Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art'

[Dinesh]

kevin

i can understand selling 1/1 images, ( some of mine are like that )
but why on your blog/website/gallery
are also selling "reproductions"
(d** c-41 prints from a file) ...
i thought reproductions and editions are the deathnail ?

i have read several different threads ( like this one ) and
on your website ... where you swear against multiple
images of the same print, suggesting people who do this are not artists,
and they are doing a dis- service to photography cheapening it
and keeping it a bastard art form ...

but on your site you are doing just that. ...
is it because you don't claim they are photographs,
but reproductions ?? i don't really see a difference ...

just wondering ...

Interesting question John, I anxiously await the answer.

 

[blaze-on]

Kevin, you haven't addressed some valid and widely accepted points made here...but with no foundation behind a rather self-righteous proclamation, it is not surprising.
I do applaud your stance because it has passion, as misguided as it may be, and passion is an integral part of any artist.

I do believe it is a much more difficult path to gain notoriety as an "artist" using only photographic processes vs. one who paints or draws or sculpts. If Kevin Saitta the painter gained national recognition as an artist (outside his own mind), then decided to make some photographs, I fail to believe they would not be accepted by the same galleries as less than art. They would likely demand a lower sell value regardless of "one of" or editioned. That's the way it is.

For me the ultimate challenge is to make images that remove the medium's relevance.

I bought two of Kevin's photographs and like them both, They are well composed, printed and presented. I valued them as I spent money to obtain them.
Would I call them art? Would others? I don't care. I'm hoping you someday do "make it", become a household name so I can sell them for a huge amount.

Not everything we do as photographers, as artists is going to make that artistic statement, however one defines it.

This ties in to beating the dead horse on what art is.

I do agree that making only one print of each negative will allow you to set a higher price, as it should be. It is obvious that your choice to earn your living as an artist has not generated the acclaim nor amount of sales you would like to live on more comfortably. It is not photographers in general who have undermined your income. We (photographers) are not lying to the public, deceiving them as you so boldly proclaim. For every successful painter, sculptor, photographer who has made "it", there are thousands who have not.

It is your goal to be "there", I get it...but "dissing" the entire photographic community to some extent isn't going to help you. I think it's very bold for you to proceed with this "one of" and destroying the negative, and do applaud that. That is right for you to do at this point in time as you have concluded, but again, it does not make the rest of us "wrong" any more than it makes you "right". Who knows, perhaps the act of doing that on it's own will gain recognition for you. The art world is a funny place as you well know. "Photographer makes one print- destroys negative"... New York Times

I have no aspirations to be famous, make my sole income off my work. If it happens I'll be surprised and happy. To make it a goal I think can be self-defeating.

I like the challenge of making a good image. If some consider it art, wonderful.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I do not know if other artist, from painters, sculptures, or even designers spend as much time as we do 'talking shop' or if it a photography thing.

It's a bit of a myth among photographers that "other" artists do not spend as much time talking about gear.

Go to a newsstand, and have a look at the art publications hidden behind Artforum or Art in America. You'll find a surprisingly large number of magazines dedicated to watercolor, sculpture, printing, etc. They have plenty of glossy ads, product reviews, How-To sections, and are paltry with respect to the "soul" of art.

So let's not consider gear-headedness a symptom of amateur photographers only.

As to your original question, I would say the important thing to ponder is why, as an artist, someone sees photographically instead of seeing in painterly manner. "Not being able to draw" is not a sufficient answer. In fact, most people would be surprised by the results they could have from just a few classes in drawing.

Why we see photographically is not just a question of inner vision. That's too Romantic an interpretation. We see photographically also because we have lived all our lives in a world saturated with photos. We have lived through all sorts of social rituals that are both meaningful and requiring photography: birth, parties, graduations, weddings, etc etc.

By taking a step forward as a photographic artist, one is also asserting one's position within a network of social conventions. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe artists become artists only because they feel something unspeakable and sublime inside. It's because they encounter the world in a particular manner, and because they believe that the world will be receptive to what they have to say.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I never said it was more art I said people don't perceive photography as art. I said making only one makes it an orginal, exclusive, not a copy like everyone else does, that is what I said.

Imagine if there was only 1 Moonrise or only 1 Pepper #30 or only one Running Deer... Imagine...

How much do you think they would be worth now?

I thought "Real Artists" were only interested in Art with a Double-Sized Capital A, not Lord Money The Evil Spirit Which Corrupts Everything.

My word, have they changed.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I never said it was more art I said people don't perceive photography as art. I said making only one makes it an orginal, exclusive, not a copy like everyone else does, that is what I said.

Imagine if there was only 1 Moonrise or only 1 Pepper #30 or only one Running Deer... Imagine...

How much do you think they would be worth now?

Actually, if there were only one of each of those, we might well never have heard of Adams or Weston, and they'd be worth the paper they were printed on. This is the nature of the time in which we live - images require reproduction to have currency and value. There is only one original Mona Lisa - it is widely considered to be priceless. That value is driven by the enormous talent behind the creation of the image, and the widespread circulation that image has had, via reproduction, since the time of its creation. I could name you a dozen contemporaries of Leonardo who were quite competent painters, but you've never heard of them, and never seen their paintings, and whose work you probably could afford, despite their age and uniqueness, solely because nobody outside of museums and art historians cares about their work.

 

[kjsphoto]

And the sheep follow blindly to the slaughter...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Gee Kevin, I wonder how many potential print sales have evaporated because mere photographers don't seem to be worthy of a true artists work.

Murray

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

And the sheep follow blindly to the slaughter...

OK, enough with the passive-agressive attitude.

If you're right, then I hope your wallet grows in proportion. Meanwhile nobody cares that you are right or wrong.

 

[kjsphoto]

Gee Kevin, I wonder how many potential print sales have evaporated because mere photographers don't seem to be worthy of a true artists work.

Murray

None, photographers don't buy my work anyway nor does anyone from APUG so it doesn't matter.

Here is the answer to everyones question

Reproductions

 

[kjsphoto]

Meanwhile nobody cares that you are right or wrong.

Your right, photographer usually don't, but artist and collectors do.

 

[kjsphoto]

For all you selective readers who have twisted everything I said; here is the original post one more time. If you read what I said you can see that you guys are the one with the passive-agressive attitude. And by reading alot of the comments I can tell that some of you NEVER did read my original post, but as usual just popped off by opening that hole in your head people call a mouth. I just left a message to a question and you guys all well you can fill in the blank.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Stop creating editions, multiples, etc... and start producing one of a kind originals like other artist such as painters. You asked, there is the answer, but many do not want to hear this as this goes against everything they were brainwashed to believe. Their is no reason we cannot treat this medium like a painting by only creating a single unique work of art. If you want to create editions, fine , make ONE ( 1 ) original and scan it or photograph it like a painters does their paintings and make a reproduction of the original and call the copies your editions, reproduction, whatever, but only ever produce one original.

As long as photographers do editions, multiples, etc... the public will continue to think of the work as pretty pictures, just another click of the shutter image for the wall, etc... Another dime a dozen photograph...

Make them unique and maybe people will start considering a photograph art.

It doesn't matter what we think it is what the public thinks, and most of the public looks at a photo and says, yup I can do that. You just pushed a button. You have to do something that no one else is willing to do to make a change. Make 1, destroy the neg, sell the print. Only one exists and if someone else wants a copy, well then they will either have to contact the person that bought it, just like a painting, or buy a cheap digital reproduction.

 

[JBrunner]

Using a polaroid = artist.
Using a view camera and making two prints before destroying the neg=merely a photographer.

So, ee cummings, was he an artist? I see his stuff reproduced everywhere. Hmm.. too bad, and too bad about Dylan Thomas, and that Whorhol guy, and all the other poets (just scribes) and screen printers. Hmmm, guess I'll have to chuck my hand pulled Jasper Johns (he was just a printer, you know)

 

[removed account4]

For all you selective readers who have twisted everything I said; here is the original post one more time. If you read what I said you can see that you guys are the one with the passive-agressive attitude. I just left a message and you guys all well you can fill in the blank.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Stop creating editions, multiples, etc... and start producing one of a kind originals like other artist such as painters. You asked, there is the answer, but many do not want to hear this as this goes against everything they were brainwashed to believe. Their is no reason we cannot treat this medium like a painting by only creating a single unique work of art. If you want to create editions, fine , make ONE ( 1 ) original and scan it or photograph it like a painters does their paintings and make a reproduction of the original and call the copies your editions, reproduction, whatever, but only ever produce one original.

As long as photographers do editions, multiples, etc... the public will continue to think of the work as pretty pictures, just another click of the shutter image for the wall, etc... Another dime a dozen photograph...

Make them unique and maybe people will start considering a photograph art.

It doesn't matter what we think it is what the public thinks, and most of the public looks at a photo and says, yup I can do that. You just pushed a button. You have to do something that no one else is willing to do to make a change. Make 1, destroy the neg, sell the print. Only one exists and if someone else wants a copy, well then they will either have to contact the person that bought it, just like a painting, or buy a cheap digital reproduction.

kevin

you didn't really answer my question ...
the photographs you are selling editions of
through your auctions and web-sales are
"cheap digital reproductions" ?

it seems that you are playing both sides of the deck ...
multiple images from the same negative or file are bad,
unless you do it ...

 

[Kerik]

No matter how much you stamp your feet, hold your breath and scream to the winds, calling yourself an artist (over and over and over again) does not make you one. Ultimately, it's not for you (or me) to decide. Whether you do editions or 1-offs is really irrelevent in the Big Picture. And remember that this "general public", which you seem to hold in such high regard, values American Idol and Britney Spears much higher than anything that's come out of your darkroom (or mine.) Let them not be your yardstick of artist-ness.

By your definition, when I'm shooting film and making unique, hand-made, gum-over-platinum prints in limited editions, I am only a "photographer". But, when I'm shooting wet plate collodion and each plate is a TRUE 1-of-a-kind original, then I'm an Artist.

 

[bill schwab]

Here is the answer to everyones question...

What????

So after all this, you're saying you guys are offering reproductions anyway? Can you explain the difference between one of your inkjets and a print from the original negative? Is it lesser art or something? This separates you from "photographers" how? I'm completely confused Kevin.

 

[Arglebargle]

One of my new favorite quotes about life can be applied to art as well:

One of the three rules of life

Paradox: Life is a mystery. Don't waste time trying to figure it out.

From Dan Millman's Peaceful Warrior

I suppose Art is a better sounding description of what I do than OCD.

 

[kjsphoto]

kevin

you didn't really answer my question ...
the photographs you are selling editions of
through your auctions and web-sales are
"cheap digital reproductions" ?

it seems that you are playing both sides of the deck ...
multiple images from the same negative or file are bad,
unless you do it ...

I did, I make one original from a single negative. Destroy the negative
After that print sells with the negative I only offer a cheap reproduction, just like a painters does after they sell the only painting they made.

 

[kjsphoto]

What????

So after all this, you're saying you guys are offering reproductions anyway? Can you explain the difference between one of your inkjets and a print from the original negative? Is it lesser art or something? This separates you from "photographers" how? I'm completely confused Kevin.

I don't make inkjets. I think inkjets are carp.

I guess you didn't even read the post about the reproductions because if you did YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN WE DID NOT MAKE A SINGLE MENTION OF INKJET!

I make a reproduction form the original photograph. Once I make a photograph from the original negative ( Painting ) I destroy the negative so the print can never be hand made again. I then scan the rephotograph. The print I make form the scan is a reproduction not an original as it is printed by a lab on a digital process.

My original is printed by me by hand in my darkroom, one time from the negative I created by hand in my LF cameras in the field that I developed in the darkroom.

How much more do I have to spell this out for you. Does no one read? Geez...

Yes it does, photographers make an unlimited number of identical of copies from the same negative and call it an edition which is a lie. They make reproductions. I just took it one step further by making real reproduction and only offering 1 ONE original from the negative that is destroyed after the original print is made. It is really quite simple Bill.

I must tell you I am amazed how dense photographer's are. I have shown this model I am doing to collectors and to painter's and other artist and they understand it very clearly. I think you guys just don't want to hear it or refuse to accept the logic because it changes the way you have to think. OUTSIDE the photography box...

 

[bill schwab]

How much more do I have to speel this out for you. Does no one read? Geez...

Speel away. Maybe it will help.

:confused:

Me thinks someone spiked your egg nog.

 

[scootermm]

So...Do We?

in a few short words.... no, I dont think we actively (or consciously) prevent photography from being art.
passively, perhaps to a certain extent. however, I feel, from a conceptual standpoint (as some have stated) art will exist and surface and prevail regardless of the efforts, either active or passive, on our part as creators/practitioners.

It is great to have a site such as this one, LF and other forums to discuss the nuts and bolts of photography. We can all go on and on about why this format is so good, that process gives the right tool for our 'vision' or why we consider what we do is art. But we really do not seem to ever really discuss the emotion of our work.

I wonder the same sort thing quite often mike, as you and I have discussed this immensely before, something has occured to me. This conduit of communication (an internet forum) lends itself to more easily and concisely discussing the nuts and bolts of our chosen pursuit, they are tangible, measurable and somewhat easily defined and clearly stated. I know that if I were to desire to discuss the conceptual aspects of photography/art with you, or anyone, I would more than likely do so either through a phone call, or a face to face discourse. In order to discuss the emotional aspects of our vision and work, it seems one would be compelled to do so through a more immediate form of communication (phone call, face to face). THe immediate form lends itself to hearing the passion in the voice and words of the speaker, to see the excitement on their face, or the confusion, or the amazement. One of the reasons I've come to reiterate my belief that even in this day and age of instant gratification and e-communication, some forms of learning and communicating will always neccesitate hearing or seeing the communicator - IE, can anyone ever imagine an art class being able to exist in an online form?

With that said, I still "desire" to discuss these aspects through this sort of realm, by "this" I mean forums such as APUG et al. As there is no other avenue in our modern world were you can come to find such an immensely large and diverse populous. Its a bit of a double edged sword, on one hand, you have a conduit of communication that lacks the ability to fully express, share and converse about the intangible/emotional/immeasurable aspects of such a profoundly important activity we all share, yet on the other hand, the luster of being able to discuss it or attempting to discuss it, even in paltry form, is apparent, as the diversity is intriguing.
bit of a catch 22.

It seems much more difficult to discuss the reason we feel compelled to create the work that we want to share with others. In it's simplest form, we want to record a event - recent birth of a child, wedding, or other special event in our life, and these are very valid reasons to photograph. Many of us go through our daily life, and 'see' something special that demands that we stop and and preserve it for the future, to save a part of the moment for someone else to enjoy with us.

You mention some interesting and VERY thought provoking things. There has been an interesting progression I have observed in my own "view" of photography over the years since I first started fooling with it. My photography began as exactly what you mention, a desire to record an event, in my case that event was my fellow climbing community and the people who populated it. Capturing the action and dynamic nature of climbing, the locales, the day to day existance of a climber, from the mundane to the exciting, etc. I also captured ALOT of the typical: new born baby's, weddings, events, friendships, vacations, family, etc. Then I began to capture what emotionally and visually interested me, the surrounding world outside of climbing and the typical, things such as landscapes, old buildings, and architecture. Yet during this stage I was still capturing those initial "events" (climbing and the typical)... then the next progression came about, in which I came to the point of no longer even desiring or feeling compelled to capture these "events". Ive come to the point of not even owning a camera for snapshots, I havent photographed an event (friendship, vacation, family, etc) in years, aside from some slight detours (family reunion photos etc). My interest in them is non existant, I have no interest or desire to go through the effort of capturing anything less than what I feel resonates with that deeper emotional part of me. Its a bit of a curse to be honest, as I am seen by friends and family as a photographer, yet they are perpetually amazed that I NEVER have a camera with me to capture "moments". But it is a trade off... and one I am willing to make as it is what feels best for me.

You also mentioned we move through our lives and day to day we "see" things that demand we stop because we feel compelled to stop and record as we feel it worth sharing. This may be a bit off topic but Ill share it. I've found as I become more and more engaged and active in my photography I am finding myself to be less and less interested in travelling or vacationing. I know many photographers that can wonderfully and powerfully explore a far flung locale. They can take a trip for a few weeks and come back with amazingly powerful and intimate images from a place. However I am finding myself to be unable to accomplish this (or perhaps unwilling), I love the state I reside in. Texas has such a diverse and ever expanding pallete of photo ops that I find it hard to imagine EVER running out of cannon fodder for my chosen camera. I find this to be directly connected to my day to day residence here, as you stated, I see things every day that feel "worthy" of recording and sharing, the list in unending and I feel an almost fundamental responsibility to solely explore this area that is close to me, to intimately visit, revisit, and explore locations in order to truly distill down what resonates with me on the deepest possible level.... this seems the only means for me to adequately do justice to what is truly my vision.
For example, I am heading off to Massachusetts next week for the holidays, I am going to be hauling and travelling with my 12x20 camera, in hopes of capturing some snow scenes, and while this is exciting and exhilirating, I also simultaneously feel a pang of guilt that I should be "spending" that hard earned film on exploring my texas work. Almost as though I am disrespecting that personal work. I recently posted in the gallery two images from a trip to Colorado, I had not printed or worked with those negatives up until now because the immediate and "true" work that I create here and near home felt more pressing and worthwhile - in fact the main reason for printing those two was for xmas present for the good friend who helped me haul my 7x17 camera up to those mines

We go to workshops, we enjoy outings with other photographers, we want others to teach us how to 'see' photographically - they must have the key because of the emotion we feel when we look at their art, and we have this feeling inside our own being that we must release, and yet we do not know how. So we reduce it to discussion of film, lens, format, process, etc. I do not know if other artist, from painters, sculptures, or even designers spend as much time as we do 'talking shop' or if it a photography thing.

I think you are expressing something worth discussing, but at the same time, I think a few things are being inter-connected that may in fact not be inter-connected, at least possibly not.
Workshops as a whole, for me at least, should serve the sole purpose of expanding ones technical knowledge, serving the purpose of growing our knowledge of the tools used to create the work that is ours. We can take workshops from people who’s work emotionally resonates with us, but I feel it impossible for them to “teach” us to see with the photographic eye that is uniquely ours. When vision is successfully “taught” I feel what is actually “taught” is repetition, not personal vision.
The people who’s work emotionally resonates with us do in fact have the key, but the key they have is a completely and utterly unique key to the lock containing their individual art and/or vision. We could use their key, we could take it to a key maker and have the key copied for us, we can even take that key and open a lock in us, but in my opinion, it will be a lock that opens up a repetition of their vision. The key to our vision can only be discovered and eventually utilized through our own means and through our own efforts and progression towards our vision.
Perhaps “we” do not know how and so we reduce it down to discussion of film/lens/format/process…. But I have another thought in this manner. Perhaps some do not desire to truly find “their” vision or individual work and so taking workshops and creating work that is more the icing on the cake, rather than unique ingredients for a truly unique “cake” is not of interest to them. We live in a society containing A LOT of superficiality and shallow depth… and if the world as a whole is scarcely filled with deepness and meaningfulness, I wouldn’t be surpised if there was a populous in the world of photography that is the same.
That is not meant to be cynical or judgmental, just merely an observation or point of view to consider in counter to your comment mike.

Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others - this level of navel gazing does not happen that often, and perhaps that is a good thing, but it was on my mind so thought I would share. What can we do to help push photography beyond the act of tripping a shutter, loading film, etc and becoming a reflection of our inner voice.

I think you may have stated it plainly mike, “this level of navel gazing does not happen that often”, I don’t think it does, but when it does, it is nice to be able to have a means to openly and honestly discuss it.

Perhaps someone among the 10s of thousands of APUGers has actually read all the way to this point. For that I am amazed and feel I should apologize for the long-windedness. But I do enjoy discussing such things and feel the effort of typing it all out makes it worthwhile. ?

So you did get some thoughts of “others” mike. Likely more thoughts than you wanted too.

 

[Dinesh]

I don't make inkjets. I think inkjets are carp....

Something sounds fishy.

You feel comfortable selling people what you deem to be "crap"?

 

[Kerik]

I think inkjets are carp.

To me they always seem more like ponies. Or was it unicorns???

And where's my Lagavullin?? Bill????

 

[scootermm]

To me they always seem more like ponies. Or was it unicorns???

And where's my Lagavullin?? Bill????

Ill bring a bottle of this and share some with you next time we meet up kerik.....

 

[Kerik]

Ill bring a bottle of this and share some with you next time we meet up kerik.....

Now, THAT is what I call ART!!

 

[bill schwab]

And where's my Lagavullin?? Bill????

MMmmmmmmm.... THAT sounds good.