Let's talk about this...

david b · Jul 16, 2008

From Jorg Colberg's blog "Conscientious", a posting entitled "when the medium becomes the message":

In my six years of blogging, there is one post that I started to write maybe up to ten times, and each time, I refrained from posting it. Maybe it's time to get it out of my system. It's not even anything particularly interesting, even though I'm sure some people might disagree.

I sometimes get an email with a link suggestion and a comment along the lines of "these photos are great, they use [add your favourite process here]". I don't care much about the process when looking at photography (unless the process is an integral part of the photography, which is almost never the case). What I mean by that is that whatever it took to produce a photograph does not determine whether the result is good or bad.

Using a so-called toy camera, for example, doesn't automatically produce a great photo. A light leak or a soft lens might contribute to what makes a particularly photo good, but that doesn't mean that if you buy a Diana camera (which are now in production again and sold for way too much money - seriously, if you want one buy a vintage one on Ebay) you're guaranteed good photos.

The same is true for large-format cameras. There almost is a cult of large-format photography out there. It's true, large-format cameras can lead to very spectacular results, but using a large-format camera is no guarantee for that.

Or take vintage/alternative photography processes, many of which are notoriously hard to use. But as before, using a wet-plate collodion-type process (or whatever that might be called) does not guarantee good photographs.

For me, photography is an art form and not a craft (not that there's anything wrong with crafts - I'm just not as interested in crafts as in art). How a photograph is produced I find not all that interesting (which probably in part explains why I don't share the wide-spread rejection of digitally created work). At the end of the day, I am interested in the image.

So what do you think?

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 16, 2008

The image is made with a process, so if you're interested in the image, you'll know more about it if you know something about how it's made. The process isn't all there is to know, but it's not irrelevant.

aparat · Jul 16, 2008

In a sense, this guy is right. I am just an amateur photographer, but used to be a professional musician. The music fan really does not care what brand, size, vintage, wood, etc., the drums are. It is mostly the musicians (amateur and pro) and some really discerning music connoisseurs that (1) can tell the difference, (2) appreciate the difference. Most of the time, even if the audience can hear something unique in the sound of the instrument, they are not able to relate it to any particular feature of the instrument. Something either sounds great or it doesn't. I suspect the same may be true in photography.

arigram · Jul 16, 2008

The artwork has as much depth as the creator will allow.
If an artwork focuses in one of its characteristics, then that characteristic will take over the artwork and the rest will be overwhelmed and even obliterated. If an artwork has the emphasis on the skills and process, then that said process is the artwork and the image/sound/whatever becomes secondary or even irrelevant. Same with aesthetics and philosophy. If an artwork is overly sentimental, it becomes that sentiment, if it is overly political, it becomes a political message, if it is to display a new experiment, a difficult technique, a skillful artist/artisan, then it becomes a display of that technique.
An artwork should not be devoted only to the process, the message, or in just one thing, otherwise it is shallow and how I use to say "a piece of gum that is discarded after the sweetness is over".

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 16, 2008

An image without process is a concept, and a process without an image is a tech demo. The best are somewhere between, where the artist has taken a concept and applied an appropriate process to it to create a work of art. And even for a "non-process" like shooting from the hip, everything pre-set, or dripping paint on a canvas with a stick from ten feet in the air requires practice and mastery to extract consistent results that communicate the artist's concept in a coherent, perceptible way.

clogz · Jul 16, 2008

Right Scott, nail on the head!

Hans

bnjlosh · Jul 16, 2008

I think that someone with knowlege of photography and process would care, but your average joe probably wouldn't...and I do think there are less average joe's looking at prints and more average joe's posting images online

bill schwab · Jul 16, 2008

Process for process sake is pretty much useless IMO. Process doesn't make the image. A photographer not in control of their work or "vision" isn't going to be any more so using a different process.

On the other hand, different processes can open other avenues to the person expressing themself and perhaps awaken something in them they had not known existed. Some excellent photographers have worked the same "angle" ... formula, process and format over and over to the point of exhaustion and long after they had anything to say. Using different processes can help in keeping vision fresh and making things fun again. Personally I find that using different processes keeps me interested in continuing with photography in general. Even though I love making them, I couldn't imagine having to face a lifetime of square format, black and white prints!

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 16, 2008

While I would agree that average joes wouldn't know/care about the process, I do think that people are exceptionally well-tuned bullshit sniffers, to use a popular term. They can tell when an image is all about the process, or all about the concept, lacking execution. They just don't have the vocabulary to articulate it, so the response comes out, "pretty picture... pretty boring picture" or "That looks like something my six year old could do!".

Derek Lofgreen · Jul 16, 2008

Well, I think there are two perspectives in the statement of the original post. One is the artists point of view and the other is a viewer of the work that has no attachment to the image other than looking at it.

The process an artist uses is a very intimate one. A personal journey using hand coated, silver, oil on canvas, watercolor, acrylic, large format or what ever. The artist has a building excitement as the piece evolves before their eyes, sort of like a novel that builds to the climax. In that case the process is just as important as the final image, to the artist. It becomes an emotional experience as well as artistic expression.

The other person is just a casual viewer of the image. They may not have any clue what it took to make the image but they just love it for what they see before their eyes. A lot of people are happy with an offset press version of an image a great image from the local department store as they would be with a hand made (slaved over) image from the artist themselves. Process doesn't matter to them, just how it ended up. "this will look perfect over my couch."

D.

sun of sand · Jul 16, 2008

I think anyone that has any time into something will think along the same lines

Flying camera is correct but I believe he dug too far

Both are obviouseses

All art is bullshit
Good artwork makes the bullshit smell nice

eclarke · Jul 16, 2008

billschwab said:
Process for process sake is pretty much useless IMO. Process doesn't make the image. A photographer not in control of their work or "vision" isn't going to be any more so using a different process.

On the other hand, different processes can open other avenues to the person expressing themself and perhaps awaken something in them they had not known existed. Some excellent photographers have worked the same "angle" ... formula, process and format over and over to the point of exhaustion and long after they had anything to say. Using different processes can help in keeping vision fresh and making things fun again. Personally I find that using different processes keeps me interested in continuing with photography in general. Even though I love making them, I couldn't imagine having to face a lifetime of square format, black and white prints!

The process can be a way of seeing...EC

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 16, 2008

I think that as long as the process is in tune with the vision of the artist, it can be important. But I don't know if the viewer directly cares, but indirectly they must since it can be a significant part of the artwork creation.
My own example is lith printing. When I hold my camera, setting it up, when inspiration strikes and I decide to make a photograph, I most definitely take the process into account, knowing that it would not be the same without it. That's a fact for me.
But once again - does the viewer really care? Probably not. I know I get irritated when people are in a photography exhibit full of art, and they're cross examining the photographer with respect to film and developer chioce... When I'm a viewer I peak at the plaque to see if I'm correct that it's a pt/pd print, gravure, or maybe silver gelatin. But it doesn't add, neither does it detract from my viewing experience. I just soak the content in, no matter how it was made. I'm just a little bit of a tech geek, but care mostly about composition, gesture, form, content - both visually and emotionally, etc... Those factors are so much more important. My two cents.
- Thomas

SuzanneR · Jul 16, 2008

That's an interesting post.

Craft or art??? Sometimes, I get taken in by a very well crafted print, and I will just stand in awe of it, but those pictures don't usually stay with me for long. In fact, a lot of crafting is like that... you can be blown away by someone making pictures, paintings, quilts...whatever.. if they are made very, very well. Just be awe struck in the moment you take it in. At the end of the day, though, they don't always "stay with me".

A good, and interesting picture... whether well crafted or not, will stay with me. Long after I see it. Process, or craft, is important to me personally in how I like to work. I think my actual process is less interesting to viewers, I just hope when viewed my pictures "stay with a few people", and not just my technique... despite my stunningly technical brilliance (tongue, planted firmly in cheek )

PhotoJim · Jul 16, 2008

If you're a musician, you may not care what brand of guitar or drumsticks another musician makes, I concede that.

However, I think the specific medium a photographer uses, particularly if it's a fringe medium, is of great interest to other photographers who use that medium. To make a musical analogy, if you play the oboe, you might be very interested in hearing other good music performed on the oboe. You might not terribly care what brand of oboe the musician played.

Black and white silver gelatin photography is starting to become a fringe medium. I definitely take notice when I see that an image I really like was made with silver products. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy other sorts of images; it's just a preference. I like to see what people can do with the tools I use.

Larry Bullis · Jul 16, 2008

I enjoyed the reticence and almost apologetic attitude in the OP. Sort of like finally getting up the courage to confront a loved one about being an alcoholic. This is one of my closet issues, too. It's the big pink elephant in the middle of the room that nobody wants to talk about.

It's understandable. It is HARD to talk about intangibles. If I simply can't take my eyes off of an image (which is my ultimate test) what can I say about it? "I just can't take my eyes off of that image!" It's easy to talk about the kind of camera I use.

How about "good" and "bad"? Another dodge. When we look at an image, there are a lot of ways that our minds can go. We can judge, we can analyze, we can follow an associational train, we can try to figure out whether we are better or worse than the maker of that image. It doesn't matter what we do. Every one of those things is a distraction.

The "Process" is another red herring, if by "process" we mean the method or medium of the making, rather than the more inclusive process of the artist that includes concept, medium, audience or public, and other contextual elements. If we mean that larger process, that is a red tuna. That, too, is a distraction. An even better distraction! Not big enough? Not distracting enough? Hey, let's deconstruct it!

It could be marks made on an animal skin with a burnt stick, or a chalice by Benvenuto Cellini. The question is, "can I take my eyes off of that image [article]"? How long can I look at an image, how present can I be with it, what is the depth of that experience?

A professor sent us to the art museum to look at a wooden horse sculpture from the Warring States era in ancient China. We had to write a paper about it. Freshmen all, at a smart college, everyone tried to snow him with our vast critical vocabularies. The old man didn't snow. He stormed into the room. "These papers are TERRIBLE!" he bellowed. "You have to do it over. Go back and JUST LOOK AT IT!"

SuzanneR · Jul 16, 2008

bowzart said:
I"These papers are TERRIBLE!" he bellowed. "You have to do it over. Go back and JUST LOOK AT IT!"

Of course.. that's the hard part!

Larry Bullis · Jul 16, 2008

bowzart said:
It could be marks made on an animal skin with a burnt stick, or a chalice by Benvenuto Cellini. The question is, "can I take my eyes off of that image [article]"? How long can I look at an image, how present can I be with it, what is the depth of that experience?

Of course, in the above, I reveal my biases, no doubt my age and my origins. The postmodern crowd (few of whom, if any, are ever seen in these forums), and the post-postmodern crowd, and the post-post-postmodern crowd have other points of view that don't agree with mine.

Also, I think we have to recognize that there are lots of reasons that people make photographs. Ego is a big one. Fascination with toys is another. And there are others, including the will to look and experience. Which, if any of these, is real? And is any one more valid than the others? Some people are into it for a particular investment in process. There's probably nothing wrong with any of it.

It just seems to me that life can be far richer and more rewarding if one actually inhabits the world directly, without the screens and filters whenever possible. It isn't easy to do.

MattKing · Jul 16, 2008

Part of the problem for me is that I am aware of the process.

When was the last time that you looked at a print with a dust mark or two, and weren't at least slightly distracted by the mark?

I need to have an appreciation for the process in order to create a print that is expressive as possible, but I'm always in danger of being too cognizant of the process and not enough aware of the image depicted.

I'll always remember going to movies with my parents when I was young. If the print was scratched, or the distributors had been sloppy and sent reels where the colour balance shifted from reel to reel, my (Kodak employee) father would find it very frustrating, and his enjoyment of the film would definitely be affected. Naturally, I picked up on that, so that even when young, those problems would bother me too. For almost everyone else in the theatre, unless the problems were really bad, they would barely notice.

I think that this explains part of the attraction of Holgas and other toy cameras. If you go into the viewing process with an expectation that there will be technical flaws, you are more likely to be able to ignore them, and get the benefit of that which is positive in the photo.

Matt

PVia · Jul 16, 2008

Because I am a craftsperson making hand-made silver gelatin prints, I am always interested in the process, always comparing materials & results. I like to see what others are doing in that regard.

However, in the end, I try to let the image wash over me and appreciate it irrespective of the process used...

Larry Bullis · Jul 16, 2008

MattKing said:
When was the last time that you looked at a print with a dust mark or two, and weren't at least slightly distracted by the mark?

I've taught beginning photo courses for many years, thousands of students. Stuff like that doesn't bother me at all. If it did, everybody would flunk.

We all bring baggage. Regardless of who we are, where we were brought up or by whom, where we went to school, which country we live in, which religion if any or not at all, whether we got a good night's sleep, what our interactions with others have been like today, etc., too much coffee or not enough -- we bring it all with us. Any little thing can be the "Exit" sign when we look at something. Distractions "R" us.

JBrunner · Jul 16, 2008

I believe an good artist uses process to an effect. Masterful use of a process is perfect control of the result, to achieve the desired effect. Part of the effect are the choices the artist makes concerning his materials and how they are used. A viewer may not know one thing from another, nor care, but ability of the artist to communicate through a medium, the choice of medium, and the effect of that choice are an inseparable part of the work.

Lay people look at photography as a medium, when it is not. Photography is a discipline containing many mediums, and the artist is free to choose.

Dismissal of process as part and parcel of image is just as myopic as claiming a mediocre work is elevated somehow because of process.

David Brown · Jul 17, 2008

david b said:
From Jorg Colberg's blog ... How a photograph is produced I find not all that interesting ...

Good for Jorg.

But, some of us do.

c6h6o3 · Jul 17, 2008

"Technical details: cameras were used faithfully throughout."
-Minor White
Mirrors,Messages,Manifestations

This from one of the greatest masters of photographic craft ever.

Christopher Walrath · Jul 17, 2008

I liken this to a diver on a platform. Anyone can jump off and hit the water, at least I hope so. The tiling can be kinda hard.

But back on topic. We all learn our photography in different ways. Learn from a book, a teacher, a fellow photographer, dumb luck, we all create our processes and thought patterns. These are the experiences we all draw from. This is our craft. We stand on it as the diver stands on the platform.

The beauty of a perfect entry into the water can be likened to our end goal of vision and sensitivity to our subject matter. This is the art.

There are those that concern themselves with the make up of the platform on which we stand. There are those that are focused mainly on the beauty of the finished product. But I think a truly successful photographer, one who is true to their vision, can take their own craft and make a leap of faith based on that craft and reach their own artform. History and the public will decide for themselves the degree that they are touched by the art and may or may not appreciate the craft used in the approach to the subject. But I think that craft and art can coexist. In fact, I think that they truly have to sometimes.

Let's talk about this...

david b

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

aparat

arigram

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

clogz

bnjlosh

bill schwab

Advertiser

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Derek Lofgreen

sun of sand

eclarke

Thomas Bertilsson

SuzanneR

Moderator

PhotoJim

Larry Bullis

SuzanneR

Moderator

Larry Bullis

MattKing

Moderator

PVia

Larry Bullis

JBrunner

Moderator

David Brown

c6h6o3

Christopher Walrath

Let's talk about this...

Moderator

Membership Council

Advertiser

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency