mark,
Are you politely trying to say I am a grumpy old fart, worried about nothing?
HARRUMPH!
(I hope you're right.)
I would disagree with this in part, as the technical effort put into a shot, in the form of a wet plate or a digital snap is only important from a fine art context, or painterly view. What makes some of the shots taken by these photographers is the historical and social context. My younger students appreciate pictures by Weegee when I explain the photograph in context of the situation, or HCB in terms of MO to get the shot.
I've seen some of these young people, you know:
They seem to have the most outlandish haircuts, and I've even seen some of the females wearing trousers and smoking in the street.
What's more, they cheek their elders.
The reason why contemporary picture-makers working in a digital environment don't care about photographic tradition and history is that they are not part of it.What I believe I am seeing is a near total abandonment of photographic tradition and history among new photographers, who of course work digitally (in large part). This concerns me greatly. Without tradition and history, the future is bleak.
If you will allow that "different" is not "the same", that "looks like" doesn't mean "same as", and merely "saying so" is insufficient to "make it so", then I insist that digital picture-making is not photography at all. And it's about time that digipix accumulated their own tradition and history instead of cadging a free ride from photography.
...
i don't really care what wilhelm suggests are archival because they really aren't, just ask people whose work
has all turned cyan ...
john
I don't know how you can have a passion for something (or create art in a specific medium) without wanting to search out those that succeeded before you. Not necessarily to emulate, but to understand the "vocabulary" of the medium. It doesn't mean you have to like their work, but awareness is important. No one lives in a vacuum, and no one creates in one. When I'm confronted by an "artist" who says it's not important to know the history of photography, I can't help but question their commitment.
I think there have always been people who are truly interested in the arts, and they will study the technique and the history. There are also a lot of people who will dabble in photography or watercolor or pottery. They will not do the hard work to become really good.
The issue then is why do the young people David is meeting think they are artists?
I speculate that the barriers to declaring oneself an artist have been lessened by the new technologyespecially in photography.
David: I wanted to see your work. But the links on your web page do not work. http://www.davidkachel.com/gallery.html
David: I wanted to see your work. But the links on your web page do not work. http://www.davidkachel.com/gallery.html
We're all 'fine art photographer wannabes' until someone in the know gives a sh*t.
Allen,
Sure...
They are printing on canvas and aluminum, and trying to make photographs look like paintings. Never heard of cotton rag. Have no idea what resolution or sharpness are and have no interest in pursuing it. Do not know what makes a photograph different from other art forms and therefore do not pursue those aspects.
They seem determined to make all the old mistakes all over again.
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?