Craft vs. meaning?

[Kirk Gittings]

As I see it. That is a complete work of art if that is your intention, but only half the art if you intend to play with it in a print. Some peoples art photography is about representing reality, some about their interpretation of reality. It is all valid from Arbus to what's his name that did the composite images. Sorry I am tired.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Marko,

I understand where you are coming from.

However, I disagree with the idea that the vision is completed once the shutter is released.

I think a photographer may be half way there at that point. What I like about printing my own work is that it allows me a greater understanding of my own vision and how I communicate it. I can explore my own work more deeply while I am printing. In addition, as my artistic vision and understanding change over time, the prints I create from the same negative will also change and mature. And I like that, I find it interesting to see prints made at various times in an artists career and how they interpret the image differently. This would be true if I worked in a traditional or a digital manner.

If I had someone else, a master printer, do my prints for me, I still would want close contact and control of the final output. As Donald pointed out earlier, I would want the master printer to be the tool to help me realize my own vision of the final image.

So, I don't think the vision is realized once the shutter is clicked.

[Marko]

In other words, it's the intended method and style of presentation that makes a difference.

But even then, you don't have to do it yourself, you can direct the printer and still have all the credits for the art part.

[Marko]

Eric,

I didn't say that the vision is completed once the shutter is realeased, I said it was executed. Perhaps that was the wrong word to use, maybe I should have said captured.

But at that point, the essence is already on the film/in the file. Printing, however imporant, involved and skillful, is still presentation. And it is only one of the possible avenues you could take and still present your vision.

Again, this is just my opinion and I am far from being certain in it, that's why I am posing this as a question in this thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

I always think it is a good idea to do your own printing, to control the entire process, but sometimes you just don't have the expertise or equipment or whatever. Then supervision is the key. I know many sculptors who only do mockets of their big public sculptures. They are blown up by technicians under supervision. There is a huge steel Picasso sculpture in Chicago, 40 feet high, that he never saw, beyond his 12" high mocket. That is stretching it a lot to me.

A friend of mine, a well known street/documentary photographer had a big show in Paris. He emailed files to a printer there and saw the show cold. That doesn't work for me.

Then as per your last post, lets look at the typical example, Moonrise. Have you ever seen the file contact print? It looks nothing like either the late or early versions of the print. He saw something there that was only a feint potential in the original scene and a possibility in the negative.

[SAShruby]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

Before I will try to comment which option, I have two questions:

1. Define empty, meaningless, cliched image...
2. Define well crafted image...

If you understand to what I'm pointing, it's the same as I would say that this conversation is meaningless, and for sure, I'll get oposition to my opinion. Before we talk about undefineable or abstract definitions, let's define them first and then we can hyphotetise what option is preferable.

[John Kasaian]

The issue I have is one of what the deuce is "craft?" If it is making something with mechanical perfection I have to admit that it's kind of boring IMHO. It would be like listening to a player piano. I like the mechanical aspect of it but the music gets tiresome after awhile. I kind of like imperfections bt then I like tooled western saddles too, and hand tooling is hardly "precise."

Then again, what is meant by "meaning?" I'll assume it is a message or statement and if the message is indeed meaningful then it would have to depend on the "message or statement being made. A lot of what is being said I find just kind of wastes my time--the message or statements are all too often more of a cliche than the usual hardware store picture calender (Fresno Ag Hardware has a delightful assortment this year---I had my pick of a barn, an old red ford pick-up truck, and the ever popular puppy) At least a calender is useful (I opted for the old Ford, btw)

IMHO the biggest problem with fine art photography has little to do with craft or what is currently fashionable---it is a lack of pictures which delight the soul.

[Kirk Gittings]

Peter, John

Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal

Make your own definitions, use your own words. You know what I mean generally.

[Marko]

Then as per your last post, lets look at the typical example, Moonrise. Have you ever seen the file contact print? It looks nothing like either the late or early versions of the print. He saw something there that was only a feint potential in the original scene and a possibility in the negative.

But he saw something there. If he hasn't captured it, it wouldn't be there for him to see. So, it could be argued (please note the conditional) that it was still a matter of presentation.

In general, I completely agree with you that it is always best if an artist can not just control but execute the entire process. All I'm saying that the art is not less his if he employs craftsmen to help him along. The import being that craft is indeed crucial to the work of art, but it is still not the work of art itself.

[SAShruby]

Peter, John



Make your own definitions, use your own words. You know what I mean generally.

All right then,

in that case, neither. Why? Because, photography is about complex feeling inside the person who looks at the picture such as perfection, feel, touch, experience. Well, 99.9% of all pictures doesn't define who made that photo. 99.9% of people don't know what to look in the picture. Is it about picture itself or beyond the picture visuals? Well crafted image with meaningless picture is exactly what Photoshop can give you any time. And option 2? There is no such thing as poorly crafted meqaningful image.

And big P.S. I didn't accomplish even one of those yet which is very sad.