Originally Posted by ret wisner
are you sure you're not a 13 year old teenager, logged into his parent's account, trying to raise the hackles of a bunch of photographers? Just when i thought statements couldn't get any more inane.. thank god for the ignore list here
Well, Ret, the people who fought and won that battle are quite dead (Alfred Stieglitz, 1946; Beaumont Newhall, 1993; John Szarkowski, 2007), and I think it would be unfair to exhume them just to answer such an unimaginative troll.
i prefer the phrase act you age and not your shoe size.
but as im clearly to mature to stoop to insults i will hold back that need to do so.
photography isnt that difficult really, i like the historical honesty of a photograph, something i can believe and and not mistrust . the more its manipulated the quicker i glance and walk by.
a visual document for the weary reader, a atmosphere of misplaced eyes in a confused past.
start messing up this simple formula and photography looses its meaning
Dear ret,
What is your fly line weight?
Just curious...
jim k
depends if im fishing for trout or pike
Nonsense, you've been throwing insults regularly throughout this thread.but as im clearly to mature to stoop to insults i will hold back that need to do so.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
a nine weight for pike is essential and a forward weight taper
You're in mine as well.
On the ability of technology to render craft obsolete, of course that is an abstract model. But even though all models are false, some are useful.
I would rather characterize this idea this way: Technology may make it possible for a photographer to render his intentions precisely with nearly no effort. That does not mean that what he intends will get appreciated as art. Most of us, of course, do not have clear intentions, and we hope that the camera and the print itself will lead us to a worthy result. Technology may, as a result of more powerful tools, impose stronger leadership, but that may result in the technology choices gaining more mastery over the artistic choices. When that happens, photographs that work as art will be more rare, not less so. Mediocrity will be more competent, but it will not push the boundaries of art.
Rick "who struggles with the search for art despite lacking the necessary vision" Denney
Show me these Gurskys on Flickr. And keep in mind that someone copying Gursky's style does not make him a Gursky, any more than copying Weston's style makes him a Weston. I can copy Weston. I can copy Strand. I can do it in a darkroom with chemicals I mix from scratch. So can lots of people. There's little value in this beyond it being an exercise.
I don't see your point.
It's a false analogy, because a Warhol poster is a whole other generation away from one of his original prints. And it's probably made in an open edition, which means its rarity can be presumed to be zero. This is analogous to a poster being made from a photographic print (either analog or digital) and mass produced. The issue here has nothing to do with the medium of the original print.And yet a Warhol poster print fetches not nearly as much as an "original" Warhol, made by the very hands of the Warholness Himself (or one of his peons.) Irony of Ironies, a perfect replica of a Duchamp made by a machine will also fetch only a fraction of an "original" Duchamp. Conclusion: the "end result" is hardly all that matters in art.
You seem to be presuming that a digital print is somehow less "original" than an analog one. Yet both are the same number of generations away from the original image ... be that a negative or a digital capture.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks