Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian  i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.
i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )
i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines |
I think there's more tines than that, it's a friggin porcupine!!!
I think the negative
can be the original, if the artist declares that as his intent. Anything can be declared to be art. I have some interesting stains in my trays. If I hang them, and declare them original art, then, at least for me, they are. Some may think differently about them, and declare me a hack. Others may laud my innovation, and see the deep meaning contained in the swish patterns.
I think the original is what the photographer declares it to be, and a reproduction is a facsimile by created another process to copy the original. There can be many "original" prints, but a copy of any one of them in a magazine, even as well executed as for example in
Lenswork, is still a reproduction.
The content of a work of art is, without a doubt a major ingredient, but process determines much about the subtleties an individual piece may stand or fall on. I have seen pictures of "The Thinker" but never the statue. I understand the content of the work, so far as I may from that facsimile, however I could not say to Auguste Rodin that I was truly familiar with this work.
The difference between a masterful silver gelatin print, and a magazine, or electronic display is just as vast.