Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

  1. #1

    The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    A PAINTER'S FREEDOM - A defence of the digital photograph



    "The camera cannot compete with painting as long as it cannot be used in Heaven or Hell."(Edvard Munch 1863-1944)

    The early history of photography is littered with the deprecating comments made by artists of traditional media who, had they lived to see the current acceptance of photography as an artform, would have been appalled. The appearance of the photographic process was treated with contempt by those who had learned their crafts over many years and to whom the immediacy offered by the camera's lens was anathema. The traditional image of the solitary man of vision labouring long and lonely hours at his chosen craft was certainly a far cry from the freedom of the snapshot which was quickly granted to an eager public by refinements rapidly brought to the initial discovery of the silver image.

    Nonertheless the invention of photography hugely affected painting, not least because it put many of the less gifted workaday practitioners out of business. It also was largely instrumental in the rise of the Impressionists who turned to capturing their impression of things rather than fastidiously recording things as they were seen to be, as this was now being done with unprecedented accuracy and realism by the camera.

    From the earliest days of photography an antipathy existed between the parvenu and the established methods of producing hand-crafted imagery. To a large extent this enmity has now abated but there are still pockets of resistance, most notably in the European old guard, that refuse to entertain the notion that an image made in a machine and capable of easy facsimile should ever be referred to as Art. I can attest to this lingering snobbery in England where, in recent years, I and a fellow photographer were asked to leave a gallery which we were visting for the purpose of showing our folios. We were imperiously informed that photography belonged in newspapers, magazines and wedding albums and certainly not on the walls of respected art galleries.

    The American continent and some of the more enlightened European countries appear to have missed out on these small-minded spats. In the case of America this is probably due to the fact that the United States and photography are near contemporaries and have largely grown up together, fostering a sympathy for the camera arts not earned so easily in the old world.

    America's first trains were documented by photographers whereas England's earliest example of locomotion was famously captured in oils - admittedly by one of the few artists to emerge from the sceptred isle who dared to use his imagination. Nonetheless the quaint notion that a work of art must be old to be considered of value still persists today and for the time being most works of photographic art are still too youthful. Unfortunately this emphasis on the aged article is already establishing its precedence in the appreciation and valuing of photographic art, where the hunt for the 'vintage' print is on.

    "All photographs are accurate. None is the truth." (Richard Avedon 1923-2004)

    In 1984 I and some fellow students of photography paid a vist to Manchester University in the north-west of England to experience first-hand a new machine that was slowly making its way around Britain's lesser-known seats of learning. It was a Quantel PaintBox, reportedly costing a quarter of a million pounds (US$ 500,000 at today's rate of exchange) and designed to digitally manipulate imagery. In truth I can remember very little about the machine, other than it was very large and was probably far less powerful in computing terms that the laptop that I am now using to type this sentence. We returned to our 10x8 cameras, studios and darkrooms blissfully unaware that we had just been introduced to the future of photography - a computing machine that would radically alter the way we made our future livings.

    Almost a quarter of a century later I find it hard to believe that this first meeting with the digital domain created such a small impression as I am now irreversibly smitten by its everlasting possibilities. In truth, I was so immersed at that time in the joys of lighting, shooting and processing 10x8 transparencies to take much notice of the world outside the studio and darkroom but twelve years later I had bought my first workstation and there was no turning back.

    "Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace." (Robert Adamns Beauty in Photography 1996)

    I wonder what those antagonists of the mid-nineteenth century would have made of the digital realm if they were still alive to see it. No doubt the introduction of yet another box into the workflow would only have served to increase their indignation. But these grey boxes have at last granted to photographers the freedoms which were once theirs to lay sole claim. Belief in the efficacy of these creative freedoms was the pricincipal cause of their original distrust of photography.

    From the viewpoint of those artists of yesteryear photography was second-rate because it did not allow much room for the imagination, for the individual stamp of the individual mind which had been the yardstick of art for centuries. A painter could begin painting his canvas with only his imagination to hand but the photographer could only create from that which already existed; that is to say, in artistic terms, the mundane.

    The freedom of design now afforded by the computer has released photographers from the monotonous recording of the world as it is and offered them the opportunity to inherit those values so jealously guarded by the artists of yesteryear. Paradoxically, these technologies allows us to fashion imagery which those old painters would more readily recognise as art, facets of our imaginations in which the transparency and negative are as the pencil and charcoal studies of yesteryear; merely preparations for a more complex and contemplative finished piece.

    ''...a harmoniously conducted picture consists of a series of pictures superimposed on one another, each new layer conferring greater reality on the dream.'' (Charles Baudelaire 1821-1867)

    David Hockney in his controversial book Secret Knowledge has suggested that prior to the Renaissance artists had learned how to use lenses and mirrors to trace the various elements that went into their compositions with some rather unusual effects ( most of which go largely unnoticed until they are pointed out, at which point they become glaring beacons of the obvious).

    According to Hockney's theory it is no exaggeration to state that many of the masterpieces of art history owe at least some debt to the lens and that the photographic process is not so distant a relative of the supposed finer arts as we might have previously believed. Would not Rafael and Titian have gladly made use of an image that held fast to their canvases in preference to one whose transient qualities was a caprice of wanton light?

    It has always struck me as a sad reflection on our skills that the artists of the pre-photographic era had a greater understanding of the possibilities of light than we who can now capture it firm and forever on film and microchip. Who would claim that there has been a photographic artist who could compete in this respect with Rembrandt or Rubens? Adams and Horst would be my nominations for a contest I feel sure that we would lose. In our defence we can consider the thousands of years that passed between the time the first lines were made on cave walls to the glories of The Rennaisance, and remembering that photography is not yet two hundred years old, forgive ourselves our immaturities.

    If we wish to shrug off our 'poor relative' tag once and for all we photographers of the early twenty-first century must grasp the opportunities that technology has granted us. Art has forever been the master and craft its faithful sevant and the union of the photographic discipline with the freedom of expression previously known only to painters has, I believe, the potential for genius.
    Dominic Rouse

    "Almost everything is art. Almost nothing is fine art."


  2. #2
    Yes, but why? David R Munson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Saitama, Japan
    Posts
    1,494

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    An excellent essay. I encourage you to try to publish it (aside from on this forum, I mean), if you have not already done so. Also, I might suggest that you make it available as a formally-formatted, downloadable PDF. I would be happy to provide this service gratis if you would like.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    333

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    I disagree with most of your assumptions about genius/freedom/photography/creativity & ....

    The genius in inherent to the artist not his medium... an artist can be infinitely creative within very stringent limits... more keys on the piano does not necessarily lead to more inspired music... 'the monotonous recording of the world' is what tourists do... there are some very inspired eyes & minds out there in the contemporary photographic art world and gallery and auction sales indicate some serious interest... photography is young there is much much much to come... and just a personal thing... I like my magic discovered not manufactured... it is just a different way of being in the world

  4. #4

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Annie M. View Post
    I disagree with most of your assumptions about genius/freedom/photography/creativity & ....

    The genius in (sic) inherent to the artist not his medium... an artist can be infinitely creative within very stringent limits... more keys on the piano does not necessarily lead to more inspired music... 'the monotonous recording of the world' is what tourists do... there are some very inspired eyes & minds out there in the contemporary photographic art world and gallery and auction sales indicate some serious interest... photography is young there is much much much to come... and just a personal thing... I like my magic discovered not manufactured... it is just a different way of being in the world
    Hi Annie,

    Thank you for your response. It contains some interesting discussion points.

    I would not rely on gallery and auction sales as an indication of the state of health of the 'contemporary photographic art world'. We do not judge Art, Time does and I suspect that, as in all eras, the flavour of the month is likely to remain just that. Gallery sales and auction prices are much more an indication of Art World fashion than Art itself. In any case the real interest as I understand it is in the work of photographers who are no longer with us and most especially the 'vintage print'.

    "I like my magic discovered not manufactured.."


    It seems to me that the mistake that most of us make is that the essence of photography resides in front of the lens whereas in truth it lies just behind it. Our imaginations are the most important piece of photographic equipment we have and simply to travel to an unusual geographical location and photograph it is simply not enough to produce 'ART'.

    You may know Jacques Henri Lartigue's advice to young photographers to listen to "the ideas and suggestions of God" which is the most eloquent definition of the imagination that I have come across thus far.

    The digital domain is merely an adjunct to the imagination.

    "more keys on the piano does not necessarily lead to more inspired music..."

    Forgive me but you are very wrong in this assumption. More keys on the piano would unquestionably provide us with music that we cannot even dream of confined, as we are, by our current limitations. Only one more piece of ivory would provide us with a vision as yet unforeseen.

    Kindest,

    Dominic
    Dominic Rouse

    "Almost everything is art. Almost nothing is fine art."


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    159

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    I admire Dominic's work; his images are compelling. I hope, however, all, or even much, of photography doesn't go that way. Annie expressed my view, "I like my magic discovered, not manufactured." (Boy, I wish I had said that.)
    Wayne Lambert
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    www.waynelambert.net

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,736

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Lambert View Post
    Annie expressed my view, "I like my magic discovered, not manufactured." (Boy, I wish I had said that.)
    Maybe you should be glad you didn't.

    How could you possibly reconcile that statement with your own description of your photographs?

    All of the photographs are original hand-coated platinum/palladium photographs printed in the darkroom by the photographer.


    By the way, I do admire both your photographs and Dominic's.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    159

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    I felt the zing. It will take me awhile to figure out how to reply. If I can.
    Wayne Lambert
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    www.waynelambert.net

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,736

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Lambert View Post
    I felt the zing. It will take me awhile to figure out how to reply. If I can.
    You just did, very gracefully at that!

    It wasn't meant to be a zing, though, I should've been more careful with the wording.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    159

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    Thanks, Marko. No problem.
    Wayne Lambert
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    www.waynelambert.net

  10. #10

    Re: The Digital Domain - A Painter's Feedom

    I don't understand your essay. Is it your premise that photography can now be art because photoshop allows you to do everything you can do in a darkroom only easier?

    This seems a weak premise to me and not exactly a great defense of digital.

    You wrote:

    A painter could begin painting his canvas with only his imagination to hand but the photographer could only create from that which already existed; that is to say, in artistic terms, the mundane.
    Hmmm, tell this to Jerry Uelsmann. I beleive this statement to be way off the mark. Ask any photographer on this forum and I bet you 9 out of 10 will tell you that their final photograph has nothing to do with the original scene and they did this long before digital arrived (well those of us who have been doing it for more than 20 years).

    I agree with Annie, art is limited by the imagination and the talent of the author, not by the tools they use.

Similar Threads

  1. Stitching Question - Digital SLR vs 4x5
    By AlaBill in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 9-Mar-2007, 22:30
  2. Existing Light Guide available for download
    By al olson in forum Announcements
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 7-Dec-2006, 17:27
  3. Print size chart when using digital capture
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30-Apr-2006, 16:10
  4. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11
  5. Digital ULF!
    By John Kasaian in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25-Feb-2005, 23:01

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
  •