Of the photographers who have embraced digitization, one of the principal reasons for many of them, although not all, is that once an image has been manipulated, and proofs have been made, the digital product is uniform and infinitely reproducible. As Chris Jordan pointed out in another thread, it may in some cases also reduce costs. For the photographer, the attraction is obvious; for buyers, perhaps less so.
I think that some people who buy works of art are struggling with their reaction to this phenomenon of uniform, infinitely reproducible prints. Why? Speaking only for myself, I don't think that my reservation has to do with elitism or fetishism. I think that my reservation has to do with the fact that I believe that the content and the print are interdependent. There have been suggestions, earlier in this thread, that the writing in a book, and the book as the vehicle, are distinct. That just doesn't fit with what is happening on the project on which I am currently working. As the writer on the team, I would be the first to acknowledge the importance of the work being done by our graphic designer, typographer and photographers. Indeed, in some cases I have made changes to the writing because the changes enhanced the book's design. I don't think that there is any doubt that a printed product - book, magazine, poster, whatever - can be enhanced by good design. McLuhan may or may not have been right when he said that the medium is the message, but for myself, I am satisfied that the medium and the message are interrelated.
I have not had the pleasure of seeing Mr. James's inkjet prints. Indeed, the last time that I saw a show of photographs, outside New York, it was your photographs, and that was a year or so ago. When I do see Mr. James's more recent work, it is entirely possible that my reserations about uniform, infinitely reproducible prints shall evaporate. At the moment, I'm not convinced, but I'm certainly prepared to listen. Indeed, that is why I started this thread.
Bookmarks