Originally Posted by Curt
I've never described what I do as "analog(ue) photography".
Who I am talking to will change what I say. If I'm talking to someone who is a photographer/enthusiast, then I will say "I am an analog photographer". It rolls off the tongue much easier "than I work in a darkroom with chemicals and stuff using real silver to make prints"
Originally Posted by edp
If I'm talking to anyone else, I say I'm a photographer. Chances are they don't particularly care how I make images, or even that I do
I believe that how an image is made is directly tied to the conceptual aspect of any artwork. A viewer may ask "Why film?' and the answer must be relevant to the message of the image.
Originally Posted by per volquartz
I'm not convinced that there needs to be another photo secession. We don't need to prove that photography is an art form. Thank you Stieglitz. We don't need to fend off digital imaging. To try would be suicide.
We also don't need to decry the short comings of digital images. Besides sounding elitist, to most people, digital serves its purpose perfectly. And to those elitists who claim technical superiority try printing on an epson 7700 on Hahnemuhle baryta paper. It's perfections in inkjet.
Also the argument that digital prints can be cranked out quicker, thus reducing the value of the medium as a whole is kinda weak. The local shop near me can crank out a hundred chemical prints an hour on its machine. No difference than a commercial digital lab.
I think its time to quote a dead guy:
When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever. The resulting change in the function of art transcended the perspective of the century; for a long time it even escaped that of the twentieth century, which experienced the development of the film. Earlier much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question – whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art – was not raised.
We shouldn't be questioning the validity of digital imaging as art. Rather we should be exploring how it has fundamentally changed Art as a whole (our precious film based imagery included).
This same argument is had for every disruptive technology. Remember that photography started in the 1830's. We didn't have pre-made film until 60 years later. Polaroid's removed all the technical requirements another 60 years later in the 40's. Fast forward another 60 and you get digital.
Thanks to the digital revolution, now the few remaining practitioners can spread their knowledge to people like me and keep the craft alive. Without digital, I doubt we'd have seen the wet-plate renaissance we live in today.
Finally, can we please try to keep it civil in there?
Ah, just what we need, especially now. Yet more intolerance.
What made you think we were running low?
Because film has limits in the quantity that can be shot easily, film changes the way I interact with and think about my subjects. There is value in taking the time Karsh might have to make a portrait.
Originally Posted by alexhill
I'm not saying this can't be done digitally, but it's not the norm, nor is it digital's strong point.
Digital's strength is in democratization: everybody can do it, and with tools like the iPhone with it's PS app; nearly everybody will. From what I've heard 5mp phones are coming soon.
In art there is value in doing things that others can't or won't do.
There is a huge difference between 100-an-hour and the production of a commercial digital lab that that can do 1000's in the same time.
Originally Posted by alexhill
Automation is scalable but that beg's another question.
Why do I print by hand with an enlarger?
Because I can and do intend to create a fresh a interpretation each time. I don't resist the urge to "let each print find it's own personality".
I do resist the urge to create exact copies over and over and over. That is the antithesis of automation and digital technology.
In a world full of copies, it's nice to have something unique.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
"Digital's strength is in democratization: everybody can do it, and with tools like the iPhone with it's PS app; nearly everybody will. From what I've heard 5mp phones are coming soon.
In art there is value in doing things that others can't or won't do."
You might help yourself(and everyone else here) bury this faked, self-regarding dichotomy by considering where today's equivalent of a master printer, Pascal Dangin, stands. His art certainly has value for the reason cited above, thanks to his extraordinary digital manipulation skills.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i had work in an art fair (the only one i was ever in )... 22 years ago.
i paid my entry fee and waited to see if i "made it in " ...
there was vetting / jury process to weed out some of the "artists"
the folks putting on the fair thought weren't a good "fit" ...
i had matted and framed 11x14 images / 16x20 frames.
a guy down the street had 4x6 mini lab prints that he had picked up at the fotomat.
my work was archival + presented as if the fair was an art gallery ...
his was just in a pile on a card table and thumb tacked on a cork board.
the lady next to me lived in the house behind her selling spot.
she was having a garage sale and had some nice nick-nacks and stretched soda bottles filled with pink and blue sand.
i was young and naive, and didn't know any better.
it seems that per knows what he wants, and knows how he wants his work presented.
i don't see a problem with that.
Last edited by jnanian; 10-15-2010 at 09:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
We seem to have evolved into the old D vs. A, so....
That's just, like, my opinion, man...