I visited my friend Tetsugo's studio last night and was amazed again by his work. His attention to detail makes you want to get as close as possible to the large prints and examine every little facet and texture. Then you back up and look at the larger image and are amazed at how well all the tiny details end up forming a wonderfully coherent composition.
The fun(ny) part of all this looking I was doing is that not once did I look at his work prints that were pinned to the wall as objects. So, as much as I may love the idea of creating objects out of my images, it never prohibits me from enjoying images for just what they visually represent. There may be the differences between object photographs and digital reproductions, but there are also differences between amazing works of art that are reproductions that you want to linger over, and digital reproductions that are meant to be glanced at.
I want to linger over photos more often than I get to these days...objects or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think at some point you need to fully flesh out your concept of a digital photograph, or digital reproduction. Are you specifically speaking about an image viewed on a computer screen? Or all images created without film? What of a beautiful digital print of an image originally exposed on film? Or a beautiful digital print of an image exposed on a digital sensor? Or how about a digital photograph that is then printed on non-injet photographic paper?
I can't help but assume that the presumption here is that a digital print can not be a beautiful object. But we both know that can't be true. The most obvious example can be made by simply pointing at HB's prints.
Are all digital images beautiful?
No, but neither is every exposed sheet of film.
Are all digital prints beautiful?
No, but I used to work at as a 1HR phototech so don't try to sell me on some intrinsic beauty in exposed film images.
Don't forget that without the infusion of the snap-shooting masses into the photographic community the identity of photography would still be forever subordinate and shackled to that of oil painting. Yes, this may be a time of change but what comes next may just be a fresh, exiting new facet to image making propped up on the shoulders of a ever extending photographic tradition.
"Yes, this may be a time of change but what comes next may just be a fresh, exiting new facet to image making propped up on the shoulders of a ever extending photographic tradition."
Exactly. But why must everything be propped up on the shoulders of the photographic tradition and instead not deemed something of value which is of a differing course from that which we know as photography? I know that there is no one identity or definition to that term, but can't we agree that it lessens the value of the term, as well as never giving the new art form created its proper due when we stretch and stretch the definition to encompass anything and everything that is "captured"?
Everything does not have to be propped up on the shoulders of traditional photography, but it is. I also disagree that it lessens digitally created images, or that digital image-making lessens images made with traditional materials. I just can not see how that follows.
Also, how do you see these new techniques deviating form the old to the extent of that they might be a new art form? I see the intents as very similar in both cases and the resulting work is really not all that dissimilar beyond the fact that it may be made up of discrete pixels rather than an arrangement of crystals.
The whole point of the new techniques is to deviate from the old ways. Wanting to make the process quicker, easier and cheaper (in all respects) is the desire of the new digital techniques.
How does this possibly NOT create a new art form? You are taking something that inherently takes time and effort and specific skills and trying to remove those qualities and end up with the same results.
Obviously you could take loads of time and a lot of effort to create a digital image, but the whole point is that you don't have to. You follow the path of the technology, and that path is heading straight down the lane of speed and convenience. The next new technical device is jumped upon and utilized without even the slightest concern as to whether or not it is actually useful or needed. This spills over into society as a whole, and I think it is getting a bit out of hand.
yes, this is a great point - I like the idea of lingering, loitering (now turned into a misdemeanor), loafing (used all the time in Whitman's poem, now pretty much fallen out of use)...definitely the unspoken loss of the digital age - think of itunes - it doesn't make you want to listen to music more carefully, but more of it - snippets, fragments...I think there's value in the built-in difficulty of old (analog?) technology that took effort to flip a record, turn a page, walk around a gallery - ease of use affects how we perceive art - deeply or widely. -DAN
Derek, in the interest of space my reply can be read on my blog.
Post a Comment