Craft vs. meaning?

[Kirk Gittings]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I see WAY more well crafted meaningless images than poorly crafted meaningful ones.

I think this has always been the case but I think I see more of it today becuase of the ease with which we can get images out into the public. The internet and digital technology has allowed artists to place work into the public much more quickly than before.

There was a person who posted on another thread I read here recently that we was reviewing his own work on a posting site and realized how much needed to be removed. I do the same thing with mine. I think most people are poor at self editing (myself included!) and this, coupled with the ease of getting work out there, means there is just more boring work for the world to see.

I do think this makes the outstanding work seem, well, more outstanding but it also makes it more difficult for the best to be recognized. Viewers are almost over stimulated these days and don't spend as much time really looking at and thinking about an artists work (IMO).

For me, I of course would rather have a well crafted AND meaningful image in my collection. But as that is not a choice, I would take #2 over #1.

[Bruce Watson]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

IMHO, they are both bad. But if I have to choose, from just these two choices, what the most common problem is, it has to be No. 1.

In reality, I suspect that the most common problem is probably No. 3 -- poorly crafted, empty, meaningless, cliched images.

Another way to say it is that that No. 4 -- well crafted, interesting, meaningful images, are so darned difficult to create.

[reellis67]

I agree with Eric's well worded post. It appears to my eye that many people make technical precision the point of their photographs rather than trying to convey some other message, but that's just my opinion.

As to preference, I have bought prints that were certainly technically imperfect because the message they sent was so strong. I have also passed up innumerable prints that were tired, or bland, or just plain boring from an aesthetic viewpoint, yet were very well done technically.

That said, I do feel that there is great value in the artists ability to control the craft of their work. They need to be able to make their chosen medium convey the message they want to convey, but I won't pass on something moving just because they have not totally mastered their medium...

- Randy

[Jon Shiu]

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "contemporary photography," but I see interesting and meaningful images each semester in the beginning photo classes at college, whereas when I went to Photo Eye Gallery in Santa Fe a few months ago the images were mostly kind of blah.

Jon

[sanking]

IMHO, they are both bad. But if I have to choose, from just these two choices, what the most common problem is, it has to be No. 1.

In reality, I suspect that the most common problem is probably No. 3 -- poorly crafted, empty, meaningless, cliched images.

Another way to say it is that that No. 4 -- well crafted, interesting, meaningful images, are so darned difficult to create.

I find that #1 and #2 are about equally common. The only basic difference is that craft, or lack of it, is an objective criteria, and almost universal in understanding. Interesting and meaningful are subjective terms in that what is meaningful and interesting to you may not be to me.

Bruce is right about #4. Well crafted images that are interesting and meaningful to a wide audience are difficult to see/find/conceive, and difficult to execute in the chosen media.

Sandy King

[David A. Goldfarb]

It depends. For me the most interesting images engage the medium in some way, and that requires control of the craft, because the craft is part of the meaning.

Along different lines, I went to an exhibition in a Chelsea gallery a couple of years ago of the work of a moderately well known New York street photographer. The show had gotten some prominent reviews, and I think he had just published a retrospective book of his work, so the show was well attended. While the images were interesting from a social and historical perspective, the print quality was mediocre (though the prices were not)--low in contrast and requiring spotting--and they weren't vintage prints, so it's not as if they were rushed prints for publication. They were printed for the show. I don't think I could own such a print without feeling a little embarrassed for the photographer every time I looked at it.

[Jim Galli]

Who's your audience? Who do you really want to play to? Josh Bell played the Strad in the subway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html) but no one cared? If my audience is other photographers #1 will play well. Boring shit but perfectly executed. If I want to hang in a subway mezanine, any old inkjet print should be fine. #2 but Bigger is better. Obviously if we're here reading this post chances are that we're struggling to close the 98% gap on both. Of course I want my pictures to ring true as something artistically stated. I want them to turn heads in art circles. But I also know that I'll never accomplish that without craft. The trouble I'm having is that craft is changing so rapidly now that I may well achieve what was considered the mountain top 10 years ago and find myself there alone.

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk, both sides of your question involve talent or the lack of talent. Without significant content and the appropriate means to express significant content, there is no creative work. No formula or program of study leads one to originality. Content comes from living deeply. And the means to express one's content comes from craft. Sadly, craft is a value that is often discarded by the very people who would benefit most from its application.

[Marko]

My question is this: if a very talented and skillful photographer who at the same time happens to be lacking printing skills (or simply doesn't feel like spending time in the darkroom) commissions a very talented and skilled printer to produce the prints that do his images justice, who should be credited with the resulting work of art? The photographer or the printer?

In other words, one of them is the artist and the other the craftsman and together they produce a work of art. Who gets the credit for the art, the artist or the craftsman? And which one of them is the true artist?

[Donald Miller]

My question is this: if a very talented and skillful photographer who at the same time happens to be lacking printing skills (or simply doesn't feel like spending time in the darkroom) commissions a very talented and skilled printer to produce the prints that do his images justice, who should be credited with the resulting work of art? The photographer or the printer?

In other words, one of them is the artist and the other the craftsman and together they produce a work of art. Who gets the credit for the art, the artist or the craftsman? And which one of them is the true artist?

If one were to take Salgado as one example of your supposed situation, then it would appear that the artist gains the recognition but in that case the printer is acknowledged as being one of the "tools" that is used in the production of the final artwork...in that case the prints must meet Salgado's approval.

I would say that without the artist's vision or ability to conceive something new (read that to mean not done to death before) all of the ability of the craftsman would be worthless.

[Gordon Moat]

I see far too much of 1. Probably too easy to hone craftsmanship, at the expense of creativity . . . though obviously whether or not an image is compelling speaks as much about a viewer as it does about a photographer.

It is probably easier to overcome situation 2, since one can simply find someone more skilled at printmaking. While your posting seems to go more towards the fine art photographers, in a professional/commercial realm not having good presentation skills can detract from the images.

I definitely am very glad there are skilled individuals out there who can help me present my images in the best ways possible. My preference is to put most of my time into creating those images, and those people make that possible. Anyway, it seems that creativity is more highly rewarded than craftmanship, which might state something for the importance of those aspects . . . or not.
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Marko,

In your situation, is the printer working under the direction of the artist to help the artist realize his/her final vision or are they working on the image without input from the artist? Using the photographers image and making all crop and printing decisions on their own.

As you, and most know, there are many famous past and present photographers who use the services of a printer. But most that I am aware of have a great deal of input and work closely with the printer to realize their vision of their photograph.

I value the vision of the artist most, if he/she has a printer doing the prints then that is fine with me as long as the print is the final, best representation of the photographers vision.

[Bruce Watson]

On the broader topic of "craft vs. meaning" it occurs to me that craft serves meaning in a peculiar way when done really really well. That is, craft clears out the distractions so that meaning can be more easily perceived.

That's why a well crafted, interesting, and meaningful image draws everyone like moths to a flame. And why the other variants on that equation do not.

[Christopher Nisperos]

...well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images .... which would you choose?


The irony, Kirk, is that —to me— if an image is poorly crafted, it looses interest. What I mean is that the I tend to notice the fault(s) so much that it distracts from whatever message the photographer intended to deliver. Sometimes, however, technical errors can actually add interest and meaning. Capa's "ruined" D-Day images, for example. Irony in another direction!

Living in France, your question is one I often hear asked —or, more like an accusation cast— by certain photojournalists regarding West Coast type photographers. To them, Weston fits into your first category. The concept of different types, uses or intentions of photography hasn't seemed to sink-in with these particular people.

On the other hand, some would say that there is no such thing as a "meaningless" image. Afterall, a photo must have at least meant something to the photographer or he/she wouldn't have taken it. However, I'll certainly agree that a photo can be empty or clichéed! But I'd be very curious to know which photographers you think fit into each category?

Which category would I choose? It depends upon the intended use of the image. Every year while on vacation I buy fairly well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images. I write a message on the back, stamp them and send them to friends and family. For poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images, I'd go to my family snapshot album.

In the end, both categories have their places. Neither is better or worse than the other, I think.

Best,

Christopher

. . . . . .

[Marko]

Marko,

In your situation, is the printer working under the direction of the artist to help the artist realize his/her final vision or are they working on the image without input from the artist? Using the photographers image and making all crop and printing decisions on their own.

As you, and most know, there are many famous past and present photographers who use the services of a printer. But most that I am aware of have a great deal of input and work closely with the printer to realize their vision of their photograph.

Eric,

If this is a question then the answer is yes, of course. :)

By asking this question, I was mainly trying to make a parallel to the common painters' argument against photography back in the 19th century, as all the argumentation of the craf-as-art camp closely resembles, even echoes that one.

More specifically, I intended to emphasize the main difference between that argument and the one we are having here lately. A master painter is a master painter, one could not imagine a painting in his head and then instruct a craftsmen how to execute it. Art and craft were indeed inextricably linked.

But in photography, the vision is already executed at the moment of releasing the shutter and what remains is the presentation. This is, IMO, where the separation of art and craft comes into play, as well as their hierarchy.

A very similar situation can be seen in architecture or other modern design - an architect or designer creates and craftsmen materialize the creation. Under close direction, of course.

Yes, craft is very important, even crucial in proper and effective presentation, but it still remains in the supporting role compared to art. This does not imply its diminished or even non-existing importance, as some have been trying to imply. It simply means that there is an order of importance and that content is at the top of that particular hierarchy.

[Kirk Gittings]

See if I were an art dictator and was to put good photographers with crappy prints up against the wall, IME I would have to put the blindfold on some of my all time favorite photograhers like Joel Meyerowitz (dust dust dust.....pre inkjet), Cartier Bresson, Manuel Alvarez Bravo to name a couple.

[Kirk Gittings]

But in photography, the vision is already executed at the moment of releasing the shutter and what remains is the presentation.

I completely disagree with this, half the art is in the printing unless you are the penultimate straight printer and much of the vision is discovered in the printing process when you are removed from the original scene. And I am not talking about compositing elements but simple to extreme burning and dodging, masking, tone manipulation etc. The negative provides a formal matrix which is still very plastic in the the printing stage.

[RDKirk]

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

Presuming by "craft" you're talking strictly about the mechanical creation and presentation of the final display image (as opposed to timing, lighting, subject placement, et cetera, at the time of capture), then the images that are the most meaningful in capture can transcend mediocre presentation craft.

We all know of images that we've never seen except as small halftones in an ordinary magazine or newspaper--yet were so striking in content that they are fire-branded indelibly into our consciousnesses.

[Marko]

I completely disagree with this, half the art is in the printing unless you are the penultimate straight printer and much of the vision is discovered in the printing process when you are removed from the original scene.

I didn't expect you to take this particular hook :), but what about slide shooters? My question from a parent thread was left unanswered, but it still begs asking: Does this mean that a slide projected to the canvas is only half the art because there is no paper and no printing involved?

There are some people on this very board, even some participants in these discussions, who shoot slides and print or have them printed on Crystal Archive. Does this mean that their photographs are only half the art? All they do, after all, is punch a few buttons...

And yet, their work does look like art to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

As I see it. That is a complete work of art if that is your intention, but only half the art if you intend to play with it in a print. Some peoples art photography is about representing reality, some about their interpretation of reality. It is all valid from Arbus to what's his name that did the composite images. Sorry I am tired.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Marko,

I understand where you are coming from.

However, I disagree with the idea that the vision is completed once the shutter is released.

I think a photographer may be half way there at that point. What I like about printing my own work is that it allows me a greater understanding of my own vision and how I communicate it. I can explore my own work more deeply while I am printing. In addition, as my artistic vision and understanding change over time, the prints I create from the same negative will also change and mature. And I like that, I find it interesting to see prints made at various times in an artists career and how they interpret the image differently. This would be true if I worked in a traditional or a digital manner.

If I had someone else, a master printer, do my prints for me, I still would want close contact and control of the final output. As Donald pointed out earlier, I would want the master printer to be the tool to help me realize my own vision of the final image.

So, I don't think the vision is realized once the shutter is clicked.

[Marko]

In other words, it's the intended method and style of presentation that makes a difference.

But even then, you don't have to do it yourself, you can direct the printer and still have all the credits for the art part.

[Marko]

Eric,

I didn't say that the vision is completed once the shutter is realeased, I said it was executed. Perhaps that was the wrong word to use, maybe I should have said captured.

But at that point, the essence is already on the film/in the file. Printing, however imporant, involved and skillful, is still presentation. And it is only one of the possible avenues you could take and still present your vision.

Again, this is just my opinion and I am far from being certain in it, that's why I am posing this as a question in this thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

I always think it is a good idea to do your own printing, to control the entire process, but sometimes you just don't have the expertise or equipment or whatever. Then supervision is the key. I know many sculptors who only do mockets of their big public sculptures. They are blown up by technicians under supervision. There is a huge steel Picasso sculpture in Chicago, 40 feet high, that he never saw, beyond his 12" high mocket. That is stretching it a lot to me.

A friend of mine, a well known street/documentary photographer had a big show in Paris. He emailed files to a printer there and saw the show cold. That doesn't work for me.

Then as per your last post, lets look at the typical example, Moonrise. Have you ever seen the file contact print? It looks nothing like either the late or early versions of the print. He saw something there that was only a feint potential in the original scene and a possibility in the negative.

[SAShruby]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

Before I will try to comment which option, I have two questions:

1. Define empty, meaningless, cliched image...
2. Define well crafted image...

If you understand to what I'm pointing, it's the same as I would say that this conversation is meaningless, and for sure, I'll get oposition to my opinion. Before we talk about undefineable or abstract definitions, let's define them first and then we can hyphotetise what option is preferable.

[John Kasaian]

The issue I have is one of what the deuce is "craft?" If it is making something with mechanical perfection I have to admit that it's kind of boring IMHO. It would be like listening to a player piano. I like the mechanical aspect of it but the music gets tiresome after awhile. I kind of like imperfections bt then I like tooled western saddles too, and hand tooling is hardly "precise."

Then again, what is meant by "meaning?" I'll assume it is a message or statement and if the message is indeed meaningful then it would have to depend on the "message or statement being made. A lot of what is being said I find just kind of wastes my time--the message or statements are all too often more of a cliche than the usual hardware store picture calender (Fresno Ag Hardware has a delightful assortment this year---I had my pick of a barn, an old red ford pick-up truck, and the ever popular puppy) At least a calender is useful (I opted for the old Ford, btw)

IMHO the biggest problem with fine art photography has little to do with craft or what is currently fashionable---it is a lack of pictures which delight the soul.

[Kirk Gittings]

Peter, John


Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal

Make your own definitions, use your own words. You know what I mean generally.

[Marko]

Then as per your last post, lets look at the typical example, Moonrise. Have you ever seen the file contact print? It looks nothing like either the late or early versions of the print. He saw something there that was only a feint potential in the original scene and a possibility in the negative.

But he saw something there. If he hasn't captured it, it wouldn't be there for him to see. So, it could be argued (please note the conditional) that it was still a matter of presentation.

In general, I completely agree with you that it is always best if an artist can not just control but execute the entire process. All I'm saying that the art is not less his if he employs craftsmen to help him along. The import being that craft is indeed crucial to the work of art, but it is still not the work of art itself.

[SAShruby]

Peter, John



Make your own definitions, use your own words. You know what I mean generally.

All right then,

in that case, neither. Why? Because, photography is about complex feeling inside the person who looks at the picture such as perfection, feel, touch, experience. Well, 99.9% of all pictures doesn't define who made that photo. 99.9% of people don't know what to look in the picture. Is it about picture itself or beyond the picture visuals? Well crafted image with meaningless picture is exactly what Photoshop can give you any time. And option 2? There is no such thing as poorly crafted meqaningful image.

And big P.S. I didn't accomplish even one of those yet which is very sad.

[Robbie Shymanski]

Sounds like debating Rick Wakeman's King Arthur on Ice vs. some of the first Pavement 7 inches. Most will listen to and dismiss both as painful but for different reasons. But, just as with Pavement, "meaning" can give way to "craft" keeping both intact. It is rare, if not impossible, to see the reverse.

[SAShruby]

All right then,

in that case, neither. Why? Because, photography is about complex feeling inside the person who looks at the picture such as perfection, feel, touch, experience. Well, 99.9% of all pictures doesn't define who made that photo. 99.9% of people don't know what to look in the picture. Is it about picture itself or beyond the picture visuals? Well crafted image with meaningless picture is exactly what Photoshop can give you any time. And option 2? There is no such thing as poorly crafted meqaningful image.

And big P.S. I didn't accomplish even one of those yet which is very sad.


I think I need to change my point of view for abstract theories.:(

[roteague]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

Depending upon the final use, neither.

[Brian Ellis]

My question is this: if a very talented and skillful photographer who at the same time happens to be lacking printing skills (or simply doesn't feel like spending time in the darkroom) commissions a very talented and skilled printer to produce the prints that do his images justice, who should be credited with the resulting work of art? The photographer or the printer?

In other words, one of them is the artist and the other the craftsman and together they produce a work of art. Who gets the credit for the art, the artist or the craftsman? And which one of them is the true artist?

The credit should be handled the way credit for woodcuts used to be handled, the photographer's name goes on the left and the printer's name goes on the right.