Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 114

Thread: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,673

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton View Post
    r.e. - how would you feel about one of Geoffrey's inkjet prints? Same world renowned photographer, just different process. Is it about the photograph itself or the print as fetish object?
    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.

  2. #22

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Oren wrote:
    "Art isn't any one thing, or any one weighted mix of things. It can and does play different roles and have different meanings in the lives of those who make it, those who deal commercially in it, those who purchase it and those who view it - and indeed, in the lives of different people within each of these categories."

    I was making reference to the single object, not art universally. Like a single print - that print is all that went into making it - method, craft, technique, materials, labor, conception.

  3. #23
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    I find myself confused by this repeatability thing.

    Long before digital came along, whenever I talked to or read books by a master printer one of the main things seemed to be repeatablility. Detailed notes were taken of processes, times, materials. Charts were made of dodging and burning. Even special cutouts were made for certain prints.

    The aim always seemed to be repeatability and to keep difference between prints from the same negative to a minimum.

    The only times this changed were either when the photographers vision for a print changed, or materials became unavailable.

    Other than that, differences between prints were generally seen as accidental and to be avoided if at all possible by means of superb technique and the best craftsmanship.

    Now it seems a virtue is being made out of those differences?
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  4. #24
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Miller View Post
    To me the repeatability that is offered by the computer means that the print more accurately reflects the artist/photogpraher's intentions.
    It's interesting to look at the changing history of standards in the era of mass production. In a lot of handicrafts, the ability to make absolutely consistent multiples has been a point of high honor. This has been true in pottery, wood working, printmaking, bread baking, darkroom printing, and many other crafts.

    But when a mass-produced alternative comes along, suddenly the natural variation that was seen as a flaw in the handmade version becomes coveted as a sign of humanity.

    I don't think this is really a point of irony; just an interesting example of how new contexts and perspectives can change standards. When the world changes, we can find ourselves missing something that we once tried to stamp out!

  5. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    There are reasons someone might want to make an artist's book with 3 dimensional letterpress type. But "oooh, pretty!" isn't such a convincing reason.
    Can you give examples of reasons that you would find convincing?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr View Post
    And I believe that if someone is doing work that's a true representation of their experience of the world...
    What does it mean for a craft object to be a "true representation of their experience of the world"? How can one judge whether it is or isn't?

  6. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose View Post
    I was making reference to the single object, not art universally. Like a single print - that print is all that went into making it - method, craft, technique, materials, labor, conception.
    But I think it's true of the single print too. Strictly speaking, a print is just a physical object. Once one gets into metaphors and projected meanings, anything is possible. And in reality we see a wide range of understandings of what the extra baggage consists of.

  7. #27
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    Can you give examples of reasons that you would find convincing?



    What does it mean for a craft object to be a "true representation of their experience of the world"? How can one judge whether it is or isn't?

    when it's art not a craft? And when any craft or technology serves the art and not the other way round?
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  8. #28
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    Other than that, differences between prints were generally seen as accidental and to be avoided if at all possible by means of superb technique and the best craftsmanship.

    Now it seems a virtue is being made out of those differences?
    Quote Originally Posted by paulr
    It's interesting to look at the changing history of standards in the era of mass production. In a lot of handicrafts, the ability to make absolutely consistent multiples has been a point of high honor. This has been true in pottery, wood working, printmaking, bread baking, darkroom printing, and many other crafts.

    But when a mass-produced alternative comes along, suddenly the natural variation that was seen as a flaw in the handmade version becomes coveted as a sign of humanity.

    I don't think this is really a point of irony; just an interesting example of how new contexts and perspectives can change standards. When the world changes, we can find ourselves missing something that we once tried to stamp out!
    Very nice point...

  9. #29
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton View Post
    I find myself confused by this repeatability thing.

    Long before digital came along, whenever I talked to or read books by a master printer one of the main things seemed to be repeatablility. Detailed notes were taken of processes, times, materials. Charts were made of dodging and burning. Even special cutouts were made for certain prints.

    The aim always seemed to be repeatability and to keep difference between prints from the same negative to a minimum.

    The only times this changed were either when the photographers vision for a print changed, or materials became unavailable.

    Other than that, differences between prints were generally seen as accidental and to be avoided if at all possible by means of superb technique and the best craftsmanship.

    Now it seems a virtue is being made out of those differences?
    Excellent point, well said.

    Bruce Watson

  10. #30
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Individuality, Repeatability and Computers

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    Can you give examples of reasons that you would find convincing?
    Sure. Any case where you were aware of the range of implications of the choice (historical, metaphorical, esthetic, etc.) and felt they served the vision of the art or the text being printed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    What does it mean for a craft object to be a "true representation of their experience of the world"? How can one judge whether it is or isn't?
    I was refering to art, not a craft object. If you're weaving baskets or making shaker furniture, then the point is typically to revere a tradition. Anonymity could be considered part of the point. But when we look at art, we're usually looking for someone to show us a perspective we haven't seen ... something an artist can show us because what fascinates them is a question that they've never quite seen explored to their satisfaction.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •