The Virtue of Restraint

Offhand, here are some components apart from photographic process that I'd assert can play significant roles in a photograph... in no particular order:

composition;
emotional content;
serendipity;
thought process (as opposed to photographic process);
social relevance;
representation;
expression;
journalistic motive i.e. providing record or supporting narrative;
.
.
.
.

To me, process, materials, gears, and all that fun stuff is there so that I can make the image I want to create. I do have to admit, though, I like gears - for sake of gears. They are fun to play with.

I see the "Sun Burn" as a work as art, very unique art, combination of science and art. But I have hard time accepting that as a "photograph".

jerry

thanks for your clarification -
you never said single coated cyanotype before
you just said "cyanotypes" which is a blanket statement about ALL cyanotypes ...

both this and your other thread, while thought provoking, both lead one to believe
you have a set idea of what any kind of photograph should be like, and there is no swaying
from what your ideals are.
like any artform, there is room for improvisation, and if that means flaunting the imperfections of a process ...
even though you know how not to, well that is the point ...

there are lots of beautiful perfect and imperfect images in
the gallery here on apug, some look much better larger than their thumbnail.

tkamiya said:

To me, process, materials, gears, and all that fun stuff is there so that I can make the image I want to create. I do have to admit, though, I like gears - for sake of gears. They are fun to play with.

I see the "Sun Burn" as a work as art, very unique art, combination of science and art. But I have hard time accepting that as a "photograph".

Click to expand...

photograph means drawn with light
i have no problem at all seeing they are photographs ...

Right.... not BURNED with light!

Perhaps this is all too deep for me. But if I see a photograph, it yells "photograph". It does not yell "reality" or "oil painting" or "TV".

Sometimes a process is noticeable because it is just unusual and we are not use to seeing it used.

To me, this whole question revolves around two issues. First, is the image worthwhile looking at? And the second, does the process work in unison with (or better, strengthen or weaken) the image? And both issues are decided by the individual, not a consensus.

Sorry, I have been in the darkroom for 8 hrs -- need to go home, eat, nap and come back for more.

jnanian said:

both this and your other thread, while thought provoking, both lead one to believe
you have a set idea of what any kind of photograph should be like, and there is no swaying
from what your ideals are.
like any artform, there is room for improvisation, and if that means flaunting the imperfections of a process ...
even though you know how not to, well that is the point ...

Click to expand...

It is never my intent to tell people what a is good photograph. If I had wanted to do that I would have mentioned specifiic photographers, "your photographs need to look more like xxx's photos." But I do want people to look at the work of others and make their own choices. Yes, there is always room for improvisation in any art form. But people need to understand the "rules" before they break them. I am not being elitist or dogmatic. Good artists are always aware of what has been done previously.

Gerald C Koch said:

It is never my intent to tell people what a is good photograph.

Click to expand...

If you really are just being misunderstood on this issue, then it may benefit you to learn how to better clearly express your intent in writing; because based on what you have written, it can easily be read that telling people what makes a good photograph is exactly what your intent is, along with a healthy dose of self aggrandizement.

Gerald C Koch said:

2F/2F

You say you are a nice guy but you come off as person who is sour on humanity and hides behind a pseudonym.

Click to expand...

And how is that related to the content of my last post, in which I stated that your supposed intent was very possibly not properly delivered by your OP?

If you have a problem with screen names, then attempt to enact policy change at this Website, which currently fully allows them, and at which they are most common. Until then, you are just giving me crap for doing nothing wrong. It must be because you just need something to grab on to for a retort, so you can avoid the serious and on-topic criticism at hand.

There is nothing wrong with being sour when sourness is deserved. It doesn't mean I am sour on humanity. It means I am passionate about it, and I have opinions on how humans ought to act, and an ability to criticize when they are not doing so. Your posts are not only off topic for the forums they are in, but IMO are arrogant and pointless. My criticism is not only valid and pointed, but is very mild compared to what could be warranted here. Yet you call the guy who calls you on it names. If you cannot handle a little heat without degenerating into off-topic attempts at personal insult, then don't make potentially-controversial posts in the first place. If you are going to dish it out, which you have, quite arrogantly, then be prepared to take it. If you disagree with me, then either make your point or ignore me. Don't distract with personal attacks.

This is now a personal attack thread. <sigh>

2F/2F

I can't make my own points because you put words in my mouth and then find fault with the words. You really should change your pseudonym to "thread slayer." Since I wish these threads to continue I will say no more.

How about "Certain Thread Slayer?" Namely those that could use a little "slaying."

Summary and/or restatement of an opposing viewpoint can be a powerful argumentative tool, especially when the gist of someone's message is not being directly addressed. It can focus and clarify an arguably ridiculous statement or point that is being largely overlooked due to the way it was indirectly worded initially. It is not putting words in your mouth. If you disagree with my restatement, then maybe you should state exactly how instead of calling it a "rant" and then going into insults when I make the case that it is not.

It seems you are faulting me for making a case for my thoughts on the issue. I get it. We disagree – highly; why can't you accept that I take issue with your post and make my case against it without getting personal? We highly disagree. That's all we need to say. We have stated enough to make our main points.

Gerald C Koch said:

It is never my intent to tell people what a is good photograph. If I had wanted to do that I would have mentioned specifiic photographers, "your photographs need to look more like xxx's photos." But I do want people to look at the work of others and make their own choices. Yes, there is always room for improvisation in any art form. But people need to understand the "rules" before they break them. I am not being elitist or dogmatic. Good artists are always aware of what has been done previously.

Click to expand...

hi again jerry

i wonder sometimes what the world would be like if marcel duchamps, and kandinsky and salvador dali and picasso and van gogh and ... didn't do their thing it would be
pretty boring ...

i agree 100% it is good to have a good foundation and know the rules
before you break them .. the only way we can move forward is if
some people break rules.

Jerry,
Your posts are thought provoking and I look forward to the next idea. I tried the word on my teenager and he hadn't heard it before. He loves everything Japanese so it may be a while before he comes back with an understanding.

I have a print I have to throw out because it screams "burn-in" and I only applied a third-stop burn to a cliff I thought would be more dramatic in contrast with the snowfield it shields from direct sun.

I also have some spotting to do on some other prints because, in their natural state, they scream "dust" and "shoddy workmanship". With just the right amount of touch-up they might be, if I'm lucky, shibui.

I learned this concept from the Tao, "Recognize the utility of what is not.". Probably my favorite line from the whole book and I thank you for reminding me of it. Whenever I think about getting another lens or this thing or that thing I'm reminded that really it won't help me create better photographs, the only thing that can improve them is my mind. I need only the basic equipment and a deeper understanding of it, myself and my subject.

Shine on,

Puma

+1 - Mozart said "the most effective factor in music is silence", i.e., its not the notes, but the intervals between them .

Puma said:

I learned this concept from the Tao, "Recognize the utility of what is not.".

Click to expand...

Puma thank you so much for this quote. For some reason I immediately thought of music and not photography. Perhaps it was that I had recently read that Lisette Model credited Schoenberg as being her inspiration. She had met him many times when she lived in Vienna. Furthermore, the rest (pause) is very important in music, it is, in essence, "that which is not." For examples of its use there are some of the Schuberrt piano sonatas and the Shostakovich Preludes and Fugues Op. 87. My recording is by Keith Jarrett, a jazz pianist who is well schooled in classical piano. A perfect example of knowing the rules before one tries to break them. Please note the use of italics.

Lest someone think I am going too far afield with the cross pollenaton between the other arts and photography, several photographers have stated their love for music and the connection to their work.

Bill,

Thank you and others for your kind words.