Establishing a repeatable process.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.

What are your thoughts on this?

A lot of photographers and darkroom practitioners could determine contrast range of both. I worked for old dog photographers that know how much develop film to match their paper grades.

 

[removedacct1]

What is "art"? Who defines "art"?

It is my opinion that this is pretty much a pointless question. I think it is more meaningful to ponder WHY someone would ask "what is Art?". These discussions always seem to imply that if one of us has our creative output labeled "Art" then suddenly all other validation is unnecessary, as if our work has reached a pinnacle of value and we have finally "arrived" as an "artist". Such nonsense. If you are creating photographs purely for the sake of reaching for some elusive, ill-defined "ultimate validation" then you're motivated by the wrong forces. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Az Prospector]

That is a question you need to ask yourself and then answer, and refrain from making disparaging remarks about other peoples images. You'll also note that I wasn't the one bringing the notion of art up in this thread.

You need to keep to the subject of your original post in this thread.

Ian

Your response seems strange in that you propose that producing "art" is primary for you yet you seem unwilling to answer either of my questions. It would seem that if one is engaged in producing art they would be able to define what that is.

I have been guilty of the same sort of soft thinking in my life. I have observed other photographers who say things like "I am doing fine art photography" yet when I actually began to question that I was unable to define what that was. I have not found many other photographers who have been able to get their minds around what that term connotates. Yet many continue to do what you do and yet are reluctant or unable to define it when questioned.

Is photographic art simply a depiction of beauty? Does photographic art seek to tell a tale? Can photographic art pose questions rather than telling tales? Is photographic art simply the tonal depiction of tones, patterns, lines, shapes and textures? Does photographic art necessarily involve an emotional response by the viewer? Is photographic art simply a more suitable term for intellectual dishonesty, mental masturbation and ego gratification.

It would seem that if we are to believe that the production of art is primary that we should stop jerking off ourselves and define what that is.

 

[Az Prospector]

It is my opinion that this is pretty much a pointless question. I think it is more meaningful to ponder WHY someone would ask "what is Art?". These discussions always seem to imply that if one of us has our creative output labeled "Art" then suddenly all other validation is unnecessary, as if our work has reached a pinnacle of value and we have finally "arrived" as an "artist". Such nonsense. If you are creating photographs purely for the sake of reaching for some elusive, ill-defined "ultimate validation" then you're motivated by the wrong forces. Just my opinion, of course.

I do not agree that the questions are pointless. Although I do agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Ian Grant]

Are you same Donald Miller, you seem to be having a breakdown, and are you the same Donald Miller who was here some years ago ? What's with your personal attacks ?

I DID NOT introduce the word art into this thread take your questions up with the person that did.

Ian

 

[Az Prospector]

Are you same Donald Miller, you seem to be having a breakdown, and are you the same Donald Miller who was here some years ago ? What's with your personal attacks ?

I DID NOT introduce the word art into this thread take your questions up with the person that did.

Ian

Ian, I see you are still unwilling or unable to answer the questions that your comment indicated as being appropriate. No personal attack intended. Will you please share what your thoughts are on the subject.

What is this thing you identified as being primary?

Are you same Donald Miller, you seem to be having a breakdown, and are you the same Donald Miller who was here some years ago ? What's with your personal attacks ?

I DID NOT introduce the word art into this thread take your questions up with the person that did.

Ian

Ian, With all due respect, did you or did you not say the following "Instead of "making art" secondary, just the opposite happens you have the ability of "making art" the priority.
"?
So my questions are appropriate and warranted. What is this "art" that you are "making" ?

Tell us what characteristics define this "art".

At least tell us what this amounts to for you. It would appear if this is an objective we would at least want to know what we are aiming for?

 

[removedacct1]

I have observed other photographers who say things like "I am doing fine art photography" yet when I actually began to question that I was unable to define what that was. I have not found many other photographers who have been able to get their minds around what that term connotates. Yet many continue to do what you do and yet are reluctant or unable to define it when questioned.

This is precisely why the question is pointless (or perhaps I should say futile). No two people can (or ever have) agreed upon a definition. However, rather than trying to imbue the word with specific properties, it might be more useful to simply say that "art is a language" and leave it at that.

As far as I am concerned, I don't tell people I make "Art". I don't care if my output gets labeled as such - it wouldn't make it any more meaningful to/for me, so why yearn for the title? I enjoy making photographs and I leave it to other people to attach whatever labels they care to use. That's none of my concern.

 

[Vaughn]

Or art is a process. But 'art is a language' is quite nicely put...thanks.

 

[Az Prospector]

Or art is a process. But 'art is a language' is quite nicely put...thanks.

I agree with that definition as well. I do think that just as spoken languages have specific differences they also have universal similarities.

I could say that art is an unspoken language. However, being unspoken it must communicate at some level since all languages serve the purpose of communication.

At what level does the unspoken language of art communicate? It would seem to me since it is not physically heard it would be the level of emotion.

Since, if this is true, this emotional communication must be at a more or less universal level of emotion as related to the human condition.

Your thoughts?

 

[Vaughn]

I believe the Greeks considered the vocal and acting arts to be of the highest order. 'Language' is a handy metaphor, but appears to break down as such when it becomes 'unspoken'. Spoken poetry is words straight to the heart. Photography is vision straight to the heart. Music is distilled sex.

When art, composition, and traditions are discussed here, it tends to be from a Euro-centric viewpoint. my signature line kind od tells you where my mind is at.

 

[Az Prospector]

I believe the Greeks considered the vocal and acting arts to be of the highest order. 'Language' is a handy metaphor, but appears to break down as such when it becomes 'unspoken'. Spoken poetry is words straight to the heart. Photography is vision straight to the heart. Music is distilled sex.

When art, composition, and traditions are discussed here, it tends to be from a Euro-centric viewpoint. my signature line kind od tells you where my mind is at.

Is not "straight to the heart" an emotional response?

 

[Ian Grant]

Donald Miller, your abusive approach helps no-one particularly yourself. By the way apologies for the Typo I meant to say "Are you sane Donald Miller" in my last post

I don't have to reply as to what I think is art. Perhaps it's worth worth noting I do have a a Post Graduate MA qualification from a University Arts faculty and have exhibited extensively in Art and Photography Galleries and none have been "Vanity" exhibitions, I've been paid to exhibit, had arts funding and sponsorship.

Actually I take exactly the same line as Paul Barden:

This is precisely why the question is pointless (or perhaps I should say futile). No two people can (or ever have) agreed upon a definition. However, rather than trying to imbue the word with specific properties, it might be more useful to simply say that "art is a language" and leave it at that.

As far as I am concerned, I don't tell people I make "Art". I don't care if my output gets labeled as such - it wouldn't make it any more meaningful to/for me, so why yearn for the title? I enjoy making photographs and I leave it to other people to attach whatever labels they care to use. That's none of my concern.

So I find your questioning on this offensive, puerile, and childish. It's something you need to resolve for yourself. I just won't participate in your argument.

Ian

 

[Az Prospector]

Donald Miller, your abusive approach helps no-one particularly yourself. By the way apologies for the Typo I meant to say "Are you sane Donald Miller" in my last post

I don't have to reply as to what I think is art. Perhaps it's worth worth noting I do have a a Post Graduate MA qualification from a University Arts faculty and have exhibited extensively in Art and Photography Galleries and none have been "Vanity" exhibitions, I've been paid to exhibit, had arts funding and sponsorship.

Actually I take exactly the same line as Paul Barden:



So I find your questioning on this offensive, puerile, and childish. It's something you need to resolve for yourself. I just won't participate in your argument.

Ian

OK taken as you do not feel able to engage in an intellectual examination of your stated position. Ciao

 

[Ian Grant]

OK taken as you do not feel able to engage in an intellectual examination of your stated position. Ciao

I would happily participate in an intellectual discussion but unfortunately you've already proved unworthy of any of my time spent on this. But more importantly you would need to ask those questions to all members here so start a new thread.

BTW Are you the Donald Miller who used to post under his own name / You never answered that question . . . . . . .

Ian

 

[removed account4]

Hi Az
This thread might be of some help defining "art" even thought it has "fine" in front of it
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-fine-art.22190/
Are you asking in "museum/gallery/arthistory/critical art theory-speak" or "regular person speak"
in the former, when it enters "the discourse" and the later "when aunt mable says so"

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Haven't been in the darkroom for a while, but this is what I came up with for repeatable results while printing:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/12-15-developer.123/

I could work a negative one day, put the used working solution print developer in one of those mylar bags boxed wine used to come in, then pick up exactly where I'd left off a week or more later using the same developer. The last print from a previous session and the first print from the new session would be identical if the same steps were used. Going from an old batch of used developer to a new batch was also not a problem.

I came up with this method because I was learning pin registered sharp and unsharp masking techniques and it was impossible to get a fine print in one day. Even the used developer would last a loooong time.

Take it or leave it, but don't discount it as impossible until you've tried it.