So you are saying the tools used are more important than artistic vision?
Perhaps the tools used alter the artistic vision?
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014
No, actually, I just ask them...
Originally Posted by Leigh B
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
Mr. Pixel - anything tangible evidence of "vision" has to be some kind of marriage with a specific medium. A potter requires clay. A fresco painter requires plaster. The two grow together. And having
some kind of restraint actually greases the wheels, so to speak, because it gives one a direction.
In the hypotethical argument, What would Ansel do today - maybe he would shoot and print digitally.
But then his legacy would be something completely different, and possibly even a bellyflop. It's one
thing to reproduce things digitally - either prepress or by inkjet etc. But the learning curve itself,
and how one get to a vision in the first place, is just as important. For me, the hunt is just as important as the kill. And the darkroom is a real nice place to finish the chase. If someone prefers
other methods, fine. No problem. And maybe they can mimic what I do. Good luck. It ain't that easy! But better to let each media do what it does best.
I can imagine the same sort of comments from portrait oil painters as daguerreotype portraits became popular.
"It's only real if it's done in oil." ;-)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ah, yes, Moonrise Hernandez... her parents were hippies, you know.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
I can imagine that the printer’s skill is very akin to a painter who is working from a sketch. The sketch in this case being the negative.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
I don't get the relevance of your last comment, Mr Pixel. Sounds like one of those things some twenty-something would recapitualte. Oil painting is its own medium, watercolor works best at different effects, fresco at something else, and none of that looks like photography. Yes, there are
a lot of folks who try to mimic painting with photography, and once in awhile visa versa, but you can't really substitute one for the other. All kinds of photo techniques have come and gone, and
people still paint with oil. There must be a reason. But frankly, I don't give a damn. I do what works
for me and what I enjoy. Some people don't like darkroom work. I do. That's reason enough.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
The point I've been trying to make is that I think artistic vision is far more important that the tools the artist uses. There have always been people that feel the tools used are more important.
The Steichen passage I was quoting in another thread, I thought would defend Moonrise as a good photograph...
"When the photographer has something in front of him, chosen with his heart and his mind, and when he has brought to bear all the experience he has ever had, then he's prepared to press that button."
That sure sounds like the Moonrise scenario.
"...the moment you press that button that's it, you're through. What you can do afterwards is very limited."
This must be where Ansel Adams proves Steichen wrong.