Philosophical discussion on what can be called a photograph

blansky · Jul 9, 2015

OptiKen said:
PHOTOGRAPHY (noun)
The noun PHOTOGRAPHY has 3 senses:
1. the act of taking and printing photographs
2. the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces
3. the occupation of taking and printing photographs or making movies

It seems to me that #2 qualifies etching on photo sensitive paper

It's a valid point. But definitions are not written in stone. If you were to look at dictionary definitions of a phone before it was recently updated it probably wouldn't say anything about it being a pocket computer and holder of almost all the worlds information.

Your definition could have easily been written in 1965 and it would be sort of true. And besides that words aren't necessarily perfect definitions of their actions. By your definition in 2004 I was a photographer, and in 2005 when I switched to digital and copied all my methods to a different process, then I was something different. But in July of 2005 I was shooting film and scanning and printing digitally, and by Sept I was shoot digitally and printing digitally, so I'm supposed to call myself something different. The professional associations I belong to didn't change their names, my clients still come to me for photography.

The only people protesting are those who don't like an inclusive tent.

blansky · Jul 9, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
True. But that's a distinction without relevance in this case.

Wishing for those photographers who photograph differently than you to disproportionately die in greater numbers, such that their passing will skew the statistical distribution more in favor of those photographers who photograph more like you, is not exactly the poster child definition of a big, inclusive tent.

There is no such thing as being totally inclusive, except for those dudes who need to die off...

One must guard against arguing so passionately that one becomes the enemy.

Ken

Talk about emotional nonsense. I'm sure your lawn will grow back.

Sorry Ken, but my definition of photography is almost everything you use a camera for and a whole lot more.

I don't buy into your narrow definitions and debating it with you is a waste of time.

Ken Nadvornick · Jul 9, 2015

blansky said:
Does photography really need stringent definitions of what it is and what it isn't and what it evolves to. Perhaps but only when selling it so the buyer knows exactly what he's buying.

I'm not 'Doc W', but just a gentle observation on this. Everything needs commonly understood definitions. The more stringent, the better.

Why? Because that's how we all successfully communicate ideas with others. The definitions of the phrases we trade become the abstractions that temporarily stand-in for the things being discussed.

If you say dog, we both need to have a common understanding of what that term defines, especially in the case of its physical absence when you can't point to one. If you say go buy some dog food, you don't want me coming back with a box of seeds for that annoying feathered creature pooping on last Sunday's comics.

Or a little closer to home, if I say painting, I don't really want you to think of something that St. Ansel made in his darkroom.

Or even closer, if 'eddie' says photograph (or whatever term he chooses to settle on) we need to all commonly understand that the thing he's referring to might also include his emulsion etchings.

The point being, solid and unambiguous definitions matter. They are the common currency of intellectual exchange. That the photographic ones are so loosely tossed around on this forum by some is one of the major reasons for so many unnecessary arguments.

The same goes for societies in general. World Wars have started based only on misunderstandings of terms discussed.

Ken

Photo Engineer · Jul 9, 2015

The posted examples are fine, but in view of our recent discussion over DPUG, I suggest that they have their own dedicated web site!

JK, but it is a tad ironic, don't you think?

PE

removed account4 · Jul 9, 2015

blansky said:
Does photography really need stringent definitions of what it is and what it isn't and what it evolves to. Perhaps but only when selling it so the buyer knows exactly what he's buying.

strict definitions are good for " styles" sure
a strict definition for surrealism is whatever the surrealists said it was, Impressionism or futurism or
DeStijl or grande landscape or whatever ... but painting is something made with paint ...
with photography it is some made with light and that is about it ...
it can be made impermenant with constriction paper and whatever is in your pockets or in a pinhole camera left for a year to stain the paper through brute force ... it was made through use of light, photograph means light image.
genres, sure define away, write a manifesto ...
sure people can have their own working definition but that's it ... a working definition...
as you said blansky, the tent is big, and hopefully getting bigger by the day.

Photo Engineer · Jul 9, 2015

jnanian said:
strict definitions are good for " styles" sure
a strict definition for surrealism is whatever the surrealists said it was, Impressionism or futurism or
DeStijl or grande landscape or whatever ... but painting is something made with paint ...
with photography it is some made with light and that is about it ...
it can be made impermenant with constriction paper and whatever is in your pockets or in a pinhole camera left for a year to stain the paper through brute force ... it was made through use of light, photograph means light image.
genres, sure define away, write a manifesto ...
sure people can have their own working definition but that's it ... a working definition...
as you said blansky, the tent is big, and hopefully getting bigger by the day.

Imaging with light.

Doesn't digital fall into that realm?

Be careful!

PE

removed account4 · Jul 9, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
Imaging with light.

Doesn't digital fall into that realm?

Be careful!

PE

hi PE
isn't it called digital PHOTOGRAPHY ?

not sure why it wouldn't fall into that realm
seeing that is exactly the way a numeric device works.
im not saying ink images are photographic, but ones that
use a laser are, and ones that are made with tradiitional materials
(light sensive papers and digital negatives ) are as well.

Photo Engineer · Jul 9, 2015

We are stepping through gray areas here calling most anything created by light "photographic".

This is a difficult call.

PE

gzinsel · Jul 9, 2015

well, when I was at art school, we called this cliche vere! although we used glass with a black "liquid" ( can't remember what is was we called it). to put on top of glass, once dry, you could use an etching needle to scratch out, and reveal the clear glass below. Once exposed to paper, developed as usual!!! There you have it, A PHOTOGRAPH.

gzinsel · Jul 9, 2015

I am Not a person, who would agree that you need to use a lens or any optics to create a photograph. There are very meaning full, expressive PRINTS that were made by photogram, photo montage, cliche verre, I ca not recall the artist, at moment. But the artist would take scotch tape, put their thumb or finger into charcoal, . . . . press thumb print very carefully onto scotch tape, place scotch tape with positive of thumb print, and thrue the culmination of adding ( sticking on photo paper) where design counted, expose to light, take off tape, develop as usual. They were very interesting. I loved them.

Alan Klein · Jul 9, 2015

I think the average guy might be fooled if you called an etching on photographic materials a photograph; at least to their layman's understanding of what a photograph is. Their definition is not as all encompassing as we might understand being on the inside. But I wouldn't all them the klan, or anal and not worthy of being in a big tent. It seems that we should be more understanding and all inclusive and not act more narrow minded about their beliefs then their beliefs would appear narrow minded to us. When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back to ourselves.

OptiKen · Jul 9, 2015

jnanian said:
hi optiken -- sorry to put you on the spot
i know you didnt' write the definition but ...

is putting a negative on one's skin and going out in the sun and getting a sun print on one's skin photography ?
or putting objects on cheap construction paper and bleaching it a different color in the sun (to make a photogram ) or anthotypes ... photography ?

they aren't done with light sensitive materials like photo paper, but at least to me they are every but as photographic
as a print from the darkroom, or a shadow on the wall ( photo ( light ) graph ( drawing ).

Hi John,

I burn terribly in the sun...yes, I would say that I have very light sensitive skin.
I grew up thinking a photograph was a picture captured with a camera and then the film was developed and printed (at Thrifty Drug Store).
I have since learned that photography - the act of creating a photograph - is much, much more. Your pictures are a prime example of that.
Is writing defined as pen to paper or do computer blogs count as well....or cuneiform symbols pressed into clay...or words etched into stone?
I think writing takes many forms.
I think painting takes many forms as does sculpture.
I think photography takes many forms.
The underlying act of painting with light (either negative or positive) all creates photographs.
Just like my sons tattoo of the words to the song, "Thunder Road" on his arm is both art and writing.

But we are stretching the definition by taking the word at it's root meaning.
Still, how you create a photograph is up to you-to us.
What you create is still a photograph. Just like finger painting is still painting as is covering yourself in paint and then rolling around on a canvas.
It may not be my concept of a painting, but it is a painting none the less.

(hmm....maybe the spot you put me on was really a soap box)

removed account4 · Jul 10, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
We are stepping through gray areas here calling most anything created by light "photographic".

This is a difficult call.

PE

PE

why is that ?
that is what the word means
PHOTO ( light ) GRAPHIC ( drawn with ) ..

===

optiken
thanks for your words
you said it very well much better than me !
no worries for the soapbox
sorry to put you on the spot
years ago i heard an interview with avedon and he talked about
taping a 127 negative to his skin and going to the beach as a kid

Alan Klein said:
I think the average guy might be fooled if you called an etching on photographic materials a photograph; at least to their layman's understanding of what a photograph is. Their definition is not as all encompassing as we might understand being on the inside.

hi alan

i understand what you suggest, but i don't think the point is to fool anyone but to open their eyes and educate them.
i had no idea what a bromoil or a carbon print or pt/pd print or cyanotype or photogravure were before i educated myself .
and i am guessing that most lay-people have no idea what these things are either, but that isn't to say
they do not produce images through a photographic process. ( and aren't the results of a photographic process photographs ? )
the word "photograph" doesn't have the same status as the word "champagne" or "tennesee whiskey" or "canadian rye"
those things have to originate from a specific place to be called these names. photography is not licensed like neon signs or the
original daguareotypes were. it is just a word that means drawn with light ...

ymmv

Photo Engineer · Jul 10, 2015

jnanian said:
PE

why is that ?
that is what the word means
PHOTO ( light ) GRAPHIC ( drawn with ) ..

===

...........

photography is not licensed like neon signs or the
original daguareotypes were. it is just a word that means drawn with light ...

ymmv

John, you are right. But, that is my point! Digital is thus photography just as analog is another branch of the same family and just as the art in this thread are photographs!

It seems that the problem is / was that we were trying to relegate digital to a non photographic status and we push it to the side when it is and can be a legitimate adjunct to analog as we see in a mixed or hybrid workflow.

PE

removed account4 · Jul 10, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
John, you are right. But, that is my point! Digital is thus photography just as analog is another branch of the same family and just as the art in this thread are photographs!

It seems that the problem is / was that we were trying to relegate digital to a non photographic status and we push it to the side when it is and can be a legitimate adjunct to analog as we see in a mixed or hybrid workflow.

PE

couldn't agree more with your even keel perspective and observations.
I guess disenfranchisement and pushing aside is what photography
has been doing for generations ... with plate users suggesting
roll film users weren't legitimate, or the f64 v. pictorialist arguments.
unfortunately there is animosity towards
people who use photography a different way, or have a more open
definition for what a photograph is ... as if they are trying to fool or cheat people ... it's kind of weird
but I guess it should be expected ...

DannL. · Jul 10, 2015

So, is a Photoengraving a photograph? Is the print made from a Photoengraving a photograph? Is a contact print made from a print that was made from a Photoengraving a photograph? If my photographs are printed in a book, and the book is titled "My Photographs" . . . are they really photographs? And if not, is that false advertising?

Food for thought.

Doc W · Jul 10, 2015

DannL. said:
So, is a Photoengraving a photograph? Is the print made from a Photoengraving a photograph? Is a contact print made from a print that was made from a Photoengraving a photograph? If my photographs are printed in a book, and the book is titled "My Photographs" . . . are they really photographs? And if not, is that false advertising?

Food for thought.

Andy Warhol: Call your office!

removed account4 · Jul 10, 2015

not sure If they are photographs but they were made with a photographic process

DREW WILEY · Jul 10, 2015

I'd differentiate photography from those forms of visual art which merely employ analogous materials to "paint" with. Somebody might take
print paper and swirl it in color dyes, for example, or Fauxtoshop into existence something mainly imaginary, as in the movies. Otherwise, we're only talking about distinctions in preferred tools and media.

gzinsel · Jul 11, 2015

photo-engraving, IMO, would be considered photo-mechanical printmaking, However photogravure ( carbon tissue over an aquatinted copper plate. then etched) a photograph. In my world, all near continuous tone reproduction with silver, gold, platinum, etc or dichromate, or iron process, to be Photography ( thats capital "P") all others are photo-related, (lower-case "p").

Doc W · Jul 11, 2015

Here is another thing to throw into the hopper: Is the OP's work closer to photography or painting? On the one hand, he uses light sensitive materials (and others) but he doesn't use a camera. On the other, he paints and draws on the materials. I am beginning to think that his work is closer to visual arts like painting, drawing or collage. This is not a big deal either way for me, but if I were him, I would be more inclined to exhibit them in that kind of gallery.

eddie · Jul 11, 2015

I've been thinking about my original question for a long time- ever since I started doing my new work, which has been evolving for close to 7 years. I've come to the conclusion that (for me, anyway) any image formed using light, on light sensitive materials (film/paper/sensors) is a photograph. Within that definition there are many options for image making. For me, the definition works because it doesn't stifle creativity. Anything goes...

As for the work I posted, I've settled on calling them Emulsion Etchings (for the ones made without "real" negatives) and Emulsion Constructions (for the ones utilizing "real" negatives). From the time I started doing them I've felt I've been working firmly within photographic tradition- cliche verre, hand-painting, silver gelatin... all of which are very old processes.

gzinsel · Jul 12, 2015

What I think counts??? For any one who is engaged in the public (showing and selling artwork), that he/she has the ability to articulate process, place, and motivation, regardless of "the correct nomenclature" or the semantics, parlance of our times.

eddie · Jul 12, 2015

gzinsel said:
What I think counts??? For any one who is engaged in the public (showing and selling artwork), that he/she has the ability to articulate process, place, and motivation, regardless of "the correct nomenclature" or the semantics, parlance of our times.

I have no idea of what you're trying to say.

gzinsel · Jul 12, 2015

When speaking to others, engaging in conversation. . . It is more important to articulate your process, your place, and motivations behind your work than it is "to use" a vocabulary that everyone agrees upon. I think most people are not to terribly concerned with strict definitions, or whether those strict definitions apply correctly to what you are doing. As long as your application of definition is somewhat plausible, most people go along with the flow.
If however you are limiting your own work by carefully orchestrated terminology, in order to set up artificial book ends or parameters for your conceptual work- thats a different story!!

So for example, If i am a gallery seeing my friends work- there is a group of us talking- some one asks me " so, what kind of art, do you do? " I would assertively say " I am a printmaker" I make prints" a very general answer. If the questions narrow, ( more specific) then i would have to give more precise definitions! If they disagree with the "genesis and species" a.k.a. venn diagram of what fits to what group of definitions, I would have to explain/defend how I arrived at THAT definition( very bad!!!!). MOST people do not care, but for those that do, YOU have just given them ammunition to start berating you!!!! . Because in public, I do not use "interesting" or "marginal" defintions- people berating me has never come up in a major way when discussing art- as in conflict/confrontational. BUT, in my own private writing, which helps guide me in my PRODUCTION of art, I use strict definitions to help define "moments", "place", and internal/external "time". those definitions that I use, ( are part of mainstream understanding of terms" I do not expect people to conform to my meaning! I rarely use those words when I address or speak to other people, Particularly in a public setting, say . . . . I am giving a lecture in a lecture series to college kids, or at an art exhibit. When you use words and phases differently than MOST, keep "that" on the "DL".
The great thing about coming up with your definitions, . . . . Other people don't HAVE to know about them and therefor they don't have to AGREE!!!!!!!!!

Philosophical discussion on what can be called a photograph

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency