A Home for the Photographic Artist

2008-12-11T12:29:00.004-05:00

I feel as though these discussions are getting too far away from the basic overall point. Before we can get into semantics over terms like, 'easier' and 'cheaper' the major differences in how we are coming at this must be pointed out.

I do not believe that the act of shooting digitally and the act of shooting with a chemical (film) process can be easily interchanged at will.

Because of this, I inherently do not believe one can make an assumption about any one photographer who has gained fame (or not...we should all be so lucky) using one process to simply switch over and continue while using the alternative process. Some have made suggestions that famous photographers would been shooting digitally if it were available to them in their day. I can see the reasoning for this, as one would reasonably think that a photographer such as Ansel Adams, who had to lug pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment through forests and up mountains to get his shots, just to return home and fiddle around endlessly trying to get his perfectionist images to turn out just right in a darkroom, would very much enjoy the prospect of getting to his spots and making his photographs quicker and easier. But this reasoning and assuming would be neglecting the fact that Ansel Adams might have actually enjoyed the hardships presented to him by his overweight equipment and imperfect chemicals. This neglectful assuming is being used as a broad stroke across all photographers by individuals that have changed over to another means of production without seeing a difference. They assume that if they have switched and seen no difference in their image making, then others should be able to do the same. I have no issue with these people switching over, but I do have an issue with them supposing that one = everyone. Supposing that the way they personally look at taking photographs is the way we all look at taking photographs. When one is making these assumptions they are missing the bigger point. It is the act of making that has just as much value to some as the finished piece, and this act of making might be altered beyond an acceptable point by some who look at switching to a different means of photography.

Just as anything in life, there are many intangibles that are sometimes hard to pick out. There is no solid and easy answer as to why I personally enjoy the extra time and effort it takes to photograph with film, for example, but there are many little intangibles that can help to make up a better understanding of my views on photography. Some of the intangibles include: Not knowing if I have gotten the shot. Not knowing if I have already taken a similar shot half a dozen frames ago. The idea of a physical, framed piece of imagery that can be seen either in a solitary setting or in conjunction with its neighboring frames. Even the simple acts of loading/unloading film, winding film, and rewinding film after exposing half a roll just to load a different type of film for the next shot. To me these are all valid and valuable items that I correlate with film photography. They help me enjoy the act of making as well as the created photograph.

Is Cinema like Photography?

2008-11-26T20:02:00.002-05:00

This NYT article mimics the discussion we are having with photography and the proliferation of digital devices. Very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&ref=movies

The more I read the more it becomes so obvious that all of the arts are connected, and can be easily compared to one another in their struggles and resistance to change.

Looking at Photographs

2008-11-23T13:37:00.002-05:00

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.

Object Photography & Digital Captures

2008-11-16T12:10:00.004-05:00

What is so inherently wrong with looking at photography and creating photography as a physical object?

Why must the image and idea be sacrificed when the photographer explicitly spent time to emphasize the "object" of the piece?

I believe that one can view an object photograph for both its represented imagery and the beauty of its constructed form. I feel that it is more valuable to view an object photograph for its construction and for what it is showing in its imagery. By its fortune of being explicitly crafted and possibly selectively produced, the image helps to underwrite the idea that a photograph can (should?) be a timeless capture representing one specific moment in time that is never to be repeated. Does this not help photography in that it creates that specific moment that viewers cannot see elsewhere, over and over again, at any time of their choosing, with as much repetition as one desires? The viewer must recognize that this one representation they are viewing is possibly the only visual representation of that moment, and therefor must truly pause, look, analyze and enjoy.

The idea of digital photography indeed can help more people see more images faster and easier, without even the need to produce or own a print if not so desired, but it also helps to move the viewer along to the next image, and then the next image, and then the next image, in the process slowly removing the time spent viewing each image (think of all those internet slideshows that allow you the option of looking at each picture for 1, 3, or 5 full seconds before jumping to the next image). The whole point of creating still images is to produce something worth looking at and analyzing. The removal of photographs as objects in conjunction with the overabundance of digital images in fact acts against the inherent nature of photography (the capture of a specific moment). It becomes more about capturing anything and everything and less about looking at any one thing in particular.

I have been thinking about this...

What are your views?

New Photo Blog

2008-02-18T06:47:00.001-05:00

Some friends and I have started a new photo blog...

http://photomedium.blogspot.com

The Photographic Medium

"The Photographic Medium is a forum designed to promote the production and discussion of photography. The contributors to this dialogue will propose their own topics and contemplate others. This is a composite of its members talents and a venue for creative output and artistic theory."

Each week there will be an assignment handed out by one of the members. All members will create a photograph for the assignment, post it to the blog, and contribute to the public critique of all the photos. I encourage anyone with an interest to add their input to the critiques and help us push forward with this sort of 'group motivation.'

Work is alread up, check it out...Photo Medium

Update

2008-02-18T06:33:00.002-05:00

Yes, I know, it has been a while. Things have been progressing slowly. Sorry to the people I have not been in contact with concerning the Photo House 144, but it looks as though it will be too difficult to continue with any shows because of my schedule and the fact that I am moving out of the city at the end of May. I have had to make a decision to either throw together a show with only limited participation/interest, or get my own stuff together and start actually creating the projects that keep flowing through my head. Getting the pen on the paper, if you will. So here I go getting the pen on the paper...

One Night Art Show in NJ

2007-11-09T16:15:00.000-05:00

Hey, last minute notice...

Please join me and other artists for one night of art on display at the Exposure Gallery in Colingswood, NJ this Saturday from 4-9pm.

Exposure Gallery
559 Haddon Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108
Phone: 856-854-7557

Looking forward to seeing everyone there!

The Photo House 144 Submission Guidelines

2007-10-14T22:18:00.000-05:00

The Photo House 144 submission guidelines:

E-mail files at 72 dpi resolution with a reasonable height and width for on-screen viewing (8 to 10" for example).

No limit on number of images that can be submitted

A separate title list with size of actual image, finished framed size, price and title for each piece

That is it...seriously. I don't any money to look at work, and I don't want a bunch of overbearing requirements for artists to send in their work. I just want to look at a bunch of photographs and see which ones fit best within the space.

I am taking submissions now for the next two shows, with the cut off for sending in work as follows...

The Salon show in February : Submissions must be received by December 21, 2007

The Photographs as Objects show in May: Submissions must be received by March 28, 2008

Please don't hesitate to leave comments or e-mail me directly ( derek@dwillm.com ) with any questions...

Thanks.

Derek

Getting the work out there...

2007-10-11T01:46:00.000-05:00

New work on display...

http://www.photo.net/photos/dwillm

2007-10-11T00:52:00.001-05:00

Power Lines : Horizontal Combo #01

Submissions

2007-10-02T18:54:00.000-05:00

The Photo House 144 is now accepting submissions for the following exhibitions:

A Salon of Photographic Artists - February 2008
A traditional approach to the medium, involving any chemically-involved process.

Small & Delicate: Photographs as Objects - May 2008
A focus on smaller photographs that can be seen as desired keepsakes.

For more information, or to submit work, e-mail me at:
derek@dwillm.com

Opening Night

2007-10-02T18:40:00.000-05:00

The Photo House 144 is having its opening night exhibition this Friday, October 5, 2007 from 5-9pm. Join us for a celebration of new work by three outstanding local photographic artists:

Nicolas Gannon
Athena Petra Tasiopoulos
Drew Henry Tolbert

The Photo House 144

144 Sigel Street
Philadelphia, PA 19148

derek@dwillm.com

The Photo House 144

2007-09-02T20:46:00.001-05:00

Greetings...

So, it appears as though the opening gallery exhibition for The Photo House 144 will be delayed until Friday, October 5, 2007. I know the original date was for this Friday, Sept 7th, but my being away in Vermont for the summer on a photo job prevented the September show from occurring. Please accept my apologies for the late news, but I was fighting the deadline and trying to have the show remain on this coming weekend.

Mark your calender (this time in ink) for FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2007

The Photo House 144 presents the photographic work of:

Noemi Armstrong
Nicolas Gannon
Athena Petra Tasiopoulos
Drew Henry Tolbert

In a special, one-night-only display of artwork, accompanied by a limited number of handmade Photo House 144: Gallery Books, which include reproductions of the artists' displayed work as well as commentaries and writings by contemporary artists.

Please join us for this special event of art...

Derek William McGregor & The Photo House 144

Delays, Neglect, Worries, and a Gallery back on track!

2007-06-15T08:43:00.000-05:00

OK, so, apologies for the weeks of neglect to the blog and gallery, but rest assured that it was never far out of mind and it has always been my intention to carry on with the opening of my house as a gallery space. The pressure was mounting for a June opening until I dreadfully realized that the optimism I had was not shared by the realistic nature of setting up a gallery. So I put it off. Here now is the actual-probably never going to be changed-dates for The Photo House 144...

Friday, September 7, 2007 - Grand Opening Reception
"Young Photographers I Know"

Friday, February 1, 2008 - "A Salon of Photographic Artists"

Friday, May 2, 2008 - "Small & Delicate: Photographs as Objects"

Unfortunately these three shows will probably round out The Photo House 144's existence. I will most likely be moving next June and will have to close up shop on 144, but not to fear dear friends, as plans are underway for a lifetime of staring at photographs with the hopefully not-far-off opening of The Photo House : Gallery & Cafe. With the location TBA, it has already been decided that this indeed must be the course I follow (much more info on The Gallery & Cafe in the future). So these three photo exhibitions at 144 will be the major focus for the next 11 months, and I would be eternally grateful for any and all submissions and assistance in setting them up.

The Photo House 144 specifics:

- All shows run for one night only on the dates announced from 6-9pm
- Light refreshments will be served (I will not be serving alcohol, feel free to byo)
- A 10% commission on all artwork sold (A low fee because I too am an artist and although commissions are not fun, it is being run as a real gallery and must be seen as such)
- There will be limited copies of The Photo House 144 Gallery Book available for sale on the night of the opening (If demand is there, I might be persuaded to have a second run of books made immediately following the exhibition)
- There will be a "Casual Corner" wall space for any fun or unique photographs brought by visitors ( 144's version of a guest book)

The Photo House 144

To be seen as representing those artists utilizing photography who's images showcase strong individual sentiments. Whether in process, craft, or storytelling, the artists represented by 144 put forth their own photographic vision.

2007-06-15T08:40:00.000-05:00

"For the improvements of ages have had little influence on the essential laws of man's existence; as our skeletons, probably, are not to be distinguished from those of our ancestors."

-H.D. Thoreau excerpt From Walden

Soon

2007-04-19T09:32:00.000-05:00

Good news from the Photo House 144 front...the selected artists for display at the inaugural show will be announced soon!

*We are still in a real need for artists to represent and showcase in future exhibitions, so please continue to send work samples to:

144@dwillm.com

D. William McGregor
The Photo House 144
144 Sigel Street
Philadelphia, PA 19148

Also still looking for writings and opinion articles on the photographic arts for the Gallery Book to be published in conjunction with the Photo House opening night. Musings on contemporary photography(positive or negative) strongly encouraged.

Stay tuned for the exhibiting artists list and the opening show title and theme...

Gallery Opening Moving Along

2007-04-12T13:40:00.000-05:00

Today I have published the Call For Entries in the Philadelphia Craigslist's Artist Community in hopes of drawing more responses. Please don't hesitate to help get the word out, or submit work yourself at...

144@dwillm.com

D.William McGregor
The Photo House 144
144 Sigel Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19148

Get in at the beginning. The Photo House 144 does not want or pretend to be the next great fad of gallery openings, instead it wants to remain secured in the wide world of the photographic arts. Insisting on highly talented and visually astute artists who believe in utilizing the camera to profess their own sense of individuality, 144 wants not just great photographs, but great minds behind the photographs. The Gallery is designed to help construct a community of individuals intrigued not in the commercial world of art, but in how the arts fit into our society, and the important philosophical implications of what we make and how we make it. 144 is not about selling art and over-promoting the, "Next Big Thing," it is about the creators of art, the relationship they have to their own work, and how everything attempts to fit into this world and make it (at least visually) more appealing.

Call For Entries

2007-04-05T08:13:00.000-05:00

The Photo House 144 is now officially looking for interested artists with interesting work. With the opening show for 144 being held in early June (hopefully), we are looking for entries to review ASAP. You may submit any photographic work done in any format with any theme or focus. As the gallery develops more specific requirements will probably be addressed, but for now, entries can be sent as digital files (of reasonable size for viewing on screen) or through the mail as slides or even small work prints. The only necessary accompaniment to the images is specific details about the final prints (dimensions, technique, etc.) and some sort of art statement regarding the project and your process for creating the images. The more writing the better.

Also calling for entries for The Photo House 144 Gallery Book. This will be the quarterly-published handmade book accompanying each gallery opening. The Gallery Book will have reproductions of the images on display as well as essays and statements about photography and the arts, and will be available for purchase at the gallery. ***There is not a pressing need for writers interested in submitting to the Gallery Book to be photographers. Anyone with a strong interest in the photographic arts is encouraged to submit essays of varying length to be included alongside the images.

Further details about specific requirements and 144's opening night will be announced later. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the submission process or with volunteer help for the space and/or book. Additionally, any ideas and thoughts on small scale book production would be greatly appreciated. Thanks...

Derek William McGregor

The Photo House 144
144 Sigel Street
Philadelphia, PA 19148

144@dwillm.com

The Photo House 144

2007-04-05T08:08:00.000-05:00

"The Photo House 144 is a small space dedicated to the representation and discussion of photography's place in the art world. Focusing on not only the shown images, but also the process of creation, 144 showcases a wide range of photographic imagery that has the immediate feel of an individual artist. With strong sentiments given towards process, craftsmanship, and a unique and individual vision, 144 looks to represent photographers who are in love with the medium as a creative personal outlet.

In the same way a painter's body of work defines that artist, a photographer's collection of images should not only be visually appealing for the subjects and their meanings, but also should together create and define an artist."

Two Points

2007-03-01T15:24:00.000-05:00

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.

To be an artist

2007-03-01T13:15:00.001-05:00

I want to be an artist. I am not entirely sure why I say this, but at least now I have. In a sense I have come clean. No more hiding it, or disguising it with other words or desires. Truth be told, I have never been comfortable with the term artist, and have always found the need to qualify it when applying it to what I do (art photographer, photographic artist, etc.). In each of these appended uses, the term “art” has always felt forced. I believe that part of this feeling of uncomfortable-ness stems from the idea that photographers are inherently not considered artists, as they cannot be in relation to the other art mediums. As Susan Sontag points out in Regarding the Pain of Others, having professional training and years of experience with photography does not bring with it the automatic ability to create a better picture than the amateur or spontaneous photographer. This is absolutely true, and so is the idea that chance carries such a weight in the photographic world (the picture only came about because I was at ‘the right place at the right time’). I personally don’t have an issue with this, and in fact, completely agree. So then why do I desire the label of artist, and why do so many other photographers have that same desire? Maybe it is all a simple fact of attending art school and being surrounded by others who easily refer to themselves as artists without hesitation. There is no second thinking when you are surrounded by artists to call yourself the same, it is only once you are separated that you can see things from another viewpoint and not feel comfortable. I am not comfortable, but at least now I think I know why. Here is the difference for photographers, and here may be the reasoning for the awkwardness of the art photographer label (again pointed out by Sontage), “A painting or drawing is judged a fake when it turns out not to be by the artist to whom it had been attributed. A photograph…is judged a fake when it turns out to be deceiving the viewer about the scene it purports to depict.” How true is that? I mean seriously, for over 100 years, ever since P.H. Emerson wrote his Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art in 1889 we as photographers have struggled to become accepted in the wide world of art. How can we possibly feel accepted when the basic tendency of paintings and drawings being particular to an artist is not afforded to a photographer? Was he not the one to take the image and craft the print, and is it not his art? Sometimes it wasn’t and so sometimes it isn’t. Again, I agree with Sontag, and it only makes me feel even more pushed towards forming some sort of similar connection between photograph and creator. I guess this is just another push towards wanting to be regarding as an artist. The strengths of the photographic medium have pushed us this far, but as the focus remains on only what the picture is of, then a “photo by:” credit does nothing. As long as we remain separated from fellow creators of art by this poignant truth, photography will always be looked at as but a recording device.

Let Us Create More and Print Fewer

2007-03-01T12:40:00.000-05:00

The statements put forth by my dear friend Dan concerning the importance of an image has gotten me a bit rattled. On the one hand I completely disagree with him, and have always found the strength of an image based on its originality and physical self. On the other hand, someone with a camera in the right place at the right time surely can take an image of great importance or significance. These types of images are those who's power comes with the propagation of the image through society; the more eyes to see it, the more value it attains. But...

Consider a great painting, and the value one gets from viewing it in person. You can, of course, see a representation of the painting in a book or online, but in such a situation you are most likely enjoying the subject matter or the painting's place in history. What you can enjoy in looking at a representation of a painting is everything except the artist's hand in the creation process. You cannot fully recognize the talent of the artist, his brush strokes or painting technique or color pallet. When you are sitting with a book in your lap you cannot fully see the artist. Standing three feet away from a Rembrandt, you not only see all of the artist's skills, but you can feel the history of the artist just by taking in the physical specimen that is the painting. Yes, you can be entertained by simply looking at the Rembrandt reproduction, but what if your interest lies in being entertained by the painter's hand? This is how I fell when viewing a painting and these same sentiments can and should be attributed to viewing original photographs. I can be visually satisfied by any reproduction of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs, but for me to arrive at a much higher level of joy, I desire to see Cartier-Bresson's actual handiwork (in a word, his print). Even viewing an original image by the photographer, printed by another, doesn't completely do it for me (however more perfected the other's print might be considered).

How can an original Henri Cartier-Bresson photograph be of even more value to me? The answer lies in knowing that there is but only a small number of prints ever to have been created by the artist. This is taken for granted with painters, yet seen by many as foolish for photographers. Yes, the negative can be looked at as specifically designed for reproduction, but what are photographers afraid of when the prospect arrives to create but only a handful of photographs from one negative and then destroy the image's source? This should be seen as placing more value on the actual images created (and I am definitely not talking about monetary value, as most of us know the survival on photographic sales, edition limited or not is left to the truly famous and/or the dead). The value increased by the limited number of crafted photographs is a value of knowing that those few pieces of photographic paper are alone in their singularity. Any reproduction in books or magazines can be enjoyed, but with the same limitations as goes to the painting's reproduction, thus placing all the more value on witnessing a crafted photograph first hand. This is the point of galleries and museums and of buying art, to view the artist, not just what the image represents. Of course all of this is always dependant upon the greatness of the picture. No matter how long and hard you work on an image, if the picture doesn’t do it, then it just doesn’t do it.

I am not trying to be a painter, and I am not trying to be dismissive and close off photography. I just believe in the power of an image (which, said for the millionth time, includes the process) and that power being intensified by originality and the sense of an artist. The reason for becoming anti-digital (if you will) is that I believe you lose these strengths too easily, and with the masses in society knowledgeable of digital much more so than hand created photography, I feel that my need is to attempt to create a difference between the styles, and in doing so bring knowledge to the type of photography I find of value.

What I Object To...

2007-02-15T12:40:00.000-05:00

"What I object to is leading people to imagine they are in the presence of art, when they are given diluted imitations having nothing to do with the spirit of an original work...I do object to the making and selling of pseudo-facsimiles, devoid of the sense of touch to be found in a true work of art."
- Alfred Stieglitz

Digital Discussion!

2007-02-15T11:37:00.000-05:00

I know this is what we have all been waiting for, the discussion on digital!

I personally do not know, or I should say, cannot at this time define, why the use of a digital process is inherently not photography, but it is this which I do so strongly believe.

*A quick clarification: by photography I mean the art of the medium. Those images that are created by artists and which leave a lasting impression upon our history and lives. This is not a discussion about commercial photographers using the digital medium, as that is a business-first method of use that requires one to take advantage of anything easier, quicker, cheaper. One doesn't learn about wedding photographers when one learns the history of photography. And, just so this clarification doesn't leave a bad taste in one's mouth, I will, here and now, state that if I were a wedding photographer (or any commercial photographer for that matter), I would definitely think about using digital. OK, so that should make things known for this and any future talks about digital.

So, for this discussion I have come up with three main points that I will use to try and prove there is a substantial difference between traditional (film, or any other chemically constructed process) and digital.

One of the main reasons why someone might hold the belief that digital is not photography is because of the belief that the true value of photography is not only in the represented image, but also in the process and craft of creating that image. In today's world one must be well aware that plenty of time and effort are afforded to the creation of a digital print, however, that time and effort are related to staring at a computer screen clicking a mouse and tapping on a keyboard. This is not a craft. It may not be easy, but it is not a craft because one really doesn't use the hands to create, which is the basis for increased skill and knowledge. "When any human being works with his hands, whatever he does will be translated into the brain as knowledge. This knowledge, in turn, will react on his emotional self. That is how a higher level of personality is achieved." -Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. This pretty much sums it up. Any art created is about using the hands, physically creating to achieve that end result. There is absolutely no knowledge or skill required of the hands when digitally making a picture.

One might say, "Well you still must have a vision just like any film photographer." This is true, to a certain point. As important as the hands are in the physical act of photography, the eye and mind must be in the act of the capture. The difference comes in how much one must actually know to achieve their desired result. As anyone who has used current model digital cameras knows, the shooter does not need to have a professional education on what the proper exposure needs to be, let alone proper color temperature. The camera does it all. Even if the photographer doesn't utilize the little screen on the back of the camera to check the histogram, they only have to plug the card into a computer and play around with the multitude of exposure correcting sliders in the camera raw adjustment. Of course, knowledge of these specific adjustments is best for making an exact replication of the shot taken, one really does not need to know anything about them and can figure it out within minutes. Playing around with the levels (using the crafting tool I refer to as a 'mouse') until an optimal image appears on the screen takes little more education than telling the difference between green and magenta. This might be an oversimplification of all this, but the whole point of the digital process is to make it easier to get what one wants, at the expense of the mind. As one learns to use a calculator, they suddenly start forgetting how to add double digit numbers without it.

On the film side of things, the photographer must remain knowledgeable of the type of film, current light conditions, and exposure settings at all times. It is true that the light meter in some cameras is incredibly easy to use, and after a short time on a shoot one begins to inherently know what to tell the camera to do without a second thought, but the process is more intact because the photographer remains unaware of the outcome (which is one of the major draws towards film that any artist should respect...the photographer must complete a process to get a result, this has always been the way of photography). Furthermore, if the results captured on film were not correctly recorded, a process of chemical manipulation (using the crafting tools I refer to as 'hands') has to take place to get the "proper" image.

As one can clearly see, in each step of the process the adjustments vary; from the calculator help of digital cameras and computers, where knowledge of only the most basic of functions will allow one to begin pumping out pictures, to the retained knowledge a photographer must have in order to fully create an image. As go the hands, the mind also goes to the non-digital user.

"OK, so what if I don't care about using hands or having a mind," the digital photographer stammers, "I really like my calculator, and have you seen that new Mac mouse, it is awesome! What about the eye, that is really what sets photographers apart. Their vision, how is that different?"

The answer lies in one word, used as a verb, and bound to cause controversy; cropping. Now, this is quite a major topic which deserves much discussion (especially from opposing viewpoints) that, for the sake of my writing hand (and the already lengthy post this has turned out to be) will not be fully addressed here. But, to get the point across, cropping is bad. There is a reason the camera a photographer chooses to use has the framing it does, and that framing should be fully utilized without a crop to show the photographer's specific vision. This is the only real way for a viewer to get an understanding of the photographer's eye; an un-cropped, full framed image, using each corner to an exacting degree. The photographer rested the lower right corner of the camera's frame right where they did, not an inch lower or to the left. This is the only real way to judge the vision, as one must assume that if the image was cropped, the photographer was either told by another pair of eyes that the image didn't work as is, or the photographer himself noticed after the fact and decided not to trust their own eyes. Either way, the artist's true vision has been compromised and can no longer be judged alongside an un-cropped image (I know there are many many excuses for cropping, and again, I have more to say about this topic in general, so the promise is made to return to the discussion soon).

Alright, so there it is, three distinct features of the photographic medium; the hands, the mind, and the eyes. All of which are necessary for the creation of a photographic print, but none of which are even close to being fully utilized by the digital process.

It's Been A While...With a BONUS Photo Review!

2007-02-15T10:57:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the delay between posts, but as I am not equipped with an Internet connection I can only post once or twice a week. But, fear not loyal readers (man am I hopeful!) I write a lot and always have things ready to be updated whenever I come across a connection...On to the photo stuff!

A review of the first, Second Thursday opening now happening in the Fishtown/North Northern Liberties area of the city...Lets just say I was a little heated when I wrote this a week ago.

Photography has gone too far. Let me qualify, first off, that I understand that growth and progression are positive values when placed upon just about anything. And, photography is growing, expanding, and progressing at a wondrous rate. OK, so then what is the problem you ask? The problem is when you go out to a gallery opening, excitedly wanting to be drawn to a body of work from across the room, hearing the music and chatter of a couple dozen viewers as you approach the building (hope is rising), and seeing smiling faces all around as you are pleasantly greeted with food and drink...only to end up standing in what was described by another as "such a cool space" looking at absolutely dreadful photographs. And be sure that I mean in every possible way, dreadful. There did not appear to have been an attempt at what I deem silly postmodern statements, like the desire to work against structured craftsmanship or about how any subject matter is of value (so don't think that this is simply a rant against work I don't like, Sherrie Levine most likely would have laughed off this stuff). No, these were just bad pictures, plain and simple. One could make an argument for the snapshot aesthetic (if one really wanted to grasp at straws) but in no way was the representation of the images following any sort of snapshot guidelines (if you will). In other words, the artist actually tried to make beautiful photographs, took the time (assumption) to render and print highly saturated color schemes, and took the liberty of being cute with the framing (smallish, about 11x14); mattes with painter-styled elaborate frames (there are photographers doing this type of framing, and when it works it is excellent, but when it doesn't...). Sad.

I would rather not talk about the other body of work I saw, for fear of getting myself angrier and you believing that I am just too negative a person, but I will say that someone learned how to use photoshop filters (they never make bad pictures good) and thought it ironic to put images on pillowcases and other little trinkets. All kidding aside, it was laughable.

Overall, I can most easily relate this experience to that of eating at a new restaurant. You work up an excitement about going, especially if you have not been out in a while (my own fault), you patiently wait just to get a chance to talk to the chef (artist) to learn how he or she created what they did, and you leave the restaurant (gallery) full and happy. None of this happened...the restaurant was crap. Wasted enthusiasm. It makes you think twice before you go back to the same place. I guess I can always give it a second chance, and just hope for a better chef.

Writing Abolut Your Work

2007-01-22T17:22:00.000-05:00

Are Photographers more objective and painters more subjective, and if so does this require photographers to speak of their work more so than painters?

I guess there is a bigger questions that should be answered in order to get to this one.

Is there the need to write about art (specifically, one's own work)?

Right now I am reading Robert Adams' Why People Photograph, and I must say I really enjoy the "easy reading" aspect of Adams words. Because I have been so unmotivated as of late, I needed a more straightforward read, as opposed to forcing myself back into all those crazy French guys. That being said, Why People Photograph is wonderful in its motivation. I know what he is saying with the first read through...I recommend it. Anyway...rambling.

Robert Adams states, "The minute they do so (artists writing about their work) they've admitted failure. Words are proof that the vision they had is not, in the opinion of some at least, fully there in the picture." He backs up his thinking with statements from multiple artists in multiple mediums. Charles Demuth, "I have been urged...to write about my painting...why? Haven't I, in a way, painted them?" Robert Frost, in a response to why he doesn't write about his poems' meanings, "You want me to say it worse?" And, C.S. Lewis said that he had never been less sure of his beliefs then when he tried to verbalize them.

Does this mean that photographers should not be writers of their own work? Maybe they should try to write about others' works , especially when that work is admired or seen as influential to the photographer. This approach, Adams believes, is as close as photographers want to come to writing about their own intentions. Adams does point out that if this approach is taken up by a photographer, more than likely, the influenced photographer's work can be directly traced to the previous photographer whose work he/she wrote about. (Easy analogy; me writing about Ray Metzker's work...there are obvious things I like in his pictures, and am more than likely trying to reproduce in my own). A reader can understand what a photographer enjoys in terms of an aesthetic or subject matter regarding another artist, then can see if the photographer's own work conveys a similar sentiment.

In the end it must be agreed upon, considering the difficulty of writing (about one's own work at least), that as John Szarkowski has said, "The better the writing is the more necessary it makes the picture."

Opening Statement

2007-01-18T15:07:00.001-05:00

With this blog my intention is to create a space for discussion and dialogue within the photographic community. Whether you are in agreement with the opinions or not, any and all commentary is encouraged. I am envisioning a new generation of the photographic forum- continuing on the tradition set forth by Baudelaire in his photographic criticisms, furthered by the retaliatory letters and divisive sentiments on photography between Henry Peach Robinson and Peter Henry Emerson, and even further defined by Alfred Stieglitz and company in Camera Work.

This is a new Century and a new generation of artists, and I believe that the blog forum is the new best way to carry out a lasting discussion between interested parties. As the magazine racks are full of techno-talk and adverts, and the newspapers becoming less of a tradition and more of a chore, the Internet becomes the place whereby almost anyone can have access and express a viewpoint. Unfortunately, a blog can easily succumb to what has become the norm of today's world, the "sound-bite" (or is it -byte?), where one does not develop a thought or idea but just jots down a couple of the more expressive words, barely formulating a sentence (it would be ridiculous to think that Emerson's letters in The Photographic News at the turn of the 19Th Century could be reduced to single-sentence talking points). Ah, but such is our world and such is the way we are familiar with reading and listening to news!

So, without creating a forum full only of single-line, point-by-point bulletins, I would like to utilize the way people think and write by encouraging any initial questions or opinions about a topic. By expressing these quick, short, or even blunt views within this type of open 24-7 forum, we can together create a more in-depth dialogue. Think of this as a classroom (I know, I know..."a classroom, but I just finished school!"), but a classroom without a teacher, full of individuals eager to each put in their own view; asking lots of questions, but also willing to spend time thinking and developing deeper sentiments and philosophies, not wanting the thinking to end at the sound-bite.

I guess we need to quickly mention things of no interest to me (and hopefully to you as well). To use one word...GEAR. I think this word pretty much sums up exactly what is off limits in this forum. I could care less about how many lights you had to use on your last shoot. I don't lose sleep over when the next new Canon SuperDigital Zoom Lens DeLuxe ver.14.2xp comes out. There are more than enough places on the Internet to discuss all that technology, and parts, and stuff, and GEAR. I don't want to get involved. So, no GEAR talk. I would also like to stay away from the whole realm of commercial photography, i.e. photography made by one person expressly for another person in return for money. I do want to discuss differing views on commercial photography, and how it fits into today's culture (Because it's impact is huge) but no silly banter about how you shot a wedding last week then dropped your flash drive in the toilet, but it was fine because you didn't yet erase the images from your card, and how if it were film you would have lost the whole roll...Forget it. I can't waste my time with all of that. This place needs to be about more than art school hallway talk (already had three years of that stuff). This is for real questions and real opinions like:

What is photography's role in society today? Or,

What impact does photography have on society?

What is photography?

The digital medium in inherently not photography.

Cropping images into altered frames is an untrue representation of the photographer's eye.

How important is process compared with product?

There, now that I have offended (Or at least riled up) half of my audience, let us discuss.