Is APUG actually about physicality?

[Katharine Thayer]

They very much are as long as they don't involve digital intermediates, but that's another thread.

Really, hand-coated processes are venerated here? Maybe you could point me to some expression of that veneration; I've not seen it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Really, hand-coated processes are venerated here? Maybe you could point me to some expression of that veneration; I've not seen it.

All are welcome and encouraged to participate in the Alt-process forum here--

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

and the Silver Gelatin Emulsion Making and Coating forum here--

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

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I had to get out my dictionary to be sure I'm using the word correctly; I am. All you've shown is that discussions about alternative processes are tolerated here, even encouraged by the provision of a separate forum for that purpose, but you certainly haven't shown me any expressions of veneration for hand-cated processes. According to Webster's Second Collegiate, to venerate means to

All are welcome and encouraged to participate in the Alt-process forum here--

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

and the Silver Gelatin Emulsion Making and Coating forum here--

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

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I had to get out my dictionary to be sure I'm using the word correctly; I am. All you've shown is that discussions about alternative processes are tolerated here, even encouraged by the provision of a separate forum for that purpose, but you certainly haven't shown me any expressions of veneration for hand-cated processes. According to Webster's Second Collegiate, to venerate means to

(Where was I before I was so rudely interrupted by the thing sending while I was in the middle of typing a sentence?) ...to venerate means to worship, to revere, to look upon with feelings of deep respect.

There is also a forum for toy cameras on APUG, but I don't get the sense that toy cameras are venerated here any more than handcoated processes are.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, what form of veneration would be suitable? My sense from following discussion here since almost the inception of the site in 2002 is that most APUG participants have the greatest respect and admiration for people working with handcoated processes, even if they haven't all taken that step themselves yet.

Perhaps the greatest veneration has come in the fact that after seeing handcoated work in the galleries, print exchanges, Traveling Portfolio, and even the postcard exchange (nothing is more impressive than someone who prints 40 ziatype, cyanotype, palladium or even carbon postcards and then sends them out to the group!), some people have decided to try handcoated processes themselves or to take a workshop and have posted their first efforts in the galleries.

 

[DrPablo]

Katharine, I think between having a forum for these processes, having alternative process print exchanges, having a gallery that includes a whole section for alternative techniques, and as a community having nothing but admiration for alt process suppliers such as Freestyle and Bostick&Sullivan, there is veneration here. I take David's appropriation of the word "veneration" to mean celebration of it, not just "worship".

But if you disagree, you're playing semantics, because you're the one who brought up the word venerated to begin with. This is a site about processes, aesthetics, and techniques, and the fact that people practice historic processes at all, share them, and teach one another about them, to me qualifies as veneration. Isn't that enough?

 

[Shinnya]

I agree with Paul.

I think to say hand-coating processes should be venerated assumes that they are the "highest" form of photographic processes.

I can understand technical challenges and creativities involved, but they are just different kind. I do make platinum/palladium prints, but I am also lured to the beauty of silver prints and appreciate craft and creativities involved.

I think everyone is appreciative of those who practice them, and some are trying them for the first time. I am not sure what else to expect?

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

 

[copake_ham]

Isn't "veneration" more that just a bit over the top?

We're talking photographic techniques here - not religious worship systems!

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Katharine, I think between having a forum for these processes, having alternative process print exchanges, having a gallery that includes a whole section for alternative techniques, and as a community having nothing but admiration for alt process suppliers such as Freestyle and Bostick&Sullivan, there is veneration here. I take David's appropriation of the word "veneration" to mean celebration of it, not just "worship".

But if you disagree, you're playing semantics, because you're the one who brought up the word venerated to begin with. This is a site about processes, aesthetics, and techniques, and the fact that people practice historic processes at all, share them, and teach one another about them, to me qualifies as veneration. Isn't that enough?

No, it's not playing semantics. The original question of the thread was, "Is APUG actually about physicality?" My answer still stands: if that were true, then handcoated processes would be venerated here, meaning that handcoated processes would be considered the most worshipped, respected and desired of processes discussed on APUG, because of their innate physicality compared to commercial printing processes. Obviously, they're not, and obviously, APUG really isn't exactly about physicality, was my point. Regards,
Katharine

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Is it so obvious? When Kerik or Monty posts a scan of an ambrotype or wetplate image or when Gene Laughter posts one of his magnificent bromoils, these receive the highest praise in the galleries.

It may be that the more commonly practiced processes like gelatin silver are more widely discussed, but that doesn't mean that they are more highly respected than handcoated work.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Well, what form of veneration would be suitable? My sense from following discussion here since almost the inception of the site in 2002 is that most APUG participants have the greatest respect and admiration for people working with handcoated processes, even if they haven't all taken that step themselves yet.

Perhaps the greatest veneration has come in the fact that after seeing handcoated work in the galleries, print exchanges, Traveling Portfolio, and even the postcard exchange (nothing is more impressive than someone who prints 40 ziatype, cyanotype, palladium or even carbon postcards and then sends them out to the group!), some people have decided to try handcoated processes themselves or to take a workshop and have posted their first efforts in the galleries.

My personal attitude is that I greatly respect anyone who possesses a skill to a high level, and this is certainly my attitude to alternative-process print-makers. "Venerate" to me means "to accord semi-godlike status to and place above all others" and is absolutely the wrong word to describe my attitude to these print-makers, nor am I aware that alternative-process users are generally regarded on APUG as being superior to anyone else. While I admire these people, I regard the processes concerned as far more complex and costly in terms of time that I could ever contemplate - my interest in photography is in capturing fleeting moments, anything else is a necessary evil to be got over as quickly as possible. Obviously I recognise the strong interest in craft processes which many APUGers have - is this an example of photography being about physicality? If so, it is a concept which is hard for someone like me to understand, coming from a background where I would throw exposed film at an assistant or lab and never see it again until it appeared in printed form in a magazine or book!

Regards,

David

 

[Katharine Thayer]

I agree with Paul.

I think to say hand-coating processes should be venerated assumes that they are the "highest" form of photographic processes.

Tsuyoshi

Goodness, you've missed my point altogether. I wasn't saying that handcoated processes *should* be venerated, and I don't assume that they are the highest form of photographic processes. I was simply considering what the state of affairs would be if the hypothetical "is APUG actually about physicality?" were true, and it seems to me that if it were true, then the handcoated processes having the most physicality, would be the most valued kind of process. Of course that's not true, nor does it need to be true as far as I'm concerned.
kt

 

[jsfyfe]

APUG is not about physicality any more than any of the other 'photo forum' sites. It is merely a place that technology has created for large numbers of people to share their photographic images, ideas, suggestions, and philosophies. APUG is unique (sort of) in that it brings together photographers who embrace non-digital image making equipment, processes, and techniques. In my opinion, there is too much focus on the equipment, processes, and techniques employed and not enough focus on the photograph itself. Why else would each photograph be identified by the camera, film, exposure, developer, paper, etc. used in producing the image? No matter what equipment or technique is used, there are still great photographs, good photographs, mediocre photographs, and bad photographs - the vast majority of which fall into the later two categories. I believe that the physicality of a photograph is the emotion that it evokes from the viewer, no matter the medium. I have viewed photographs that I can actually feel in my gut and to me that is physicality. I think it is very difficult to convey that feeling via a web site. One example I can think of is W. Eugene Smith's photograph of a U. S. Marine cradling a wounded and dying infant during the invasion of Saipan. I can look at that image online and feel very little, but when I look at the original print in his portfolio in the archives of the Library of Congress I want to cry.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Is it so obvious? When Kerik or Monty posts a scan of an ambrotype or wetplate image or when Gene Laughter posts one of his magnificent bromoils, these receive the highest praise in the galleries.

It may be that the more commonly practiced processes like gelatin silver are more widely discussed, but that doesn't mean that they are more highly respected than handcoated work.

Ah, well if that's true why didn't you point me to those comments as a much more compelling expression of veneration than the fact that APUG has an alternative process forum (with very little traffic)? I don't see those images or comments because I'm not a subscriber, so I wouldn't have known that without your telling me it's so.

Oddly, I did stumble onto a wormhole once that took me into the galleries, and I looked at all the examples of gum bichromate prints that are there, since that's my chief interest. But I didn't see any comments with the pictures, only the pictures, so I don't know how well received they were. (And no, I never found that place again, that let me in there).
kt

 

[DrPablo]

No, it's not playing semantics. The original question of the thread was, "Is APUG actually about physicality?" My answer still stands: if that were true, then handcoated processes would be venerated here, meaning that handcoated processes would be considered the most worshipped, respected and desired of processes discussed on APUG, because of their innate physicality compared to commercial printing processes. Obviously, they're not, and obviously, APUG really isn't exactly about physicality, was my point. Regards,
Katharine

I understand what you're getting at, but if your point is indeed motivated by this original question, then I'm not sure it's correct to answer that question in a stark yes/no way. Depending on how we interpret it, APUG must be partially about physicality. But we talk about everything from film chemistry to modern small format lens choices to occupational hazards in the darkroom. So this isn't a pure aesthetics site, and it's not a pure technique site.

But I just don't think that handcoated processes are the logical apotheosis of physicality in photography. A "perfect" digital photo can have plenty of physicality if shot in a way to emphasize structure, texture, depth. The special physicality in handcoated processes derives from textures of the paper and the texture of brushstrokes, but the physical act of making them is no more about physicality than lining up an easel under the enlarger. And this is regardless of whether you individually feel it's about physicality, because your personal approach or thought process can't necessarily be generalized to the whole site. The content of the photo and how it complements the technique is more important than the technique by itself.

 

[bjorke]

It would interest me if Bjorke could tell us what he means by physicality and how a bulletin board like APUG could actually have this quality.

If you'll notice, the thread topic as posted has question mark. In general I find statements dull, questions more worthy of attention. Statements are dead ends, questions lead to more questions.

The digitalisation that Alec speaks of (Alec is a very well-known contemporary shooter, book producer, all-around nice guy, and member of Magnum. If you hurry, maybe you can go to Dead Link Removed) is probably due to the fact that he shoots for "lifestyle" magazines and they just can't leave things alone -- not just dust and scratches but making sure that the little tea cozies in the background match the same chartreuse used by the Dolce & Gabbana bag in the foreground. I think (iirc) he also has his photos printed commercially, so he is likewise distanced from that process.

Robert & Shana Parke Harrison, "Book of Life"
with 11 platinum prints.
Nice if you have a few extra $thousands sitting around.​

I think the idea of "physicality" in photography diffuses when you look at it closely (and photography is always about looking closely.... isnt it?) -- there is the physicality of shooting, of print making, and the physicality of viewing at the "end." And I think these are quite jumbled in Alec's comments and most of the comments to his comments. The Matt Ducklo photo of the blind people touching sculpture, for example, has a sense of physicality that's quite far from the physicality of Stephen Gil's buried-and-exhumed Polaroids (which reminded me of a sculpture made many years ago by my friend Sue Emshwiller, in which polaroids of important personal events were permanently encased, and hidden, in plaster).

Matt Ducklo​

The Ducklo images are valid in large part regardless of their presentation format -- while Gil's (and almost all Holga-ish work, which I find mannered and dirt-dull) is deeply dependant on the physicality of the process and the presented object.

Dead Link Removed
Binh Dahn, "Ancestral Altar"​

These are issues that to my mind seem quite close kin to those underlying impulses and feelings that are often driving the discussions and shooting here on APUG. YMMV, but asking how "a bulletin board like APUG" has physicality entirely misses (or deliberately obscures) the point ("bulletin board"? you mean like "BBS"?). One might as easily ask how APUG has anything to do with photography, if you mistake the bytes and web protocols for the Real Deal. Ceci n'est pas une opinion, dude, it's just electrons circling 'round on your desk, right?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

No, it's not playing semantics. The original question of the thread was, "Is APUG actually about physicality?" My answer still stands: if that were true, then handcoated processes would be venerated here, meaning that handcoated processes would be considered the most worshipped, respected and desired of processes discussed on APUG, because of their innate physicality compared to commercial printing processes. Obviously, they're not, and obviously, APUG really isn't exactly about physicality, was my point. Regards,
Katharine

Non-sequitur. If APUG is about physicality, then why would it be a zone of veneration instead of being a zone of appreciation, criticism, learning, exchange, teaching, friendship, laughter, and hair splitting? And what tells you that the forums are the only place where APUG exists? Sharing a pint with another member is in my opinion another locus of APUG's existence.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ah, well if that's true why didn't you point me to those comments as a much more compelling expression of veneration than the fact that APUG has an alternative process forum (with very little traffic)? I don't see those images or comments because I'm not a subscriber, so I wouldn't have known that without your telling me it's so.

Why don't you subscribe before passing judgment on what this place is about? It's pretty cheap, you know, even a student like me can afford it.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

These are issues that to my mind seem quite close kin to those underlying impulses and feelings that are often driving the discussions and shooting here on APUG. YMMV, but asking how "a bulletin board like APUG" has physicality entirely misses (or deliberately obscures) the point ("bulletin board"? you mean like "BBS"?). One might as easily ask how APUG has anything to do with photography, if you mistake the bytes and web protocols for the Real Deal. Ceci n'est pas une opinion, dude, it's just electrons circling 'round on your desk, right?

Bjorke, when I read something like the above, I find that a) I have no more idea than before what you mean by "physicality" and b) I am disinclined to expend any more energy and time trying to find out. Are you actually talking to anyone with your posts on this thread, or just juggling with words for the heck of it? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand you, but frankly I don't care any more! And with that, goodnight!

 

[DrPablo]

I am very grateful to Bjorke for introducing this rather abstract discussion. Clearly many of us mean different things by "physicality". For some it's the physical print itself, i.e. something you can hold and not just look at. For some it's the superstructure of the print, including textural features and brushstrokes. For some it's purely in the image, and the technical choices that can make a photograph look like more than just a 2D image.

We need more conversations like this. As was mentioned above, people who disparage art as either arbitrary or pretentious somehow feel obligated to enter these discussions and throw water on them. I'm not suggesting that you (David) have done that, but it's sort of distracting to argue about the argument instead of delving into the concepts raised. For what my opinion is worth, I think it's very healthy to take on abstract aesthetic considerations, because it actually affects how we look at potential subjects, it actually affects our composition.

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Why don't you subscribe before passing judgment on what this place is about? It's pretty cheap, you know, even a student like me can afford it.

Goodness, there's a welcoming attitude.

I don't subscribe because I'm one of those old idealists from the old internet; I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of charging admission for sharing of information and images on the web. It's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. I don't charge people to see my work or learn my methods, and I expect not to be charged to see other people's; it's just a personal philosophical stance. So, I chose to be a member of APUG rather than a subscriber.

I didn't realize two things, apparently: (1) I didn't realize that the galleries are what APUG is about, and (2) I didn't realize that nonsubscribers aren't welcome. If that's so, why is there a separate category (members) for those who choose not to subscribe? Why not just make it subscriber only and be done with it, and then you can have your little club where everyone pays to join?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Nonsubscribers are welcome, and I don't believe that the galleries are what APUG is all about. The galleries do contribute a disproportionate amount to the cost of the site, though, so Sean decided that those who want to participate in the online galleries should subscribe and support the site. He shouldn't have to pay for it out of pocket, after all.

The print exchanges, however, don't require a subscription--just the inherent costs of making prints and shipping them.

 

[copake_ham]

Goodness, there's a welcoming attitude.

I don't subscribe because I'm one of those old idealists from the old internet; I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of charging admission for sharing of information and images on the web. It's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. I don't charge people to see my work or learn my methods, and I expect not to be charged to see other people's; it's just a personal philosophical stance. So, I chose to be a member of APUG rather than a subscriber.

I didn't realize two things, apparently: (1) I didn't realize that the galleries are what APUG is about, and (2) I didn't realize that nonsubscribers aren't welcome. If that's so, why is there a separate category (members) for those who choose not to subscribe? Why not just make it subscriber only and be done with it, and then you can have your little club where everyone pays to join?

Katherine,

While I admit that mhv's approach was a bit heavy-handed, I see considerable merit in being a subscriber here.

First off, all idealism aside, the reality is that Sean has to pay the bills to keep this place running. This isn't a mid-1990's BBS. It is a very complex website with a huge database, growing forum activity etc. requiring substantial server space.

Yes, The Gallery is a small "perk" for those of us who subscribe. But I doubt if many have done so just to be able to post to it. Rather, I believe that the vast majority of subscribers recognize an obligation to help support this place that we so enjoy hanging out at.

So while your idealism might be somewhat admirable - perhaps you would consider the real world situation we all share?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Goodness, there's a welcoming attitude.

I don't subscribe because I'm one of those old idealists from the old internet; I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of charging admission for sharing of information and images on the web. It's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. I don't charge people to see my work or learn my methods, and I expect not to be charged to see other people's; it's just a personal philosophical stance. So, I chose to be a member of APUG rather than a subscriber.

I didn't realize two things, apparently: (1) I didn't realize that the galleries are what APUG is about, and (2) I didn't realize that nonsubscribers aren't welcome. If that's so, why is there a separate category (members) for those who choose not to subscribe? Why not just make it subscriber only and be done with it, and then you can have your little club where everyone pays to join?

Well, as George rightly said I'm not the lightest dancer on the floor, but you do realize that you were casting aspertions about APUG without the slightest trace of humility or self-doubt? It takes two to tango.

There are many reasons for charging admission to content, and publicity is not the only model for paying server, bandwidth, and the sysadmin's time. You pay for your newspaper because it takes material and transport, you pay for your milk because one must feed the cow and water the grass. Even if you access the internet "freely," you are still paying for it in one way or another: your taxes fund the government-owned parts of it, you pay your service provider for your line, or your university for their infrastructure, etc.

Even Richard Stallman has no problem with paying for getting the data to your door.

 

[jstraw]

First, the "information should be free" canard. This place doesn't exist by accident. It takes a lot of work and it's Sean's job. It's how he earns a living. He does a damn good job and deserves to make a living. Coming in as a guest to see if you like it is a great idea. When you decide you like it, staying and not paying is fine if you haven't the means but if you have, it's impolite.


Now back to the debate at hand. The notion that if this site is about the physicality of photography then the most physical should be the most revered implies that the physicality of photography is the most important aspect of photography. It can be valued. It can be one of the things APUG is about, without being the core and crux of what APUG is about.

In my opinion, the production of the object, the photographic print, is generally, a shared value here. It's not all about the image that has been captured. How the image is conveyed is important. This place is all about encouraging one another to make prints.

With me, no one earns points for enduring a more difficult process. The value is in the result. There has to be a point to the object being a wet plate collodion beyond just the exercise of making wet plate collodions. I recently saw a show of contemporary photogravures. For the life of me I couldn't see why the images were printed that way other than to print them that way. I thought they gained nothing from the process.

I respect the work hand-coaters choose to do but I do not venerate it. It's often germane to producing wonderful work and it's just as often meaningless gesticulating.

But sometimes it's point enough that someone enjoys doing it...or learning to do it...and then sharing it. But venerate it? Why? I genuflect before no coating blade.