The artifact of process.

mhv said:

Matt, I think we're just starting to get a real sense of silver gelatin's real "artifact of process." Film having been "normal" for so many years, it still takes a leap of analysis to get its specificity.

Click to expand...

I'd say there are lots of silver process artefacts (I'm English so I'll insist on the correct spelling ). They're just perhaps not recognised as such.

• Transparencies of any kind
• Polaroid Type 55 borders
• Prints with the film edges
• Fuzzy edges from filing out enlarger film holders
• Any accidental or deliberate damage to negatives
• Dust marks on prints
• ...

Any more?

The OP presumes in the examples cited of "process" that process means that particular line of craft that results in the artifact. In Quinn's post, we begin to see a somewhat enlarged definition, but the expansion of the idea remains incomplete as we return to the example of "process" as being the wet plate. I was waiting. I thought it was going to develop into something larger, but thanks, Quinn, you helped me formulate some thoughts that this thread has been stimulating.

The underlying assumption seems to be that the work is directed toward production (that is, a product) and that the "process" is what gets you to that product. We do this, we get a "thing". We do that, we get a different "thing". In a world that is dominated by the material, I suppose that this is not to be avoided.

I'd like to propose another element to add to the mix. Process is not necessarily limited, as an idea, to a particular mode of production, such as platinum, wet plate, albumen, etc. Process can also mean the whole arc of the work, which includes the definition of the scope, the concept, the field in which it is done, the particular mode in which the artifact will be produced, the public intended to see it, the venue where they will, etc.

Let's take an example from another medium. We could inquire among the painters about how they define "process". The ones I know would find this an interesting question, I'm sure. Let's presume that we have two painters, both of whom use the natural world as the source of their subject matter. Both use paint, and we can presume that they use the same medium, let's say oil. One is an abstractionist, the other a realist. Is their "process" simply the medium they are using, oil paint on canvas? Or is the "process" much more inclusive? Wouldn't it include the way they gather the information, one through drawing in a sketchbook, the other taking a photograph? Wouldn't it include the way in which they generate their concept and think about what they are doing, applying that thought to divergent materials, both physical and conceptual? Would it include a loose charcoal drawing on the canvas to define basic structure vs. the projection of a slide on the canvas? Wouldn't the "process" be peculiar to the way each artist works and include virtually all elements that go into the conception, selection of subject matter, choice of materials, methods of production, and, perhaps even more important, how one would use what was learned in the production of one artifact in the process that may result in the next? In other words, perhaps, process might be the way one moves through what one does, not just how one produces the artifact materially. In either case, though, the artifact does result.

Lots of questions. This issue is at the very root of my own work. I recall a remark by Jack Welpott, many years ago, where he defined a basic difference between a process orientation and a product orientation. In those days (1960's) there was very little so called "alternative process" work going on, so that did not enter into it. He was referring to the way an artist works. "Taking pictures" vs. "making photographs". I very much took that distinction to heart.

There are lots of clichés out there that refer to this, but remember, clichés come from something that starts out as true and fresh, then get stale. You know, the journey vs. the destination -- (we're supposed to think the journey is the important part, but when we go on vacation we get on an airplane and the journey is no fun! So, we reveal that we may, in fact, be hypocritical.). But in the studio, unless we are mass producing for a public that only wants one thing (ugh) presumably we are practicing a process, regardless of the medium in which we work.

bowzart said:

Process is not necessarily limited, as an idea, to a particular mode of production, such as platinum, wet plate, albumen, etc. Process can also mean the whole arc of the work, which includes the definition of the scope, the concept, the field in which it is done, the particular mode in which the artifact will be produced, the public intended to see it, the venue where they will, etc.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea, and certainly food for thought.

Ian Leake said:

I'd say there are lots of silver process artefacts (I'm English so I'll insist on the correct spelling ). They're just perhaps not recognised as such.

Click to expand...

That's the point I was trying to make (minus the correct orthography!). Because silver photo used to be the norm, we pass over the myriad specificities such as you have listed.

Matt,

I think that most of us who do alternative arrived there after passing through normal silver gelatin prints and color transparency materials, in the same way that most people who do LF work started with 35mm or MF. I personally started with color transparency material and continued with it for 12-15 years, but eventually the thrill wore off. Same with silver gelatin papers -- did that for a long time as well, but eventually the thrill wore off.

I simply like the hand made photograph. It is highly individualized and the joy is in the doing.

Sandy King

MattKing said:

It is interesting to me that there are very few posts here about "normal" silver gelatin prints, and no posts about colour, including colour transparency material.

Is that because those who are most likely to try alternative processes are those who are most intrigued by the processes themselves?

I'm just musing here, but I think that if there is any process that I'm most impressed by, it is the colour transparency.

Matt

Click to expand...

bowzart said:

I'd like to propose another element to add to the mix. Process is not necessarily limited, as an idea, to a particular mode of production, such as platinum, wet plate, albumen, etc. Process can also mean the whole arc of the work, which includes the definition of the scope, the concept, the field in which it is done, the particular mode in which the artifact will be produced, the public intended to see it, the venue where they will, etc.

Click to expand...

I really think you are on to something here, and in that context my OP in reality queries - why choose a particular process over another considering the whole arc of the work?

There seem to be many reasons, each as individual as the artist.

I have been wondering why, as I have begun to exert a very good measure of control over my silver work, I have felt drawn to learn new ways of working.

Logic for the artist in me says that as I further master the silver gelatin process that I will be so equipped as to relegate the process involved in my art to a near subconscious act, and be more or less free of the constraints that my ability at my craft had at one time dictated, and pursue the artistic aspects more vigorously.

Still I am drawn to the nuances of things I am less adept at.

JBrunner said:

Still I am drawn to the nuances of things I am less adept at.

Click to expand...

From your various posts, I can see that you assign a great value to your control of the process. Have you ever considered using that orientation toward control to limit the boundaries within which certain kinds of accident can function? It doesn't mean that a product which will result is going to be "perfect" but it can open the door to opportunities for learning and growth which otherwise would not be likely to happen.

If this isn't clear, consider the way an experiment might be done in a science lab. This differs, though, in that the hypothesis can be looser, or could conceivably even not exist. Eliminate the variables, except for that you are testing for. In this case, perhaps you would retain only the one field in which you might wish to find out what surprises might happen. That is, you use your well established skills to create a context for the work, but leave an area open for the unknown and unpredictable.

Your work is very elegant. That's great. You might wonder what opening an area of unknown could possibly do for you. I can only say what I myself have found. For me, allowing a certain amount of unknown to enter the process (and here, I don't mean gelatin silver, platinum, carbon, etc. but process on the more inclusive contextual scale) permits an element of freshness, discovery and life that is not likely to occur if the process is kept closely held under the thumb.

I hope that I'm clear enough to give you something useful; I certainly don't expect this to be an "explanation" because this can't be explained or taught. If you or anyone else were to find something here that bothers enough to compel some thinking, that would be all we could ask.

I use lith printing as the final product for the most part, and for me that process gives me an incomparable ability to describe mood. When I'm 'feeling it' with my camera, out shooting, and I have a light bulb moment, my mind flies through the whole process from beginning to end, just to check what color, tonal rendition, graininess, and contrast the print will eventually have. The process gives me almost a never ending plethora of choices. By varying developer dilution, developer chemistry, exposure time in the enlarger, paper type, paper surface, and agitation I can get almost completely different results from the same process. To me it helps me find a way to describe the emotional content I want to pack into the photograph. With standard silver gelatin printing, it is less often that I find a solution I feel suits the subject matter. Some day I will try my hand at bromoil printing, because I feel there is even more power to alter the print to look the way I intended at 'shutter clicking' time.
I hope that makes sense.
- Thomas

To be unsettled is to be an artist. To be confident in ones way of seeing and the expression of that seeing is death to an artist because it limits further growth. Got an itch? Scratch it!

Murray

I think bowzart raises some good points here, and if I can paraphrase, I guess the big question is--where does the technical process fit into the artistic process?

If you look at Jesseca Ferguson's work, for instance--

http://www.pinholeformat.com/Jessecagal1.html

She's using pinhole cameras, large format, cyanotype, collage techniques, and so forth, but the most salient features of her work have to do with collecting objects--stuffed birds, old books, skeletal remains, and other things that become the elements of a symbolic language. The technical process produces new objects that have the handmade fragmentary quality of the objects in the images, giving unity to the artistic process. She can take the prints and use them in new still life setups to make new images, and they don't seem out of place.

What if instead, she were to use a camera with a high-end digital back and produced large glossy LightJets face mounted to plexiglass? That continuity between the objects in the images and the prints would be lost. The setups usually fit in a small box, like a diorama, and there wouldn't be room for a large print in one, and the slickness of the presentation would be incongruous with the objects portrayed. Instead of looking at an object that is like the objects in the still life, the viewer would be looking at a discontinuous representation of some objects.

Bowzart,

Thank you. Let me expound a little bit.

I understand your point, or points, and I completely agree with them. I've always said that what the viewer is looking at (the image) is the "residue" of the process. Or as I define it, the Art. I truly believe that the Art is only experienced by the creator and possibly collaborators. Everyone else sees the "residue" or what's leftover from the process of creation.

For years now, I've not been able to say "taking pictures" I only refer to what I do as "making pictures". Ostensibly, this due to the technical process I use, but it's also very much a psychological thing for me.

Brooks Jensen had a "tools" exhibit that came thru our area last year. It was of old hand tools such as those used by machinists & carpenters. The prints were mounted on rough edged & irregular shaped sheets of steel. The incongruous part of the exhibit was the prints were high-end digital. I thought at the time how much better of an exhibit if the prints were also hand-made. As David says above, the process should match the subject matter.

With the negative as the score, I play at variations on a theme. Each negative may have many potential interpretations, as well as various problems, that lend itself to various processes. For me, contact prints from large negatives seem to offer greater flexibility than 4X5 or smaller. I may start with a silver gelatin interpretation, then proceed thru Lith, Cyanotype & Kallitype.

bowzart said:

The underlying assumption seems to be that the work is directed toward production (that is, a product) and that the "process" is what gets you to that product. We do this, we get a "thing". We do that, we get a different "thing". In a world that is dominated by the material, I suppose that this is not to be avoided.

Click to expand...

That is not my assumption. For me the work itself is what matters, not the product. I enjoy the product, but the anticipation of it is at least as important as its realization.

Sandy King

sanking said:

...and the joy is in the doing.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

That is perfectly stated Sandy. I couldn't agree more.

sanking said:

That is not my assumption. For me the work itself is what matters, not the product. I enjoy the product, but the anticipation of it is at least as important as its realization.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't argue with you. I'm sure that in your case, what you say is absolutely true. I have the greatest respect for your work.

L.

Quinn said:

Bowzart,

Everyone else sees the "residue" or what's leftover from the process of creation.

Click to expand...

Markers on the trail. Thanks. Great statement.

Thanks for the generous comment.

I have discussed this issue with a number of artists, and most agree that the fun for them is in the process itsel in applying the creative juices to achieve a certain end. But once that end is achieved it becomes an object, and in some cases a product. Its interest at that point shifts to another reality, sometimes commercial.

Sandy King

bowzart said:

I certainly wouldn't argue with you. I'm sure that in your case, what you say is absolutely true. I have the greatest respect for your work.

L.

Click to expand...

sanking said:

Thanks for the generous comment.

I have discussed this issue with a number of artists, and most agree that the fun for them is in the process itsel in applying the creative juices to achieve a certain end. But once that end is achieved it becomes an object, and in some cases a product. Its interest at that point shifts to another reality, sometimes commercial.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

I guess in my post I wasn't clear (even in my own mind) WHOSE assumption it seemed to be. It certainly is not mine; I definitely agree with you and the artists with whom you've consulted. My artist colleagues would agree, also, I'm pretty sure.

Since my own background is very diffuse, the assumptions that I've seen as bases for work haven't just been artists. I've worked in commercial studios, where the work is definitely generated by clients needs and process is meaningless except as it serves those needs as quickly as possible for the least amount of money. There's little joy in that. That's at one end. In between would be the millions of commercial portrait and amateur images I've shepherded personally or observed going through color labs. Again, what's so exciting? The process never varies and the imagery hardly does either. With my own editorial work, everything served the story, whether it was assigned from the office or generated through my own research; process was always an element here and often quite significant, but driven by the desired end. I did love that work, generally. In my fine art work, which hasn't always been clearly separated from the editorial and SOME of the commercial work done for my own clients, process was at least a large part, and generally dominant - pretty much entirely in the fine art end.

So, I apologize for the confusion, if there has been some. Sometimes my writing skips across something that is important in ways I haven't thought about.