Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by RattyMouse, Jan 24, 2013.
Only problem is a true fine artist would not bother with all that.
that's what i was thinking,a lot of work for what?
Both the medium and equipment have withstood the test of time in both storage and use. Cannot say that for the "modern" equivalent as it changes every three months. That's why.
Doesn't this other post from the same guy, and the opinions he expresses therein, sort of contradict the whole project he wants to do in the above link?
No, it does not. He made a valid point as to how and why he uses film and how and why he also chooses to use a digital camera for a specific purpose. No crime committed there. Anybody else is doing the same thing wielding an iPhone or any other sort of smartphone or digital camera per se.
My problem is that there is probably a bit of work and communication to be done for this guy for nothing much at all in particular other than to see one's philosophy on analogue photography committed to print for the world to see. In this modern digital age of online publishing, I don't really see the point. But credit to him for breaking out with the suggestion.
I don't see any contradiction, either. He makes it clear that he chooses film because it works for him.
I also don't understand why he should be criticized for his project. For a long time, there seemed to be a weekly/monthly thread about film's imminent death (although the biggest doomsayers have, thankfully, left). There have also been posts about how to get people (re)interested in using film, and profuse welcoming when a new member "sees the light". Here's someone who is trying to share, in a concise fashion, the reasons we choose analog. Kudos to him for attempting to articulate our passion for our chosen form of expression. I hope he's successful in this endeavor.
Good to know I'm not the only skeptic here. I pessimistically supposed that he was seeking to up his Google ranking by including links to others. I hope his motives are indeed more altruistic than my natural cynicism would otherwise indicate. :confused:
He's a member, here, although he hasn't posted in about 13 months. I don't doubt his motives, but think he should have posted his project here, to reach his target audience.
You mean Andreas Gursky, right? Or Peter Lik? There must be a ... Oh, right, there are YouTube videos mocking true fine artists! There's the one puportedly using Dell computers, there's the psycho idiot and the models, there's the ones mocking various famous photographers, etc.
I think Tim Layton is interested in people who care about the material they use. Thus, the person will care enough to talk about why they prefer film. It's self-selecting, really.
Not this again. Only Peter Lik is a fine art photographer. Gursky is just an art photographer. Both are beyond awful.
In the modern vernacular, 'fine art photography' is a marketing term. 'Fine art', which is the term you used, is only typically made in reference to painting.
'Fine art photography', if we can finally get it straight, is decorative, produced in vast quantities and cheap (Peter Lik is a prime example) relative to art photography or contemporary photography, which is mostly high concept, a handful of prints and very expensive (Gursky is a prime example).
With 'fine art photography', which is what the OP is after, business always comes first. Most fine art photographers would bother with this, as they need as many people to buy as many of their prints as possible. This would be perfect exposure to that end
Sorry, but this terminology is my biggest photographic pet peeve.
There are still a few big names that work traditionally and print in their own darkrooms. Clyde Butcher, Sally Mann, and Abelardo Morell come to mind. I doubt they would ever consider contributing to his project.
Tim made a blog post, and everybody freaks out. He must have touched a nerve! And to think this is on APUG...
Tim did not send out invites, he just made a blog post. Maybe what he's looking for are real, ordinary photographers to respond. Like his average blog reader. Or maybe Clyde Butcher, Sally Mann, and Abelardo Morell would respond, but Tim never asked them.
Sheesh. I'll paraphrase some of the responses posted here: "You'll never get God to write a short essay and submit a self portrait for your project! Nyah nyah nyah!" Or maybe Ansel Adams was supposed to raise himself from the dead and sign on.
Come on, guys, it's just a blog post for a personal project. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unless it's the revolution...
Peeve away, I don't care. I really don't pay attention to either Gursky or Lik. Or the difference between "art photographer" and "fine art photographer." They have their business models and their clients, and they are successful.
I also have no idea what film means to them.
Peter Lik "is" a prime example? Elaborate.
Have you actually met and viewed Peter Lik's vast body of work, particularly his Ilfochrome Classic works that sell for around $28,000-plus? There is every chance Lik has made a very comfortable living for himself through hard work and determination (and financial sacrifice), rather than dangling on forums making wild and spurious generalisations about others. He chooses his subjects very carefully, his market even with more care.
Unless you know a person well, refrain from making value-based judgements on their style and/or quality of work.
Just need to clarify something first. When I said 'beyond awful' I didn't mean to insinuate they're terrible, but that their work, because of its status, is almost beyond judgement. I think some of Gursky's work is interesting and some of Lik's quite beautiful.
Peter Lik is a prime example of a fine art photographer in that he doesn't have a selective market. The prints selling on his website are $195 and his work of the 'above the couch' variety - decorative and accessible to all.
Don't buy the "unless you know a person" thing. I haven't met Paul Strand either.
The only judgement I made was about the spheres these two photographers work in. Unlikely you'll see them at the same disco.
My main point above is that a true "fine" artist (and my definition differs from that above) really cares little to examine in such detail as to why they use what they use as tools. The work is more important and they would likely not be so inclined nor see much value in diving so deeply into something like this. The gear and tech weenies perhaps but then what does that represent in the end? Those who quite possibly spend more time discussing and comparing their gear than actually producing photography that would be considered any kind of decent art (vague I know).
Five months ago that blogger posted something that included him saying things like this (http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2012/08/film-vs-digital-i-could-puke/):
"Who cares how you create your work."
"I could personally care less how someone creates something. Why would anyone care? I look at prints and artwork and I could honestly care less how the artist created it."
"To each their own and the discussions around which equipment is used (digital, film, etc) is a silly waste of time."
I just find it very curious that this same person seems so enthralled now with a project based on finding out what equipement people use and why, sort of encapsulated when he says this (http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net...raphers/?goback=.gde_76492_member_203711782):
"Be sure to include a list of your favorite equipment, formats, mediums (e.g., roll film, large format sheet film, dry plates, ambrotypes, ferrotypes, etc.) in your response if appropriate and focus on the why. Think of this as an opportunity to explain why you choose to work with these specific tools when high-tech modern tools are available to you.
Separate names with a comma.