I don't know why we wouldn't want to discuss artists who employ photographic techniques and materials as part of their art? Particularly those who were major users of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome transmission materials (in their heyday).People like this Jeff Wall fellow really need to be discussed elsewhere.
All photography is superficial. Well, maybe not X-Rays.The photographic part of it is basically superficial, a mere veneer.
It's a brave new world. Things have gone far beyond just studio production setups prior to the shot. Now there are people like Gursky that move entire elements around, or subtract and add all kinds of things digitally afterwards. Then for some reason, some of these folks have the connections and finances to present the prints really big. Of course, it's hard to display something like that without a lot of abusive UV light being involved, so you can't expect them to last a long time. But people who buy that kind of thing can also afford a $50,000 party dress they wear only once. Conspicuous consumption.
And if that kind of thing is a museum rage today, within a decade every junior high kid will know how to do it fifty times cheaper, and down the line, whoever did it first will be forgotten. The digital world has a very short memory. But great paintings tend to be prized for centuries; because they don't depends on technology that makes itself obsolete every few years.
People like this Jeff Wall fellow really need to be discussed elsewhere. Once one is on that slippery slope, they're neither fish nor fowl, neither photographer nor painter. Glad he found his niche, but it ain't mine!
So you photograph more than that? I would love to see."Just surface and light". Yeah, I've heard that more than once. What a boring attitude. I'd hate to see an X-ray of those heads. At least the cobwebs inside of mine involve real spiders.
So you photograph more than that? I would love to see.
I may contemplate and interpret a photograph, but it is just colors or black and white on a surface, and a record of a surface. If it stimulates the production of the proper endorphins then I like it. But in itself it is just a 2-dimensional record of light. No philosophy necessary.You would have to move this to the philosophy section to see more than that, but i think a lot of photography is more than that.
Im really sorry to tell you this DREW .. but its been a brave new world since the 1790s,
Le Point de vue du Gras is not permanent, does it matter ? I don't really think Wall's collectors are uninformed..
I may contemplate and interpret a photograph, but it is just colors or black and white on a surface, and a record of a surface. If it stimulates the production of the proper endorphins then I like it. But in itself it is just a 2-dimensional record of light. No philosophy necessary.
yea. I can only imagine what du Gras must have been like when it was first made, it must have been mind blowing. I think its a grey piece of paper in a dark room in Texas nowI've often thought that due du Gras is the best photograph ever made. I still get chills when I look at it. As for Wall's collectors, there's lot of pure crap out there that commands staggering prices while much great stuff goes begging. There's no accounting for bad taste.
But we are organisms that react according to instincts, education and acquired tastes, different from culture to culture, individual to individual. But what we are reacting to in a photograph is just the record of light on or through a surface. Some animals don't even react to photographs, they don't see them the same wy wed, they don't see them as the objects they represent. And yes, there is a difference between a thing human and a color densitometer. The densitometer won't have an opinion on what is put before it, and the human may not see the same color the same way twice.Gosh, sure sounds like some dullards here. Bees see a different slice of the spectrum than we do, but I don't think even they are that totally void. Even the manner humans perceive our own spectrum is directly linked to the subconscious, just like our sense of taste and smell gravitates to certain things, and finds others repugnant, and causes us to think about why we don't want to eat a piece of meat with maggots on it. We aren't robots - or are we steadily becoming so? Now it you'll excuse me, I want to get back to a stack of prints intended to elicit considerably more than just "light and surface". There is, after all, a difference between a thinking human and a rote color reflection densitometer.
Anyway, Matt, thanks for posting that picture of three identical old men. It makes a good point - just how much like a clay model Godzilla Japanese B horror flick it resembles. Stiff, stiff, stiff. Yeah, I get the metamessage of soliloquy; but it's a rather crude one. Might as well have been manakins. Maybe they are.
Gosh, sure sounds like some dullards here. Bees see a different slice of the spectrum than we do, but I don't think even they are that totally void. Even the manner humans perceive our own spectrum is directly linked to the subconscious, just like our sense of taste and smell gravitates to certain things, and finds others repugnant, and causes us to think about why we don't want to eat a piece of meat with maggots on it. We aren't robots - or are we steadily becoming so? Now it you'll excuse me, I want to get back to a stack of prints intended to elicit considerably more than just "light and surface". There is, after all, a difference between a thinking human and a rote color reflection densitometer.
I don't know squat about cats, but I have had over a dozen dogs and none of them ever reacted to a TV, mirror or still photograph or even radio. Birds do seem to react to TV, maybe because of the motion and sound. But it is possible that mammals need more than just visual cues, like scent, to react to a visual stimulus. I'm not a neuroscientist, nor do I play one on the internet.Hi Pieter. You hear people say cats can't see TV images because the highly rapid response time of their own optic nerves is out of synch with the pulse cycle of TV screen images. But that's myth. It sure isn't just about light and surface to them, even if it's just a flat screen. Yeah, had a little girl kitten on the sofa snoring through every single program until a PBS documentary on hummingbirds aired. Then she jumped up and scouted all around the TV trying to figure out a way in. She knew the active bird images on the screen weren't real, but though real birds were inside the TV behind the screen image, and was determined to find a way to get inside. She finally gave up, and did the same thing all over again in a field rodent documentary. About the fourth time, she finally figured out it's all just a ruse and ignored the TV permanently. So it's all about the programming. They just aren't necessarily interested in the same things we are. Cats have their own cultural values, and certainly their own taste. I'm not personally into plucking feathers with my teeth before eating raw fowl. But even to them, you can't separate subconscious and even conscious reactions from physiological sight.
a lady down the road about5 miles died back in around 1990 and the caretaker was auctioning off her estate.. in the basement were paintings that were appraised for the sale and it turned out they had been "missing" since the 1920s. one hopes in 70 years there will be a way to look at yours. too bad whitey's B's buddy's aren't around to help you, they might be able to tell you a good way to store the work.I walked around the house today and was unable to find a place for one of Jeff Wall's large backlit transparencies. I guess if you have a couple of million dollars for a photo, you've probably have a room big enough for it. If you bought it for investment, do you just leave it rolled up in a tube down at the gallery where you purchased it? Can you even roll up a Cibachrome transparency?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?