the way i was understanding "original"
was entry #4
"the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made"
and even though a photographic print is CREATED in a darkroom (or lightroom),
through interpreting and lovingly manipulating the light as it shines through
the film, it isn't the source .. the film is the source ...
i am not saying that photographic prints aren't beautiful objects,
or it does not take skill or time or state of mine and experience (or lack of experience )
to create a "fine" ( or not so fine ) print, all i am saying is that each
print is an interpretation of the original, the negative.
Still have to disagree. I may, for example, combine three negatives into a triptych. A negative alone is not the final intention of my vision, merely something created to help me realize that. The finished work of the photographic process is the print, and even then it may not be finished, because I might, for instance, hand color it. Negatives exist to make prints, while prints simply exist.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Still have to disagree. I may, for example, combine three negatives into a triptych. A negative alone is not the final intention of my vision, merely something created to help me realize that. The finished work of the photographic process is the print, and even then it may not be finished, because I might, for instance, hand color it. Negatives exist to make prints, while prints simply exist.
i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.
i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )
i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines
i agree with you at this point ( i think ... )
but you have added something different to the stew -- intent.
i can understand if one wanted to do something different
with the image on film, add an dimension to the final image
(color, ink, abrade, or damage &C ), or use the
print as part of another step in the process like making a bromoil matrix
as part of the intent ...
and the inspiration for the additional "layer of art" may not be
"there" when a photographer makes an exposure ...
... having a negative allows for the photographer / artist to have
the freedom to create something that may not have been
(but was any of it there to begin with? a camera distorts reality, even as it creates a document of it )
i guess, maybe at this point, a photograph may not be a reproduction ...
BUT not all photographers have an intent different
than making a print .. a straight or manipulated print, unlayered with
additional "art" ... i guess i see that additional -stuff- being different than printing in a darkroom ...
so i guess my fork has 2 tines
I think there's more tines than that, it's a friggin porcupine!!!
I think the negative can be the original, if the artist declares that as his intent. Anything can be declared to be art. I have some interesting stains in my trays. If I hang them, and declare them original art, then, at least for me, they are. Some may think differently about them, and declare me a hack. Others may laud my innovation, and see the deep meaning contained in the swish patterns.
I think the original is what the photographer declares it to be, and a reproduction is a facsimile by created another process to copy the original. There can be many "original" prints, but a copy of any one of them in a magazine, even as well executed as for example in Lenswork, is still a reproduction.
The content of a work of art is, without a doubt a major ingredient, but process determines much about the subtleties an individual piece may stand or fall on. I have seen pictures of "The Thinker" but never the statue. I understand the content of the work, so far as I may from that facsimile, however I could not say to Auguste Rodin that I was truly familiar with this work.
The difference between a masterful silver gelatin print, and a magazine, or electronic display is just as vast.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
...a photographic print isn't much different than a scan, or book print, poster, lithograph or magazine, newspaper they are all mechanical reproductions.
You don't understand print making. Lithographs, intaglio prints, and relief prints are all originals - even though there may be multiple copies. The printing media (stone, plate, or wood / linoleum block) is not considered the original piece of art because the image is reversed, is not in the final color(s), is not presented on the paper chosen, and is not signed by the artist as a piece of art.
Until a print is pulled from the stone, plate, or block, there is not a piece of original art. This is the same as investment cast sculptures - the original is the casting and not the wax model or mould.
Further, when the artist is through with printing the printing media is usually destroyed; as is the case with the mould in investment casting, and in the lost wax method, the wax model is destroyed in making the mould.
Last edited by steve; 11-12-2007 at 03:13 PM.
Reason: Additional information
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Linear Mode
