Walker Evans, inkjets, and the metaphysics of photography.

HerrBremerhaven · Aug 25, 2006

Allen Friday said:
. . . . Would people think differently of this exhibit if the large prints were done by enlarging his original negatives to poster size, as opposed to doing it digitally? If no mention was made in the article that these prints were done digitally, would it change how you feel about it?

Allen

Good afternoon Allen,

Absolutely I think that making larger than originally intended or expected prints, by any method, would not truly reflect the thoughts behind the images. We might imagine that if Walker Evans ever expected his images to become giant sized prints, perhaps his approach, methods, or set-up would have been different.

There was an article about a now famous photographer from Africa and an exhibit not very long ago. Seems there were some issues about who had the true rights to make prints, and some family legal matters, but those were secondary issues. The original portraits were done using medium format and large format cameras. The exhibit at issue featured huge wall size prints, which if I recall correctly were actual photographic prints, not lithos, and I think prior to large inkjet ever being used for exhibits. The photographer, whose name escapes me at the moment, ran a portrait studio, and never did prints much larger than near 16" by 20". So to suddenly make huge prints was not true to how the photographer originally approached those images. My preference would be to size the original sizes, and I would enjoy that more than seeing giant prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

Daniel_OB · Aug 25, 2006

Walker Evans and ink prints... Just funny people do not see fun in it. Must be someone is doing business in try to make some money.
Never beleive to digital images, no mater what they are about. They proved it again and again. Am. commercialism has no end. Just ignore...

www.Leica-R.com

Roger Hicks · Aug 25, 2006

copake_ham said:
"With modern technological tools and using high-res printer technology, we are convinced we can transform these paintings into the smooth representational images that eluded the original artists." said Hill and Marston.

Good one, George!

R.

Jim Chinn · Aug 25, 2006

Funny thing is I would almost welcome digital reproductions for exhibition of work by famous photographers such as Edward Weston. At least then I could actually see the picture in good light as opposed to the very low lighting (due to conservators concerns) used in most major museum exhibitions.

copake_ham · Aug 25, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
Funny thing is I would almost welcome digital reproductions for exhibition of work by famous photographers such as Edward Weston. At least then I could actually see the picture in good light as opposed to the very low lighting (due to conservators concerns) used in most major museum exhibitions.

Jim,

That's what books (photgraphic essays) are for....

It's amazing how in the span of just a few years we are "advancing" to the point of dumping original art for the sake of digital convenience....

I really think there is no hope at all anymore - the arts are lost.

Jim Chinn · Aug 26, 2006

Books are a poor representation of the original print. However, I believe the reproductions in books are better then what you can see on a wall in many cases due to how the presentation is designed. I guess I don't see the point in exhibiting photographs if the viewer cannot see the photograph in the way it was intended to be viewed. How can one gain an appreciation for the work in that way? I don't know if it is such a bad thing to be able to see a digital facsimile of the actual print. We would at least be able to see detail and tonality that the photographer intended the viewer to see but is often unviewable due to the lighting parameters.

If one considers painting, then you do lose a tremendous amount in the translation to a digital print. For one thing brush strokes and how the pigment is applied (brush, knife etc) cannot be replicated and for most works that is a key element. But consider a digital print created right after Mark Rothko had completed each work. We would be able to see a much closer representation of the colors he used. That would be interesting considering the materials he used in his pigments are causing pretty rapid decay and fading of his works.

I guess this is getting wildly off topic from the original post about digitizing the Evans prints. But I think we are going to see digital used more and more as a presentation technique that falls somewhere between book reproductions and the actual piece hanging in a gallery or museum.

severian · Aug 26, 2006

process=concept?

per volquartz said:
If re-inventing makes more people interested in art or creates new dialog about art in general it is good. If re-inventing is nothing more than a commerciel attempt to make a quick profit it should be rejected.

It is so important that photography like any other art form be debated, discussed and thought about by as many people as possible.

Some people still belive that photography is mainly about technoque and "tricks". In order to prevent such notion from spreading we all should concentrate on content - not technique (or "tricks") - digital or film based.

Very often the very "tricks" that artists use are part of the concept of the art. Van Gogh's brushstrokes, are the equivelant of Winogrand's tilted horizons. You simply cannot say concentrate on content and ignore technique. Without technique (process) there is no art. It's all one. Nothing is causeless. Process causes content.
Severian- Autarch of Urth

severian · Aug 26, 2006

Wingrand's process

When Winogrand died didn't he have 10 or 12,000 rolls of film undeveloped?
These photographs are forever lost to us as "Gary Winogrand Photographs" because the process was left incomplete. He never selected those that he would have considered content worthy. No one else can or could do Winogrand's editing.
The last time I saw an EW print that was made by his son it was priced at , believe, $1200.00. What would an "original" print of #30 be worth if it was verifiably made by EW? Why? Possibly because the process of making the work was complete. EW had made it . Not CW or BW. Process is more than choosing dektol or amidol. There is no great inherent value in the content of #30 (formalism) . The value is in the process that was seen to the finish by the artist.

Severian- Autarch of Urth

MattKing · Aug 26, 2006

severian said:
When Winogrand died didn't he have 10 or 12,000 rolls of film undeveloped?
These photographs are forever lost to us as "Gary Winogrand Photographs" because the process was left incomplete. He never selected those that he would have considered content worthy. No one else can or could do Winogrand's editing.
The last time I saw an EW print that was made by his son it was priced at , believe, $1200.00. What would an "original" print of #30 be worth if it was verifiably made by EW? Why? Possibly because the process of making the work was complete. EW had made it . Not CW or BW. Process is more than choosing dektol or amidol. There is no great inherent value in the content of #30 (formalism) . The value is in the process that was seen to the finish by the artist.

Severian- Autarch of Urth

It is certainly possible that an Edward Weston made print could turn out to be a less successful realization of his vision, than the $1,200.00 print made by one of his sons. While you might rather collect the Edward Weston print, you might rather have on your wall the print made by one of his sons.

It is equally possible that the Edward Weston print would be far better.

The involvement of someone other than the original photographer as printer adds an artistic sensability into the process - maybe for the better, or maybe for the worse - and the resulting print is a different artistic statement.

I know that when I print one of my own photographs, it is not a rare experience to discover that what I end up emphasizing in the editing and printing process is different than the result I envisioned when I took the photograph. I would guess that is a phenomenon experienced by Edward Weston and Gerry Winogrand too.

The printing process involves both craft and art. A print that is created using lower quality materials or techniques will be less successful. A print which is created by someone with poor artistic vision will also be less successful.

I would rather see an inkjet reproduction prepared by a skilled and experienced printer who uses with care and artistic insight good quality digital materials and techniques, then a silver gelatin print prepared by a printer with poor technique and poor artistic vision.

Of course, what I would prefer to see is a silver gelatin print prepared by a skilled and visionary printer. I believe that skillful use of analogue media gives the best results.

If that (analogue) printer was either the original photographer, or working under the direction of the original photographer, then it is probably (but not necessarily) the case that the print will evidence a continuity of artistic vision, right from setup, through exposure and processing and printing.

Certainly it is important to identify the fact that the process used for the reproductions can materially change the result, and cause that result to be radically inferior than the original.

Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

Matt

Dave Wooten · Aug 26, 2006

MattKing said:
.............Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

Matt

Totally agree with Matt here...

roteague · Aug 26, 2006

Dave Wooten said:
Totally agree with Matt here...

I understand what Matt is trying to say ... however, I prefer not to encourage galleries to continue showing ink jet prints, so I would just leave.

c6h6o3 · Aug 27, 2006

HerrBremerhaven said:
We might imagine that if Walker Evans ever expected his images to become giant sized prints, perhaps his approach, methods, or set-up would have been different.

There was an article about a now famous photographer from Africa and an exhibit not very long ago. Seems there were some issues about who had the true rights to make prints, and some family legal matters, but those were secondary issues. The original portraits were done using medium format and large format cameras. The exhibit at issue featured huge wall size prints, which if I recall correctly were actual photographic prints, not lithos, and I think prior to large inkjet ever being used for exhibits. The photographer, whose name escapes me at the moment, ran a portrait studio, and never did prints much larger than near 16" by 20". So to suddenly make huge prints was not true to how the photographer originally approached those images. My preference would be to size the original sizes, and I would enjoy that more than seeing giant prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

"The smallest modification of tonality affects structure. Some things have to be rather large, but elegance is the presentation of things in their minimum dimensions..."

Frederick Sommer
General Aesthetics, 1979

severian · Aug 27, 2006

EW ,CW, BW

MattKing said:
It is certainly possible that an Edward Weston made print could turn out to be a less successful realization of his vision, than the $1,200.00 print made by one of his sons. While you might rather collect the Edward Weston print, you might rather have on your wall the print made by one of his sons.

It is equally possible that the Edward Weston print would be far better.

The involvement of someone other than the original photographer as printer adds an artistic sensability into the process - maybe for the better, or maybe for the worse - and the resulting print is a different artistic statement.

I know that when I print one of my own photographs, it is not a rare experience to discover that what I end up emphasizing in the editing and printing process is different than the result I envisioned when I took the photograph. I would guess that is a phenomenon experienced by Edward Weston and Gerry Winogrand too.

The printing process involves both craft and art. A print that is created using lower quality materials or techniques will be less successful. A print which is created by someone with poor artistic vision will also be less successful.

I would rather see an inkjet reproduction prepared by a skilled and experienced printer who uses with care and artistic insight good quality digital materials and techniques, then a silver gelatin print prepared by a printer with poor technique and poor artistic vision.

Of course, what I would prefer to see is a silver gelatin print prepared by a skilled and visionary printer. I believe that skillful use of analogue media gives the best results.

If that (analogue) printer was either the original photographer, or working under the direction of the original photographer, then it is probably (but not necessarily) the case that the print will evidence a continuity of artistic vision, right from setup, through exposure and processing and printing.

Certainly it is important to identify the fact that the process used for the reproductions can materially change the result, and cause that result to be radically inferior than the original.

Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

Matt

Edward Weston's sons could not make a more successful realization of Edward Westons vision because they are not Edward Weston.

Jack

Rolleiflexible · Aug 27, 2006

OP: Another perspective

I started this thread. Obviously, I have a preference for the darkroom over the inkjet, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But I am surprised by the amount of anger directed at this exhibit in this thread, and even directed at the New York Times for reporting it. I thought the review was uncommonly thoughtful, both with respect to the exhibiton and the nature of photography generally.

I disagree with much of what has been written here. As for the sanctity of Walker Evans's images, the importance of the medium and the size of the prints: You all are forgetting the circumstances of their creation. Evans was shooting for the Farm Services Administration and, for a summer, for Fortune Magazine (with James Agee). Evans did not even own the copyright to his photos. FSA could print them mural-size if they wanted. (And, indeed, Depression agencies like FSA and WPA often did make mural-sized public art.) As for the sanctity of silver gelatin, Evans shot with the expectation that the photographs would be printed in books or magazines, or presented in other mass media. Fortune and FSA weren't in the business of selling limited editions of silver gelatin prints.

Evans shot his images with the expectation (or, at least, the hope) that his photographs would be widely seen, in whatever media his masters chose to present them. I, for one, think Evans would be tickled to have large-scale reproductions of his photographs of poor Southerners on view in the Manhattan lobby gallery of a Swiss bank. Doesn't such an exhibit reach exactly the audience he had hoped to reach in Fortune Magazine? (Which, by the way, rejected the series as inappropriate for its readership.)

And, as bad as you all think inkjet prints are, can they be any worse than the tiny crappy versions reproduced in countless copies of Let Us New Praise Famous Men? As between those small blurry facsimiles and the large-scale inkjet prints now on display, which do you think Evans would have preferred as a medium for the public to encounter his work?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

Campbell · Aug 27, 2006

Sparky said:
That poor man! (walker evans) First, it was Sherrie Levine, and now this!!

Knowing a fair amount about Walker Evans from reading four or five books about him and his work, I think he'd be absolutely thrilled that his work was still being exhibited in any manner, shape, or form. He was one of the least technically oriented photographers around, he didn't do his own printing for most of his career, and he sold all of his negatives that he owned late in life, which he had to realize was going to result in reprints of them by many different people in many different forms. If he didn't care about that with the negatives he owned, why would he care about these prints from negatives he didn't own?

It's kind of funny how this NY Times article is viewed as being pro or con digital depending on the type of forum. Over in the Yahoo digital black and white print forum it's viewed as being anti-digital. Here it seems to be viewed as anti-traditional.

Lee Shively · Aug 27, 2006

Okay, I would have no problem with the exhibit if they called the prints what they are: posters.

roteague · Aug 27, 2006

Lee Shively said:
Okay, I would have no problem with the exhibit if they called the prints what they are: posters.

Agreed. If I went to a gallery expecting to see fine art prints, I would leave if all I saw was ink jet prints.

MattKing · Aug 27, 2006

severian said:
Edward Weston's sons could not make a more successful realization of Edward Westons vision because they are not Edward Weston.

Jack

Jack:

This is an interesting outlook, and I certainly see a lot of logic in it, but I also think of some other parallels.

I think most photographers who print and then reprint their work find that their prints change and evolve over time. I would guess that at least some of that change may very well arise because of feedback from others' reactions to earlier versions.

I certainly have learned new things about my own photographs because of the inciteful comments of others - in essence my vision (concerning a particular photograph) isn't necessarily static.

I think it is clear that each print is an interpretation - a performance if you will. I think it follows that just like in music, there is the original author and the original piece, and then there is the performance, and sometimes the musician who wrote the piece, learns a lot from someone else's performance of it.

I would expect that there are Edward Weston photographs which have been printed by his sons which, if he had the opportunity, he might have said something like "I wish I had thought of printing it like that - it communicates much more of what I intended when I made the exposure in the first place".

Examples of this might be few, but the incorporation of an additional artistic sensibility into the process certainly makes it possible. This is what I was trying to refer to in my original post.

Thanks for your response to my post.

Matt

firecracker · Aug 27, 2006

In Japan, there are quite a few museums (and/or galleries) that occasionally run the exhibits of the works of some famous artists by setting up with the replicas, not the original pieces. Some purposes of digital imaging are very similar to this. It's pretty shocking.

Would I even bother to go to these shows? No, I'd rather stay home and watch TV. That way I might have a better chance to see the original works on a public channel.

don sigl · Aug 28, 2006

Sanders McNew said:
And, as bad as you all think inkjet prints are, can they be any worse than the tiny crappy versions reproduced in countless copies of Let Us New Praise Famous Men? As between those small blurry facsimiles and the large-scale inkjet prints now on display, which do you think Evans would have preferred as a medium for the public to encounter his work?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net/portraits

Sanders:

I will acknowledge ink jet prints there place. As I would also acknowledge newsprint, gravure, or any visual printing technique you could think of. The question I always have when I see ink jet prints in an exhibition is why are they "masquerading" as photographic prints? I can't support this idea and have voiced it in several threads on this forum, (and anywhere else I can get an audience).

Regards,

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 28, 2006

I've had the experience occasionally of seeing photos in a gallery that I had known previously from books and being surprised by how small and intimate the originals were, usually because they were contact prints.

Once certainly learns more about the early career of Andre Kertesz, for instance, by seeing his 3x4"and smaller contacts than by seeing modern poster-sized enlargements. Look at these and pay attention to the dimensions, particularly for any print earlier than 1927--

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2005/kertesz/kertesz_ss1.shtm

severian · Aug 29, 2006

think on these things

Sanders,
good thread. Makes me think about issues that I would rather avoid.

Jack- Severian, Autarch of Urth

Peter De Smidt · Aug 29, 2006

Is the composer of piece of music the only one who can successfully conduct it?

In my opinion, the only things that matter are whether the exhibit looks good, and they're honest about the works on display. I've no idea whether that's the case here. I'd have to go look.

Mike Té · Aug 29, 2006

A very thought-provoking thread...

The digital process allows Mr. Hill and Mr. Martson to uncover details embedded in the negatives, outside the tonal range of the old silver gelatin prints: a shadowy girl in the doorway of a roadside stand near Birmingham, Ala.; numbers painted on a telephone pole beside a gas station in Reedsville, W.Va.; penny-picture faces in a window of a photographers studio in Savannah, Ga. The new prints modulate and unify the midranges of grays in these pictures to soften contrasts and give a warmer ambience to photographs that were often sharp and austere in Evanss gelatin silver prints.

This one part of the article seems to suggest that the digital process "allows" a more refined or at least more complete rendition of the information contained in the negatives. I can't help thinking that this sounds like the the author of the article is underestimating Walker Evans, as if presuming that he wasn't aware that those details are present in the negative. Mr. Evans was surely aware of what he was shooting and printed what he desired to show in his prints, just as the digital printers decided to print the negatives in their own fashion.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 29, 2006

Yes, I think Evans preferred the sharp and austere to the warm and soft.

Before Romanticism there was generally no particular attention paid to the intention of the artist or its corollary--the integrity of the text. In the 1700s it wasn't unusual to perform Shakespeare's tragedies with happy endings. While I have reservations about seeing artistic intention as the whole meaning of a work, and might find interesting really radical reinterpretations of old negatives as new art, the concept of "softening" Evans's austere renderings of his own negatives just seems feeble to me.

Walker Evans, inkjets, and the metaphysics of photography.

HerrBremerhaven

Daniel_OB

Roger Hicks

Jim Chinn

copake_ham

Jim Chinn

severian

severian

MattKing

Moderator

Dave Wooten

roteague

c6h6o3

severian

Rolleiflexible

Campbell

Lee Shively

roteague

MattKing

Moderator

firecracker

don sigl

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

severian

Peter De Smidt

Mike Té

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Walker Evans, inkjets, and the metaphysics of photography.

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency