Fine Art Status

MaximusM3 said " for contemporary art collectors it’s much more about the object itself—they couldn’t care if it’s a dye transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that’s what they care about."

I would add it must compliment the fabric on the couch it will be hung over.

Do what you want. Satisfy yourself. If you by chance become popular and collectors really want your pieces, they will be the ones to get rich off your works after you are dead.

mark said:

MaximusM3 said " for contemporary art collectors it’s much more about the object itself—they couldn’t care if it’s a dye transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that’s what they care about."

I would add it must compliment the fabric on the couch it will be hung over.

Do what you want. Satisfy yourself. If you by chance become popular and collectors really want your pieces, they will be the ones to get rich off your works after you are dead.

Click to expand...

Agree Mark The first quote wasn't mine btw, and I don't necessarily agree with it. It may be that way for some, but not all.

MaximusM3 said:

Really? how does that work?? Once you have an image done, finished, on your screen, an Epson 7890 can crank out 100 IDENTICAL 11x14 prints in about 8 hours. Do you really think you could get 100 complex prints, that require dodging, burning, maybe masking, bleaching, toning, washing, drying in 8 hours?? AND do you truly believe that it is not harder to produce 100 beautiful silver gelatin prints than it is spitting out inkjets, even after counting maybe one hour of post processing work in front of a screen? Please, let's get real.
When I do gravure, even after I get a plate finished, it probably takes me 4-5 hours to get five prints that I consider worthy of being framed, sold, or for a gallery show. It is NOT the same, for as much as you want to believe otherwise.

Click to expand...

OK lets say it takes a week. You can still produce far more than the limited edition number if you wanted to.

What I said was that either medium could over produce limited editions if they were unscrupulous.

On top of that you could crank out analog prints in a factory setting much like Kinkade did.

There is certainly no guarantee that "hand made" is a protected limited edition any more than anything else is if someone wanted to cheat the marketplace.

cliveh said:

Will the continued use of digital photography elevate more film photography to a fine art status in the future? I’m thinking here in terms of a comparison to painting when photography came along. I would like to think so.

Click to expand...

No, the continued use of digital cameras will eventually lead to more sophisticated image making and innovation. At that point, when somebody comes along and shows us how digital cameras can be used with a straight, no frills sensibility, this is when I will forget about film and join the revolution. FYI, 'fine art photography' doesn't have any meaning anymore, except where the marketing of amateur work online is concerned. Please update your terminology.

MaximusM3 said:

What they are buying is an image that moves them, printed on beautiful art paper, using a process that is laborious, time consuming, frustrating at times, expensive, but again, the end result are gorgeous, unique, handmade prints and that's where a lot of the value lies.

Click to expand...

I think that, quality and appeal of the image aside, a good marketer would always find the way to sell the laborious, time consuming, frustrating, unique, handmade, non-repeatable and rare attributes as an added value. The qualities quoted by Massimo are exactly what might, in the future, make analogue stand out. I repeat I mean that coeteris paribus. The fact that the process used by Massimo is "hybrid" and not strictly entirely analogue is not the point. The point is that the halo of sanctity which shines over carefully handmade objects is a selling point and adds value even in those cases where the numeric-controlled machine would in theory make a better work.

If that wasn't the case people would buy reproduction of famous paintings instead of original paintings. With modern techniques it is possible to have a PERFECT-looking reproduction of let's say a painting by Caravaggio, with all the paint relief, which is probably indistinguishable from the original at first, second and third sight. But the mind knows it's just a factory product.

There's a mystique in "hand-made" objects which sells. Digital workflow even when "laborious, time consuming and frustrating" IMO will never manage to acquire the same halo.

All this cannot be a substitute for the basic qualities of a print, its visual appeal etc. But it can be used as an added point of interest, and as an added point of value.

Diapositivo said:

I think that, quality and appeal of the image aside, a good marketer would always find the way to sell the laborious, time consuming, frustrating, unique, handmade, non-repeatable and rare attributes as an added value. The qualities quoted by Massimo are exactly what might, in the future, make analogue stand out. I repeat I mean that coeteris paribus. The fact that the process used by Massimo is "hybrid" and not strictly entirely analogue is not the point. The point is that the halo of sanctity which shines over carefully handmade objects is a selling point and adds value even in those cases where the numeric-controlled machine would in theory make a better work.

If that wasn't the case people would buy reproduction of famous paintings instead of original paintings. With modern techniques it is possible to have a PERFECT-looking reproduction of let's say a painting by Caravaggio, with all the paint relief, which is probably indistinguishable from the original at first, second and third sight. But the mind knows it's just a factory product.

There's a mystique in "hand-made" objects which sells. Digital workflow even when "laborious, time consuming and frustrating" IMO will never manage to acquire the same halo.

All this cannot be a substitute for the basic qualities of a print, its visual appeal etc. But it can be used as an added point of interest, and as an added point of value.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you are correct in your assessments, Fabrizio. BTW..the "laborious, time consuming and frustrating" part wasn't in reference to the digital workflow of the process. That is the fairly easy part (and not without pitfalls, by any stretch of the imagination). What comes after that, with copper plate photogravure, is an entirely different story.

batwister said:

No, the continued use of digital cameras will eventually lead to more sophisticated image making and innovation. At that point, when somebody comes along and shows us how digital cameras can be used with a straight, no frills sensibility, this is when I will forget about film and join the revolution. FYI, 'fine art photography' doesn't have any meaning anymore, except where the marketing of amateur work online is concerned. Please update your terminology.

Click to expand...

Why ask him to update his terminology when you are merely voicing an opinion which is not really fact altogether?

First off, if you think that the term "Fine Art Photography" has been swallowed up into the nauseating abyss of amateur online digital work, you would be incorrect and probably spend too much time online. You need to go to good galleries who show good work in towns that have a more cultured approach to representing art and art history, NY, Paris, London, Prague, LA, Sante Fe and even lil' ol' Aspen...

Secondly, you are thinking of digital photography from a photographer's perspective, not a consumer or educated art aficionado perspective. The reason this is important to consider is that nothing is more over hyped and over-promoted and self serving as the internet / digital age. I read two stories on the AP wire that had nothing to do with technology and yet, the writer had to be sure and beat me over the head with how many hits, tweets and views a story topic had in social media....technology loves to talk about it self and make you believe that is all there is...I call it the "TMZ" effect...

So if the public is getting their head beaten in by all the new hype, then everyone, even the people who promote the hype need a break. They need tactility, a shower, food, love, a walk, fresh air....or they need to go lose them self in staring at giant paintings in the Louvre for awhile. In short, they need to feed upon something that is not derived of a computer...or a computer camera or print for that matter as in this case.

Simply put, people know how the world now works, there is the computer and then there is everything else that is not a computer...

It's all too easy for photo-centric circles to get lost in the technology versus value versus which is better arguments. So it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that even though there are many opinions to the contrary, smart self educating people who would most likely be your customer simply know better when it comes to what is hand made and what is not.....they want to know so they find the answers...

It does not matter at this point how good digital anything gets, it is still not hand made in the sense of the term that most people relate to. That genie is out of the bottle, everyone knows how easy it is to mass produce so called "Art" on a computer.....no matter how much time *you* might have spent in front of the computer...it still was made on a computer, period. Maybe if this astounding technology were used in say, 1975 and no one else was using it on their laptop and even their phones, it might be viewed differently by the art world and the consumer. But this is not the case, digital has both saturated it self and devalued it self very quickly...and it is still said to be just getting started, so imagine the carnage of value yet to come, yikes!

So I stand by my assertions and my own personal experience.....

If your product, any product for that matter, is truly handmade and is *exceptional* in it's level of artistic merit, well marketed and talked about, you might just do great. But with digital, there is simply no assurance of that based on the growing perceptions that the public has.

Of course it is up to us the analog shooter to educate the viewers of our work to a degree, but in some ways, the digital engine is educating people too with the now near weekly articles of the ubiquitous nature of photography and the subsequent devaluing of it in terms of pros making a living. So in some ways, the marketing of analog becoming an ever more rare and unique and a worthy art form from a gallery perspective is happening automatically....

This is a good, GOOD thing.....

Ten years from now, the notion of handmade compared to computer made will astound you in what it will have done to the public's perception or art and music...it is already happening...but man, you have not seen anything yet.....

Think of statues. You're looking to drop a couple g's on decorating your garden with a giant bronze Elk statue and you see the one you want and it's marked 25k. Ok you say, you inquire, and learn that it's not forged individually, but rather comes out a perfect forge machine and there is an inventory of about 50 waiting for other customers. Now at the same price, across the street, there is one that was done by hand by the artist selling it for the exact same price.

Which would you choose? --even if they were identical?

Now for me, I dabble in all sides. I play with hybrid workflow and diginegs, but still do plenty of darkroom work...hell I scan color slides and print on an inkjet. I think all methods are equally capable of producing amazing results, but I think my above analogy stands.

PKM-25 said:

Why ask him to update his terminology when you are merely voicing an opinion which is not really fact altogether?

First off, if you think that the term "Fine Art Photography" has been swallowed up into the nauseating abyss of amateur online digital work, you would be incorrect and probably spend too much time online. You need to go to good galleries who show good work in towns that have a more cultured approach to representing art and art history, NY, Paris, London, Prague, LA, Sante Fe and even lil' ol' Aspen...

Secondly, you are thinking of digital photography from a photographer's perspective, not a consumer or educated art aficionado perspective. The reason this is important to consider is that nothing is more over hyped and over-promoted and self serving as the internet / digital age. I read two stories on the AP wire that had nothing to do with technology and yet, the writer had to be sure and beat me over the head with how many hits, tweets and views a story topic had in social media....technology loves to talk about it self and make you believe that is all there is...I call it the "TMZ" effect...

So if the public is getting their head beaten in by all the new hype, then everyone, even the people who promote the hype need a break. They need tactility, a shower, food, love, a walk, fresh air....or they need to go lose them self in staring at giant paintings in the Louvre for awhile. In short, they need to feed upon something that is not derived of a computer...or a computer camera or print for that matter as in this case.

Simply put, people know how the world now works, there is the computer and then there is everything else that is not a computer...

It's all too easy for photo-centric circles to get lost in the technology versus value versus which is better arguments. So it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that even though there are many opinions to the contrary, smart self educating people who would most likely be your customer simply know better when it comes to what is hand made and what is not.....they want to know so they find the answers...

It does not matter at this point how good digital anything gets, it is still not hand made in the sense of the term that most people relate to. That genie is out of the bottle, everyone knows how easy it is to mass produce so called "Art" on a computer.....no matter how much time *you* might have spent in front of the computer...it still was made on a computer, period. Maybe if this astounding technology were used in say, 1975 and no one else was using it on their laptop and even their phones, it might be viewed differently by the art world and the consumer. But this is not the case, digital has both saturated it self and devalued it self very quickly...and it is still said to be just getting started, so imagine the carnage of value yet to come, yikes!

So I stand by my assertions and my own personal experience.....

If your product, any product for that matter, is truly handmade and is *exceptional* in it's level of artistic merit, well marketed and talked about, you might just do great. But with digital, there is simply no assurance of that based on the growing perceptions that the public has.

Of course it is up to us the analog shooter to educate the viewers of our work to a degree, but in some ways, the digital engine is educating people too with the now near weekly articles of the ubiquitous nature of photography and the subsequent devaluing of it in terms of pros making a living. So in some ways, the marketing of analog becoming an ever more rare and unique and a worthy art form from a gallery perspective is happening automatically....

This is a good, GOOD thing.....

Ten years from now, the notion of handmade compared to computer made will astound you in what it will have done to the public's perception or art and music...it is already happening...but man, you have not seen anything yet.....

Click to expand...

AMEN!

PKM-25 said:

Why ask him to update his terminology when you are merely voicing an opinion which is not really fact altogether?

First off, if you think that the term "Fine Art Photography" has been swallowed up into the nauseating abyss of amateur online digital work, you would be incorrect and probably spend too much time online. You need to go to good galleries who show good work in towns that have a more cultured approach to representing art and art history, NY, Paris, London, Prague, LA, Sante Fe and even lil' ol' Aspen...

Secondly, you are thinking of digital photography from a photographer's perspective, not a consumer or educated art aficionado perspective. The reason this is important to consider is that nothing is more over hyped and over-promoted and self serving as the internet / digital age. I read two stories on the AP wire that had nothing to do with technology and yet, the writer had to be sure and beat me over the head with how many hits, tweets and views a story topic had in social media....technology loves to talk about it self and make you believe that is all there is...I call it the "TMZ" effect...

So if the public is getting their head beaten in by all the new hype, then everyone, even the people who promote the hype need a break. They need tactility, a shower, food, love, a walk, fresh air....or they need to go lose them self in staring at giant paintings in the Louvre for awhile. In short, they need to feed upon something that is not derived of a computer...or a computer camera or print for that matter as in this case.

Simply put, people know how the world now works, there is the computer and then there is everything else that is not a computer...

It's all too easy for photo-centric circles to get lost in the technology versus value versus which is better arguments. So it is also easy to lose sight of the fact that even though there are many opinions to the contrary, smart self educating people who would most likely be your customer simply know better when it comes to what is hand made and what is not.....they want to know so they find the answers...

It does not matter at this point how good digital anything gets, it is still not hand made in the sense of the term that most people relate to. That genie is out of the bottle, everyone knows how easy it is to mass produce so called "Art" on a computer.....no matter how much time *you* might have spent in front of the computer...it still was made on a computer, period. Maybe if this astounding technology were used in say, 1975 and no one else was using it on their laptop and even their phones, it might be viewed differently by the art world and the consumer. But this is not the case, digital has both saturated it self and devalued it self very quickly...and it is still said to be just getting started, so imagine the carnage of value yet to come, yikes!

So I stand by my assertions and my own personal experience.....

If your product, any product for that matter, is truly handmade and is *exceptional* in it's level of artistic merit, well marketed and talked about, you might just do great. But with digital, there is simply no assurance of that based on the growing perceptions that the public has.

Of course it is up to us the analog shooter to educate the viewers of our work to a degree, but in some ways, the digital engine is educating people too with the now near weekly articles of the ubiquitous nature of photography and the subsequent devaluing of it in terms of pros making a living. So in some ways, the marketing of analog becoming an ever more rare and unique and a worthy art form from a gallery perspective is happening automatically....

This is a good, GOOD thing.....

Ten years from now, the notion of handmade compared to computer made will astound you in what it will have done to the public's perception or art and music...it is already happening...but man, you have not seen anything yet.....

Click to expand...

Well said.

PKM-25 said:

First off, if you think that the term "Fine Art Photography" has been swallowed up into the nauseating abyss of amateur online digital work, you would be incorrect and probably spend too much time online. You need to go to good galleries who show good work in towns that have a more cultured approach to representing art and art history, NY, Paris, London, Prague, LA, Sante Fe and even lil' ol' Aspen...

Click to expand...

I've been to exhibits in Manchester UK, which mainly show the work of 'artists as photographers'. See Sarah Lucas. That is, photography that has some credibility and unique value in the context of the traditional art it stands alongside. Its values are bound to the ephemeral nature of photography; 'sketches', throwaway ideas, here today gone tomorrow. This is the kind of photography art scholars and curators like best, because it poses no competition to the 'real' singular, respectable artworks on which they have built their careers and established their authority. Unfortunately, big galleries that only show photography don't exist in the UK, so you might better understand my cynicism about what is shown. Yet, this kind of photography is closer to what I feel is important modern work. John Sexton and the rest of the 'master printers', are something else. Don't get me wrong, I own 'Recollections' by Sexton and it's beautiful, but...

I believe the 'West coast' school of photography in the US is a tradition that can only exist in a country that truly values its photography heritage. A popular photographic niche from which what we know as 'fine art' photography originates. Unfortunately, in the UK, we can't afford to be nostalgic and procrastinate with out of date ideals. Photography isn't 'comfortable' enough as a medium for expression here. For photography to move forward in the UK, I think the best way to get art photography into public consciousness is to produce memorable, timely and relevant images and forget about the value of the print - which is the photographer's concern. Why burden the viewer with our anxiety about our precious materials? Won't someone PLEASE think about the images! Going on forever about the beauty of the optical print is sidestepping the real issue with photography today. Traditional materials are undoubtedly the best form of presentation, technologically speaking, but this is incidental where the viewer is concerned and so has to be where the photographer is concerned. Shoot film and shut up. I truly believe in that regard that making a point of your media preference (film/optical prints) is a sure sign of a creative inferiority complex for a modern photographer. That is... if he is aware of what is going on in the contemporary art world. If on the other hand he works in a vacuum and only looks at photography pre-1950, then his ideals can't be blamed, he is naive.

Photography which plays heavily on the virtues (or even aesthetic) of the materials - just like arts and crafts - isn't taken seriously by the art world and holds up better in local galleries, for a fair price. Has Michael Kenna ever had a show at MoMA out of interest? Yet isn't he practically a household name? If we're talking about fine art photography, we should know its place. Michael Kenna is held at a distance, perhaps regretfully for many contemporary photography galleries, because his work relies so heavily on the print and references 'the old masters', the past. This kind of work tends to be decorative and it sells for that reason. It's unfortunate that decorative work is regarded with skepticism in the world of contemporary photography, but this has been the case since at least the New Topographics. Decorative work and the sentimentality about the print are inseparable. I've found this to be unanimous. It's been said many times recently that photography has been moving sideways for a long time, and I believe the traditional photographers still holding onto 20th century ideals about the photograph as a pretty object, are largely to blame. 'Fine art photography' is a nostalgic mentality, rooted in ignorance and an avoidance of modern photographic ideals.

EDIT: I should also say that I love the physicality of traditional photography, but it's not the sole reason I enter the darkroom. It's an incidental part of the process of making images - which is what the viewer wants to see. If your prints end up in a frame, any suggestion that the physicality of the photographic process matters to the viewer is a contradiction. I've said in the past that the physicality was what I loved about film, but it's a mistake to think this matters to anyone but other photographers trying to gain insight into how the image was crafted. The average viewer better appreciates the unique tonality and depth of the optical print, not the physicality of its making - this is the photographer's fetish.

batwister said:

I believe the traditional photographers still holding onto 20th century ideals about the photograph as a pretty object, are largely to blame. 'Fine art photography' is a nostalgic mentality, rooted in ignorance and an avoidance of modern photographic ideals.

Click to expand...

I don't regard 'Fine art photography' as just pretty objects.

In summary, I feel digital photography (with a great deal of further development) will allow photographers to be more innovative than traditional photographers because there will be no poisonous value attachment to the making of the print, which holds 'fine art' photographers back. Only the image matters in digital photography, but the presentation of the digital image is still being wrestled with. I love film and analog cameras and lenses simply because currently, it is the superior technology. But never say never.

Lol, Batwister, for some reason I feel like you are missing the point I made in saying that above all else, the impact of the photograph has to be exceptional, no matter the medium. As for the rest of it, like I or not, digital photography is computer photography, talent being equal, it is going to increasingly come under more wallet driven scrutiny when compared to something that was hand made...that is not a product of what we as image makers say or want, it is a product of what the digital age is doing to perception as a whole...hand made is hand made, digital will never be that.

And this is simply the way it should be

I think of how many wonderful things machines can produce, like let's say a bicycle wheel, yet the handmade ones still command a higher price although critically aren't as good. Are people idiots or what?!

PKM, I'd love to come up and see your work some time. I think Aspen is only about 6 hours away. Didn't realize there was such an art scene up there.

Rich folks love hand made stuff. Other than photographs, they love hand made cars. These guys go upwards of $300K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufori

PKM-25 said:

As for the rest of it, like I or not, digital photography is computer photography, talent being equal, it is going to increasingly come under more wallet driven scrutiny when compared to something that was hand made...

Click to expand...

When you say 'hand made' you're making photography sound like arts and crafts, which was partly my point. I really don't understand why people like yourself don't just take up pottery! It's an incidental part of making a photograph, which, being the most significant difference between digital and traditional photography, has become emotionally imbued for arguments sake. I'm imagining that scene from 'Ghost' (terrible film, yes) but with the couple in a darkroom, rubbing their hands all over a wet print.

batwister said:

When you say 'hand made' you're making photography sound like arts and crafts, which was partly my point. I really don't understand why people like yourself don't just take up pottery! It's an incidental part of making a photograph, which, being the most significant difference between digital and traditional photography, has become emotionally imbued for arguments sake. I'm imagining that scene from 'Ghost' (terrible film, yes) but with the couple in a darkroom, rubbing their hands all over a wet print.

Click to expand...

It does not even have to do so much with hands as it does in not making computer aided art. If the day comes that I can no longer find the materials to produce my work other than digtal means, I would likely move onto another craft, and this is after using digital for nearly 20 years now. It's not a slam against the medium, I still use it, about to go into a meeting with a commercial client in that we will use it for an ad campaign.

The cut and dry for me personally is doing great work on film and in wet print when the rest of the world is going bonkers over something I mastered over a decade ago is just a heck of a lot of fun and seems to get nothing but positive reactions in a artsy town like where I live.

Life is too short to do what everyone else does...

If using your hands is the criteria for art why not just pick your nose while you hit the print button on your computer.

Hand made art better?

blansky said:

If using your hands is the criteria for art why not just pick your nose while you hit the print button on your computer.

Click to expand...

I think art is a uniquely human endeavor. One thing that makes it more human is a person making it, not just a machine churning a product. Why do we visit art museums and galleries? Why some prefer to go to concerts while we have stereo systems? Yes there's are that uses technology like the work of Bill Viola that is delivered with a machine. But with work involving materials, art made by an artist is generally more valuable as a collector. There are various reasons for making and consuming art, but my reason for participating in the creation and consumption of art is for me transformative when I make it and when I see other people's art.

blansky said:

If using your hands is the criteria for art why not just pick your nose while you hit the print button on your computer.

Click to expand...

Not sure if that's supposed to be humorous but I'll go under the assumption that it isn't.
Years ago, I was granted a private tour of the Ferrari factory in Maranello. Having owned and raced a few (not F1 of course), I could appreciate what it took to build each one of those jewels. Not surprisingly, even though many parts are obviously machine made, you'd be surprised at how much of each car is assembled by hand, with painstaking attention to every small detail. There is a separate room where about 30 older women, who have been doing their job for a while, stitching leather for seats and dashboards. Experienced, older craftsman checking all sorts of parts for tolerances, assembling each one by hand. At the time, the assembly line for the F50 was about 15 mechanics working on one single car. THIS is why a Ferrari costs what it costs and those who can afford them are happy to pay $200K and up for a jewel of machinery. An automated factory, cranking out a car that may look similar and just as fast, or even faster, is simply not the same and really not the point. People pay more and see more value in unique, hand-crafted, pieces and that's the reality of it. It has always been that way. A digital print from a digital file may look the same and with less effort but it better be one heck of an image, and a huge print, to convince anyone with money and good taste to pay up.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to picking my nose with my ink-filthy fingers, then pulling some copper plate photogravure prints off the press, which I'm selling for $1200+
That will always beat the heck out of picking my nose while pushing a button, unless of course, one is planning to make nose-picking an art form.

Originally Posted by Maris:
With the proviso that "digital photography" isn't photography at all, it's "digital picture-making"

Click to expand...

ParkerSmithPhoto said:

That is truly one of the most bizarre and self-evidently false statements I've ever heard someone make about photography. Photography is about capturing light via a light sensitive surface -- film, digital, platinum, whatever -- with or without a lens.

Click to expand...

An even deeper thought recognises that ALL pictures of things out there in the real world start with "capturing light via a light sensitive surface".

For thousands of years the only light sensitive surface available was the megapixel sensor lying in the back of the eye that we now call the retina. All realist paintings and drawings start with this megapixel sensor intercepting the real optical image furnished by the eye-lens and cornea. The retina then transduces the image into a data stream that gets stored in memory. This memory is processed in the brain and is finally output in the form of a picture laid down by a mark-making device. The traditional "mark-making device" was a human hand pushing a paint brush or pencil.

Digital picture-making offers an exactly analogous workflow to traditional painting and drawing. The separate roles of lens, megapixel sensor, transducer, data stream, memory, processing, and mark-making device match exactly.

Making pictures out of light sensitive substances, photography in its true sense, is radically different! The photographic sensor is changed by the penetration of light and becomes, in situ, the picture itself. In particular there are no pixels in photography, no transducers, no data streams, no memories, no data processing, and no mark-makers. A photograph bears a physical and indexical relationship to its subject in the same way a footprint in a beach bears a physical and indexical relationship to the foot that made it.

Photography, and indeed fine-art photography, is forever secure if its unique qualities are never muddled with those of drawing, painting, or digital.

First of all, many thanks to all for sharing, so openly, your different perspectives on what is art, art of photography, fine art, and photographic art. I am learning a lot about how fluid those ideas are, and I have a feeling that the concept might be a temporal one. I would like to ask you to humour me, please, and to follow a thought experiment, and to share your observations, if you would be so kind.

Imagine that it is year 2112. Photography uses artificial intelligence technology, and images, flat, or multidimensional, or fully spatial, can be perfect representations of what was seen, with an optional multitude of applied corrections etc, all done within a matter of seconds, by commonly available, inexpensive equipment. Output is holography-like projected into space, or onto surfaces, and it is easy to make it indistinguishable from the real object, except, perhaps, when one wants to scale the image. You can even touch the projections, they are as soft or rough, as the original object was, unless one applied a creative manipulation, naturally. There are no "computers" as they were known in 2012: everyone just speaks, or simply thinks up their wishes, into the nearest Intelligent Thinking Cloud (ITC) Wish Receptor, and answers are given, things are purchased, actions happen, as required. No one uses old-fashioned "keyboards", of course.

There is a group of "old school" photographers. They use an ancient technology, that requires the use of rare equipment that has not been produced for 70 years, but which can be restored by dedicated people. They are called "inkjet printers". Image making process requires hours of using a "keyboard", and a thing called a "mouse", that takes some 5-10 years to master the movement of, not to mention years spent learning the art of visualising on the "screen" what the "print" will look like, because the colours never really match each other, or your wishes, anyway. Sometimes, you have to go back to the beginning, make changes, and repeat—you cannot just wish your idea into a Wish Receptor, because "computers" fundamentally do not understand human wishes, and they lack such receptors. You also need to make "ink" from rare, often toxic, chemicals, that are difficult to source, very expensive due to the scarcity of some of the precious ingredients, and, needless to say, requiring plenty of skill, just like the making of "paper" requires, which has nothing in common with that Bioquantic ITC Holopaper that materialises in front of you, as needed, unless the Cloud is in a temporarily bad mood, every Monday morning.

Above all, creation of an image, beautiful, but so old-fashioned, and with that retro "digital" look, counting perhaps as few as 800 megapixels, requires hours spent in front of a "screen", using a "computer", which breaks often, runs "software" that is often annoying, hangs up, is very unintuitive to use, relies on oddest ideas called "layers", and lots of numbers that always say 255... After spending hours tiring their minds, developing hand injuries, and shortening their lives from breathing toxic "ink" fumes, these amazing individuals, through the hard work of their hands and minds, create sometimes beautiful objects, which they call "traditional inkjet photographs". One has to admire their dedication, in the era of everything being made automatically, with no human intervention, by the ITC. In fact, to some art historians, these individuals, who can manually operate "computers", are reminiscent of 20th century photographers, who also created art by hand, by operating a primitive, but very satisfying to use objects, in labs, which they called "darkrooms".

However, there is a discussion just going on, on the APUG-Thought-Sharing-Collective, to decide if images produced using the ITC can be called fine art. It seems, that, unlike those who used computers in the past, people of today, who do everything by means of thinking an idea into the Cloud, cannot be equalled to the artisans and craftsmen of the long forgotten era.

Are the ITC photographers creating fine art, or just decorative products? Is fine art so abstract as to be always separable from its medium, or is the medium a holistic part of what makes art?

Rafal Lukawiecki said:

First of all, many thanks to all for sharing, so openly, your different perspectives on what is art, art of photography, fine art, and photographic art. I am learning a lot about how fluid those ideas are, and I have a feeling that the concept might be a temporal one. I would like to ask you to humour me, please, and to follow a thought experiment, and to share your observations, if you would be so kind.

Imagine that it is year 2112. Photography uses artificial intelligence technology, and images, flat, or multidimensional, or fully spatial, can be perfect representations of what was seen, with an optional multitude of applied corrections etc, all done within a matter of seconds, by commonly available, inexpensive equipment. Output is holography-like projected into space, or onto surfaces, and it is easy to make it indistinguishable from the real object, except, perhaps, when one wants to scale the image. You can even touch the projections, they are as soft or rough, as the original object was, unless one applied a creative manipulation, naturally. There are no "computers" as they were known in 2012: everyone just speaks, or simply thinks up their wishes, into the nearest Intelligent Thinking Cloud (ITC) Wish Receptor, and answers are given, things are purchased, actions happen, as required. No one uses old-fashioned "keyboards", of course.

There is a group of "old school" photographers. They use an ancient technology, that requires the use of rare equipment that has not been produced for 70 years, but which can be restored by dedicated people. They are called "inkjet printers". Image making process requires hours of using a "keyboard", and a thing called a "mouse", that takes some 5-10 years to master the movement of, not to mention years spent learning the art of visualising on the "screen" what the "print" will look like, because the colours never really match each other, or your wishes, anyway. Sometimes, you have to go back to the beginning, make changes, and repeat—you cannot just wish your idea into a Wish Receptor, because "computers" fundamentally do not understand human wishes, and they lack such receptors. You also need to make "ink" from rare, often toxic, chemicals, that are difficult to source, very expensive due to the scarcity of some of the precious ingredients, and, needless to say, requiring plenty of skill, just like the making of "paper" requires, which has nothing in common with that Bioquantic ITC Holopaper that materialises in front of you, as needed, unless the Cloud is in a temporarily bad mood, every Monday morning.

Above all, creation of an image, beautiful, but so old-fashioned, and with that retro "digital" look, counting perhaps as few as 800 megapixels, requires hours spent in front of a "screen", using a "computer", which breaks often, runs "software" that is often annoying, hangs up, is very unintuitive to use, relies on oddest ideas called "layers", and lots of numbers that always say 255... After spending hours tiring their minds, developing hand injuries, and shortening their lives from breathing toxic "ink" fumes, these amazing individuals, through the hard work of their hands and minds, create sometimes beautiful objects, which they call "traditional inkjet photographs". One has to admire their dedication, in the era of everything being made automatically, with no human intervention, by the ITC. In fact, to some art historians, these individuals, who can manually operate "computers", are reminiscent of 20th century photographers, who also created art by hand, by operating a primitive, but very satisfying to use objects, in labs, which they called "darkrooms".

However, there is a discussion just going on, on the APUG-Thought-Sharing-Collective, to decide if images produced using the ITC can be called fine art. It seems, that, unlike those who used computers in the past, people of today, who do everything by means of thinking an idea into the Cloud, cannot be equalled to the artisans and craftsmen of the long forgotten era.

Are the ITC photographers creating fine art, or just decorative products? Is fine art so abstract as to be always separable from its medium, or is the medium a holistic part of what makes art?

Click to expand...

As in the words of the great, Neil Peart...RUSH, 2112!

..'The massive grey walls of the Temples rise from the heart of every Federation city. I
Have always been awed by them, to think that every single facet of every life is regulated
And directed from within! Our books, our music, our work and play are all looked after by
The benevolent wisdom of the priests...'

We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all and all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls

Look around at this world we've made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the Brotherhood of Man
Oh, what a nice, contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls

[III. Discovery]

'... Behind my beloved waterfall, in the little room that was hidden beneath the cave, I
Found it. I brushed away the dust of the years, and picked it up, holding it reverently in
My hands. I had no idea what it might be, but it was beautiful...'

'... I learned to lay my fingers across the wires, and to turn the keys to make them sound
Differently. As I struck the wires with my other hand, I produced my first harmonious sounds
And soon my own music! How different it could be from the music of the Temples! I can't wait
To tell the priests about it!...'

What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
It's got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?

See how it sings like a sad heart
And joyously screams out it's pain
Sounds that build high like a mountain
Or notes that fall gently like rain

I can't wait to share this new wonder
The people will all see it's light
Let them all make their own music
The Priests praise my name on this night

[IV. Presentation]

'... In the sudden silence as I finished playing, I looked up to a circle of grim,
Expressionless faces. Father Brown rose to his feet, and his somnolent voice echoed
Throughout the silent Temple Hall...'
'... Instead of the grateful joy that I expected, they were words of quiet rejection!
Instead of praise, sullen dismissal. I watched in shock and horror as Father Brown ground
My precious instrument to splinters beneath his feet...'

I know it's most unusual
To come before you so
But I've found an ancient miracle
I thought that you should know
Listen to my music
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as life
I know that it will reach you

Yes, we know, it's nothing new
It's just a waste of time
We have no need for ancient ways
The world is doing fine
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the plan

I can't believe you're saying
These things just can't be true
Our world could use this beauty
Just think what we might do
Listen to my music
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as life
I know that it will reach you

Don't annoy us further!
We have our work to do
Just think about the average
What use have they for you?
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the Plan!

Yes I do think that if in 2112 photography is sold mainly as "holography-like projected into space, or onto surfaces, easy to make and indistinguishable from the real object" anybody painstakingly fighting with ink-jets and colour managed computer process will, artistic quality and appeal of the work apart, have an edge as he will be selling more "handicraft" objects.

The problem here is that this ink-jet computer driven technology is able to output several copies which are perfectly identical and so lose a big part of the handicraft appeal.

The traditional darkroom photographer in 2112 will - artistic quality and merit aside - have an edge also in 2112 because his process will be perceived as more handicraft than ink-jet printing, being so.

This is in fact at work in today world. A statue from a plaster cast can be made visually indistinguishable from a statue which was actually sculpted by the hand of the sculptor "breathing" all the marble dust and carefully chipping away the matter. Given the identical visual appeal and artistic merit of two such statues, the sculpted one will always command a higher price than the series production cast.

The eye will see them identically in the garden but the the mind knows there is a difference and the mind matters. It's not just the scarcity, it's the "halo of sanctity" of the hand work which IMO still sells a lot.