Your "for practical purposes" is just a distraction. Sorry Paul but in science we dont have "for all practical purposes"....
Life isn't science, culture isn't science, art certainly isn't science and neither is photography.
Scientists seem to make very good clergymen, but it seems to be the exception if the make a good artist
Paulr, you supply deffinitions, I supply deffinitions. But mine are no good? From the American Heritage Dictionary.... I'll make sure to write them a letter about it ;-) The whole point was that you find and use deffinitions that you like, as do I. A dozen other people could supply different deffinitions. It's all pointless...
As to the COPY machine. First off, if the inventor wanted it to be known as a camera, they would have called it an "instant Copy Camera", but they didn't. They called it a COPY machine. Who am I to argue with the inventors?
As far as cameras, lenses and focusing. Not all equipment that uses lenses and focuses light is a camera. Since the camera obscura/copy machine idea didn't go over well, I'll offer another one. You take a telescope. It uses lenses and focuses light but is most deffinitely NOT a camera. Focus it's output onto a sheet of paper, which is done by some to view the Sun. have that paper on top of a computer's scanner and hit the scan button. The output from this is a photograph??? Obviously NOT. But according to the reasoning above, it is. Just absurd....
As far as real photographers and 'digi-heads', sure they can be the same person. I know many artists who work in ink, paint (oils, water colors, etc.), clay, marble and even carve wood. Now, just because they paint, does their wood carving automatically become a painting?? Again, absurd... If a photographer, by whatever means, produces an inkjet print, it is an injet print and nothing more. Digital art, if they're good enough ;-) To say it is a photograph because a photographer produced it is as ridiculous as the wood carving becoming a painting...
It's really amazing how the non-digi people can clearly see the distinction and the 'digi-heads' refuse to. But I suppose if I spent that amount of money on the equipment and had to amke my living by it's output, I might try stretching the truth and fooling the public too. Luckily, I have more integrity... I also firmly believe that digi-art should be able to stand on it's own without stealing from photography. Said yet again....
As far as categorizing your work. If you let someone else do it for you, you're a fool! ANd I don't mean that as an insult. It's YOUR work and only YOU can say what it is, within the boundries of truth and integrity. If you allow someone else to categorize it against your wishes, you give up your artistic integrity... You got your answer ;-)
As far as the history goes, well, it's history. Not now... I see very little difference in most of the historical processes. After all, they ALL used a light sensitive material=photon=photo=photography...
And yes I know about Lightjets and whatever. It's a grey area like many other art forms. I could honestly go either way with them but just haven't bothered putting the thought into it. It may depend on the source of the print, film or digital capture? It's really not worth my time to think about...
Tim, the 'worth' is without doubt in the eye of the beholder, or maybe hand of the beholder? I can only speak for myself. As one who greatly appreciates the handy work of past artists and woodworkers, I ahve very little interest or appreciation for the machine made garbage we get today. Luckily there's very little 'machine made' in the art world, except maybe for the digi-"art"...
The photogram is probably really another grey area. It would also depend a lot on what was 'gramed'. Towards the scientific end, it's more a photograph than an inkjet simply because it does use the light sensitive material with focused light (and light fron the Sun is focused by it's nature). Like I said, grey....
Rich, you're throwing a round a lot of instant conclusions like "Is this a camera? Obviously not!" without basing them on any logic that I can discern.
Your telescope example sure sounds like a camera to me. And the the copy machine still does. I'm not talking about what the inventor of something chooses to call it--I'm talking about the fundamental nature of the thing.
Why don't you start by telling me what, in your world, the definition of a camera is, and we'll see if that corresponds at all to the curatorial idea of it.
"As far as categorizing your work. If you let someone else do it for you, you're a fool! ANd I don't mean that as an insult. It's YOUR work and only YOU can say what it is, within the boundries of truth and integrity. If you allow someone else to categorize it against your wishes, you give up your artistic integrity... You got your answer ;-)"
Now you're geting confusing. You started out with a tirade against people categorizing THEIR work in ways that YOU disagree with. I see you throw in the phrase "within the bounds of truth and integrity" but that presupposes there is one idea that everyone agrees on as the truth--like one true definition of photography. This argument is evidence that there isn't one. Which suggests we need to choose one.
My question was about whose truth to choose--some opinionated guys I meet here, or the chief curator at MoMA.
" see very little difference in most of the historical processes. After all, they ALL used a light sensitive material=photon=photo=photography..."
Yes, in the image capture process. Just as digital cameras do. But not all historical processes use light lensitive material to make tha print. And some digital processes DO use light sensitive materials to make the print.
"And yes I know about Lightjets and whatever. It's a grey area like many other art forms. I could honestly go either way with them but just haven't bothered putting the thought into it. It may depend on the source of the print, film or digital capture? It's really not worth my time to think about..."
No argument there. I don't see why any of this is worth your time to think about, really, unless it somehow affects your work.
"Luckily there's very little 'machine made' in the art world, except maybe for the digi-"art"..."
Hmmm. You mean not counting Warhol's "factory" legacy, dating from the early 60s, or DuChamp's "readymades" dating from 1915. Or everything ever shot on Kodachrome.
cam·er·a (k²m“…r-…, k²m“r…) n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate
As far as your categorizations, feel free to do whatever you like. My statement stands. Does your integrity???
"Hmmm. You mean not counting Warhol's "factory" legacy, dating from the early 60s, or DuChamp's "readymades" dating from 1915. Or everything ever shot on Kodachrome."
"Very little" seems to fit to me! And, ummm, Kodachrome is a FILM used in a CAMERA!
Digital "cameras" do not use a light sensitive material per say. They use a sensor array that scans a focused projection of light into digital bits. The deffinitive differences could go on for paragraphs...
I started this all out by asking Jorge why he bothered. It got worse, then better and I thought we were getting somplace. Now it's obvious...
You want to distort or throw away any deffinition you don't like. You want to distort and steal any deffinition that suits your purpose. You twist the discussion simply for the sake of arguement. There is no point to this. You hold your opinions and will not allow any others. Because some curator takes your print and plces in the photo section it all justifies you. Unfortunately, the only reason the curator does this is because he's too lazy to develope a new category for ink squirted prints. Good for you and others who want to make money. Bad for everyone else.
paulr, unless you pay attention to what is said and offer common courtesy to others, this is really all just a waste of time. Why not just grab youe Xerox camera and run out to make some fauxtos...
This was the first digi-analog thread that I actually had hopes would turn into a discussion. You just won't allow that and I tired of going around in circles... dance with someone else for a while...
"Pixelography is a good description of what digital is. Photography uses film. A photograph comes from film"
O.K., we're going to puzzle our way through this. You're saying that photography uses film and a photograph comes from film. So I put film in my camera, I make an image, I process the film in my fume room and I end up with a negative on film. So I was engaged in photography and I made a photograph, right? Wrong. Why wrong? Because I put my film in a scanner and I made a digital print. So you're saying I was engaged in photography and made a photograph because I used film but I wasn't engaged in photography and didn't make a photograph because I used the film in a digital process. So when all is said and done I was and I wasn't engaged in photography and I did and I didn't make a photograph. Man, that's confusing. Could you run it by me again?
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
"You want to distort or throw away any deffinition you don't like. You want to distort and steal any deffinition that suits your purpose. You twist the discussion simply for the sake of arguement. "
Couldn't be further from the truth. I've been upfront from the start about what I'm doing, where I'm coming from, and why. If my position needs clarity, here it is:
1) of the vaious possible definitions/understandings of what photgraphy is, the ones that I respect most are the ones used by the art historical/contemporary art curatorial establishments. This is partly because I respect the perspectives and intelligence of the people there doing the defining and categorizing, and partly for practical reasons: these are the channels through which I want to show my work.
2) Whether you or I agree with these definitions or not isn't important. But I think it is important that we be aware of them and that we acknowledge them.
As far as my disection of your arguments, I find two problems with most of them:
1) You don't appear to have done any investigation at all into the prevailing definitions used by the art establishments. By arguing as if these ideas are my own personal whims, you aren't even acknowledging that they are out there and well established. I'm trying to point out that these aren't my ideas at all.
Attacking my attempts at explaining them can't possibly accomplish much. I recognize that I'm not an authority on the topic, which is why i put some effort into hearing the authorities out. If you want to argue these points with someone who knows more and might be more lucid than me, I can put you in touch with some very smart people who think about this stuff for a living.
2) Your own personal definitions of what is/isn't photography, for whatever they're worth (and I acknowledge that they may be worth a lot to you personally) seem to be based on a at least a few questionable assumptions and some flawed logic.
The dictionary is a boundless source of limited and incomplete definitions. Just to look at the recent example of your dictionary defintion of a camera:
"An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate"
I assume you know enough but photography and art history to know that 1) not all cameras have shutters; 2) if you want to use your's and jorge's definition fo lens, then not all cameras use lenses; 3) not all cameras are used for photography .. in fact the invention of the camera predates the invention of photography by centuries.
art certainly isn't science and neither is photography.
Yep, this is why you got more "control" so you can fix it in PS. A great part of photography is science, and even when used for creating art it still depends on science. Elements of photography like lenses, developers, the cameras themselves are all a product of science and are in fact science at work. Physics, chemistry and engineering are what make your tools. Saying photography is not science is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this forum.....
Exactly, Jorge. We're not talking about science. We're talking about culturally based definitions
LOL..there is not such thing as "culturally based" definitions. There is on the other hand definitions you make as you go along, but these are meaningless. A lens is clearly defined and a pinhole IS NOT A LENS
I find it amusing that you are insisting that I dumb down and use less accurate and precise terms in your language in an effort to prove you are right. Why dont you learn how to use your language and apply the appropriate terms. This is why curators use the term photograph for ink jet prints, they lack understanding of the terms and I guess to them the "culturally" based definition is just fine.
cam·er·a (k²m“…r-…, k²m“r…) n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate
Or you could chose:
cam·era
Pronunciation: 'kam-r&, 'ka-m&r-&
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, room -- more at CHAMBER
1 : the treasury department of the papal curia
2 a : CAMERA OBSCURA : a darkened enclosure having an aperture usually provided with a lens through which light from external objects enters to form an image of the objects on the opposite surface b : a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on film) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast) .
A little different from your pick - and of course, whichever dictionary or institution or glossary we are going to pick our definition from is going to have somethign of a differen definition. The standard wone above doesn't limit a camera to requiring plates or film - it can just be for viewing (and tracing) or can be lectronic capture. And that's fro yoru Standard Webster N American dictionary - check out the OED or Collins and you'll get different again. DIctionary definitions generally prove nothing apart from giving you the correct spelling
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
off course, then you need a spell checker....
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
I may not know much about art. But I know what I like
/START Physics
There really is very little difference between the way a semiconductor crystal in a CCD or CMOS chip captures light and the way a dye-sensitised silver halide crystal in an emulsion captures light. Polymer-based opto-electronics are the same again. There are only so many ways that light can react with a material. Fuji funds work into solar cells and light sensors using a variety of fundamental technologies, and it's not for their chips.
Thus any definition of photography that priviledges the science of the emulsion is doomed to include today's digital.
As for "for all practical purposes", this was exactly the phrase invented and used by Bell to describe theories that were true in our Universe, but not for all possible universes. Since Bell was single handedly responsible for some of the most thought-provoking underpinnings of modern quantum mechanics, I'll take his word over some guys on the internet.
/END Physics
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks