Will it matter in 100 years? Will he get a major retrosective at MOMA in 2113?
Will it matter in 100 years? Will he get a major retrosective at MOMA in 2113?
David
No need to apologize, at least not to me. I wasn't trying to refute your point so much as bring it home on a personal level. As someone who loves to use old cameras and oddball lenses I struggle with whether my images are interesting only because of the optical aberrations and expired film effects or if I am using those artifacts expressively in my work. I hope the latter is true since that is my goal.
I spent my 20s chasing the Group f/64 ethic in my 4x5 work, everything sharp and tonally rich. It took me a while to figure out that I was doing this by rote because it had been presented to me as the way LF photography was done, reinforced by my reading and re-reading of the Adams trilogy of technical treatises (Camera, Negative, Print).
My simultaneous discovery of the Aero-Ektar and expired films completely broke me out of that rut. Now, instead of photographing in a certain style by default my lens and film choices make much more obvious differences to the finished product. Of course, had I been paying more attention earlier I would have realized that my lens and film choices mattered just as much in my sharp, tonally rich days. But I hadn't thought of that until I began working in the opposite direction. Shooting with imperfect gear has made all of my photography better by heightening my awareness of technical aspects of the craft, even when shooting with lenses and film that make "mastery" almost impossible.
Jonathan
EDIT: Jay, I do like that wet plate example. It goes to show that a good idea is a good idea regardless of the way it is presented.
Steve,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting
"In art, the term painting describes both the act and the result of the action."
And
"However, painting is also used outside of art as a common trade among craftsmen and builders."
This is a discussion of art. Not house painting. I don't feel it is necessary, considering the context, to include known disclaimers and known exclusions. It is known and understood by all already that there is painting which is not art. I am not interested, as I stated in my previous post, to include them just to exclude them. (though, this is the second time I've done so).
If you know of any utilitarian use(not art) of alternate photography processes which are completely mundane and utilitarian...that would be interesting. Post examples if you may, please. I need some house numbers on my curb, if you know someone who will collodion print them for me, I will take his or her number.
And just for the next poster who wants to object to the known and obvious, I will state it clearly, there is painting which is not art and there is painting which is art. Clear enough?
Jay - so much of that kind of stuff was going around here locally in the 70's that it looks sterotypically artsy and predictable to me.
Bookmarks