I learned the wet plate process to enhance the concept of my work, not to distract from it. In other words, it's sometimes difficult for me to hear all of the discussions about the craft but rarely (or never) anything about the concept (of the work). I appreciate your question.
Conversation about craft comes easy (traditionally speaking). It’s comfortable to ask about an exposure or a chemical - I know it is for me. It’s concrete and “knowable”. The concept is more perplexing and difficult; it’s the weighty, weird stuff. There are no “hard and fast rules”, no absolutes, so discourse can be very challenging. To ask about an “idea” or share a concept (feeling, emotion, etc.) is very abstract in this context. It’s intimidating too; you leave yourself vulnerable and seen as (potentially) weak. It’s saddens me to think about it.
I think your question is not only valid, but very relevant and a lot of artists/photographers should think about it (critically). The question “Why?” is a good one – I believe good art is supported with intention and surrounded by context. When was the last time you had a conversation about those things and not the process? (rhetorical)
Don’t misunderstand me; process is extremely valid (in fact that’s really my point). I believe it was Carol Diehl that said, "Great art is something where execution and idea merge so completely that we’re unaware of either and taken to a place beyond words." I’m the first to talk about the relevance of the material I’m using and the subject matter I’m photographing. I suppose it’s a question of integration and prioritization.
And finally, to answer your question directly: Why I use the wet plate collodion process. For me, the slowing down and interaction with my subject matter/sitter is important. I know it sounds trite and cliché now, but that’s played a huge role in making my work (especially the Madison Avenue portraits that I started in 2003). Also, handling the glass- the fragility and difficulty of it echoes our human existence. The imperfections on the plates/images echo our own imperfections – it’s really beautiful (oysters, scratches, tears, etc.).
The glass plays a very important role for me now as it pertains to the new project I’ve started working on about “Kristallnacht” (The Night of Broken Glass). And last, but not least, abandonment. The people and objects I photograph have been “abandoned” somehow, just like the process itself. I see these ideas, and many more, enhancing the work, not distracting from it – concept and craft, syntax and vocabulary – that kind of thing.
Photography is very social for me, I prefer the alt processes as I am not stuck in a stinky darkroom - people can visit at any given time and I guess there is always the fun of showing them that I am indeed making prints - platinum specifically as its is the first process I learned after cyanotype, for whatever reason it somehow came to me very easily ...
I've heard others at this site mention it and I agree, I think pt/pd (oxalate, NA2, zia etc..) is actually much easier than silver based enlargement processes
photogravure and gum bichromate - fascinating (the gravure especially) - but I think a bit fiddly
I'd love to get to grips with WPC but lack a teacher in this neck of the woods - again, a fascinating look, but also it means I would be no linger bound by the whims of society/economy which may decide that 'film is indeed dead' - something to think about considering the environment...
When it comes down to it alt processes are a great conversation starter - sometimes leaves me wondering if I would continue with photography if I was the last person left on earth.
It is interesting to me that there are very few posts here about "normal" silver gelatin prints, and no posts about colour, including colour transparency material.
Is that because those who are most likely to try alternative processes are those who are most intrigued by the processes themselves?
I'm just musing here, but I think that if there is any process that I'm most impressed by, it is the colour transparency.
Matt
Last edited by MattKing; 07-16-2008 at 01:10 PM.
Reason: prints, not pints!
Matt, I think we're just starting to get a real sense of silver gelatin's real "artifact of process." Film having been "normal" for so many years, it still takes a leap of analysis to get its specificity.
It's a question that is always on my mind when I am talking with people who consider that digital can reproduce anything that film can. On the one hand, yes, there is quite a lot about film that you can emulate digitally. But the problem is always: What can you REALLY distinguish?
Most people do not see much difference between a digital monochrome print and a silver one, and I can't blame them for it.
Contemporary artists justify their use of film on a conceptual basis: "By using colour film in a Rolleiflex to take pictures of vanishing urban areas, so-and-so is making a poignant statement on what history is leaving behind" (obsolete medium, obsolete subjects, blah blah blah). Cf. the "Analogue" project by Zoe Leonard, an otherwise very interesting sequence.
But to me the real reason to stick to film is not conceptual, it's pictorial. Yes, it's a clever conceit to link subject and process, but if it's only conceptual, there is no reason to prefer one film over the other--as long as it's film.
As film users we want a diversity of products, and I hope it's because we can create a diversity of pictorial results.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
It is interesting to me that there are very few posts here about "normal" silver gelatin prints, and no posts about colour, including colour transparency material.
Is that because those who are most likely to try alternative processes are those who are most intrigued by the processes themselves?
I'm just musing here, but I think that if there is any process that I'm most impressed by, it is the colour transparency.
Matt
Matt- I think that's because the color processes, especially the modern ones, are really highly mechanized and automated. Because we naturally see in color, people are rather reluctant to break away from "natural" color by deviating from prescribed process constraints - far more people would accept the argument that an underexposed, sloppily processed color film is " bad ", especially when viewing the finished print. With black-and-white, because it is an abstraction from life, we allow more interpretation. With "alternative" processes, the whole point is deviation from perceived reality practically.
Matt, I think we're just starting to get a real sense of silver gelatin's real "artifact of process." Film having been "normal" for so many years, it still takes a leap of analysis to get its specificity.
I'd say there are lots of silver process artefacts (I'm English so I'll insist on the correct spelling ). They're just perhaps not recognised as such.
The OP presumes in the examples cited of "process" that process means that particular line of craft that results in the artifact. In Quinn's post, we begin to see a somewhat enlarged definition, but the expansion of the idea remains incomplete as we return to the example of "process" as being the wet plate. I was waiting. I thought it was going to develop into something larger, but thanks, Quinn, you helped me formulate some thoughts that this thread has been stimulating.
The underlying assumption seems to be that the work is directed toward production (that is, a product) and that the "process" is what gets you to that product. We do this, we get a "thing". We do that, we get a different "thing". In a world that is dominated by the material, I suppose that this is not to be avoided.
I'd like to propose another element to add to the mix. Process is not necessarily limited, as an idea, to a particular mode of production, such as platinum, wet plate, albumen, etc. Process can also mean the whole arc of the work, which includes the definition of the scope, the concept, the field in which it is done, the particular mode in which the artifact will be produced, the public intended to see it, the venue where they will, etc.
Let's take an example from another medium. We could inquire among the painters about how they define "process". The ones I know would find this an interesting question, I'm sure. Let's presume that we have two painters, both of whom use the natural world as the source of their subject matter. Both use paint, and we can presume that they use the same medium, let's say oil. One is an abstractionist, the other a realist. Is their "process" simply the medium they are using, oil paint on canvas? Or is the "process" much more inclusive? Wouldn't it include the way they gather the information, one through drawing in a sketchbook, the other taking a photograph? Wouldn't it include the way in which they generate their concept and think about what they are doing, applying that thought to divergent materials, both physical and conceptual? Would it include a loose charcoal drawing on the canvas to define basic structure vs. the projection of a slide on the canvas? Wouldn't the "process" be peculiar to the way each artist works and include virtually all elements that go into the conception, selection of subject matter, choice of materials, methods of production, and, perhaps even more important, how one would use what was learned in the production of one artifact in the process that may result in the next? In other words, perhaps, process might be the way one moves through what one does, not just how one produces the artifact materially. In either case, though, the artifact does result.
Lots of questions. This issue is at the very root of my own work. I recall a remark by Jack Welpott, many years ago, where he defined a basic difference between a process orientation and a product orientation. In those days (1960's) there was very little so called "alternative process" work going on, so that did not enter into it. He was referring to the way an artist works. "Taking pictures" vs. "making photographs". I very much took that distinction to heart.
There are lots of clichés out there that refer to this, but remember, clichés come from something that starts out as true and fresh, then get stale. You know, the journey vs. the destination -- (we're supposed to think the journey is the important part, but when we go on vacation we get on an airplane and the journey is no fun! So, we reveal that we may, in fact, be hypocritical.). But in the studio, unless we are mass producing for a public that only wants one thing (ugh) presumably we are practicing a process, regardless of the medium in which we work.
Process is not necessarily limited, as an idea, to a particular mode of production, such as platinum, wet plate, albumen, etc. Process can also mean the whole arc of the work, which includes the definition of the scope, the concept, the field in which it is done, the particular mode in which the artifact will be produced, the public intended to see it, the venue where they will, etc.
I'd say there are lots of silver process artefacts (I'm English so I'll insist on the correct spelling ). They're just perhaps not recognised as such.
That's the point I was trying to make (minus the correct orthography!). Because silver photo used to be the norm, we pass over the myriad specificities such as you have listed.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
I think that most of us who do alternative arrived there after passing through normal silver gelatin prints and color transparency materials, in the same way that most people who do LF work started with 35mm or MF. I personally started with color transparency material and continued with it for 12-15 years, but eventually the thrill wore off. Same with silver gelatin papers -- did that for a long time as well, but eventually the thrill wore off.
I simply like the hand made photograph. It is highly individualized and the joy is in the doing.
Sandy King
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattKing
It is interesting to me that there are very few posts here about "normal" silver gelatin prints, and no posts about colour, including colour transparency material.
Is that because those who are most likely to try alternative processes are those who are most intrigued by the processes themselves?
I'm just musing here, but I think that if there is any process that I'm most impressed by, it is the colour transparency.
). They're just perhaps not recognised as such.
Linear Mode
