Traditional / Digital / and 'Art'

[Sean]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SteveGangi @ Jan 16 2003, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Gary, if your photos were created first then I owe you a huge apology! As far as tailoring your photos to satisfy an already established client list, there is no way to say it is &quot;bad or evil&quot;. It is simple supply and demand which I certainly understand. Maybe I came off as being harsh, but I had already worked myself up to &quot;get the professor&quot; so to speak. Maybe next time I should make sure who I aim at before taking a shot at him. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You can go into that old post and edit it if you like Steve. I think people had their tomahawks out for the wrong guy...

 

[SteveGangi]

I think I will leave my original post as is, since "the world" has already seen it. No way to take it back since it has already gone out and been read by whoever cared to see it. It's not the first time I stuck my foot in my mouth and I am pretty sure it won't be the last. We can say it's my own personal reminder to LOOK before I attack. I still think that other guy, the college professor (whoever he was) is totally full of $h!t.

Ever the Elitist Luddite (everyone take a drink),
Steve

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Truth be told, it's hard to produce something of lasting value in any medium. Digital techniques make certain things easier (give me the Photoshop cloning tool over an airbrush and set of retouching pencils any day!), but they don't make vision any easier. There is cliche in all media, and I've seen some really fine digital work.

In color, a drum scan and Lightjet print is really a potential improvement over most techniques, with the possible exception of dye transfer, but it's not really easier, and it certainly isn't cheaper. Good work still requires effort. I've seen LightJet and Lambda prints that look like crap. It's not as if you just pop the slide in a machine and out comes a brilliant print.

In B&W there is some very impressive work done in digital media, but the prints look different from prints done in other media. I just think of it as another kind of output like bromoil or platinum or gum bichromate or silver or photogravure. I have no interest in using inkjet or digital-C print for my own B&W work, but I won't deny that I've seen some good work that uses those materials.

 

[Sean]

The traditional guys think of digital as "another kind of output", but this new digital crop think all forms of digital are "photography". I guess we could argue the semantics of the word 'photograph' for days on end. One thing I can't stand is seeing a digital illustration being called a photograph. I've seen some majorly enhanced images. You know the type -a glowing girl with added birds flying all around her, a few added buildings in the background, purple sky created, a moon added, some clouds cloned -and at the bottom of the image says "photograph by _______".

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Composites like that can still be done with negative sandwiches, masking, stripping-in, and airbrushing to smooth the rough edges. Is it more of a photograph if it was done with traditional methods? Much of what Photoshop can do was all common in the graphic arts trade before digital. Manipulation is manipulation. Perhaps the real debate is between "manipulation" and "straight photography," but that's an old question.

 

[Sean]

I guess I think labels should be involved at some stage. Like photo montage, retouched portrait, infrared, slide sandwich, solarization, etc. I'm more of a straight shooter myself.

I made a slide sandwich once. I photographed a model of a ufo, then I photographed my open car door open with a blank sky in the background. I sandwiched the ufo into the sky and told everyone I saw this thing hovering in the sky, opened my car door, snapped a photo and it flew off. It freaked out a lot of my friends until I told them it was a trick.

 

[steve]

"...the Ansel Adams filter, then print out 100 identical copies..."

Heeeehheeeheehhhhee..... that'll be available about the time I can get the "Mark Knopfler Chip" for my electric guitar so that I can play as crappy as I please and I sound just like Mark!

But, in either case it's not the look or sound it's the unique personal vision in making either that counts - and you can't put that in a chip.

But, there is an intriguing idea for using a digital camera that I'm going to try out that goes beyond trying to mimic wet darkroom still imaging. In the '80's I did a lot with video and had this idea back about 1987 - but didn't have a way to make it happen.

Let's assume you find a really nice scene for a photo. You take a digital camera with an intervalometer and set it to take a picture every minute or two, or whatever starting prior to sunrise and finishing after sunset. You then edit the photos as needed and get a digital picture frame display device, put your memory card of "the show" into the display device - and you have what I call a "Living Picture" (registered trademark).

It constantly changes all day long with dissolves between frames so that you have an 8 hour or 12 hour duration display (or however long you want up to the max storage capacity of the memory card) that shows the scene as it looked all day. Every time you look at the picture it's changed slightly...and shows the scene from sunrise to sunset.

Now, there's an interesting use of purely digital technology that can't be duplicated easily with any analog process... and remember - you heard it here first.

 

[Robert]

Isn't that just a movie? While easier with digital I don't see how it couldn't be done with a video tape. Or even just a slide projector. The digital version would be easier,likely cheaper and maybe better but not really something that can't be done. Now if you mean something that can't be currently done for reasonable money I'd agree.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That sounds like a "slide show" (unregistered non-trademark) to me.

 

[steve]

"Now if you mean something that can't be currently done for reasonable money I'd agree. "

Well geeeeee....isn't that the point? How about practicality? Making something that's cost effective AND can be worked easily into a display setting? You know, I've thought about this for 15 years and have pretty much gone through all of the equipment/display scenarios while watching technology develop.

To start, - no, it's not "just a movie" it's actually time lapse photography.

You could have done that with video using a time lapse deck - but, they have all types of problems in the transport mechanism that generate time-base errors in the final video - and they were very, very, expensive. I looked into that in 1987. The final problem would be how would you do the display? Hook up a tape recorder to a CRT - where would you put it etc.? Not a practical display method for this type of technology. You would have the same problems today with digital video recorders because you would need to start/stop the tape unless you used a hard-drive based unit which is NOT easily field portable. Also, the camera units based on digital record media do not provide intervalometer timing capability.

Yes, you could have done it with a motion picture camera and an intervalometer or a 35mm camera and an intervalometer - but, the display of the final images would be an audio visual display with all of it's attendent problems. Noise, heat, space required, etc. I did A/V work for the US National Park Service in 1982 at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, for the National Science Foundation at the Very Large Array, and at other places so I am really well aware of what an AV front screen or rear screen system takes to display slides. That's not something you can put into everyone's home. Not to mention the cost / maintenance issues.

And yes, today you could do it with a film camera, digitize the film and make the final display like you would with a digital camera - but, what's the point if you can do it directly with a digital camera? The need to say, "uuuhhh...I shot it on film" - just to comfort yourself that you haven't sold your soul to the digital devil?

I want something that looks like a framed color photo - but, every time you look at it, the photo has subtley changed. That's WHY I never used any of the technologies I described (video, motion picture, still photography) specifically because the final display was not technically or aesthetically viable or pleasing.

The digital picture frame is an integrated display device that can be framed like a standard picture (your choice of any picture frame), and integrates the digital reader (unseen) into the device as a single unit. This gives the aesthetics of a framed color photo that can be easily hung on any wall. The digital camera gives a direct digital method of capturing the images to use in the display device.

And, the fact that it's all digital has it's own aesthetics that are quite apart from analog processes. I'll let you know how it works out.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

First off, I hav eto appologize to Gary. I was misinformed as to his role in all this.

Secondly, I think we have gotten a bit off track here. The issue is art really.

I think much of what has happened on the digital side of things (by some not all) can be summed up with the word "McLuhanization". McLuhan was a communications theorist who said "The Medium Is The Message!" This became a mantra for many during the Dotcom heyday. Arguably they totally missed the point. Some even say McLuhan missed the point later in his life.

Anyway, with digital it seems many think "The Medium Is The Message!" That the FACT the image is digital is more important in many respects than the image itself. Now few would ADMIT to thinking that way, put their attitude and the statements they make say otherwise. Saying "Film is dead" is an example of this. It places the medium over the content of the image.

What does this have to do with art? Well, art is about a message. It is a form of communication. Be it a simple message like "This is a pretty picture of a flower," or a complex one like "Stop the war in XXXXX and by the way save the endangered Mexican Flying Mole."

When someone stops thinking about the image, and starts thinking mostly about the medium, that is where the problems occur. The message of the image is lost. The medium sort of drowns it out.

A good example would be the numerous "heavily composited" photos one sees out there. Those cluttered composites where EVERYTHING happens at once. You have say a girl, a dozen doves flying above her head, a huge moon in the background, she is standing on a lake of pure mercury, etc. etc. etc. Obviously the fact that the image can be digitally manipulated has become so important to the author that they abandoned any type of coherent message coming from the image itself. The manipulation becomes first and foremost.

To me this is not art. Well at least no good art. Good art should let the image do the talking. The medium can be PART of that message, but it should not overwhelm the image. The image conveys the message. That is key to good art.

 

[Donald Miller]

I would have to say that this is as aptly stated as one can state it. I concur wholeheartedly insofar as to the discription of good art. However once recognizing the predominant need of a conveyed message which is capable of being received by another person, the medium through which the message is conveyed is of importance. As an artist it is up to each of us to determine what medium best serves as the messenger. I personally feel, for myself, that conventional materials best serve this need. There are today well recognized and relatively well received photographers who believe that the quality of the print (technically speaking) is more important then the message that the image conveys. I have found that I disagree with them on this particular interpertation of the process. This is my "slant" on things, for what it is worth.

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ross @ Jan 15 2003, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now digital is emerging.&nbsp; The vision may be similar, expertise is different, and 'hand made' aspect disappearing.&nbsp; Will digital photography undo the acceptance of photography as a legitimate art form if there is no human craft involved?&nbsp; If anyone with a 30 megapixel point and shoot can snap well exposed images and make vibrant ink jet prints all within a few minutes, what will this mean for photography as an artform?&nbsp;

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm really struggling over the concept of "Human craft". If we intensify this to indicate a situation where the work is produced without human INVOLVEMENT, automatically by a machine, we do not have that which we commonly call "Art" - at least it *rarely* and only randomly will have the effect art has on human beings.

I wonder, if in some pre-historic situation, a primitive man contemplating the charcoal drawings on the cave walls had these same thoughts about colored pigments: Once we introduce color, the skills necessary to suggest reality using only black charcoal wil be lost, and te work will no longer be `true art' ".

Will the "marvelous machine" - in this case Digital Cameras - cheapen photography? I don't think so - no more than the introduction of the Polaroid Camera, - or flexible film - or exposure meters...

One aspect of "Art" is that it IS a form of "communcation" - that is undeniably true - but there is SO much more.

One of the best definitions I've heard, so far, is: "Art - The work on the wall is an encrypted window into the being of the artist on the other side."

How we build that window is a minor element of the process.

Charcoal is still around - and still a wonderfully expressive medium.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Donald Miller]

I believe that all art is the outward expression of the inner views, values, and beliefs of the artist. That this expression, if valid, will initiate or bring about further realization in the person who witnesses this expression of the artist. For that reason, in my view, not all photography is art. Nor, for that matter, is all art photography.

Regards,
Donald Miller

 

[Sean]

Have a look at this image below by Ansel Adams. How would you feel about this same image if it never existed until last week. Say some guy just published it on the photo.net gallery. Said it was made of 5 digital photos merged together. Say he added the moon, added the clouds, removed some trees in several parts of the image, added a few more mountains, didn't like the church so added a different one. Then printed it out on an epson printer. Would it get the same amount of respect? Sure it would be a nice image, but it is a real photographic work?

I've been accused a few times of romanticizing photography, and I don't think that is a bad thing. One of the things I find so powerful about 'St. Ansel's' image is the way it was created. 1 frame of film left, no light meter, a split second moment harnessed with incredible skills of visualization. And a REAL SCENE. NOW THAT IS POWERFUL TO ME. Yet so many say, the way an image is created is only a means to an end. They say, the final image on paper is the only thing that matters. I just can't see it that way.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

But famously, that is one of Ansel's most heavily manipulated images. He exposed for the moon, and that was about the only thing that came out right. If I remember correctly there is local selenium intensification on the negative toward the bottom of the frame, and a fair amount of dodging and burning all over the image, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little local bleaching on the print to get the grave markers that bright. He did have more film, but apparently the light had passed before he could get off a second exposure.

Everything was there, and I'm sure this is how he visualized the scene, but did it really look like that outside his mind? I'm not so sure.

 

[Sean]

That's one of my main points - "Everything was there". He manipulated the tonal range which I think is acceptable for any photograph. It's in the realm of the mind to look at a scene and visualize different tones or removal of color, etc. I have no issues with that. It's when artificial worlds are created and passed off as a real place, then passed of as a real photograph.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some would say photography as a whole is a craft, not art!&nbsp; The only true arts as art, are painting, watercolor, and sculpture. The rest is just craft which anyone can do (bolds by Jorge).&nbsp; this is a whole big controversay going on in the art world....what is art vs. what is a craft?

so beyond the digital vs analog, what do you believe is ART?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Yep, anybody can do it. Of course if that were really true, your or my prints would be identical to Paul Caponigros or Michael Kenna's. No big deal! tomorrow I am putting together my prints and taking them to the galleries, since everybody can do it I suppose they will be well received and I will become wealthy.

Just a little bit of sarcasm, if that statement were true then every painter would be a DaVinci, things done by those who are gifted are not so easily repeated and as always the experts make it look easy, but just try it. The perception that photography is "easy" is one of the greatest myths generated by those who wish to elevate their "art" at the expense of other mediums, and it is similar to the same perception that digital work is "easy". Nothing could be further from the truth, but then the truly gifted and experienced persons usually rise to the top and the rest just keep making statements like the one you mention.

If I am to make an attempt to quantify "art" I would say is that work which stablishes an emotional connection with the viewer, be that positive or negative. Craft would be that work which serves a purpose, the work itself can be quite beautiful but does not engender an emotional connection. I can see a truly wonderful chair or table and be awed by its beauty, but is is still a chair to be sat on. Not so for Michelangelos Pieta.

 

[lee]

I can teach craft to anyone that will follow my instructions in several short sessions. I cannot teach vision. I can help improve vision, but the student needs to be able to supply his/her own rudimentary vision. The image is the art and the craft should be supportive but invisible. It is that thing Jorge spoke of. Make it look easy.


lee\c

 

[Robert]

I agree with what I call digital painting but I'm sure somebody will point much of it could have been done before.

On the issue that digital will make things easier and therefore devalue photography I disagree. I actually think you'll see the exact opposite. Digital will make the mechanical things easier. They won't let you take a better picture if you don't see it. Think of it this way. When cameras started to included double exposure protection that didn't mean better photographs. It just meant you had a little less to think about. If you believe digital will allow people to take more photographs that are basically techincally okay then you'll have a lot of boring photographs out there. Without the excuse of the techincal issues maybe people will figure out it's not the camera it's the person using it?

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Donald Miller]

Aggie, I see your given qualifications as no determiner of art or craft. I think that very few of us over any considerable period of time craft a print in exactly the same way. We continually refine exposures. Possibly seeing something more within the negative that can be conveyed in a stronger more compelling way. We, by and large, are not automatons. At least that is true of my efforts. I have heard other photographers express the same experience. So I guess that my experience is not unique.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> craft has been described as anything that can be reproduced again and again. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Is that so? well no two Stradivarius violins are the same, yet they were made by a craftman. By that definition then they are art. no? Or how about a Steinway piano, no two sound alike, even though the are all made the same over and over, so are they art or products of craft?

By this definition then traditional photography is definitely an art, I can tell you not two of my prints are exactly the same. Close but no cigar, and if we are talking about alternate processes then it gets even more into the art definition. The variables are so complex that even if you try to make the prints exactly the same it is almost impossible. A few degrees in temp of the developer, a coating done differently, different dry times, etc..all contribute to the uniqueness of each print.

Digital proponents say that once they have done all their curves etc, they can "push" the button and get 100 prints the same, how is that different from printing a poster? I suppose the "art" comes from manipulating those "curves" to achieve the desired result. As with traditional photography you and I might sit at a computer and start with the same image and end up with a totally different interpretation. So I do consider digital also an art, since it involves the emotional interpretation of an "object", the fact not withstanding that I can reproduce it identically afterwards.

As Lee said, given enough time, patience and appropriate tools anybody can become a craftsman. Given the same amount of time, patience and tools you might become skilled in photography, but there is only one Adams or Caponigro or Hurrell.

 

[Robert]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 19 2003, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I like this,,,got you guys thinking,,now a second wrench.....craft has been described as anything that can be reproduced again and again.&nbsp; Art like the pieta is someting that would not be able to be rendered again exactly the same way.&nbsp; </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I think this must be a modern view. Prior to factory production no two items could be reproduced exactly a like. Many craftsmen would actually modify the design with what they'd learned from building the previous one.

I also wonder how much of this is a North American view. In Europe I don't think "craftsmen" would have the same lack of standing. They would be considered artisians.