I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?
For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.
I don't think YOU are paying attention.
How are they separate? How are medium and imagery not tied together? Your original post was about your frustration that young photographers aren't aware of people that influenced the medium 70-100 years ago. I don't know what they have been showing you, and it may be Flickr type stuff, but maybe not. Are you aware of current trends in photography? Can you humor us and name three very influential photographers working within the past 10 years?
What you're describing is mixed media art, with some photographic element. This has been happening since the 60s at least. You're moving into a more general "all art is crap nowadays" topic.
I am aware of those claims. I also remember all the other times they turned out not to be true, too.
I trust Kodak not at all. Their outrageous history in this area is available for everyone to read.
Wilhelm, I have a lot of confidence in. BUT, his tests are limited. They do not take everything into consideration. They can't.
RC papers are no good. Don't use them for serious work. They are also visually inferior, but most people can't see it.
I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?
So if someone is already doing a thing, no one else should try to do that thing using other equipment/techniques? Is this because it's automatically assumed to be inferior, or because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes, or some other reason?
I have an image of a sunflower on my wall that I shot slightly OOF to emphasize color and form over detail. It looks like a painting, and I like it quite a bit. Should I not have produced that image unless I painted it (i.e., I should deprive myself of it because I can't paint)?
Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.?
Anyway, appropos of the original topic, here is a discussion between a couple of noted photography critics/curators about some of these issues, particularly the issue of what "matters" in a photograph. At one point in the discussion, Jorg Colberg says this:
JC:
That’s a very interesting point you’re making about photographers. I’ve long been baffled by so many photographers seemingly having no interest whatsoever to look into their own art form more deeply. How can this be? How can you not look at a lot of photographs, just like writers, let’s say, typically read a lot (to then spend most of their time being utterly devastated about the fact that so many other writers are so much better)? How is this possible? The often complete lack of knowledge of obvious references pains me! You’ve just got to know who and what came before you so you, too, can stand on the shoulders of giants!
I’ve often thought that this disconnect from the past is tied to the lack of imagination I see in so much photography: If you’re not curious enough about the world, you can still make plenty of photographs. Of course, you won’t bother to look at what came before you, and of course those photographs will then at best be one liners (that someone else might have done a whole lot better).
It’s a bit like trying to learn a language by learning parts of the grammar and some words, but never looking at how that all can be used before having a go at it. Sadly, our culture, at least out photographic culture, truly buys into that, in all kinds of ways. For example, there is that cult of the young photographer. I don’t mean to say that young photographers cannot produce wonderful photography. But just like in any art form, being able to say something is contingent on having lived a life, experienced things. None of that stuff comes easy!
Add to that the obsession that everything has been new, and you’re truly in trouble. I have had students who told me they didn’t want to photograph something any longer, because someone else had already done it. How can that be? Why are there so many people writing about love – now that has been done before as well, hasn’t it? The moment you’re in photoland, the absurd idea that something is done when someone else has done it before is widely accepted.
_______
Back to my view: this discussion seems to have degenerated into an argument over technique, as things so often do on these forums. I don't give a damn about your technique; show me something new in your photographs, something you are exploring, something that matters like hell to you and you can show it any way you damn well please, including paint on photo!
What often pains me is to see so much Ansel Adams-y pretty b&w landscape work here as if repeatedly making the same photograph can deliver interest to the viewer. There is a difference between pretty and beautiful, between truth and prettiness. That difference is found in art. Art does not care what your method is if it coalesces with your message and your matter.
I seriously doubt you shot that sunflower out of focus on purpose.
If you think otherwise, then you won't mind your brain surgeon using a spoon instead of a scalpel.
A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.
I really don't believe you are confused, but OK.
1. How you got there, platinum, silver, digital, does not matter. The final image is all that matters. I DID NOT say, anything goes under all circumstances.
2. You have a responsibility to your buyers not to use materials you know to be garbage. Knowingly selling trash is called swindling.
Where did I say "70-100 years ago"? You keep trying to put words in my mouth.
As for photographers working in the last ten years... I see new work constantly. I will not play your silly game.
Current trends in photography, now or at any time, cannot make the history of photography irrelevant.
Great photographs result from photographers wringing the very best out of the photographic medium, not by trying to make the photographic medium imitate some other art form.
.
1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.
If you really want an argument, I can refer you to one of my graduate students that very loudly states nobody should look at other photographs.
Of the seven photos that I really enjoyed: four were silver prints from silver negatives; one was a palladium print from a silver negative; one was a digital print from a silver negative; and one was a fully digital image.
Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.? ...
When I talk about using archivally adequate materials or presentation appropriate to fine art photography... same thing. Even the most obvious basics appear to be missing.
I also have noticed that on discussion boards they talk at great length about using materials and methods that I, and most here, would consider anathema.
My concern is this: since new photographers have no need of seeking knowledge concerning analog materials and techniques from older photographers, they are therefore no longer immersed in an atmosphere conducive to acquiring knowledge of other aspects of photography from those same people. They do not learn the history, aesthetics, the various schools or even familiarize themselves with any of the work of the past. It is as if, for these new photographers, all the greats and what they had to teach us have simply vanished from the Earth.
I would like to hear the opinions of others on this. What have you seen?...
itoo many haters, too many snobs not enough art ...
Thing about "art history" is that we are post-Dada. Since most of it has come down to pretentious BS, I can really understand why people don't bother reading about every last photographer out there. When there is an admonishment to stand upon the shoulders of giants, how many giants are lauded? I have seen many people here castigate Adams and others. Why? So everyone gets reduced to the stature of a pygmy. Now, where are the giants whose shoulders will give us new sights?
Non-photographers might have heard of Ansel Adams, and they certainly haven't heard of anybody else. If a person fits the "I have an expensive camera and therefore I'm a photographer" category, of course they will go, photograph babies and brown dogs, and then go to a gallery and expect to be lauded.
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?