digital vs traditional photography

[paulr]

David, I think it's a question of emphasis.

I don't think anyone is denying that finely crafted things are nice, or that craft plays a significant part in the nature of an art object. The question is, what's more important--the craft, or the vision that's being brought into light through the craft?

Ironically, it was the invention of photography, and later its acceptance as a fine art medium, that shifted the world's sense of artistic value away from from craft and towards vision. There used to be a lot of confusion in the worlds of painting and illustration over what made a painting excellent--what it the realistic depiction of nature, done through painstaking craftsmanship, or something less obvious? When photography came along and showed that a machine could render detail and perspective with superhuman competence, the art world was left looking for artistic value elsewhere. Hence the shift in painting toward non-representational modernism of the"my kid could do that!" variety, and the shift in photography away from labor-encumburred, wannabe paintings, like the hand-colored, hand-varnished bromoil-on-platinum prints done by martyrs like Steichen.

None of this is to say that craftsmanship doesn't matter--but rather that is the vehicle for artistic worth and not the source of it. A finely crafted turd is still a turd. Likewise a print made sloppily on torn newsprint could be great art, if that expression happens to serve the vision well.

[Paul Butzi]

"Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wicker-work picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art."

-Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending a Staircase

[Keith Laban]

"Keith, above you have stated ""images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people"". Yet on your own website you refer to the film that was used to make the prints that you sell not as yours but as ""Hasselblad transparencies"

Hmmm, splitting hairs comes to mind. The images were captured with a Hasselblad but created by me.

"As I have tried to state in my previous posts, one of the primary points of becoming a craftsman in any media, whether its any of the various photograhic arts, woodworking, oil painting, organ building, etc. is to become an artist--as labelled by society, not by oneself"

I have been earning my living as an artist for 35+ years. This is not a in any way a judgement, merely a job description.

" Also above you have stated "" Is it any wonder that the debate on 'photography as art' persists when craft and process are held in such high esteem by photographers?"" yet again on your own website you seperate yourself as a photographer from artists ""My background as an artist has inevitably influenced my photographic work This has not always been a conscious process but in recent years I have started to explore the boundaries between the two disciplines"

You have missed the entire point of my "Found Paintings" series. Far from separating myself as an artist and photographer I am exploring the commonality.

"Also, ""Compelling images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people."" People and Hasseleblads cannot create images with air, they must use some process, usually and preferrably, with some amount of craftsmanship. For you, it is clearly Photoshop and Hasselblads"

I'll say it again, Hasselblads do not create images they capture them using the medium of film. You seem to be making alarming assumptions about my work. As I've said I have been making images for a living for the last 35 years and 32 of those years without the use of Photoshop. Now that I'm printing digitally and supplying digital files I find that I need to correct scans to the original transparency. What else should I use? PS is merely a tool.

[Keith Laban]

David, sorry, I meant to add that I'm pleased you liked the watercolours ;-)

[Todd Schoenbaum]

I am sure to invite hell for this but...

In my opinion the duality of "craftmanship" and "vision" cannot be placed into either of the implied competitions:

- the which one matters (all of nothing) competition
or
- the nomimal (rank each on a scale of one to ten) competition



For me, craftmanship must be present before I even consider vision. The vision is ultimately what matters most, but there can be no vision without craftmanship.



I print traditionally, this is what I enjoy (both for my own work and in the work of others). If I see an image that I like, and later find out that it was done digitally, I can no longer appricieate the image. This may not be a likable position, but it is honest. I dont like art and computers mixing (...but, but, computers were used to design your lenses, enlarger, new emulsions...) in the artist side of production. Computers are great tools, but they have no place in the toolbox of the artist (note that the above examples would be made by engineers and chemists, not artists).

When I buy a hand crafted sculpture or painting or photograph, part of what I am buying is the artist, or the idea I have of the artist. And I dont like artists sitting behind monitors, computer-craftmanship or not. I dont want my beautiful sculpture designed in CAD and I dont want my paintings and photographs done in PS. I want sculptures done with stone and chisel, paintings done with a brush, and prints done in the darkroom. If you like making "beautiful" images on the the computer, go work for Nintendo.

Todd Schoenbaum
Celluloid and Silver

[David Luttmann]

"If I see an image that I like, and later find out that it was done digitally, I can no longer appricieate the image."

Oh brother, here we go again.......

[Jonathan Brewer]

You run into the most beautiful woman that ever lived, she also gives you the hottest, the most passionate and satisfying sex you ever had, does that mean you mean you get rid of her because you find out she wears a wig?

I prefer film to digital backs and digital cameras, but it makes no difference how it was made if you decide you like something, in fact I've disliked some work because it looked digital and that drew more attention to itself than the content of the work, the fact that you like something before you knew what went into the making of it, means it was good enough to overcome/win you over, despite being executed with tools you don't like.

How can you backtrack and unlike something? Isn't this really a matter of despite you not prefering digital, somebody getting over on you with a digital image and you're not willing to admit it?

[David Luttmann]

".....and you're not willing to admit it?"

I would say that is precisely it! I hear this a lot. It's almost like saying no matter how good it looks.....even better than conventional processing......I won't like it because I know there was a computer involved in there somewhere.

What rubbish!

[Wayne]

Why cant people like what they choose to like and dislike what they choose to dislike, for whatever reasons?

I'll tell you whats rubbish-telling someone else what they have to like.

[David Luttmann]

Learn to read Wayne. I never said he had to like it. He already said he likes it....he just denies it when he finds out its digital. That is nothing but foolishness.