The potential of analog

[Marko]

Marko: I'm not sure if "progress" really applies to art. After all, stone lithography and woodcuts are still with us and are as valid a fied of art as ever - and perhaps even more of an art form since they were divorced from purely commercial purposes long ago (and the same can happen with analog photography.) The computer has indeed made the creation of text and number crunching more accessible but the example is not apt since were talking about an art form and neither of those are really perceived as such.

Art is a thing of the mind and should not be tied to any particular process but to the original vision/sound/verbalisation. Progress applies to technology which in turn provides new means of expression for the art but it does not supplant it. Photography is photography, no matter what technology is used for capturing the moment in time and it did not replace painting, after all. Those turned to be two different art disciplines. The computer did replace the typewriter, on the other hand, because it was a new technology which provided new, more efficient and more liberating way of expressing the same art.

On the other note, I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but what you are saying sounds like you're denying literature and poetry the status of art because... why? Because they are these days predominatnly created AND presented using a computer?

You know, every time throughout written history there were howls of protest whenever a new technology emerged, including the press AND the photography. Especially photography!

Once upon a time, there was a fellow called Nedd Ludd. He made a name both for himself and others like him by taking this militant anti-technology stance to the extreme.

But guess what, the sky is still far above and will likely remain there even when the next big technology wave sweeps the computers as we know them away. My educated guess is that art will remain alive and well beneath the sky as well when that happens.

[Oren Grad]

artisans steeped in the tradition of these crafts try to conform as perfectly as possible to a certain style. their work is judged on how fine an example they can make of a shaker table, for instance. this is different from the wood being seen as a blank canvas to be used for creating something new.

There's a place in between, in some cultural settings and art and craft traditions where subtlety of expression is prized over in-your-face, ab initio creation - but where a master is considered no less "original" for working within constraints that seem narrow to an observer from outside the tradition.

[paulr]

I think that in-between place is where most work really happens. It's where craft is important, but it's purpose (and decisions regarding it) is about serving the vision.

Sometimes the vision is best served by a rigid tradiition that provides a broad common language. I think of Weston making nothing but 8x10 contact prints in his early years, Cartier Bresson using nothing but a 50mm lens and printing full frame, Shakespeare writing nothing but sonnets, the Ramones writing nothing but up-tempo, sub-3 minute pop songs.

And good work that seems badly crafted by traditional standards often comes from this place. 70s street photographers didn't want their prints to be pretty, for reasons central to their vision.

P.S.
the tab in my browser truncated the name of this thread to "potential of anal"

[cyrus]

Art is a thing of the mind and should not be tied to any particular process but to the original vision/sound/verbalisation. .

Well if you equate art with just sound/vision/verbalization, then passing gass is an art form! (just kidding!) Perhaps in an idealized world art can exist as just an abstract notion but in the real world, how a piece is made and how it is presented has a significant impact on its perceived artistic qualities (which are subjective anyway)

Progress applies to technology which in turn provides new means of expression for the art but it does not supplant it. Photography is photography, no matter what technology is used for capturing the moment in time and it did not replace painting, after all. Those turned to be two different art disciplines. .

Exactly. And the same applies to digital vs. film photography. These are two different art forms; one is not the "progressed" version of the other. There's no reason therefore to assume that one will/should/must supplant the other. And part of the art form of analog photograhy is the process/craft of its creation process - the darkroom.

The computer did replace the typewriter, on the other hand, because it was a new technology which provided new, more efficient and more liberating way of expressing the same art.
On the other note, I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but what you are saying sounds like you're denying literature and poetry the status of art because... why? Because they are these days predominatnly created AND presented using a computer?.

Well I don't want to pick on you analogy of the typewriter which I don't think is apt. The art in the poem is not in how it is presented. The art in an image DOES and must include how it is presented. These are apples and oranges.

But anyway, to the main point: First, I'm not denying that computer-generated art exists. I merely say that analog photography and digital photography are two different art forms and one need not supplant the other, and that even if digital photograph could replicate analog photography in every aspect as far as the end result is concerned (identical images) still there would be a demand and a cache for analog photography specifically BECAUSE of its analog nature. Just as there are lots of computer artists who use photoshop to generate creative work, but that has not replaced and cannot replaced hand-paintings. The process of hand-painting and skill involved in it gives the hand- painting some extra perceived artistic value that photoshop (rightly or wrongly) still does not possess.

You know, every time throughout written history there were howls of protest whenever a new technology emerged, including the press AND the photography. Especially photography!

I'm not sure if anyone here is a Luddite who is howling in protest about digital photography's impact on analog photography. I for one am even thankful for it. For one thing, I do use digital (for color photography, snapshots, web photograph) Also, digital has has made analog photo gear much cheaper to acquire. Also, I predict that digital photography will evolve itself out of existence. Also, I think the impact of digital will be limited to commecial photography, where there's a benefit to be obtained from the fastness/cheapness of digital (fastness/cheapness isn't a value appreciated in the art world as much.) Also, as digital photography becomes more and more ubiquitious and easy to made, I think there will be a reaction and a rising demand/appreciation for "real" analog photographs. etc. etc.

I don't deny that digital photography is an art form - but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made, and how they were made is a distinguishing factor that has an impact on their perceived artistic value - just as a digital painting and a hand-painting are different.

Sure, the production of film and paper may fall due to digitial technology - perhaps even significantly - but all that means is that the price of film/paper will go up - and that's a good thing too, really, because it will make analog photography to be perceived as even more of a high-flutin' art form!

[paulr]

but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made

All things are different from all other things. The quesion is how fundamental are the differences. Calling something a whole different art form (like the difference between painting and sculpture) requires some deep fundamental differences, compared with more minor technical details (like oil vs. acrylic).

Sculpture and Painting get whole different departments at the museum; oil and acrylic just get slightly different captions. The curators and historians of the world have voted already, and in their view digital and analog photographs just get slightly different captions. If that-- typically, the process name is based on the final form. Few collections distinguish between C-prints made from negatives and ones made from digital files. Because who cares?

[cyrus]

Few collections distinguish between C-prints made from negatives and ones made from digital files. Because who cares?

For now. But remember, quality digital photography is merely a decade or so old, and the technology changes with lightening speed. In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image. But the analog photo will still be there, with all of its connotations and perceived values (which will only have grown)

[paulr]

In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image.

how do you figure?

[Jim collum]

For now. But remember, quality digital photography is merely a decade or so old, and the technology changes with lightening speed. In another decade, there may no longer be such a thing as a digital still image. But the analog photo will still be there, with all of its connotations and perceived values (which will only have grown)

i know things change a lot in 10 years.. but why would digital imaging go away?

[tim atherton]

I merely say that analog photography and digital photography are two different art forms and one need not supplant the other, and that even if digital photograph could replicate analog photography in every aspect as far as the end result is concerned (identical images) still there would be a demand and a cache for analog photography specifically BECAUSE of its analog nature. Just as there are lots of computer artists who use photoshop to generate creative work, but that has not replaced and cannot replaced hand-paintings. The process of hand-painting and skill involved in it gives the hand- painting some extra perceived artistic value that photoshop (rightly or wrongly) still does not possess...

I don't deny that digital photography is an art form - but digitally-created image and an analog created photograph are simply two different things precisely because of how they were made, and how they were made is a distinguishing factor that has an impact on their perceived artistic value - just as a digital painting and a hand-painting are different.


The Gursky print mentioned in a separate thread is, as I recall, made from traditional LF negatives, scanned and worked on in photoshop and then printed digitally. Most and probably all of this could have been done "by hand" in a traditional colour darkroom/lab - though certainly more laboriously.

One of those photographs from the edition (and it is classed as a photogrpah by the auction houses, galleries and museums) sold for $2.48 million. If that doesn't demonstrate cache, demand and perceived value (both artistic and monetary - any major museum or collector would take such a print as a major acquisition), I don't know what does...?

[Doug Howk]

As long as digital image practitioners are satisfied with merely imitating every other visual art form, there will continue to be confusion among the general population about what is a digital image. Its similiar to pictorialist period of photography when photographers tried to emulate painting. This ended when Weston, Strand & others realized that photography could be an art form without trying to emulate other art forms. Digital has many strengths including not being hindered by reality, and (most importantly) digital display. Why waste paper when your best viewing medium is digital display?