Lenswork will no longer be found at newstands.

[Kirk Gittings]

"You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water."

Paul,

Two points.....to confuse the point further......

Kim Weston sells platinum prints made from duplicate negatives (copies) of EWs classic image negatives. Are these originals?

As you probably know, many artists "books" are an artists complete definitive statement, a work of art in and of itself, different from the individual prints and different from an exhibit.

[Greg Lockrey]

Does not being on news stands mean that some of the photography stores that have the magazine displayed for sale will no longer get them? I know a number of folk who got a copy at a photography store and then subscribed. Getting the copies first was the key and it helped that I didn't have to loan mine out.

I learned of the magazine at forum site similar to this. Living here in the "Tundra" as my wife from St Louis likes to call it, we aren't privy to all these big city advantages.

[Ben R]

If a print from a digital file is merely a reproduction compared to an original work of art like a hand print I assume this is because the hand print is an original and unique piece of work, it will never be the same. This seems to extend the argument that photography by definition cannot be art as it is reproductable. With a hand print it might be possible to suggest that it is not so, each print will be unique. Of course the same could be said to be true with the digitally worked image while it is on the screen or if the work done on the computer would result in only one image. Every subsequent image would be the result of starting from scratch, rescanning, etc. If that were to be the case then the work would also be original and not a perfect reproduction. However if this is to be the definition of a work of art and not a reproduction then a negative exposed without any work being done, multiple contact prints or a negative exposed without any alteration multiple times would also fall under the same catagory. You will never dodge and burn exactly the same way but if all that is being done is a straight print then any copies of the same would be just that - a reproduction, not a work of art.

As such it has nothing to do with digital per se, possibly far more 'automisation' and the ease in which reproduction has become in a electronic world.

This does of course all depend on whether the differences between hand prints due to slight variations in method can elevate it to the level of a unique peice of art rather than reproduction, I have little doubt that the painting world would deny it vigorously.

It would have been an interesting addition to the debate on numbering prints and editions. If a photographer were to produce only one print per scan/dodge+burn then they could lay claim to an honest boast that their print is truly unique just as a hand printer would. Each print would be sold on its own merits as a unique vision, an edition of one. This does of course rely on whether photographers are willing to pander to such 'snobbery' or whether if it were percieved as such it would help the exclusivity of their sales.

Anyway it gave me an interesting 20 minutes of thought on the bus the other day..

[PViapiano]

"You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water."

Paul,

Two points.....to confuse the point further......

Kim Weston sells platinum prints made from duplicate negatives (copies) of EWs classic image negatives. Are these originals?

As you probably know, many artists "books" are an artists complete definitive statement, a work of art in and of itself, different from the individual prints and different from an exhibit.

Kirk...

1. They're not original work, but an original interpretation of the Edward's original negatives. And I might be interested, mostly because it is Edward's direct descendant, who is also a respected photographer, printing a classic negative that he has exclusive access to. Either way, Kim would never make the statement that his is better or superior to Edward's.

2. If an artist did not make any prints at all, and just made digi-files for output to a press, and printed only books on offset, then yes, that book would be the original expression of the artist.

You know, we can nitpick and come up with every conceivable situation in these cases, but if you just try the test against most other art, such as painting, you'll find your answer...

[Ben R]

...that photography isn't art?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

...that photography isn't art?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Greg Lockrey]

Please tell me you're kidding.

He was asking a question, not making a statement.

[Ben R]

I think that if you apply the 'reproduction' argument from a traditional art world point of view then all photography falls under that heading. Trying to use an argument used against photography as a genre for one upmanship against certain types of photography seem to me like trying to beat a tiger up with a poisonous snake, if you use reproduction as an argument then you have to accept that it can just as justifiably be used against you!

If the aim is to produce unique work where one will never look the same as the other to somehow pander to a popular impression that photography is somehow cheapened by reproduction then there are ways to do that regardless of the medium. In my opinion it is strengthened by 1 print editions, every subsequent use of a negative will have a new interpretation or at least not a carbon copy. I do believe however that the drive for such hard work could only legitimately come from an ill informed buying public, for a photographer to adopt it as a position of artistic integrity seems to be to be hypocritical. Either reproduction is art or it isn't. If it isn't then I can't see how slight variations of dodging and burning in a darkroom change that fact. Making more than one print of a negative is reproduction period whatever the method.

Just my opinion.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If we are to sit here and deem one method of reproduction art and eliminate the other because it does not require as much effort or labor as the other, we must think to ourselves "What is in charge of creating the wonderful works of art that Weston created?" You could give a man who has little to no talent for art the same equipment as Edward Weston had and the result wouldn't be anywhere close. So, what differentiates Edward Weston, the dozens of master photographers that so many of us have loved over the years and this man of no talent whatsoever? It is the soul of a human being that allows them to create wonderful masterpieces. History has proven that no matter what vehicle one chooses, whether oil, watercolor, or chicken noodle soup cans, it can be and most certainly IS considered art. In digital photography you are transferring a captured image onto paper with chemicals. If we were to take Pepper #30 and print it with inkjet inks onto paper, the work is still considered a work of art - it is just reproduced differently. Art is not judged by the device used to deliver the art, but rather how the artist uses that device to deliver the aesthetic, the intended emotion or message. I believe, that is how one should determine if the work is a work of art or just a work. I believe a photograph of the sunset is still just a photograph of the sunset unless there is some intended meaning behind it. If an artist has successfully done that, then that is art. Fine art, well that's different. And it's a shame we don't teach our children the differences between art and fine art.

I believe that even a reproduction of a work of art can still be, itself determined as a work of art so long as the aesthetic of the reproduction allows the intended meaning to still come across fully without obstruction from any imperfections a reproduction can produce.

We cannot and must not be prejudiced against our fellow brothers and sisters who choose to capture an image digitally and print it via inkjet and Photoshop. We must accept digital photography as an accepted form of art today.

[Robert Brummitt]

Boy, did the original thread change course or what! It was about Lenswork not on the news stands and now we're debating what Constitutes photography. Analog or digital?