• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Taking a stand...

Latest Gallery

Somewhere...

D
Somewhere...

  • 2
  • 1
  • 63
Iriana

H
Iriana

  • 6
  • 1
  • 123

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,740
Messages
2,844,937
Members
101,494
Latest member
FlyingDutchman
Recent bookmarks
0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why limit yourself??? We are in a minority anymore, and I think that any opportunity to allow people to see traditional imagery alongside contemporary digital is a great way of showing the differences and varied nature of this medium overall. Have at it if you are comfortable in your direction and stick firmly with your beliefs. Personally, I don't really think it matters.
 
Good luck!

Personally, I think the content matters more than the process, but it's your work (nice work as well), and if it helps you sell your work then more power to you. From my personal experience, the gallery attending public really doesn't give a hoot how or why it was made.
 
clayne said:
That's all good in theory - but in practice digital has shown itself to be the great commodifier. I don't know if you've noticed, but since the flood gates of "photography" have been unleashed by digital SLRs, we're now awash in a sea of crap - much more so than before.
Click to expand...

Are we really?
I'm not sure that we are. The sea of crap has been with use since, at the latest, the 1960s. I haven't noticed that it would have increased (disproportionally - the tide is rising higher and higher not just as far as photographical output is concerned).
It could be though. But once the tide has risen above a certain level, any further increase goes unnoticed. And as far as i am concerned, we already have reached that level well before the digiwave.

But that as an aside.
I think too much focus is put on the process, the materials. I don't mind that digital isn't a 'noble process'. I don't believe in noble processes.
I want to see images that are worth seeing. And that is a far bigger problem: that sea of crap.

So if anything must be said about the process, the materials too, i would perhaps welcome the digiwave, its "cheapness", and how that sea of crap is drained (still too slowly) by prints not lasting very long.
 
Q.G. said:
Are we really?
I'm not sure that we are. The sea of crap has been with use since, at the latest, the 1960s. I haven't noticed that it would have increased (disproportionally - the tide is rising higher and higher not just as far as photographical output is concerned).
It could be though. But once the tide has risen above a certain level, any further increase goes unnoticed. And as far as i am concerned, we already have reached that level well before the digiwave.

But that as an aside.
I think too much focus is put on the process, the materials. I don't mind that digital isn't a 'noble process'. I don't believe in noble processes.
I want to see images that are worth seeing. And that is a far bigger problem: that sea of crap.

So if anything must be said about the process, the materials too, i would perhaps welcome the digiwave, its "cheapness", and how that sea of crap is drained (still too slowly) by prints not lasting very long.
Click to expand...

Yep..I think it's called "extreme dilution of talent" and "everything has been said and done". I will make a musical analogy: the state of the music scene is the same but why? What's out there that's NEW and will stand the test of time and people will go see live in 20 years? Nothing. The most successful live acts over the last 5-10 years? Van Halen, The Police, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Genesis..get the picture (pun intended)?
instead of discussing the purist notions of darkroom/versus digital printing, the issue is one of image relevance and whether the mind behind the camera is bringing forth anything new, exciting, relevant, something we have not seen before, to excite us. Much has been said and done in the world of photography, like in music, and it is a fact that digital has simply made it easier to produce ungodly amounts of "garbage". Sifting through it to find something meaningful is also harder but we need to remember that "uniqueness" is elusive at this point.
 
sea of crap only since the 60s ??

there has always been crap, even when it was being made with a plate ... now there is a little more of it.

SSDD :whistling:

-john
 
I think digital C prints can be like offset litho prints where they're all the same. It all comes down to collectors and the audience being connoisseurs and educated about what type of media is the photograph is printed on and the process of creating it. I would definitely have my analog prints in a show along with digital prints. Hopefully the gallery will clearly display what type of print it is. Some viewers probably can't tell or don't care. But some will. I think there is a comparative value in such an environment. I went to a show in Chicago of the Jazz lofts by W. Eugene smith. They had beautiful prints made by Smith along with digital prints. The digital prints were awful. The digital prints gave me a greater appreciation of the hand-printed silver gelatin prints of W. Eugene Smith. I hope this show will inspire younger photographers to shoot film. I'm not making a statement that digital necessarily is bad, but I'm going to let my audience be the final judge.
 
If every one takes a stand, I won't have anything to put my lights on!

I use the gallery space, the compatibility of concepts, the quality of work and the media to determine who I show with.
 
I was thinking about doing the same thing, only I figured that to be ethically consistent would demand that I contact all of my previous print buyers and a few museums to see if they collected digital work, and if so, buy my prints back from them. This sounded sort of expensive and very definitely a pain in the ass, so I am just going to remain a turnip.
 
billschwab said:
Forgive me as I should remain silent on this, but I don't think I've heard a more self-aggrandizing load of crap.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that not me :D

There's something being lost in the attitude. Do we put ourselves on pedestals claiming the high ground, or do we try to re-educate, influence, enthuse from within.

We all work differently, my approach is from within. I'm working in a country where films outside C41 snapshots is largely gone, the few die hards are hard to find & my nearest LF contact is 5 hours drive :smile:

Ian
 
jnanian said:
sea of crap only since the 60s ??

there has always been crap, even when it was being made with a plate ... now there is a little more of it.

SSDD :whistling:

-john
Click to expand...

It takes a while before some humidity in the air turns into a light drizzle, that gradually developes into a mild shower, that forms some small puddles, which join to form larger puddles, and after a while trickle away in streams too small to be called that, which run into other such trickles to form proper streams and rivulets, that join into rivers, lakes, and eventually something large enough to be called a sea.

The difference isn't that noone saw it before. It has not gone unnoticed.
 
billschwab said:
Forgive me as I should remain silent on this, but I don't think I've heard a more self-aggrandizing load of crap.
Click to expand...

I believe Bill's words are concise.

I heard the Ralph Gibson interview in which he made the "masterpiece" reference. I remember laughing...

That said I'm a fan of both Per and Ralph's photographic work...
 
Shawn Dougherty said:
I believe Bill's words are concise.

I heard the Ralph Gibson interview in which he made the "masterpiece" reference. I remember laughing...

That said I'm a fan of both Per and Ralph's photographic work...
Click to expand...


That's right, Shawn, and so we don't take Mr. Gibson's words out of contest (and he is one of my idols), this is what he also said:

"Chris/Larry: And yet you’re not tempted to go digital? You mentioned you’re doing Iris prints. We have seen many folks working with the Epson printers, printing on a wide range of art papers that they never would have had access to before.

Ralph: I have two Epson 3000’s and a 1200 and a 780. I have four Epson printers here. I’m fully into the Epson, but I use them for making my dummies.

Chris/Larry: Have you tried printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS (www.InkSupply.com).



Ralph: I have. And I’ve gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). I’m pretty much abreast of what’s going on. And I have used those inks, and they’re great. It’s just that they’re not better or worse than photographs. They coexist. They’re not photographs. They’re another kind of very beautiful print.

One may or may not agree with the last paragraph (I slightly don't, honestly) but the bottom line is that an artist should be open and fair. Ignoring reality and hiding behind all forms of strictly purist views doesn't really serve one well, IMO.
 
Sorry everyone...

It was not my intention to create a storm. I appreciate your comments but feel I have to make a personal statement. The only one that might get hurt by all this is most likely my pocketbook. But I accept that...!

Thank you for your comments...

:smile:
 
I should add...

that my comments were borne out of total frustration...


like working on 4 or 5 prints for days on end for an exhibit and others arriving with 50 digital prints made at Costco... for the same exhibit...

I did not have the desire to be arrogant, but... I was extremely frustrated...

Therefore my decision.
 
I've tried to scan ("read quickly") all of this, so - my thoughts:
I appreciate and support the OP's feelings on his decision, but would not take such a position out of fairness and respect for new media (as photography was once, and was also disrespected). True, as the technology advances in infancy, there is a lot of "technique discovery stuff" out there that receives recognition because the form hasn't matured, and therefore neither have the critics (many of whom don't do either kind of photography - more's the pity).
When I am included in a show with digital imagery (almost always the case, and in the majority), I try to use the opportunity to perceive how my work looks in that context, and learn from it. This has evolved in me an intention to showcase the beauty of the technique and craft of my process integrated with the image itself, in an effort to stand out from the "D" stuff, if I can.
Showing in a venue with primarily digital work can be seen as an opportunity to offer this comparison to the viewing world. My feeling is, "why minimize this opportunity for any reason?" The other stuff is here to stay, and the more we persist, the better for analog photography.
Many feel that the "classic" processes will someday occupy their own status, if the viewing public can be educated.

Oh, yeah, and Per - I feel your pain.
 
per volquartz said:
that my comments were borne out of total frustration...


like working on 4 or 5 prints for days on end for an exhibit and others arriving with 50 digital prints made at Costco... for the same exhibit...

I did not have the desire to be arrogant, but... I was extremely frustrated...

Therefore my decision.
Click to expand...

Mr. Volquartz,

With all due and utmost respect for your work and your decision:

I can certainly sympathize with the amount of frustration in such situation, as you have described it. On the other hand, I would personally take those prints with an even bigger sense of pride if I was you. It is true that to be shown alongside digital prints made at Costco seems to diminish your art but, in reality, it may show it under a different light, and people should be allowed to see it that way, even compare it. It may also not be fair to throw everyone under the bus, as there are people who use a mix of hybrid and traditional (I know I do) and should not feel relegated to inferiority because of it. Once again, right or wrong, it is your decision and I'm sure everyone here respects that, even though we may not agree.

Best,

Max
 
I watched the movie "Frida" over the weekend. It had a scene with Diego Rivera taking a stand about keeping Marx in a work in NY, the work was destroyed. That was a very expensive choice on his part.

Sometimes it is worth taking a stand, even if just for our own personal satisfaction.

Let's stretch the example a bit further. How many people here would want their own masterpieces in in a "Dollar Store"?

Per's choice is just a line in the sand he's drawing somewhere between say, a street vendor in Tijuana and a very exclusive gallery in Beverly Hills.

We all have some line we won't cross and I'll bet most of these lines are pretty arbitrary.
 
per volquartz said:
I did not have the desire to be arrogant, but... I was extremely frustrated...
Click to expand...
It's good to hear you clear this up. I admire your work and was disappointed to think you might be part of the self-appointed gift from god types that can be all too common in this business.

I think I can understand the frustration a person might feel when their work is compared to that they perceive as substandard. But I am always suspect of those that feel the need to belittle other's work while holding their's up as superior.

Also, while everyone needs to start somewhere, it would seem to me that you are beyond the type of exhibitions you are describing where someone shows up with work printed at Costco. But then again, David Hockney did some pretty impressive things with 50 prints that probably were processed somewhere similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom