If it's automated, is it still (fine) art?

jernejk · Dec 3, 2013

jnanian said:
it would be ez to take this to another extreme and suggest that unless someone mixed their chemistry and emulsions from scratch, or coated their materials or used a large format camera they arent real photographers ...

Except this extreme is red herring.

There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.

With the negative, you control composition, exposure, DOF and other properties.
With the print, you control the final contrast, interpret the relations between darks and highlights, or you can go to the extreme and make surreal montages.

The first one haven't changed that much with the modern technology, while the 2nd is - for many modern photographers - nothing but pushing the buttons.
I download "nude packs", print them on a 3D printer and call them my work, there.

This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.

removed account4 · Dec 3, 2013

jernejk said:
Except this extreme is red herring.

There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.

With the negative, you control composition, exposure, DOF and other properties.
With the print, you control the final contrast, interpret the relations between darks and highlights, or you can go to the extreme and make surreal montages.

The first one haven't changed that much with the modern technology, while the 2nd is - for many modern photographers - nothing but pushing the buttons.
I download "nude packs", print them on a 3D printer and call them my work, there.

This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.

have you ever used a light meter ?
it automates measuring the light so the photographer can make his / her exposure,
they are handy if the exposure maker doesn't have the ability to read the light on their own

have you ever pit a negative in a densitometer / exposure meter?
you put the film in, it spins around and it pretty much tells you what to set the enlarger timer to.
and you press a button and go through the motions of developing the positive.

making photographs isn't always as you described.

the extreme i described .. is an extreme, that's the point
and it is just as of an extreme to suggest that someone
who shoots chromes and takes them to a lab is just an exposure maker.
or that a sensor isn't sensitive to light ...
or that nothing but a portrait is a true photograph or ...
there is a whole list of equally absurd things i have heard over the years.
( a leica is the only REAL camera? )

do we need to label everyone ?
labels are kind of lame ...

getting back to your thread's title ..
i don't think there is any such thing as "fine" art ...

MDR · Dec 3, 2013

jernejk said:
There are two exposures when making the final photograph.
The first one is when making the negative, and the second one is when making the print.

I have to partially disagree with you. Many photographic processes are only one exposure the Daguerreotype,Ambro/tintype, Direct positive paper, Slide film,Instant film,etc.... The whole photographic discussion in analogue photography only deals with Neg/pos processes and leaves all direct positive processes out. A Polaroid is an automated process and many great artists used it. Come to think of it a minilab is an automated process as well so photographers using their own minilab are no longer artists because they use an automated process B.S..

The important thing in art is the vision and only to a much lesser extant the execution. The vast majority of modern sculptures are designed by artists and made by others same could be said for most renaissance and Baroque artists only a small number of them did their paintings they had minions (sorry apprentices) who did it for them.

If Automation is part of the artistic vision it's art, if the work lacks the artists vision or the photographer didn't have a vision when he made the image it's not.

Cold · Dec 3, 2013

This has nothing to do with emulstion, chemistry etc.

I've been following along closely, trying to see all sides, and honestly, trying to figure out where I sit on the issue myself...this caught my eye.

By this rationale, then, in these times when analog is little more than a niche...are you saying that there are no photographers left except those who shoot film, develop, and print? That any of the modern names in photography are nothing but pretenders?

If that is indeed what you're saying, that's okay (I guess), but from the cheap seats out here, it seems to be straying perilously close to the realm of "the way I prefer is the only way".

Hatchetman · Dec 3, 2013

I would pay a premium for a similar product that can't be recreated at the push of a button. It has some scarcity value. A high-quality darkroom print is probably worth a couple hundred bucks worth of labor alone from a skilled darkroom artist/technician.

jernejk · Dec 3, 2013

Cold said:
I've been following along closely, trying to see all sides, and honestly, trying to figure out where I sit on the issue myself...this caught my eye.

By this rationale, then, in these times when analog is little more than a niche...are you saying that there are no photographers left except those who shoot film, develop, and print? That any of the modern names in photography are nothing but pretenders?

If that is indeed what you're saying, that's okay (I guess), but from the cheap seats out here, it seems to be straying perilously close to the realm of "the way I prefer is the only way".

I'm not actually saying anything, just wondering.

I know I can make an image which has the same visual effect and power (minus the final detail the darkroom print presents, but 99% viewers don't care to see anyway) effortless with my digital camera (yes, I do have it and use it) compared to hard work it takes to create similar image in the darkroom. Lack of effort means I can create huge volume of photos, which by definition means inflation and decreased value.

Hatchetman said:
I would pay a premium for a similar product that can't be recreated at the push of a button. It has some scarcity value. A high-quality darkroom print is probably worth a couple hundred bucks worth of labor alone from a skilled darkroom artist/technician.

Something like swiss watches. Totally obsolete, yet still valuable.

Cold · Dec 3, 2013

In that case, I'd say that value, both artistic and monetary, depend entirely on what the viewer/buyer feels that they're viewing/buying.

If they're looking at it based on the history/technique/etc. then those portions of the piece's past are crucially important, to the point that the actual subject matter has an importance quite possible ranking in the afterthough-to-irrelevant levels.

If, however, the viewer/buyer is looking at the photo from a more pragmatic perspective of "do I like this photo", then the technique behind it only becomes relevant if that technique contributed meaningfully to the impact on the viewer (for example, if they appreciated the touches that only a specific process can deliver).

From there, at least for me, it becomes pretty clear (again, by my subjective view) that 'value' exists entirely within the mind of the consumer, and when discussions of value arise, any evaluation from the creator are not, in fact, talking of the value as placed by the creator, but rather, that creator self-consuming their own work as a consumer who is interested in the history/technique/etc. and often assuming that others will, or should consume with the same considerations as their own.

Just two more cents for the pot!

jernejk · Dec 3, 2013

Cold said:
From there, at least for me, it becomes pretty clear (again, by my subjective view) that 'value' exists entirely within the mind of the consumer, and when discussions of value arise, any evaluation from the creator are not, in fact, talking of the value as placed by the creator, but rather, that creator self-consuming their own work as a consumer who is interested in the history/technique/etc. and often assuming that others will, or should consume with the same considerations as their own.

Well, this kind of view certainly has the spirit of our time, the time of consumer.

One could however apply Kant's categorical imperative to art.
Kant's philosophy was, that people need to do something not in exchange for any kind of personal benefit (even feeling good about yourself for doing the deed), but rather only because it is the moral thing to do.

eddie · Dec 3, 2013

The definition of "art" aside, there's no reason to assume it can't be created by a collaborative effort. I've no doubt that the photographers mentioned for not doing their own printing had great input into the final print. I doubt they'd sign the work, unless it met their vision.

I no longer color print, but work closely with the lab when I have them done. There have been occasions when they've made a half dozen prints before I'm satisfied with the results. In the end, they match my vision, I sign them, and it is, most certainly, my work.

Cold · Dec 3, 2013

Kant's philosophy was, that people need to do something not in exchange for any kind of personal benefit (even feeling good about yourself for doing the deed), but rather only because it is the moral thing to do.

I'm not sure I follow...could you elaborate on what you're trying to say there, and how it relates to the discussion?

batwister · Dec 3, 2013

Digital (or 'automation' as the OP calls it), in its nature, sits better with the ethos of Pop Art (early postmodernism) than film does. Pop art is a movement out of which colour art photography and conceptual work as we know it was born, some people should remember. Modern art photography, as a concept made famous in the 70s, is a part of the postmodernist ideology. Postmodernists have always had a penchant for 'mass production'. So yes, in answer to the OP - as most fine art in galleries today is postmodernist, if it's automated it probably is fine art.

But here's the crux. People who really appreciate art know how slippery, inconclusive and misconceived the term 'fine art' has become (as evidenced by this thread); which is exactly why, as (there was a url link here which no longer exists) pointed out (in the first response no less), it has found its home in marketing.

benjiboy · Dec 3, 2013

My photography isn't "Fine Art" whatever camera I use, I'm happy if I can produce competent photographs.

blansky · Dec 3, 2013

Not to be controversial but in my opinion if you aren't making your own cameras and lenses you are a fraud.

Alan Klein · Dec 3, 2013

Fine Art: Photos that sold for a very high price.
Art: Photos that were sold that weren't from your wedding.
Photos and Pictures: Everything else that wasn't sold that your wife has allowed you to hang on the wall.
Snapshots: That stuff in the boxes on the top shelf in your closet.

Truzi · Dec 3, 2013

blansky said:
Not to be controversial but in my opinion if you aren't making your own cameras and lenses you are a fraud.

Does that mean we don't have to make our own film/emulsions?

removed account4 · Dec 3, 2013

Truzi said:
Does that mean we don't have to make our own film/emulsions?

you have to do that or else you are a poser

rbultman · Dec 3, 2013

thegman said:
I'm not explaining myself very well. I suppose what I mean is that if the 'galleries, museums, scholars, patrons, collectors, and artists all simply care about the final image and nothing else', does that not imply that collectors, museums etc. would place the same value on a JPEG of Gursky's 'Rhine II' as they would the original negative and print?

You can't see a JPEG, so not exactly. If the artist provided the monitor and computer which the artist used to create the image then yes. A 'print' of this would be a second computer displaying the same image but also tweaked by the artist. In that way only would the JPEG itself have value. Once the artist produces a hard copy of the image on paper, the JPEG on the hard drive that is not connected to a monitor no longer has value.

Bret Weston famously burned a number of his negatives since the print was REALLY the art piece and no one could print his negatives like he could. This implies that in his mind the JPEG was like the negative, or vice versa. This also implies that it is ONLY the final print that has any artistic value, i.e. the processes used to create the print are immaterial. The negative, or digital capture, used to create the print are worthless.

Yet even the display of the hard copy may not be art to the artist. The height of the work, the amount of space around the work, even the lighting may render the image garbage in the eyes of the artist. Reference Rothko and his attempts to control the environment in which his paintings were displayed.

It's all subjective, perhaps collectively so, but still subjective.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

polyglot · Dec 3, 2013

This whole damn thread is a red herring.

There is art (the content and semantics) and there is craft (paper and photons and chemicals and bits). You represent your art using a craft. You can automate a craft or change which particular strain of craft you use, but that has got nothing to do with the art that you perform using your chosen craft.

99.99% of APUG is craft; art ain't got nothing to do with what goes on in here.

Tom1956 · Dec 3, 2013

polyglot said:
This whole damn thread is a red herring.

There is art (the content and semantics) and there is craft (paper and photons and chemicals and bits). You represent your art using a craft. You can automate a craft or change which particular strain of craft you use, but that has got nothing to do with the art that you perform using your chosen craft.

99.99% of APUG is craft; art ain't got nothing to do with what goes on in here.

Agree 100%

jernejk · Dec 4, 2013

polyglot said:
This whole damn thread is a red herring.

There is art (the content and semantics) and there is craft (paper and photons and chemicals and bits). You represent your art using a craft. You can automate a craft or change which particular strain of craft you use, but that has got nothing to do with the art that you perform using your chosen craft.

99.99% of APUG is craft; art ain't got nothing to do with what goes on in here.

The question can be rephrased then:

is craft a necessary component of art?

Tom1956 · Dec 4, 2013

For all my 42 years since the first time I developed film in my GAF tank with D-76, I have contended photography is not art. It is a craft, but not art. But that's my opinion. As an aside, I believe that first roll was 120 I shot with my Dad's Ansco Color Clipper.

polyglot · Dec 4, 2013

jernejk said:
The question can be rephrased then:

is craft a necessary component of art?

Sure, insofar as you need a medium. However you can do great art (graphical, literature, etc) with minimal (technical) medium/craft, e.g. a pencil. Or just your voice; speech is a medium and a great example of a craft requiring significant and non-obvious skill to do well with despite its apparent technical simplicity.

Cold · Dec 4, 2013

polyglot said:
Sure, insofar as you need a medium. However you can do great art (graphical, literature, etc) with minimal (technical) medium/craft, e.g. a pencil. Or just your voice; speech is a medium and a great example of a craft requiring significant and non-obvious skill to do well with despite its apparent technical simplicity.

Would you say, then, that a medium, not necessarily a craft, was necessary as a vehicle for art...and that that medium could take the form of a craft, skill, or both?

cliveh · Dec 4, 2013

A printout of this thread would make an interesting exhibit in an art gallery.

blansky · Dec 4, 2013

cliveh said:
A printout of this thread would make an interesting exhibit in an art gallery.

There is no such thing as an art gallery.

It's merely an empty building with stuff on the wall and on stands.

The rest is just marketing.

If it's automated, is it still (fine) art?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency