this is a great interview with one of the finest print masters and teachers
this is a great interview with one of the finest print masters and teachers
A slightly odd description of the darkroom process as compared to painting. He seemed to be describing darkroom printing as a "one shot" technique where each trial is some how separate from the other while painting is cumulative--a painter sees what the brush does and reacts to it.
That's not my experience of the darkroom process at all.
--Darin
Well, he means you have to go through the whole process of making a print to see the result; you don't see your results in real-time.
What he said was "cumulative" vs. "one shot." Painting is cumulative, darkroom prints are one-shot. Nothing about real time--for example, he goes on to talk about printing (printing press printing) and talks about how what you do with the first impression (in a separation) informs what you do with the second impression and how *that* process is much more that that of the painter.
His description of the darkroom process is that you "do something to a piece of paper" and then look at it, and then throw it away if it isn't right.
He doesn't seem to acknowledge the tight connection between one print and the next. For example, just take all of his language about painting and (printing press) printing and substitute "darkroom made print" and it will not only make perfect sense but will also match what I believe (and what I believe most others believe) darkroom work is like.
--Darin
Well, Mr. Benson sounds like he originally came from a lithographic background, using ink presses, and then he found photography. He started working with things that you do a little bit, and then it "talks back" to him, to tell him where to go next. Things with immediate feedback.
I think he's quite right that with the darkroom, a print is one-shot. What would painting be if it was like that? If you didn't know what you had really done until some final unmasking? One shot per canvans, and then try again. Since he equates a piece of photographic paper to a canvas, I understand his point, and I can understand why he prefers working with computers instead of in the darkroom.
What really interested me about that interview was that he thinks photography as a whole is moving into the studio, instead of outdoors. He likes street photography and photojournalism instead of models and still lifes. What was his phrase? "Reality [itself] is telling you that you're stupid" or something like that. Outdoors photography is a harsh teacher, and hones a photographer's skills.
I've heard Benson speak several times about this.
I understand where you're coming from, Darin, and I think it's just symantics here. Yes, there is a tight connection btw each print, but it's nothing like the immediate feedback you get from working on a screen. I acknowledge this, and I'm a darkroom printer.
Benson is a huge advocate for the digital process, and I don't always agree with him. In fact, his book has some highly opinionated "facts" that are just plain wrong or highly biased. It doesn't detract from its value for me, and if I take into account his being a kindly curmudgeon, it actually makes for good entertainment.
His expertise is in printing with ink and he's accomplished some amazing things in that field along with Thomas Palmer. There is a podcast with the two of them out there somewhere and it is a great discussion.
Benson has an interesting essay on the making of Lee Friedlander's books (both pre-digital and digital) in MoMA retrospective book, Friedlander, by Peter Galassi.
I completely get Benson's point. Sure, you get the cumulative knowledge of previous test prints, but there is no in-the-moment feedback when printing in the darkroom. The work you do under the enlarger or in the trays or in the chosing/mixing of chemistry reveals itself afterwards, out in the light.
In this respect it's more like baking a cake than making a sauce. There's no adding a little more of this or that and tasting and correcting as you go.
It's a more abstract and heady process than painting. You make a cererbral connection between what you did last time and the result it produced, and then calculate or intuit what to do differently this time ... each time, you hope, guessing closer to your imagined goal.
The digital workflow, in contrast, is closer to painting. The feedback is immediate, and therfore the tools are more spontaneous and intuitive.
What surprised me is that he finds the litho / printing press process to be cumulative like painting. I would have guessed that it would be even slower to give feedback than the darkroom.
Favorite quote: "Go out into the world with a camera and find out that the world is smarter than you are."
I credit Benson with opening my mind to ink printing. I never would have believed it could be so good until I saw the Paul Strand book he produced. Many of the book plates look better to me than the silver prints.
>>In this respect it's more like baking a cake than making a sauce. There's no adding a little more of this or that and tasting and correcting as you go.<<
I guess I must print very differently than Benson. To me it is just like "adding a little more of this or that and tasting and correcting as you go."
Or perhaps my conception of how painters paint is wrong? Do they add paint willy nilly and then figure out what to do then? Or do they think carefully about what they want to do, both in an analytical way but also in an emotional way, and then try to get there as they go, trusting instinct and experience to get them through the tough parts?
--Darin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks