Traditional / Digital / and 'Art'

[Jorge]

Oh, and BTW music would be a craft then, since it can be reproduced over and over.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Music is played once and then is gone. Recording is a craft though.

I wouldn't necessarily make mechanical reproduction the dividing line between art and craft.

As I see it, art (or "fine" art) serves no other purpose than being art. Craft (and "applied" art) does.

 

[lee]

could it be said that craft is expected and art is unexpected? Michael A. Smith told me one time that, "Illustrations are about things;art is about ideas". At least that is how I remember it. It is a controversial thought but it is a valid thought. Maybe Michael will join in. He and Paula always have things in perspective.

lee\c

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Robert]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 20 2003, 12:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> as for it being a North American idea? this is something that has been kicking around since the mid 1800's from the time photography started out..
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Mid 1800's would have been about right for the time modern factory made goods became known as "new and improved". Better then handcrafted items. It's why wonder bread is "better" then Grandma's home baked bread.

All ideas are a result of the times that created them. I wonder what people will think 100 years from now of us.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert Kennedy @ Jan 16 2003, 08:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Point being, I use what works and fits the situation.&nbsp; Mr. Crabbe on the other hand seems to be of the "Film is dead" school.&nbsp; Digital is the future!&nbsp; Burn your Deardorff now!&nbsp;

Well this isn't true.&nbsp; Film cameras still outsell digital.&nbsp; Film sales are still very high, and film is a very valid medium.&nbsp; It always will be.&nbsp; Especially with B/W.&nbsp;

I just don't have any truck with those who say otherwise.

Besides that Crabbe REALLY needs to find a vision.&nbsp; I agree with Jorge.&nbsp; This isn't to say I am any better or anything.&nbsp; But at least I don't try and sell my trite crap.&nbsp; In fact I have maybe 2 or 3 images that I would even CONSIDER selling and only one that I have.&nbsp; All are better than what Crabbe is selling.

And I suck!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
First, I'll take great issue with "... And I suck!".

I haven't met a photographer yet where I can honestly say that their work is of that low a merit (awkward syntax - but I'm choosing words carefully here.)
My greatest effort in teaching is trying to convince "newbies" that some of the work they do is really *wonderful* - and that they just don't see it. The next student I don't have to do that with will be my first.

Mr. Crabbe's work is different - and I will admit to having a sudden urge to lie down and put a couple of tea bags over my eyes after all the intense color saturation - but if that is the way he chooses to produce photographs - so be it.
After viewing his web site, I have more appreciation for "High Key" and "pastel-like" colors.

The statements that "Film is dead!!", usually accompanied by the "How- could- you- be- so- ignorant- as- not- to- agree- with- me" look/attitude irritate the living @$$#@% out of me, too.

Right.

- And charcoal died when oils came out - and oils died when acrylics came out, and stone sculpture died when hardening silly putty came out. Come to think of it, darkrooms themselves - if those sort of timetables were actually true - died many years ago, _ *nailed* by Polaroid film.

Digital has its place. It is capable of *fine* work - really different than film - but MOST that I have seen so far is not technically up to film, and until recently, nearly all I have seen seemed to be from a "What? - Me Worry?" base ( I can always erase the memory and take more.)

There is a reason I am here on APUG ... Unlike the "Digital" crowd, we are not condemning another's - anyone else's - media. I think we should recognize "digital" as a different medium, and treat it with the same deference we would oils, or pastels, or dance, or music. Different, - not really my "cup of tea" (neither is autofocus, as far as I'm concerned); not the area that attracts my interest, but entitled to a niche in art.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David A. Goldfarb @ Jan 19 2003, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Music is played once and then is gone.&nbsp; Recording is a craft though.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I disagree, the music is in the paper, the score. The performance might be ephemeral, but the music is in the score to be played over and over.

Aggie, I dont think anybody here is digital bashing, as I have said if anything I think we are more open minded about it. Ed, and Robert's opinions as well as other confirm this, we think of it as a viable alternative process to express a vision. It is the people who claim that traditional photography is dead who annoy me to no end and those are the ones we are bashing. Which reminds me I am taking the gold star back for that poorly redacted piece which got us all after your friend Gary's scalp.....

Advances in analog cameras? They are way too advanced now....people are unable to remember what button to push to rewind the film. I think digital is a Godsend to camera manufacturers, I mean how much more could you put on a camera? I think they had reached a plateau, I mean first they got matrix metering, then color matrix metering then follow the eye focusing then matrix metering in 100 areas...jeeeezz. I have not used a 35 mm camera in 10 years, but got to sold them when I was laid off..I can tell you half the time people came in to ask us how to do something particular to that camera, and in some instances you needed your ten fingers and some toes to push all the buttons necesary to get the desired function. Me I am working backwards, from a Nikon system, to 4x5, then 8x10 and now a 75 year old Korona.

 

[lee]

the one advance I would like to see for my camera systems would be a nubile youngster to carry and set up the 8x10. All the rest of it I can handle. =[8^).


lee\c

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I see the score as a set of instructions for making the music, as a script is a set of instructions for a play, and as Ansel said (just to stay on topic), the negative is the score (which is subject to many interpretations) for the print (which is the performance). At least prints last longer than these other kinds of performances.

More features in analog cameras? Yeah, I want a lightweight, not excessively bulky 4x5" single-window rangefinder (focus through the viewfinder) with interchangeable lenses and a Graflok back. The Littman 45 Single is close, but uses that bulky Polaroid body and has a fixed lens. Press cameras are close, but typically have separate windows for focusing and framing, and require changing cams if you change lenses. If the Contax II 35mm rangefinder could become the 70mm Combat Graphic, I want the same thing but one size up.

I also want an 8x10" Grafmatic film holder, or at least for someone to revive the Mido II filmholder for 8x10" and ULF sizes--where filmholder and weight really starts to add up quickly.

 

[Robert]

I want a modern folder. Nothing too fancy. Well built like my Ensign but add in higher shutter speeds [say 1/500] Move the controls so changing the shutter speed doesn't change the F stop. A view finder would be nice-) All small enough to fit in a jacket pocket when folded.

A view camera shutter that could be stuck on the camera and the lensboards put in front of it. More speeds then a packard. Not too many more. Or I could just live with a packard with a couple of speeds.

Oh and a camera that works perfectly in -20 temps while keeping me warm.

 

[Sean]

I wouldn't mind having a 8x10 film holder which has a big ccd or cmos chip in it. Then instead of proofing with a polaroid you could slip in this holder, and see a rough preview of your shot. The holder could be calibrated to the exact specifications of your film. I think that would be a good use of digital technology mixed with analog. The back of the holder could also double as an lcd screen which shows you the preview.

I also look forward to advances in film which will push the envelope even further. There is a lot going on now with nanotechnology. I suppose it would be possible to have a nano emulsion which has zero gaps and is 100% halide molecule next to halide molecule. I suppose it would increase the film resolution by factors of 10, 100, who knows...

 

[Les McLean]

I've followed this thread from the first post and enjoyed it immensely, it's probably one of the most interesting and civil discussions that I've read in any newsgroup, thank you all. Having had that pleasure for so long I think it's about time I contributed so here I go.

I don't think that there will be any further significant changes in either analog cameras or materials. Too much investment has gone into digital for the grey accountants to allow more money to be spent on analog without the return they demand. I attended an Ilford UK dinner in December and the Sales Director announced that they would not develop any new traditional black and white products although they would modify the existing products from time to time. Two years ago over 80% of their turnover came from traditional black and white, within the next 12 months more than 50% will come from digital. The industry is changing and we should be prepared to be involved with the change in order that the digital process produces what we want and not what the bean counters give us. Again, I can speak from experience for until 10 years ago I was a bean counter for a multi national company so I know what motivates them.

For many years I have been involved in testing new films and papers Ilford have developed, they have now asked me to do the same with digital. Before anyone begins to worry about Ilford's committment to the traditional skills and materials I do know that they will always be there for those who wish to use only analog materials. However, the feeling that I have from the views expressed in this thread is that most of us agree that traditional and digital can and will sit comfortably side by side, and so it should.

Having got the boring factual bit out of the way I'll put in my 2p worth (2cent for our friends across the pond). The debate on craft and vision has produced a number of different views and I don't believe that any is wrong. Aggie made the point that it is very personal and subjective and in a thread like this one we can only relate our own preferences and hope that others will benefit from them. Certainly some of the comments passed here have motivated me to reconsider some of my ideas.

Without doubt the mechanical process involved in making a digital print is unsatisfactory but it is still in it's infancy and it will get better so we have to work with it. No matter what the process, digital or analog, for me the object of making an image is to communicate a feeling, emotion or even a political point to those who choose to view the final print. To that end I always produce the best interpretation and quality on THE DAY I make the print for my prints tend to change with my mood. For that reason I always set out to create the expressive negative of any exposure that I make for I believe that this will help me in making different interpretations of the same image. Whilst it is true that we can teach the craft but not vision I also think that as we improve our skills in the craft of photography a logical benefit is that the vision also improves.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just another data point on the "death of film"--I just got back from B&H and when I asked for a box of Tri-X 8x10", the guy at the film counter said he was surprised at how much sheet film and LF Polaroid they've been selling lately. It's not a bad thing.

Les, I very much agree with your last statement on the relation between craft and vision.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Mark in SD]

What motivates me? It kind of depends. I don't particularly care for abstract art in any medium. Well, I guess that isn't entirely true because I kind of like Salvador Dali, but I don't care for most abstract art in any medium.

My tastes are quite different when moving from sculpture to painting to photography to music. In sculpture, I find I like complexity and action. A captured snapshot, a point of decision. State of dress is not relevant.

Paintings, however, are different. I often like the action and complxity, but I also like some still life. Surprisingly, I don't like most nude paintings (well paintings where there is just nudity and nothing else.

Photographs are more complex still. I like the highly detailed high speed photographs, the subtle colors and textures of landscape photpgraphs, and I find that I like many of the nude studies much more than I like the equivalent paintings.

Music is too complex to go into here.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Donald Miller]

In response to your questions, obviously since the adjunct usage has yet to be determined, one would be foolish to dismiss digital usage out of hand. That would indicate both stupidity and prejudice. Secondly in your scenario of the stand alone printer, I would hope that you would be able to transport your electrical generator with you if in the field. If in the studio, it would seem that the evaluative snap shot would be of limited usage since one would not be making a definitive evaluation since the equivalent lens selection and perspective controls would probably not extend to the digital camera.

I guess that the usage that I would use digital for would be to take "snap shots" of all of my analog equipment for the purpose of advertising their sale on Ebay when the digital age fully arrives.

Regards.
Donald Miller

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I find a digital camera handy for digitizing negs and transparencies in formats for which I don't have a scanner, and when I don't need the resolution of a drum scan. I do this using a Coolpix 990 (3.3 Mpix) on a copy stand with a 5000K light box. This provides plenty of resolution for the web, and I've even produced a file for a friend from a 5x7" transparency with this method that was used to produce a 4-color postcard announcing his solo exhibition. If you look at the images on my photo website, you can see the results. The 35mm images (the birds and a few others) were scanned with a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual (I), but most of the others were with the CP990.

It's also handy to give a rough idea of lighting ratios in the studio (contrast is comparable to color slide film), particularly if I want to throw in a portable unit without a modeling lamp as an accent light.

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 21 2003, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Next question,,,,, think about your responses on the craft verses art and such ....

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Aggie, you are going a tad too fast for me to keep up.

The questions you pose are deep ones, and strike at the very essences of "what we do" and why we do it. There are many hot buttons here -

"What is Art?" - I've studied and struggled with that one for many moons now....

I seriously *don't know*. I've heard a lot of definitions - some significantly better than others (see: "There is NO *bad* Scot's Whisky - It's just that some is better than others). After - ahem - (mumble) years of chasing that question, I think I am farther from the answer than when I started. Additionally, NOW I am not at all sure that I even WANT to know - I feel more comforatble in accepting art as a matter of faith than I would in becoming some holy guru on a mountaintop - those mountaintops are COLD!

Art is- (Choose one from one or more of this extensively - and severely abbreviated list):

" -The lie that leads us to the truth" - Pablo Picasso

" -The encoded widow to the being of the artist on the other side." I really like this one.

" - Communication."

" - That mysterious conduit carrying emotional energy between human beings."

" - That which artists *do*"

I don't know about "is", but anyhow, related:

"But the artist persists because he has the will to create, and this is the magic power which can transform and transfigure and transpose and which will utimately be transmitted to others" - Anais Niin.

Now ... "What inspires me."

The one work of art that has had more of an effect on me that any other is Renoir's "Torse au Soleil" - painted in 1875. There is a phenomenon I call "Rapture of the Work"; that effect is hypnotic, obsessive, haunting -- I close my eyes and I *still* see it... That happens to me many times, but nowhere as intensely as when I first experienced this work.
There are *SO* many others - Edward Weston's "early" work... Robert Farber, Alfred Cheney Johnston, Horst, Zoltan Glass, Irving Penn - I could go on for days.

Now -- "Vision".

This could fill volumes. I agree with the idea that it cannot be "taught" - at least not in any traditional way that I know about. I think that there will be an 'infiltration' into that area, and it will change with experience. Every experince changes my being to some extent - my conditioning, my viewpoint, my conception of the world.

Vision is difficult "stuff". This idea has been beaten to death, but it is true: we all have our individual visions, particular to, and peculiar to, each one of us. We "see" things differently. To an artist (and everyone else, for that matter) our vision - our perception of the world - is THE most important part of our being.
That is the great pitfall in critiquing - When can we be constructive - providing suggestions that may be useful in expanding or enhancing another's vision, or - will we prove to be something negative - diluting and confusing the other person's style?

Try this for thought - it is the philosophy I've followed for some time now -

There are three kinds of art, as far as I am concerned:

1. The well done, finely crafted, technically "good", pleasant works. The stuff you'd hang on the wall of your living room.

2. The works that "Nail my flippers to the floor." The Enrtancers, the Enrapturers.
They usually have a pronounced emotional effect. I have real trouble "getting them out of my mind".

3. The works I don't understand - possibly the most important category. Someone else - a different "Being" found these to be significant - very possibly "enrapturing" in their vision. There is a strong probability that the fault of not understanding is mine - I simply don't know how to decode the window. With more study and contemplation, I might figure it out .... if I do, I've GROWN just a little bit - and that is a wonderful thing to have happen.

Note that in all of this there is no "Good" or "Bad". Certainly there are differences, but to try to 'rank" art is far too dependent on each individual vision, and I cannot with any kind of conscience claim my vision to be "better" than anyone else's.

I'll apologize for the long-windedness here - I'm trying to keep pace.

 

[Mark in SD]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 21 2003, 01:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Would you let the digital medium help you with your photography, ie, use it as a tool in addition to what you do with analog photography..no matter what that adjunct usage may be?

If you answer yes to the above question, How would you use the digital medium to help you? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
This is difficult for me since I don't make a living, or even a portion of a living, from my photography. My wife does have a digital camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5000, that produces some nice images. I will admit that I have used it to do some experimentation. The problem for me is that the digital doesn't seem to capture many things in quite the same way that film does. Still, I have used it to play around (it takes the same flashes that my N80 does) with new ideas and have sometimes found annoying backgrounds or shadows that I hadn't considered but could be eliminated with a little work.

Now, I find that I don't like digital as much as I like film. I do, however, see uses for it that, on occasion, make it more convenient than film.

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 21 2003, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Would you let the digital medium help you with your photography, ie, use it as a tool in addition to what you do with analog photography..no matter what that adjunct usage may be?

If you answer yes to the above question, How would you use the digital medium to help you? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Sure. Why not?

I can use all the help I can get - all gratefully accepted.

How can/ has it helped? Well...

I have a photograph that was originally a color negative print of a figure study. The original ... just did not "work". A matter of color, contrast ... something.

For some reason, I scanned the contact sheet (120) and inadvertantly
(?? sub-conscious at work?) hit the "wrong" button and converted this particular frame to black and white! - Not only that, but !!!!

Back to the enlarger - something of a struggle with dichroic filters and Ilford Multigrade Portfolio, and the result was a successful black and white print.

Since then, I have used this "tinkertoy" scanner in much the same manner as my Polaroid back, but after the fact. It is useful in determining future cropping, color balance, contrast and "gamma" - generally getting some idea of what the "serious" print could look like in the future.
.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Coming trend....Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........

I'd have to say that my bet is on a revival of old techniques. I think we are already seeing it happen to some degree. Banquet cameras are being restored, Pt/Pd printing is going strong, and many people are out there buying up enlargers and timers at dirt cheap prices from "digiheads". I can imagine that a lot of young artists will find darkroom work cheaper to get into than digital and that will help define their work.

Add to that the fact that digital has a very particular look. Digital is digital. If you want a different color balance or texture you have to do it in post. And even then you can't always get digital to look like analog film. And I think that analog look is where things will be heading. We have seen a lot of "hard" digital images. I think people will looks towards the softer look of yesteryear now.

Pictoralism lead to the f64 movement. I think digital will lead to an analog "revival".

 

[SteveGangi]

It appears there is a new interest in old or alternative techniques, and larger formats in general. People are beginning to ask about such things as cyanotype, albumen, platinum, etc. Sales of view and field cameras seems to be picking up. Maybe in the analog vs digital "wars" the reasonable people are beginning to understand they have a choice. They can have either one, or both if they want. They are learning that once they learn the procedures, they are no longer at the mercy of sloppy labs. They are beginning to get tired of all the unfulfilled promises, the letdowns and the vaporware. Meanwhile some of us are grabbing all the good "analog" stuff that is being to dumped at giveaway prices, which we could never quite afford before. I like digital... It made the analog stuff I want a hell of a lot cheaper. <wink wink say no more>