Okay, I would have no problem with the exhibit if they called the prints what they are: posters.
Agreed. If I went to a gallery expecting to see fine art prints, I would leave if all I saw was ink jet prints.
Originally Posted by Lee Shively
Originally Posted by severian
This is an interesting outlook, and I certainly see a lot of logic in it, but I also think of some other parallels.
I think most photographers who print and then reprint their work find that their prints change and evolve over time. I would guess that at least some of that change may very well arise because of feedback from others' reactions to earlier versions.
I certainly have learned new things about my own photographs because of the inciteful comments of others - in essence my vision (concerning a particular photograph) isn't necessarily static.
I think it is clear that each print is an interpretation - a performance if you will. I think it follows that just like in music, there is the original author and the original piece, and then there is the performance, and sometimes the musician who wrote the piece, learns a lot from someone else's performance of it.
I would expect that there are Edward Weston photographs which have been printed by his sons which, if he had the opportunity, he might have said something like "I wish I had thought of printing it like that - it communicates much more of what I intended when I made the exposure in the first place".
Examples of this might be few, but the incorporation of an additional artistic sensibility into the process certainly makes it possible. This is what I was trying to refer to in my original post.
Thanks for your response to my post.
In Japan, there are quite a few museums (and/or galleries) that occasionally run the exhibits of the works of some famous artists by setting up with the replicas, not the original pieces. Some purposes of digital imaging are very similar to this. It's pretty shocking.
Would I even bother to go to these shows? No, I'd rather stay home and watch TV. That way I might have a better chance to see the original works on a public channel.
Originally Posted by Sanders McNew
I will acknowledge ink jet prints there place. As I would also acknowledge newsprint, gravure, or any visual printing technique you could think of. The question I always have when I see ink jet prints in an exhibition is why are they "masquerading" as photographic prints? I can't support this idea and have voiced it in several threads on this forum, (and anywhere else I can get an audience).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I've had the experience occasionally of seeing photos in a gallery that I had known previously from books and being surprised by how small and intimate the originals were, usually because they were contact prints.
Once certainly learns more about the early career of Andre Kertesz, for instance, by seeing his 3x4"and smaller contacts than by seeing modern poster-sized enlargements. Look at these and pay attention to the dimensions, particularly for any print earlier than 1927--
think on these things
good thread. Makes me think about issues that I would rather avoid.
Jack- Severian, Autarch of Urth
Is the composer of piece of music the only one who can successfully conduct it?
In my opinion, the only things that matter are whether the exhibit looks good, and they're honest about the works on display. I've no idea whether that's the case here. I'd have to go look.
A very thought-provoking thread...
This one part of the article seems to suggest that the digital process "allows" a more refined or at least more complete rendition of the information contained in the negatives. I can't help thinking that this sounds like the the author of the article is underestimating Walker Evans, as if presuming that he wasn't aware that those details are present in the negative. Mr. Evans was surely aware of what he was shooting and printed what he desired to show in his prints, just as the digital printers decided to print the negatives in their own fashion.
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.
Yes, I think Evans preferred the sharp and austere to the warm and soft.
Before Romanticism there was generally no particular attention paid to the intention of the artist or its corollary--the integrity of the text. In the 1700s it wasn't unusual to perform Shakespeare's tragedies with happy endings. While I have reservations about seeing artistic intention as the whole meaning of a work, and might find interesting really radical reinterpretations of old negatives as new art, the concept of "softening" Evans's austere renderings of his own negatives just seems feeble to me.