O.K., with the last couple of posts, beneath the jargon and free-thinking writing style (which seems to make sense to myself alone) there were two main points that I have been trying to iron out:
1. Photography can and should be looked at for its individual handmade craftsmanship. Meaning, the photograph should be viewed as a physical object created by an artist, in the same way one regards a painter’s canvas.
2. When one looks at a photograph they should be intrigued by the creation process as well as the subject matter.
The point of trying to figure out these two aspects of photography is, I guess, to try and push the medium more into the art world. When I look at these two ideas I can’t help but see them as part of a process to create an artist out of a photographer. If someone utilizes both of these thoughts, his images must be looked at not only for their represented intrigue, but also for the representation of an artist. A sense of an individual, a specific hand, and hopefully, originality, will come through for the photographer, and he can then concern himself with the taking and making of wonderful images. Maybe this will mean the term artist can be applied more comfortably.
10 comments:
One of my immediate thoughts is that if:
"When one looks at a photograph they should be intrigued by the creation process as well as the subject matter."
You seems to think that the how and mechanical process of the making of art should be pretty important to a viewer. Do you then mean that when someone looks at one of Van Gogh's drawings they should wonder the *how* and attempt to understand the techniques he spent years learning? Seems to me that's what someone wanting to learn to draw should do, not necessarily something every art appreciator would need to do. Realize that if that's a requirement most people that would look at a given piece would, by your standards, not be able to appreciate the work correctly.
If the aim is to exclude I'd say you are on to something.
"when someone looks at one of Van Gogh's drawings they should wonder the *how* and attempt to understand the techniques he spent years learning?"
Yes...they should have an interest in the hows and whys of creation. It is not about learning how to do it yourself necessarily, but it is about being interested in that specific artist, and his specific painting and gaining more knowledge of them both by being inquisitive of his process. Other words that could be used interchangably with "creation process" are mindset, ideas, or thought process. All of these describe an artistic individual, and how they become so. An artist is not someone who just ends up with amazing photographs or paintings, but is someone who creates these things using their eyes, mind, and hands.
I feel like now we are trying to discuss two things at once. Is the issue here that you want artist or viewers to be more diligent.
If you want artists to "work harder" you will have to ask yourself if you can defend that a work of art should be more valuable just because it was "harder" to make. What if it's highly conceptual and the execution is a second thought.
If you want the art audience to "work harder," which was my reading originally, then who gets to decide how hard is hard enough. Should it be necessary to have a background in art to understand a work just because you can appreciate the work that went into it, or because you know more about the artist and can understand his message or "headspace?"
We would like everyone to "work harder," but if you want the audience to gain entrance to a work based on their background, understanding, or ability to appreciate the aspect of the work that *you* want them to understand then I think we can all stop this discussion now and agree that you are pushing for an elitist circle as the sole audience.
We both know how I feel about that.
You are not understanding the basis for this...it is not about how hard it is to make a picture, but rather that there is an actual thought and physical process going on. The basic digital process that the masses and commercial based photographers employ does not (to me) involve any sort of creative artistic process. There is no value attained by quickly and easily shooting and printing a picture. There is a value attained when the process becomes a major, and indeed sometimes the most important part of the image. The whole reasoning for bringing this up is that so many people don't feel that there is a difference, or are completely unaware that the joy from some people's art comes in the form of thinking and making, not necessarily in what is shown off at the end (the end result has to be an interesting image as well, I think that goes without saying).
If you want to label this elitist be my guest, but it is not. Not succoming to the whims and pleasures of the general public, and attempting to achieve a higher level of education and enjoyment with the making and viewing of art is the whole point of the gallery. To me art should not be quicker, easier, and cursory. The artist should gain something out of making it, and the viewer should want to remain fixated in front of it. You have to agree that there is so much garbage out there and because of it real art worthy of attention is either overlooked or only ever given a passing glance. That is the way our world is today. Everyone can take pictures...this is great, but not every picture needs to be absorbed by the viewer. Suddenly you are seeing millions of pictures a day, none of which have any lasting value, none of which make you want to linger and absorb. This gallery is about lingering, absorbing, slowing down and actually looking. One should not come to the gallery to glance around and leave, but rather they should be able to attach themselves to each piece of work because it communicates something of value to them (no matter what knowledge they bring with them). I feel that this can be achieved easier when the photographs don't just say look at this strong subject matter (for example), but also say look at the evidence of a creator. When you can look beyond the tangable reference point the photographer has captured and you can begin to see what went through their head, and where their hands touched and made the physical specimen, this is now creating a lasting value to the viewer.
"The basic digital process that the masses and commercial based photographers employ does not (to me) involve any sort of creative artistic process. There is no value attained by quickly and easily shooting and printing a picture. There is a value attained when the process becomes a major, and indeed sometimes the most important part of the image."
I don't completely understand your fixation with processes, these are tools that get us from conception to realization. The idea should be king, while the print is important this doesn't have to be the image's sole raison d'être (yes I took the time to look up the spelling). I'll defer to Ansel Adams' analogy that the negative is the score and the print the performance. They are two separate experiences and entities for the photographer, but for the viewer the print is the only thing that really matters. As the art maker you should master your tools but they shouldn't be of an overwhelming concern to the viewer.
Also, I think that it's be a bit disingenuous on your part to minimize nontraditional techniques. I know you don't regularly use these tools, but I know that you are familiar with some of the capabilities and limitations. Pushing pixels around a screen and outputting ink drops on paper does not negate creative vision. Lets call a horse a horse and admit that most of the issue here is the fact that in the digital darkroom the capacity to create an exact duplicate print is finally realized. And this is good. I have no doubt that both Robinson and Emerson would be delighted to see this advancement, as they would be tickled pink by the ability to shoot many more frames and, Robinson to a greater extent, the capacity to easily composite more than one frame.
I'd write more but I have to get back to what pays my mortgage. . . us non-artists don't get to have certain luxuries.
As I stated earlier, process encorporates the idea (I stated that the term "process" could be interchanged with idea or mindset...it is all semantics).
"Pushing pixels around a screen and outputting ink drops on paper does not negate creative vision."
I am sorry, but I disagree. There are artists that utilize digital processes, but just pushing pixels around while your eyes are fixated on a glowing box and your hand is moving a mouse does not automatically give one knowledge. This is the whole point of computers...you don't have to have any knowledge or do anything yourself, the computer does it!
"Lets call a horse a horse and admit that most of the issue here is the fact that in the digital darkroom the capacity to create an exact duplicate print is finally realized."
I know...and this is NOT a good thing, because you, the artist, are not creating an exact duplicate print, but the digital tools are. To get an exacting print, Ansel Adams had to do it himself, gaining the knowledge and reaping the rewards of his hands-on process.
I'm running out the door, but I can't resist a quick rebuttal here:
"This is the whole point of computers...you don't have to have any knowledge or do anything yourself, the computer does it!"
I don't know where to begin except to just let you know that's firstly a pretty offensive statement and secondly an erroneous one. Computers can take commands, I haven't used a single one that works completely autonomously. Sure, they can cut a lot of time out of the process, and in some respects can help you use someone else's commands without understanding all of the minutiae (which many times is really high level math) but I have yet to see a button in a computer screen labeled "make a piece of art." Or to play to your sensibilities "make a soulless image that you will sell for money."
"To get an exacting print, Ansel Adams had to do it himself, gaining the knowledge and reaping the rewards of his hands-on process."
I'm not going to repeat myself about the incapacity of a computer to make anything without some amount of human intervention, but to counter your statement I have a question:
After Ansel arrived at a good print by laboring over his enlargers and chemical trays, do you think that he really enjoyed having to inhale some more chemicals for a few more hours just to make some more copies of the same work?
I'm postulating he would have welcomed the chance to click a few settings, select the number of prints, and walk away from his equipment while he did something else with his time.
I would like to add my viewpoint in this discussion. Maybe it can help.
Art like most other things around us adapt to modern times. So we can safely say that photography in general is an art form.
D. William is now questioning if certain photographs can be excluded from being art because of the effort and thought that has been put into them. More specifically he questions if the “quick” digital processing and printing of photography can create a piece of art. And if a person who is using this technique can be seen as an artist. The question he raises in my opinion is; can an image alone be seen as art, or do you always have to include the medium.
D. William certainly does think you have to include the medium, and in doing so, exclude certain media types as not sufficient enough to qualify as Art.
I think time will prove D. William wrong. Art will evolve and it is the audience that will decide what is art and what is not. It will be the audience that has the ultimate say by valuing pieces in money, attention and appreciation.
I agree completely with D. William that I personally value certain pieces of photography more than others based on the craftsmanship of its creation. However the image, at the end, is the most important part of the photograph, and will be valued as such.
Film has already been valued as art not by the cloth it has been presented on but by the message, story and beauty of the images it shows.
It will not take long before photographs will only exist in the computer and presented as slide shows on walls and tv screens. Will we then question if this will qualify as art, because the version digitally printed on paper was so much better in color and texture?
OK, first off, I don't think Ansel Adams would have taken advantage of the ability to quit after laboring over a print, and leave the duplication process to a computer. I believe that he, like many others out there, value the time and effort it takes to create art. The time spent working out an exacting print is not supposed to be a hardship. There is much value to be attained in working through the creation process, and being aware of that gained value allows one to enjoy the lenghty process (we should not be given things, we should earn them). By simply clicking a few settings and selecting the number of prints he desired (after spending his time making a single original image) he is defeating the whole point of hand producing his art.
Some people don't want to produce innumerable copies of their art (if they do that is by all means an acceptable preference), rather they find a value in having something tangable that their hands personally touched. I am still wonderously amazed at how taken aback people are by the idea of only printing a small number of photographs from a single negative. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? If only printing, lets say...um, three prints from a negative is what a photographer wants to do then why not allow it. Not only allow it, but attempt to understand his reasoning for it. It is the artist's own work, and by printing but only three copies it can be showcased as the art he created at that specific time, not an image he took and printed in 2006, and reprinted in 2009, 2012, 2022 and 2030. It forces the artist to continue and pursue new art, and not rest on one or two images from his past.
Now, Leo, I am in no way trying to exclude any type of photograph from being called art. I am simply emphasizing the types of photographs that I see as good and valuable art. I don't think that everytime I do this I should have to include the line, "but all photographs can be seen as a form of art, no matter how or why they were created." It should just be known that I am trying to support and bring more positive reaction to photographs that I enjoy. If, by going about this I seem to be knocking down other types of photographs, this is but only my opinion, and what I find valuable and not valuable in art. If you think about it, it only seems fair that someone champions these types of photographic arts, as we can clearly see the majority has fallen in love with digital processes. So as you put forth your feelings towards this overwhelmingly popular photographic trend of digital imagery, why cannot I profess a fond opinion on a different means of production?
Overall, I must say that a part of me really enjoys this overabundance of digital imagery in the art world. As more people represent these images alongside the handmade chemical photo processes, those film-produced images become valuable for not only their message, story, and beauty, but indeed for the cloth they are printed on.
I meant film as in movies.
Post a Comment