I guess I think labels should be involved at some stage. Like photo montage, retouched portrait, infrared, slide sandwich, solarization, etc. I'm more of a straight shooter myself.
I made a slide sandwich once. I photographed a model of a ufo, then I photographed my open car door open with a blank sky in the background. I sandwiched the ufo into the sky and told everyone I saw this thing hovering in the sky, opened my car door, snapped a photo and it flew off. It freaked out a lot of my friends until I told them it was a trick.
"...the Ansel Adams filter, then print out 100 identical copies..."
Heeeehheeeheehhhhee..... that'll be available about the time I can get the "Mark Knopfler Chip" for my electric guitar so that I can play as crappy as I please and I sound just like Mark!
But, in either case it's not the look or sound it's the unique personal vision in making either that counts - and you can't put that in a chip.
But, there is an intriguing idea for using a digital camera that I'm going to try out that goes beyond trying to mimic wet darkroom still imaging. In the '80's I did a lot with video and had this idea back about 1987 - but didn't have a way to make it happen.
Let's assume you find a really nice scene for a photo. You take a digital camera with an intervalometer and set it to take a picture every minute or two, or whatever starting prior to sunrise and finishing after sunset. You then edit the photos as needed and get a digital picture frame display device, put your memory card of "the show" into the display device - and you have what I call a "Living Picture" (registered trademark).
It constantly changes all day long with dissolves between frames so that you have an 8 hour or 12 hour duration display (or however long you want up to the max storage capacity of the memory card) that shows the scene as it looked all day. Every time you look at the picture it's changed slightly...and shows the scene from sunrise to sunset.
Now, there's an interesting use of purely digital technology that can't be duplicated easily with any analog process... and remember - you heard it here first.
Isn't that just a movie? While easier with digital I don't see how it couldn't be done with a video tape. Or even just a slide projector. The digital version would be easier,likely cheaper and maybe better but not really something that can't be done. Now if you mean something that can't be currently done for reasonable money I'd agree.
That sounds like a "slide show" (unregistered non-trademark) to me.
"Now if you mean something that can't be currently done for reasonable money I'd agree. "
Well geeeeee....isn't that the point? How about practicality? Making something that's cost effective AND can be worked easily into a display setting? You know, I've thought about this for 15 years and have pretty much gone through all of the equipment/display scenarios while watching technology develop.
To start, - no, it's not "just a movie" it's actually time lapse photography.
You could have done that with video using a time lapse deck - but, they have all types of problems in the transport mechanism that generate time-base errors in the final video - and they were very, very, expensive. I looked into that in 1987. The final problem would be how would you do the display? Hook up a tape recorder to a CRT - where would you put it etc.? Not a practical display method for this type of technology. You would have the same problems today with digital video recorders because you would need to start/stop the tape unless you used a hard-drive based unit which is NOT easily field portable. Also, the camera units based on digital record media do not provide intervalometer timing capability.
Yes, you could have done it with a motion picture camera and an intervalometer or a 35mm camera and an intervalometer - but, the display of the final images would be an audio visual display with all of it's attendent problems. Noise, heat, space required, etc. I did A/V work for the US National Park Service in 1982 at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, for the National Science Foundation at the Very Large Array, and at other places so I am really well aware of what an AV front screen or rear screen system takes to display slides. That's not something you can put into everyone's home. Not to mention the cost / maintenance issues.
And yes, today you could do it with a film camera, digitize the film and make the final display like you would with a digital camera - but, what's the point if you can do it directly with a digital camera? The need to say, "uuuhhh...I shot it on film" - just to comfort yourself that you haven't sold your soul to the digital devil?
I want something that looks like a framed color photo - but, every time you look at it, the photo has subtley changed. That's WHY I never used any of the technologies I described (video, motion picture, still photography) specifically because the final display was not technically or aesthetically viable or pleasing.
The digital picture frame is an integrated display device that can be framed like a standard picture (your choice of any picture frame), and integrates the digital reader (unseen) into the device as a single unit. This gives the aesthetics of a framed color photo that can be easily hung on any wall. The digital camera gives a direct digital method of capturing the images to use in the display device.
And, the fact that it's all digital has it's own aesthetics that are quite apart from analog processes. I'll let you know how it works out.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
First off, I hav eto appologize to Gary. I was misinformed as to his role in all this.
Secondly, I think we have gotten a bit off track here. The issue is art really.
I think much of what has happened on the digital side of things (by some not all) can be summed up with the word "McLuhanization". McLuhan was a communications theorist who said "The Medium Is The Message!" This became a mantra for many during the Dotcom heyday. Arguably they totally missed the point. Some even say McLuhan missed the point later in his life.
Anyway, with digital it seems many think "The Medium Is The Message!" That the FACT the image is digital is more important in many respects than the image itself. Now few would ADMIT to thinking that way, put their attitude and the statements they make say otherwise. Saying "Film is dead" is an example of this. It places the medium over the content of the image.
What does this have to do with art? Well, art is about a message. It is a form of communication. Be it a simple message like "This is a pretty picture of a flower," or a complex one like "Stop the war in XXXXX and by the way save the endangered Mexican Flying Mole."
When someone stops thinking about the image, and starts thinking mostly about the medium, that is where the problems occur. The message of the image is lost. The medium sort of drowns it out.
A good example would be the numerous "heavily composited" photos one sees out there. Those cluttered composites where EVERYTHING happens at once. You have say a girl, a dozen doves flying above her head, a huge moon in the background, she is standing on a lake of pure mercury, etc. etc. etc. Obviously the fact that the image can be digitally manipulated has become so important to the author that they abandoned any type of coherent message coming from the image itself. The manipulation becomes first and foremost.
To me this is not art. Well at least no good art. Good art should let the image do the talking. The medium can be PART of that message, but it should not overwhelm the image. The image conveys the message. That is key to good art.
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
I would have to say that this is as aptly stated as one can state it. I concur wholeheartedly insofar as to the discription of good art. However once recognizing the predominant need of a conveyed message which is capable of being received by another person, the medium through which the message is conveyed is of importance. As an artist it is up to each of us to determine what medium best serves as the messenger. I personally feel, for myself, that conventional materials best serve this need. There are today well recognized and relatively well received photographers who believe that the quality of the print (technically speaking) is more important then the message that the image conveys. I have found that I disagree with them on this particular interpertation of the process. This is my "slant" on things, for what it is worth.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ross @ Jan 15 2003, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now digital is emerging. The vision may be similar, expertise is different, and 'hand made' aspect disappearing. Will digital photography undo the acceptance of photography as a legitimate art form if there is no human craft involved? If anyone with a 30 megapixel point and shoot can snap well exposed images and make vibrant ink jet prints all within a few minutes, what will this mean for photography as an artform?
I'm really struggling over the concept of "Human craft". If we intensify this to indicate a situation where the work is produced without human INVOLVEMENT, automatically by a machine, we do not have that which we commonly call "Art" - at least it *rarely* and only randomly will have the effect art has on human beings.
I wonder, if in some pre-historic situation, a primitive man contemplating the charcoal drawings on the cave walls had these same thoughts about colored pigments: Once we introduce color, the skills necessary to suggest reality using only black charcoal wil be lost, and te work will no longer be `true art' ".
Will the "marvelous machine" - in this case Digital Cameras - cheapen photography? I don't think so - no more than the introduction of the Polaroid Camera, - or flexible film - or exposure meters...
One aspect of "Art" is that it IS a form of "communcation" - that is undeniably true - but there is SO much more.
One of the best definitions I've heard, so far, is: "Art - The work on the wall is an encrypted window into the being of the artist on the other side."
How we build that window is a minor element of the process.
Charcoal is still around - and still a wonderfully expressive medium.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
I believe that all art is the outward expression of the inner views, values, and beliefs of the artist. That this expression, if valid, will initiate or bring about further realization in the person who witnesses this expression of the artist. For that reason, in my view, not all photography is art. Nor, for that matter, is all art photography.