds, the smells, the weather—is of course a major factor. Of the others, some are more or less stable, such as one’s world view and the general state of one’s psyche and health. Other factors are more fleeting, such as the time you have available (it is hard to be calm and contemplative when rushed, whether by quickly changing light or the need to be somewhere else), the other people who may be present, your dreams from the night before, or a conversation you may have just had. All of these factors contribute to determining your mood, which in turn may affect how you feel about what is before you.

Realizing the absolute impossibility of trying to create for others and to recreate for myself, in a two-dimensional black and white photograph, the feeling of the multi-faceted experience of having been at the scene photographed, my goal when making prints is simply to try to make the best print I can, and thereby to provide, both for myself and for the viewer, a new experience—one of the photograph itself. End of quote.

You seem, Tom, to think that it is impossible to be objective about one's own work. All I can say is, "speak for yourself." How might one achieve objectivity? Try these two things:

First--step back from your photograph. After it is mounted and overmatted--and I assume that all prints worthy of being kept will be cared for in this way (whether dry mounted or not), step back from them about 8-15 feet--roughly 2.5 to 5 meters. Do you still like them? Do they work visually. The thing to do is to get back far enough so that you can no longer make out clearly the subject matter so that all you are left with is an arrangement of tones. Does the arrangement "work" for you or not. If not. throw the photograph away--no matter how much you enjoyed making the picture or how much you love what is pictured. To do this, a photograph must be mounted so as to be no longer attached to the your hand--you cannot be holding it. That's obvious from the distances involved, but equally importantly, it provides a physical separation. It is now just a thing existing outside of yourself and not something that is "yours."

Another way to be objective: imagine your photograph was made by a photographer whose work you do not think is as fine as yours and who has gotten undue recognition. Do you still like the photograph? If you do, it is a keeper. If not, throw it away.

Many photographers cannot edit their own work because they cannot be objective about it the way a third party can. I was referred to by one curator as the best editor of their own work that he had ever seen in a photographer. I say this not to congratulate myself, but to point out it is possible, but one must be ruthless with ones own work. Absolutely ruthless. Else it gets shown in the world and shot down (I'm not referring to Internet comments here, but to curators and collectors), and one would just be left stunned. I'm not sure where my objectivity came from, but it has always been there and I know from vast experience as a teacher that the techniques described above can help one achieve it if it is something that does not come naturally.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Michael,

I think that I can be as objective as I can be with my own work, but I think the reason/experience etc behind the image cannot truly prevent us (me or anyone)evaluating the full value of an image to others. We can certainly ascertain a lot about it, such as whether it is faithful to what we wish to convey ie does it communicate to us, is it beautiful, or we can compare images and remove the 'weaker ones' from an image according to our rules. All this is within the context of what we wish to convey and how we wish to do it. Whether we are successuful or not will be jusdged ultimatley by others if the benefit is supposed to be for others. I am not saying that we should produce art for other people, but if we are displaying it to others, we probably hope that they appreciate it as we do. Display is about sharing rather than self congratulation as we all agree. Going back about 10 pages, we agree that people look for different things in a print. Some love content and its meaning/emotion to them. Some love a beautifuly executed print (with less emphasis on contecnt etc0 because of its intrinsic 'rightness'. One could argue that the pleasure is the same, but we are pleased by different things and it may come down to definitions. If one person loves car A because of its sweeping lines and poise, we would all say that the person finds it beautiful as a work of sculpted art. If another person say they find a Series 1 land rover beautiful because of its simplicity, ruggedness etc and 'rightness', I would argue that the pleasure to the viewer is the same, but the words used to describe the experience should be different. Car A is art, the Land Rover is not. 'Beautiful' as a word for the Landie was perhaps not appropriate (if our language is to have any worth). Emotion, respect and admiration for its utilitarian value has been confused with beauty or art because of the excitement caused. I think this equates to some contact printers and their subject matter. Brilliantly executed technically, there is often a excitement (beauty?) associated with the 'rightness' of the print and it may be exciting to look at (like the internals of a Formula 1 engine), but I don't think this makes it art on its own. If art=emotional stimulus then anything exciting is art. Therefore anything on photo paper that pleases a person is photographic art. By this definition I could photograph a subtle joke, you could read it and laugh. It may have the same emotional output as an image with delicious subtle humour, but it to me is not photographic art. The excitement is elsewhere...in the writing (or the craft of the print).

 

[Poco]

Michael,

"step back from them about 8-15 feet--roughly 2.5 to 5 meters. Do you still like them? Do they work visually."

...or roughly far enough back that the unique qualities of beautifully made contact print fades in importance to the greater value of the print as a photograph? Isn't this exactly what Tom has been saying -- that that value is, at least partially, independent of technical execution and discernable even in web representation?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Poco,

Yes. Exactly. The qualities of the contact print have diminished to the eyes, but not the knowledge that it is a contact print to the mind of teh photographer and viewers who know (and to whom it matters). It therefore is commanding greater 'artistic worth' than can actually be seen and appreciated because of the photographers sense of achievement (or viewers respect for this feat) and what it is, rather than what reaction it causes to the viewer purely on the basis of visual stimulation. ie it has started to become a (crafted) thing to be excited about (like a fossil can be exciting to hold because it is exhilarating to think what it was), rather than a visual thing. A great image should be both.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I do not accept the idea that the "worth" of a photograph must be determined objectively. Objectivity implies an evaluation without the involvement of my "being".

My work is subjective; I want it to be. It should, and. if all goes well, it WILL, speak to the viewer of, "What I am - my thoughts, feelings, predispositions, fantasies, vision ... aesthetics". That translates to "having life".
A work produced "objectively" avoids all of these, and to me, is lifeless, dead.

I think that much of this discussion hinges on our basic intent. WHY do we do out photography?
For me - I've said, and I'll repeat:

There are three categories of Art ...

First, the work that is "well done", - "fine" in the estimation of the critics, technically, compositionally - the work you would hang on the wall of your living room.

Second, the work *I* don't understand. Someone else did - the artist - In their eyes, it meant a great deal, but due to our differences, it does not affect me the same way. Not necessarily "bad" - just a reinforcement of the idea that each of us are different. Useful in the investigation of those "differences".

Third, that which "enraptures" me. The exposure to it has affected me profoundly - I cannot get the image out of my mind. I'll return to it and stare at it. I'll close my eyes, and STILL see it... I'll dream and daydream about it.
With me, that is what occurred upon exposure to Renoir's Torse au soleil.

My goal is, always, "Enrapturing Work". It is `successful' when it enraptures ME -- and it is NIRVANA when my works engenders the same state in someone else. NOTHING else, status, approval in the eyes of the elite, - NOTHING else even comes close.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I do not accept the idea that the "worth" of a photograph must be determined objectively. Objectivity implies an evaluation without the involvement of my "being".

I agree, but it is not a question of quantity of worth, but the nature of that worth that we are debating surely (hence definitions of words in dictionaries -we have to have some rules like what art is vs craft, sentiment etc). A tractor might be worth more than a 1967 ferrari whatever if you are a farmer, but.......

My work is subjective; I want it to be. It should, and. if all goes well, it WILL, speak to the viewer of, "What I am - my thoughts, feelings, predispositions, fantasies, vision ... aesthetics". That translates to "having life".

We have no choice in this of course.

A work produced "objectively" avoids all of these, and to me, is lifeless, dead.

But how would you know just by looking at it alone? I think this is not quite what I have meant so far.......I am referring to the objective categorisation of what something is once produced. Lots of passion goes into making a feat of engineering, such as a bridge. Challenges met and overcome. Other engineers may marvel at it. However, it might be a hell of an ugly bridge (beautifully) expertly designed. For that it might be the awe of the world. It is not art just because it stimulates the maker and others in one way or other.

Second, the work *I* don't understand. Someone else did - the artist - In their eyes, it meant a great deal, but due to our differences, it does not affect me the same way. Not necessarily "bad" - just a reinforcement of the idea that each of us are different. Useful in the investigation of those "differences".

Does this assume some do get it? What would it be if nobody 'got it'? Would it still be art if nobody got it but the artist's passion was there etc etc. I would say no. I would also say that the essence of what they are getting from it defines it. Emotional response based on visual elements (art?)vs respect and admiration and awe for it as an accomplished creation (thing - craft). I personally FWIW think a great photo has to be both. The art is the content/vision and the craft (technical skill) is required to communicate this through a print. The craft can only make the very best of what the photographer wishes people to see (so the best print is of course always best). However, cannot ever be more than this surely.....cannot stand alone as art? If a lifesize photo of a doorway was so good that I kept trying to walk thru it, I would be in awe at the technical accomplishment. It would make me laugh, then rub my head. It would not be art tho. Bad example A photo of a window view so good I could not distinguish it from a real window and view (but the view was of something with no stimulating emotional journey with nothing 'behind it that shines through'). I would want it, because it represented astonishing printing talent, but it is surely not successful as art. It is just sophisticated, but cold.

Third, that which "enraptures" me. The exposure to it has affected me profoundly - I cannot get the image out of my mind. I'll return to it and stare at it. I'll close my eyes, and STILL see it... I'll dream and daydream about it.
With me, that is what occurred upon exposure to Renoir's Torse au soleil.


Canot argue with that. It is not just a wonderfully done 'thing' one assumes(not familiar with it). I suspect that you would find a level of inherent beauty/wonder as a poster, albeit far less wonderful than the original (get saving!). You do not therefore need to own it (the original) to gain pleasure. You could get lots of pleasure from an OK reproduction maybe? Lots lost in translation, but still embodying 'something' and lots of it?

My goal is, always, "Enrapturing Work". It is `successful' when it enraptures ME -- and it is NIRVANA when my works engenders the same state in someone else. NOTHING else, status, approval in the eyes of the elite, - NOTHING else even comes close

I agree, but could this not be used to describe other (exhilarating)experiences derived through other means? In which case, we need to be more specific about what we describe as photographic art, rather than art in general or even things which we would almost unanimously agree have nothing to do with art or getting closer, supremely good photographic craft.........A brilliant craft may be as pleasing to a person (or more so as it might be more relevant to their being (like a well made raft to Robinson Crusoe ......, I am not denying this, but it is a different thing. If it is not, we might as well abondon the dictionary.

 

[Will S]

Just one very brief practical point - don't ask me why, but something happens to digital files (maybe just JPEGs) in transmission. Every time I put an image on a website, what looks great on my screen turns out muddy. The answer which I have devised is to lighten my pictures, based on previous experience, and then e-mail them to myself. When the e-mailed picture I receive looks right (which will mean that the transmitted picture is ridiculously light), then I upload it to the website.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. A file is a file is a file. It doesn't change at all if you email it to yourself. What you are observing is most likely the difference between what is displayed in photoshop and what is displayed when you save from photoshop to create the jpeg. Save the file to jpeg then open it up in your web browser from your file system, and it should look exactly like what you will see when it is downloaded from the website. Provided, of course that the web site is not somehow changing the content of the jpeg file.

Best,

Will

 

[Ed Sukach]

My work is subjective; I want it to be.

We have no choice in this, of course.

Rhetorical, I would guess. "we"??? - I have no intention of telling you what to do. This is my opinion. Feel free to discuss.

Second, the work *I* don't understand. Someone else did -
Does this assume some do get it?

Of course.

Third, that which "enraptures" me. The exposure to it has affected me profoundly - I cannot get the image out of my mind. I'll return to it and stare at it. I'll close my eyes, and STILL see it... I'll dream and daydream about it.
With me, that is what occurred upon exposure to Renoir's Torse au soleil. Canot argue with that. It is not just a wonderfully done 'thing' one assumes(not familiar with it). I suspect that you would find a level of inherent beauty/wonder as a poster, albeit far less wonderful than the original (get saving!). You do not therefore need to own it (the original) to gain pleasure. You could get lots of pleasure from an OK reproduction maybe? Lots lost in translation, but still embodying 'something' and lots of it?

-- And the question is...?

My goal is, always, "Enrapturing Work". It is `successful' when it enraptures ME -- and it is NIRVANA when my works engenders the same state in someone else. NOTHING else, status, approval in the eyes of the elite, - NOTHING else even comes close
I agree, but could this not be used to describe other (exhilarating)experiences derived through other means?

Yes it could.

.. In which case, we need to be more specific about what we describe as photographic art, ...

Here we go with "we" again. I don't find it necessary. I simply do not have to explain everything on the face of this planet. I'll continue as I have in the past, and "feel".

If it is not, we might as well abandon the dictionary.

Somewhere in reading this, I got lost. If you mean "dictionary" as something of a set of rules to define art... It cannot be abandoned. I don't think it exists, now, or ever has before.

 

[jd callow]

The changes that occur when you save a file to jpeg are related to palette compression. Jpeg's will throw out any unused colours at a minimum and then as the compression increases more colours are thrown out. This will tend to change, somewhat, the appearance of the image.

There may be differences in the engines that render the image as well (This I am not sure of). In other words, explorer may render for the screen the jpeg differently than PS.

In as far as I can tell, MAS's problem is not related to this. I have open in another browser the www.michaelandpaula.com web site. My monitor is calibrated. The tonal range of the images are nice and full, the images are a little soft and small.

Conversely, I have www.volquartz.com open in another browser. Per's images are more contrasty, don't have any greater tonal range -- probably less -- and they are larger. Per's jpg's are also sharper.

Two things work in favour of Per and against MAS. One: Per's images are larger. If looking at a jpeg is a poor way to judge a photograph than the smaller they get the worse it becomes.

Two: Scans are inherently softer than the original, web images cannot contain as much information as the original and therefore some adjustments need to be applied so that the image can properly imitate the original. MAS's images need to be resized from the original scans and thoughtfully sharpened as they are resized for the web.

If the images were sharpened (not to exceed the reality of the original but to emulate) and larger, then their strengths would emerge. Sharpening an image is not playing make believe. It is trying to adjust for the inadequacies of the web as a display media. It is the same in the traditional print media. I guarantee that the images in MAS's books have been similarly adjusted to account for the failings of putting ink on paper (dot gain, contrast and probably some sharpening).

In the case of Per and MAS there would then be the wonderful opportunity to compare two very good photographer's work and their very different approaches on more equal footing.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Isn't all art subjective because it produced by a human being without defined parameters and based upon perception? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am not telling you what to say, so no need to sound defensive. How can I? You say your work is subjective, but I dont see how anyones work can be anything but this (viewed either by them or another). I dont think this can be deliberately engineered into an image, as everyones individual perception will add this by itself. We could engineer 'is it or isn't it' into an image, but I dont think this is the same thing.

You ask, "and the question is". It was not a question. I was suggesting that if you find that a repro of this work of art holds something for you, it holds something other than that which is embodied within that particular piece of work in front of you and its intrinsic value/specific means of delivery. ie there is a content that can be conveyed without having to relate to the original one off infront of you. Can you comment in respect to this piece and say what it is that you like about it? This means that despite an element of technical perfection being lost, there is definitely a message to be carried.

Somewhere in reading this, I got lost. If you mean "dictionary" as something of a set of rules to define art... It cannot be abandoned. I don't think it exists, now, or ever has before.

Ed, I do not see the issue with this. Language is there purely as a means to communicate. It does not make any difference to what we do or how we enjoy it. Just because two things have the same end result does not mean that they are the same thing. We can still have different words for them. Were this not the case everything would be a 'thing' I prefer to have cars and trees and..... The language does not change what it does for you, but it may help separate things which do it differently (ie Art vs Craft). I am not trying to define the outer perimeter of 'art', but suggest that there is a fairly decent concept of how excellence in art might be different to excellence in 'craft', where the two overlap and also what photographic art is (there has to be a photo involved). If you get eaten by an animal (lets say Lion, not tiger) the end result may be the same, but it was still a lion that ate you. By using specific words to mean specific things in no way limits us. However, I do not see how it does any harm to understand if there is a difference in how or why it excites you. Art and craft may be equally exciting, but if the route to that pleasure and the cause is different, it surely does make it worth having differnt words and not using them interchangably. Nobody is saying a fine mechanical engineer is less 'worthy' of our respect than an artist, just as this applies to a fine art photographer vs master printer. But if there are differences, however we chose to define them, then it is worth maintinaing that difference thru language. To pretend that differences are not there does not help anyone, but means that you are throwing away useful descriptive words from the language. We should find new words not throw them out. All boiling down to a master printer being different to a fine art photographer. Both may wow and dazzle, but do different things. The master printer needs (another person's) material to be able to produce an overall piece of art. Without it how can he produce art? NO vision, no neg etc etc. It is not just his inabiilty to operate a camera. Sure he could pop out for the milk and paper and snap on the way, but the results would not be art, but the prints may wow.....and when shown on the net they would die and lose everything they had. If a master printer (non or self confessed poor photographer) who produces an amazing print from someone elses neg and under their creative direction, which wows in the flesh is an artist, then what about the photographer? Both artists of teh same thing? Surely the photographer 'owns the art - the message' and the printer the craft -the communication of (someone elses) message even if the seed is small. I printed some negs for a friend (new to mono and no darkroom) recently and I had to deal with this issue. I am very proud of the prints, which are quite different to the straight 'lab' prints and sometimes cropped quite a bit according to 'what I thought best' - his instructions. I am left in no doubt that HE produced the art and I the craft. All I did was bring my experience to comunicate his vision as best I could even if he was not 100% clear on what the end results would be. Did I produce the art? I have just shone a light on his 'seed' of a vision enabling others to see it. The images did have something even when poor test prints...which is why he wanted them nicely printed. They would have worked on the net....

Tom

 

[Ed Sukach]

... Can you comment in respect to this piece and say what it is that you like about it? This means that despite an element of technical perfection being lost, there is definitely a message to be carried.

I'm wondering - Is this some sort of "acid test" to validate one's work?

I have made comments, rarely, about "Why I like this work." Usually I do not.
If something "works", there is no need to; If it does not "work" it cannot be saved by an explanation. To attempt to do that would be to cross over into another medium, and may (n.b. "MAY") corrupt the atmosphere - and emotional content induced by the photograph. Additionally, and this happens nearly every time with work that enraptures me, both my own and that of others, I CANNOT tell anyone WHY - I simply do not know why.

I do know that it DOES, and that is sufficient for me.

My "work" is there, as an offering of "sharing", rather than sheer communication.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Ed, not an acid test. I just (genuinely) thought it would be interesting for you to share why you like the art mentioned. I was curious to know if you were able to find a repro also stimulating, even if less so. If you do find a repro (esp monitor image) at all interesting, something is surely coming thru which is largely independent of technical quality (ie remains in a basic copy of the basic visual content). As we all agree that technical quality appears to be lost pretty well completely on a monitor, the art contanis something more than this. It would not be a universal acid test but a 'case study' which would be relevant to the discussion I think

Tom