i dont think it matters at all what one does or doesnt do ...
as long as it is whatver the user wants to do .. and i am never sure why it matters.
it is like suggestig ( extremely of course ) that all photojournalism has to be done with tei x and pricessed in dektol, or all landscape work in velvia and large format, or all portraits be done with
techpan processed in technidol by shaking ...the list is long
it is simple of course to put everything into pigeonholes much easier to sort things out
and as an imagined methodology this works fantastically but in the real world, for me at least,
someone can ise paper coated with plant juice and cyanotype chemistry with an azo overcoat, processed in dung.and fixed in seawater ... if it is what the person wants to do and he or she is enjoying why should it matter otherwise ... and if someone wants to pay this person for their toil even better ...
I addressed this from a slightly different angle in a blog post last month.
I interpreted the Group f/64 aesthetic as wanting to use photography for its own strengths and weaknesses, rather than trying to imitate another medium, usually painting.
I am as impressed as anyone, by an artist that can paint or draw so that it is indistinguishable from a photograph. There are many ways to work with photographic materials to imitate a painting or drawing. But then, so what? If the purpose is to expand the limits of one’s medium, and I think this is where John (OP) os coming from, then why not? However, if the purpose really is just to imitate another medium, then there are limits to that, and it can or may quickly become just a gimmick.
The element of chance in art is a whole other discussion.
I don’t have any answers, just observations and my own approach. The bottom line is that it is hard to be original, and we're all trying different things. My different thing is concentrating on working within the limits of a very straight technique, but looking at the subject differently. I actually follow the manufacturers' directions ...
John may be right. Maris may be right. Valerie may be right. Others may be right. I just hope I’m not wrong, ya know …
Last edited by David Brown; 07-28-2014 at 01:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
It's a bit of a niche genre (the hyperreal painting or drawing, I mean). It asks some nice questions about reality and "reality" (and to photographers perhaps especially about the claim of photography to be something to do with reality) but I'm not sure where it goes after that. That may be quite enough, of course.
Originally Posted by David Brown
One of the difficulties is that every position one takes is bound up (necessarily) with implicit assumptions about the purpose of the activity of photography. So I try to produce beautifully exposed and flawlessly developed negatives some of the time, and other times I mess about without a plan or goal, throwing stuff in developing tanks and trays for the hell of it. Now for some people the latter activity is quite anathema, indicates dilettantism and lack of seriousness and purpose and is Not Photography. For others, the former activity is pointlessly anal and indicates that I am a sad old geezer who probably has a tweed jacket with leather patches and dandruff on the shoulders, let alone a problem with BO.
Of course I exaggerate to make a point, but there you are. I like a bit of exaggeration.
The thing is, whenever someone looks at a photograph of mine and asks "which camera/lens/developer/agitation/paper/enlarging lens/developer/pixie dust did you use?" I either have rather a feeling of failure (Oh god is that all the reaction i've managed to produce?) or of irritation (FFS look at the damn picture will you!.
On the other hand if I stand in front of a (picture, painting, photo, sculpture, performance, dancing pixie) and can only wonder how it was done, of course then the problem is the artist's rather than any failure of aesthetic appreciation on my part
There is no right or wrong. It's a creative endeavor. The only issue I have is with those who strictly define photography based on their own goals and requirements.
Originally Posted by David Brown
i have never understood extremes like this ...
Originally Posted by eddie
photography is an extremely broad thing and putting barriers up
abc is, and everything else isnt is pretty out there, although i know of someone
that jsed to argue nothing but portraits are photographs ...
to me boundaries serve no purpose other than to stifle .. buth the medium as a whole
and creativity .....
pdeeh i know exactly what you mean about excessive perfection and then letting things rip .
it is a good exercise .... keeps ones mind and wits sharp
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
When it becomes second nature, the challenge is to relax into Zen photography. HCB achieved this and us mere mortals are still trying.
Originally Posted by jnanian
“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”
yeah ... zen is good ...
Originally Posted by cliveh
My technique is pretty much straightforward but from time to time I have tried various alternative ways of making photographs or photo prints. These include panning while making a long exposure, zooming while making a long exposure and so on. Once a long time ago I set up my Rolleiflex on a tripid, opened the lens, and using b&w film photographed an old abandoned house at night. Four times during the several-minute-long exposure I flashed a strobe so what I got was a young lady in a Victorian style dress carrying a candle. I got four images of her and a streak of light showing in between the four images of her. Lots of work and lots of fun.
Originally Posted by snapguy
fun .. always good to take a vacation from thenusual and have fun
the image you created were the results
good enough that you might try it again?
or was it just chalked to experience ?