Walker Evans, inkjets, and the metaphysics of photography.

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by Rolleiflexible, Aug 25, 2006.

  1. Rolleiflexible

    Rolleiflexible Member

    Messages:
    1,274
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    New York Cit
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Somebody went and printed Walker Evans's negatives big on an inkjet -- the prints are on display here in Manhattan at the UBS Art Gallery (6th and 51st). Today's New York Times publishes a review that ponders the consequences, and the nature of photography:

    The New York Times, Friday, August 25, 2006
    Art Review
    Walker Evans. Or Is It?

    By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
    A PHOTOGRAPHER snaps a picture. If it’s a camera with film, a negative is made; if it’s a digital camera, a file is produced. A printer, in a dark room using chemicals, or at a computer screen, can tinker with the image, crop it, enlarge it, make it lighter or darker, highlight one part or obscure another.

    In other words, the image produced by the camera, whether it’s a negative or a digital file, is only the matrix for the work of art. It is not the work itself, although if the photographer is a journalist, any hanky-panky in the printing process comes at the potential cost of the picture’s integrity. Digital technology has not introduced manipulation into this universe; it has only multiplied the opportunities for mischief.

    I dawdle over this familiar ground because the digitally produced prints of classic Walker Evans photographs, now at the UBS Art Gallery, are so seductive and luxurious — velvety, full of rich detail, poster-size in a few cases and generally cinematic — that they raise some basic issues about the nature of photography.

    For starters they suggest a simple question, whether luxury and richness are apt qualities for pictures of Depression-era tenant farmers in the American South. These are, I must say, almost uncomfortably beautiful. In “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men,” where Evans first published many of these photographs in 1941, James Agee, his collaborator, wrote that the book might best have been issued on newsprint to suit the simple and honest character of its subjects. Photography compromises its own value, Agee thought, when it becomes pretentious.

    For his part Evans notoriously disdained darkrooms and only haphazardly supervised the making of his own prints. But he adopted the new Polaroid SX-70 camera when it came along in 1973, indicating that he wasn’t averse to new technologies; and with his negatives, like most photographers, he occasionally burned in or dodged out passages to make the pictures look more the way he wanted them to, which they couldn’t otherwise. To a negative of the famous portrait of Allie Mae Burroughs, the sharp-faced Alabama tenant farmer’s wife, he attached instructions for exposing furrows in her brow. Adjusting the exposure was the technique he had at hand, a crude one compared to digital technology.

    The new Evans prints are made by John Hill, a friend and colleague of Evans’s at the Yale School of Art, in collaboration with Sven Martson, who printed photographs for Evans during the 1970’s. They use carbon pigments. Evans shot these works on assignment for the Farm Security Administration, so they ended up in the Library of Congress as public property, where anybody now has permission to reproduce them.

    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 photographer’s 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 Evans’s gelatin silver prints. Mr. Hill, who put together the show, includes various books, magazines and prints that Evans supervised, so you can make the comparison yourself.

    But does this improve the pictures? No. For one thing, it is not possible to improve on the quality of Evans’s originals, only to emulate it. For another, size shifts how we see, both for better and worse. There is a level of concentration required by staring into a small gelatin silver print, a way the image focuses the mind and stays contained within a narrow field of vision, which is among the pleasures of photography. Bigger pictures are read differently, more piecemeal, in the way that film in a theater is viewed differently from an image on television or on a computer screen. Evans lugged his large-format camera around the rural South during the heat of summer so that he could make pictures containing lots of detail. And for his Museum of Modern Art retrospective in 1971 he approved the installation of a few blownup photographs as props.

    But a new detail revealed by an enlarged digital print becomes a visual fact that, however subtly, affects the balance of the entire picture. Photography is a seamless medium: a whole, continuous image put together at once, which the eye unconsciously distinguishes from a drawn image that is made inch by inch, or pixel by pixel, in the case of a digital image.

    Maybe that’s why these new prints have something of the aura of drawings. They are, Mr. Hill makes clear, his interpretations of Evans’s work. The effort may summon to mind Sherrie Levine’s appropriations of Evans’s photographs, which were also conceived as high-end art objects, not commonplace reproductions. But while Ms. Levine trumpeted the inferior, second-hand quality of her copies (which at first sold for more than Evans’s vintage prints; go figure), Mr. Hill and Mr. Martson bring to their works the authority of first-hand experience with Evans and an obvious devotion to him.

    And this is where the philosophical implications get interesting. Is photography closer to music and theater, or to painting? A painting is what it is, and copies of it are not the same. Music and theater exist through their variety of interpretations. Mr. Hill makes the music argument, not surprisingly.

    The tricky part is that a listener knows a musician playing Bach is not Bach. Somebody looking at one of these new Evans prints is likely to assume it is by Evans, which it is of course only up to a point. That point is the threshold of the new technology.

    It allows Mr. Hill and Mr. Martson to combine two separate images into a wide panorama of a street scene in Selma, Ala. The stitches are clear, acknowledging the interpretive lark. In other cases, moderate-to-large-scale prints of the Cherokee Parts Store and of Joe’s Auto Graveyard in Pennsylvania, of matching houses with round windows and a Carole Lombard poster on a wall in front of them, and of a small-town main street, crisscrossed by telephone wires — all these prove that Evans’s pictures work at any size because they are emblematic and therefore infinitely reproduceable.

    He combined Hemingway’s economy with Cummings’s wit and Eliot’s urbanity. His laconic scrutiny defined an American visual poetry stripped of Victorian charm and propriety and easy bohemianism. It’s there in the rhyming circles of the windows of the houses echoing Lombard’s shiner on the poster, in the haphazard geometry of the telephone wires and in the tumble of abandoned Model T’s, like tombstones, collected at the base of a grassy hill. The last is akin to one of Brady’s Civil War photographs, silent and eternal. Evans’s mordant dispassion let him see destitution and the everyday in all its ready-made eloquence, short-circuiting our pity and condescension.

    About that famous Allie Mae Burroughs portrait, of which there is a new, sumptuous print and also a billboard-size image in the UBS show, Lionel Trilling pointed out that she “simply refuses to be an object of your ‘social consciousness.’ She refuses to be an object at all.”

    These latest prints, beautiful though they are, will no doubt be superseded by further technological inventions claiming to extract still more signs of the artist’s genius.

    They will come and go. Technology isn’t timeless. Evans is.


    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
     
  2. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I guess I should get over there - I work at 50th and Lex and this is nearby. Then again, I think not

    While I agree with the critic's sentiment the reality is that the Times is the biggest proponent of digitizing all and everything. Don't they feature that guy Pogue every Thursday who tells me why my erstwhile digicam that I should have bought last week has been obsoleted by the new one I should buy this week?

    The NYT is the newspaper that puts a one day limit on it's web postings before turning them into "Times Select" (i.e. pay as you go) archives. I remember years ago as a grad student reading NY Times archives going back 100 years at the NYPL's microfilm reader and I didn't have to pay a dime!

    More than once I have been fooled by their "Select" system and posted a link to a photog story here - only to see it go "Select" at midnight and lead to a teaser "subscribe now" link.

    The smarter than me OP here did a "clip and paste" but at the cost of screen and server space to this site!

    As to making WE's pics richer and deeper via ink jet - so what? It's the UBS gallery. They probably were in the underwriter's management group for the printer company's IPO. For cryin' out loud - UBS is an investment banking firm and their "gallery" is an office building lobby exhibit.

    Yes, admittedly 'high end' - this is NYC not Kansas City - but an office lobby exhibit is not (yet) museum standard. What's really sad is that the NYT is now reviewing exhibits in office lobbies!

    But, not to worry, this story will go "Select" in a little while and no one will buy it and it will disappear.....

    Oh, and the weirder thing is how an IB firm finds "feel good" traction in posting 1930's Depression images - when their office building is just a few miles away from some of the saddest neighborhoods in America today!

    I guess poor folk from seventy years ago deserves a pity we refuse to extend to poor folk today?
     
  3. Sparky

    Sparky Member

    Messages:
    2,099
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That poor man! (walker evans) First, it was Sherrie Levine, and now this!!
     
  4. doughowk

    doughowk Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,763
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Evans, like many great photographers, was averse to the darkroom; though he may have "conducted" their production. So when is a print, like a painting, the unique work of the photographer?
     
  5. Claire Senft

    Claire Senft Member

    Messages:
    3,242
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Location:
    Milwaukee, W
    Shooter:
    35mm
    From what I have read in a long article about Mr. Evans, by his contemporary and associate Ralph Steiner, that was edited by David Vestal and published by Photo Techniques, Mr. Evans did not perhaps enjoy darkroom work as much as some but was perfectly capable of making straight forward prints that did the job. He apparently was not into a lot of fussines in print making but he did have solid competence in the foundation of the craft.

    I believe that his prints look the way that they do because that is the look he wanted.

    To often today, I am talking conventional photography, some very much favor highly manipulated prints that lack, what is for me, a straght foward appeal.

    I would not wish to prevent others from making prints in any manner that they choose.
     
  6. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    This just in:

    For their next "project" Mr. Hill and Mr. Martson are in the process of digitizing various paintings from the Impressionist era. In a news release they stated:

    "While there is some merit in the representational presentation of these paintings, upon close inspection they tend to blur and "pixellate". By using new, high-speed drum scanning techniques we can digitize these images. Then via imaging software we can use various advanced "sharpening" techniques and other tools to reduce the noticible pixellation to a considerable degree."

    Hill and Marston went on to explain that cleary the artistic intent of the original artists had been rendered almost ineffective by the cruder pixellation available in the early digital imaging era (circa late-19th Century).

    "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.

    :D
     
  7. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ansel Adams' photos will be colorized, Julia Margaret Cameron's prints will finally be spotted, Robert Frank's will be sharpened, Garry Winogrand's will have the horizons corrected, Ralph Gibson's will gain shadow detail and we'll have some fig leaves placed on those embarrassing photos by Sally Mann and Robert Mapplethorp.

    Sheee-it!
     
  8. tchamber

    tchamber Member

    Messages:
    44
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I read the Times piece and thought it was awfully narrow-minded.

    There was an interview in the most recent LensWork with the fellow who continues to print Ansel Adams photos. Granted, he is printing silver optically rather than carbon digitally, but there is no question that his technique is different from Ansel's, a fact that he cheerfully admits.

    The makers of these carbon digital prints make no bones about what they're up to. Whether the results are better, worse, or just different is a matter of legitimate criticism. Rejecting them solely on the grounds that the size of the prints and the technology used to produce them is different, which is what the Times reviewer does, seems to me to be a cheap shot.
     
  9. blansky

    blansky Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,988
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Location:
    Wine country, N. Cal.
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Seeing the old car on the gallery thumbnail at the same time I saw this thread reminds me of the long standing battle between car hobbiests/restorers.

    There are the people that find old classic cars and restore them lovingly and meticulously to the exact way they were first produced. Then they place them in garages and on the occasional Sunday they'll proudly bring them out and put-put around their respective towns or take them on Classic Car Runs.

    Then there are the bastardizers who take the old classics, gut then down to bare metal and refabricate them, stick in a big hot new motor, air conditioning, cruise control, automatic trans, big tires/wheels and basically re-invent the car. These probably see the light of day as much as they see the garage. However they still call it a 32 Deuce or a 29 Model A.

    Would Henry roll over in his grave. Don't know.

    The thing is, maybe some photographers would be happy to see their work reintroduced to the public and I'm sure a bunch probably wouldn't. But as time goes on and this whole digital thing keeps evolving, this kind of re-inventing will probably continue.


    Michael
     
  10. per volquartz

    per volquartz Member

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Re-inventing

    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.
     
  11. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What is here is the bastardation of an orginal art form. Those that did watercolors would be upset if a person working in oils would come along and say they did it better and copy their work via the oil medium. I know with my metal art, I hear almost daily that it could be reproduced in plastics. some of the people here have a few of those metal ornaments I have made this summer. Nothing would replace the metal and give the same feel. It is more than the content, it is the way it is done, and the soul of the person who puts their time and effort into it. To just say the end product is all that matters is BS. I have spent this summer cranking down 6 guage copper wire into long thin strips so that I could stay true to the old renaisance way of metal smithing. It is about the process as much as the end product. I could have them made in China for a fraction of what I spend on them, and have time left over. They would be cookie cutter art objects.

    As for Walker Evans he was a mentor to a photography prof of mine. Timo Pujenen worked for Walker for several years learning from the man. I was fortunate enough to hold and look through handmade small books that Walker produced of his images. They were stunning. Timo now has pretty much given up on analog in favor of digital since it is easier for him to do. Easy in that he didn't like the darkroom work either, and now he can avoid it. That may be more telling of what Walker might have done. The influence was seeded into Timo long ago.
     
  12. Jim Chinn

    Jim Chinn Member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebra
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Recently running concurrently with the Weston exhibit in Omaha was an exhibit of very large. iconic sports images, all reproduced as inkjets. Included were a few vintage images. I don't remember the exact ones but think in the same vein as Babe Ruth giving his farewell speech at Yankee Stadium. The images had been sharpened, contrast adjsuted and printed. Yes they looked very modern, in some cases almost like people in period costumes but a few were pretty stunning as if someone had gone back in time with a modern camera to get a picture of Gehrig or Dimaggio.

    I guess all I can say about it is it will be something we will all have to get used to.
     
  13. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Somehow, Walker Evans and inkjet just don't go together. The mental image of a beautiful, B&W print coming out of a cheap, WalMart printer is just too much.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. per volquartz

    per volquartz Member

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Is Van Gogh's ear important to you?

    Certainly not to me!

    I could not care if he had problems during his life, cut off his ear, never sold a painting in his life (except one to his brother - or brother-in-law???)

    What I know and love about Van Gogh is the content in his paintings. Not just the technique of his brushstrokes but his ability (through color, composition and form) to bring out emotions and deep feelings.

    For me the same goes for sculpture, music, and other art forms, incl.photography. Of course I appreciate craftsmanship, honed skills and how a work of art is / was constructed... and I do love well made photographic prints and still have problems with inkjet or other computer generated prints...

    But, when it all is said and done it still comes down to one thing only: content and how the content reveals and communicates thoughts, ideas and feelings!
     
  16. donbga

    donbga Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
    A cheap WalMart printer? I don't recall reading that in the article.
     
  17. don sigl

    don sigl Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I couldn't disagree with this more. In my opinion you can't separate the content from the craft. If you do, you have something else other than the original. I am someone who appreciates impressionist paintin enormously. To think that you could change the texture of the bruysh stroke, and have the same thing...no.

    One of the really beautiful aspects of photography that initiallydrew me to it was its sense of physical, tactile process. Sure ultimately,the final product is the culmination of processes undertaken for the goal of expression. In the end, I agree that it is the work that needs to do the final "speaking".
    But the expression lives in the process as well. It is ingrained in it. In photography, it starts at the negative, A negative is not merely a matrix. It is a product of process influenced by the mind of the artist. I don't make negatives haphazardly. I influence the materials with a knowledge of their strengths and shortcomings. A negative can be a beautiful object. And it is the mind and craft inherent in its making that influence its beauty, both physically and as it relates to the goal of the final print. This is probably my biggest qualm with digital imaging. It has a way of sanitzing process to the point where it becomes irrelevent. How is this photography? It isn't.
     
  18. per volquartz

    per volquartz Member

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Well said Don...

    This discussion / debate is great from my point of view. It does center around fundamentals of what is important in art - or what is perceived as art...

    And of course one should not change the brush strokes of a painting -
    And to some extent you may be right in saying that one cannot separate the artist from the artwork. If Van Gogh had not had a troubled mind most likely his art work could have been very different.

    Your argument however is not true across the board. As an example take the works of Marcel Duchamp. His bicycle wheel exhibed as art. Where is the honed craft? Where is the planned composition? Where is color and "hands-on committment to craftsmanship? Well there is none. The bicycle placed in a museum started a new art form, "ready mades"... Some people have trouble with this I know, but the result has been a great debate over what art "is" or "should be". Personally I believe that art should have no limitation and can be whatever it needs to be in order to create universal feelings. As long it does not create physical pain...
     
  19. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The problem as I see it is that the "processing" by these guys has diminished the content of Walker's art. It's not as if they took Walker's orginal negatives and reprinted them. Rather, they digitized them and used software manipulation - followed by a printing process based on ink jet technology.

    To me, the resultant product is no long Walker's art.

    You speak about content. But the content of Walker's images was to portray the plight of the poor during the Great Depression - taken contemporarily in that time.

    To now use high technology to obtain "deeper and richer tones" is to remove these pictures from their place in time. And by "prettying them up" they no longer convey the social message that Walker was seeking to tell.

    In fact, the more I think about it, the more I get steamed that these guys chose to manipulate documentary photos - it's fraudulent to do so.
     
  20. c6h6o3

    c6h6o3 Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    All of the Evans' originals I've seen were first rate prints. I don't know who printed them, but they're magnificent. They may be straight forward, but they do far more than just "the job".
     
  21. HerrBremerhaven

    HerrBremerhaven Member

    Messages:
    861
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What it reminds me of is an article in a printing trade publication about travelling museum exhibits. Seems some museums are concerned about the fragile nature and expense of shipping rare paintings. The idea they were trying to put forth, with limited success, was to have same size reproductions of the original paintings made by some form of commercial inkjet (expensive commercial machines, not Epson, not WalMart). Then the reproductions would become the travelling exhibit going from one museum to another. I would suppose their insurance underwriters liked this approach too.

    As a painter, I appreciate seeing the brush strokes and texture of original works. I can also appreciate the compositional skill, the ideas behind a work of art, or simply the compelling aspects of an image. If I were to view reproductions (litho, inkjet, gravure, other) of originals, I could still enjoy them; unfortunately I would miss the brush strokes and texture, and in that way lose the feeling of how the painting was created. Painting is very physical, and most who learn and do oil paintings can grasp the technique of the artist when seeing an original.

    Photography usually has one original, which is that frame of film containing an image. Any print is a reproduction of that original, even if it is rendered differently (burning, dodging, toning, other). Be aware this is my opinion, and I have no need for anyone to agree with me. I am also stubborn, so not point in trying to change my opinion . . . . . Anyway, I would enjoy seeing prints/reproductions that somehow conveyed how the images would have appeared near the time they were captured. So if Walker Evans used B/W film, I would prefer seeing silver prints, maybe even using older style papers, and somewhat near the sizes originally envisioned. Perhaps even new newsprint runs of some of his images, to get a feel what some of them would have been like in a newspaper. Of his Polaroid works, I would really enjoy seeing the originals, especially since I have seen them in a couple books already; reproductions would not give me a better idea of these.

    So reproductions of art can get those works in front of more people, but it then becomes more like IKEA, Z-Gallery, or one of those shopping mall places that sell reproductions of images. Sure, I get an idea of composition, or compelling aspects, and I can still appreciate the images. However, just because a reproduction method might be higher technology, or more tedious, would not make it any better.

    The other issue is image sizes. It is the current trend in some places to make vastly huge prints, far beyond what the original photographer would have expected. I think that is also untrue to the original vision. In such a situation, it would not matter to me if the larger print was a silver print, or some other industrial method (computer or not) . . . to me the impact of the image would be to match the expectations of what Walker Evans expected as final printing sizes.

    Final opinion on inkjet prints: while someone could spend $30K or more for a ColorSpan or similar industrial grade machine, in reality these machines are little different from a commercial press. If someone had a $200K to $500K Heidelberg press, for even better reproduction quality, it still would be just a reproduction. Whether commercial printing, or industrial inkjet, or even desktop, these machines only emulate continuous tone; put a printers loupe on any of them and the dot patterns are there to be seen. I have seen some truly wonderful commercial prints of B/W originals, but they still look different than a silver print. These are fine for reproductions, but I have trouble accepting them as originals.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
     
  22. Allen Friday

    Allen Friday Member

    Messages:
    876
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    To me, the most interesting part of the article is the following:

    “And this is where the philosophical implications get interesting. Is photography closer to music and theater, or to painting? A painting is what it is, and copies of it are not the same. Music and theater exist through their variety of interpretations. Mr. Hill makes the music argument, not surprisingly.”

    I have always assumed that the analogy for photography (as limited by the above) was the painting. The artist creates a distinct work, the final print, that is an object in and of itself. It is the final expression of the artists intent. Under this argument, the medium is crucial to the work itself. Hence, a silver copy made from a platinum print “is not the same thing”. This seems to be in line with Aggie’s argument above.

    In my mind, one of the things that separates a photographer from a GWC is that the photographer takes responsibility for the final object. That responsibility begins with choice of film and camera, continues with the choices that go into exposure and development, and end ultimately with either making the final print or overseeing its creation. A GWC, on the other hand, buys whatever film is on sale or that the GWC used last time, rarely overrides the program mode and accepts the print given as “final“.

    On the other hand, I drag out the tired, old chestnut: AA’s comment on the negative as the score and the print as the performance. This would seem to advance the musical nature of photography. But, I still think there is a difference with a Bach score. AA alone printed his negatives during his life. He may have interpreted the negative differently over the course of his life, but they were all AA prints. If I buy an AA print, I expect it to be AA’s expression (performance) of the negative.

    The issue gets more complicated, however, when you look at the prints made by Alan Ross from AA negatives. Alan states that his prints are his own interpretation of the negatives. To some extent, this is a matter of necessity as materials change. But, those prints are still controlled to an extent. On the back of each print it states, “Printed by Alan Ross from Ansel Adams’ original negative to his exacting specifications under the supervision of The Ansel Adams Gallery and The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust.”

    Photographers sell and display photographs--prints. They do not in normal course sell their negatives to be printed by others. They sign final prints, not negatives.

    So, what should we make of this new interpretation of Evan’s photographs?

    Before getting to my answer, I think we need to separate out the digitalization argument. If the info is in the original negative, then it could probably be put on paper in a traditional darkroom as well as with digital. It may be easier with digital. 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?
    I guess that I don’t think the fact that it was done digitally in this case is very important. I read most of the article on the process as digital hype. The real issue is what do we think of the negative being interpreted differently from the way Evan’s interpreted it?

    My initial take on it is that Evan’s prints were his expression of the work. To change it now, with or without digital means, creates a new work that is “not the same.” Is the new work better or worse? That is for each of us to decide, but it is certainly different.

    And the fact that these are not Evan’s work needs to be made known to viewers, just as the prints made of AA’s negatives are stamped as being printed by Ross. Perhaps this is where the photography and painting analogy diverge--there is usually only one original painting, or certainly a very limited number such as with “The Scream.” But with photographs, where they can be produced in large numbers and in varying size (think “Moonrise”), the sheer multiplicity of final prints clouds the issue of latter interpretations.

    With the loss of copyright, all works of art are eventually open to reinterpretation. Think of how many Mona Lisa rip offs there have been. Maybe Edwards was right in burning his negatives.

    Just my rambling thoughts over the lunch hour.

    Allen
     
  23. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I fear that we are only seeing the beginning of the cheapening of the art and craft of photography. Every time some yahoo with Photoshop knowledge starts screwing around with an existing icon, we see further erosion of the value of all art. What is most disturbing is that most people could care less.

    When the Congress had hearings years ago concerning the colorization of films, someone presented reproductions of Ansel Adams' photographs that had been colorized. Their purpose was to show Congress that you shouldn't mess with original artwork. I remember one of those duly elected low wattage lightbulbs commented how he liked the colorized photographs better. Gives new meaning to art critism. Great, Congressman. Go out and buy yourself a box of Crayolas and knock yourself out!
     
  24. don sigl

    don sigl Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
     
  25. don sigl

    don sigl Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Its a sad situation. Although I don't feel Art is just for Artists....its probably better we keep the congressman way from it.
     
  26. per volquartz

    per volquartz Member

    Messages:
    454
    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Lee, you made my day!!! LOL...

    "one of those duly elected low wattage lightbulbs commented how he liked the colorized photographs better. Gives new meaning to art critism. Great, Congressman. Go out and buy yourself a box of Crayolas and knock yourself out!"


    This statement is a gem.
    Perhaps one day there will be a forum for "APUG Classics" - if so this should be there - day one!


    FUNNY! LOL...