I'm still back trying to imagine what Mel Stabin actually meant by the idea attributed to him that began this thread, and how it relates to photography. Stabin produces paintings which he offers for sale, and it seems probable that the people who buy his books and who attend his workshops expect to use the skills and knowledge gained thereby to produce paintings. So I doubt he really means that it's the process that matters, not the product. I'd be inclined to take the statement as rhetorical flourish, not as meaningful information.
If process really mattered more than product, he would be recommending painting on glass, so it could be washed off after enjoying the process, or on old newspapers, so it could be thrown away after; why waste good watercolor paper, if the goal isn't to produce a painting but just to enjoy the "process"? Or (to carry the analogy to the point where it matches the idea of photographing without film in the camera) paint without using paint. Just move the brush around; if the goal isn't to create a painting, why bother with materials at all? (And even when such exercises--moving the brush without using paint-- are employed when learning the process, as in learning how to wield the brush for sumi painting, the ultimate goal is to eventually make paintings that are supposedly improved by the discipline of the exercise). I can't speak for Stabin, of course, but I think most painters would say that process is important only as a means to an end: the creation of a painting, not as an end in itself.
In photography of course, there are two parts to the process: the making of the negative and the making of the print. The OP seems to be suggesting that for him, the making of the negative is the important part of the process; he's satisfied when he's done that and doesn't feel any great urgency to go to the second step. I have no argument with that point of view, though I can't identify with it. For me, making the print is the important part of the process, and in fact it doesn't matter much to me how the negative is made.*
The print matters to me, but the process of making the print is essential to the print. You can't have one without the other. It's that thing about the air and lungs Vaughn mentioned.
* cliche-verre (photographic print from painted negative)
Well said Katherine, and thank you for taking the time to write and helping me to think more clearly about this.
It should go without saying that a meaningful image is an essential pre-requisite to a meaningful print. But a meaningful print is so much more than just an image. A print is also a physical thing which has a specific size, texture, and colour. Often these physical attributes can only be achieved by using a specific process. So the process and the print are inextricably linked in my mind.
If I used a different process then I expect I'd make different images, because I believe that the physicality of the print (which is influenced by the process) effects how a viewer reacts to the image. For example, many people who've seen my Pt/Pd prints have said that they feel "gentle". (And then they go into raptures when they notice the three dimensional effect of Pt/Pd.) I don't believe that silver, or gum, or inkjet, or any other printing process would communicate the same feeling in the same way (OK, maybe in the hands of a different printer they could, but then they wouldn't be my prints, they'd be someone else's prints). So for me, image and process are also linked.
It's often said that “most people” only care about the image itself, and that this proves that the process is irrelevant. Well, to be frank, I don't care what “most people” think. I care about creating photographs that are meaningful to me and which connect emotionally to other people. I use a specific process which, when coupled with a meaningful image, achieves the first part of that goal. And so long as there are sufficient people who appreciate what I create then I’ve achieved the second part of that goal too.
To paraphrase and extend what I said on another thread, a perfect print without a meaningful image is an empty vessel. But an image which lacks the appropriate physical medium has no soul.
Orig. post:"Mel Stabin, in his book WATERCOLOR: SIMPLE, FAST, AND FOCUSED, says it is the process of painting that is important not the final product. (paraphrased of course)"
Water color are around with its own roles. Water painting is mainly for children and guys in retirement to kill the time. It is rare case to use it for making artwork. So somehow it is correct you found in the book. Anyway, do not mix it with photography which has own and different roles, especially today when many commercial branches of photography are separated from photography...
"... So for me it really is the process of taking that image that is important to me."
Process matters, I think, but not to the exclusion of the final print. IMO, they are inherenly tied to each other and I think it is the aim of a well crafted process in photography that leads to the final print, but I would insert....... that it leads to the successful final print. But I'm sure we all probably have different ideas of what a successful final print is.
Chuck
__________________
"Photography is an illusion. It is amazing that human beings consider a photograph to be a representation of reality."
---John Sexton
To add a further detail to my previous explanation: the physical print can be considered as the focus of appreciation, i.e. the epistemological window into the actual process of its making. In other words, the print shows you a trace of its making, and that is why good quality prints/reproduction are important up to a certain point.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't believe he's talking about enjoyment at all
yet rather talking chicken or the egg
You cannot have the chicken before you have the egg
Therefore
Egg is vital. Chicken is not vital. Chicken is just chicken. Chicken is because chicken has matured
Final print is matured skill
You cannot have chicken if you try to skip steps along the way
You cannot have final print before knowing how to print in the first place
Process leads to product
Practice makes perfect
Perfect does not make itself in photography
You must create it. In creating it you draw on your experience with every move you make
I would say it is the process that Got you to where you are at that is the most beautiful aspect of the art
Not the print
Do we love paper with nice-looking image on it
or do we appreciate the skill, intelligence and perserverance it shows of the artist?
You could go on and on and on
Do we love our children because we made them and think we have done a great job in raising them (print)
Or do we
-No- Not do we just love the process of makin' babies
Do we create life because life is beautiful ..and must love that of which is living (process)
Several others have said the same thing in different ways
I just wanted to add my way
You can be an artist without ever producing a single product
Cant you?
I imagine plenty would say no, you cannot be.
What about the whole pre-visualization thing then?
If you cannot be an artist without producing something
How would an artist create?
If pre-visualization is real
If you can pre-visualize the way you want your print to appear
You have already created it
But have you?
Sure you have. All that is "missing" is the stuff you hold in your hand -and the necessary experience to produce what you need on paper to reach your goal
Debate is valuable if it leads to greater understanding. If it's just, "ya boo, I'm right, you're wrong," then it's pointless. So far this thread has been more of the former than the latter.
Debate is valuable if it leads to greater understanding. If it's just, "ya boo, I'm right, you're wrong," then it's pointless. So far this thread has been more of the former than the latter.
Agreed on both points. I just wanted to point out that if you're too busy debating, you're not out photographing... and not making either negatives or prints!
Linear Mode
