Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
In the current market, nobody seems to give a damn how technically complicated or expensive it was to make something, or if it represents a high level of craft or not; all they care about it the bragging rights to owning a particular signature on it. Conspicuous consumption. Airheads with too much money to waste.
Those of us who actually produce things ourselves are more likely to appreciate what someone else has done well, particularly in an analogous craft. I like all kinds of photographic prints if intelligently and tastefully made, even digital prints, and really don't prize technique just for the sake of technique. But if masterful control of technique takes you somewhere special, that's a different story. And to get there, one needs the drive and determination, and simply won't be happy with garden variety results. It shows. No pain, no gain.
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doremus Scudder
Why all this polarized linear thinking? One doesn't exclude the other. I would answer that the medium is both part of the message and takes part in delivering the message as well.
Doremus
To be clear, my message re: Marshal McCluan was a quote form an web article, not an expression of my "polarized linear thinking". To understand exactly what McCluan meant would require a full reading of his book, with some context in thinking about art in the mid 20th century world.
What I understand from the book, which I read in late 1960s as a foundation work in a doctorat program, is that the forms and methods = medium used to communicate information have a significant impact on the messages they deliver, not that the form is more or less important than the content. It seems obvious that one can not exist without the other.
My own thinking in terms of the photographic medium is there are certain tangible qualities of physical prints (texture, color, sheen, relief, etc.) that create what we might call a photographic syntax. A very thorough elaboration of the importance of the intersection of form and content as it pertains to the medium of photography can be found in Part 1 of William Crawford's seminal book on the handcrafted print, The Keeper of Light, published in 1979.
Sandy
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
And then most cover up the art with glass
I prefer
No glass
Raw Art
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
In the current market, nobody seems to give a damn how technically complicated or expensive it was to make something, or if it represents a high level of craft or not; all they care about it the bragging rights to owning a particular signature on it. Conspicuous consumption. Airheads with too much money to waste.
Those of us who actually produce things ourselves are more likely to appreciate what someone else has done well, particularly in an analogous craft. I like all kinds of photographic prints if intelligently and tastefully made, even digital prints, and really don't prize technique just for the sake of technique. But if masterful control of technique takes you somewhere special, that's a different story. And to get there, one needs the drive and determination, and simply won't be happy with garden variety results. It shows. No pain, no gain.
Drew, wouldn't that be an appreciation of the craft rather than prizing it on aesthetics or content as a non-photographer might consider it? Not that there's anything wrong with valuing a job well done.
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ic-racer
...Binary is not a 'medium' it is an abstraction...
I completely disagree with this statement, on two levels. First of all, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that it is not a medium. If you're looking for a physical substrate to make it a medium, it has that in the CCD that holds the pixels. Secondly, of COURSE it is an abstraction. All photography on some level is an abstraction. If not creating an image would generate a second level of reality, and imagine the problems THAT would cause!
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
A good photograph or piece of art should transcend the medium. All the art books I studied in school had at best mediocre reproductions of paintings, but one got the point nevertheless.
Seeing an actual print, painting or sculpture vs a reproduction, there is no comparison, yet you can still appreciate what makes a masterwork. Hearing live music played well in an acoustically decent venue is very different than listening to a compressed mp3 on crappy speakers, but Beethoven still shines through.
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
Basically my point, Doremus, but better written by you.
Great minds... :)
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
To be clear, my message re: Marshal McCluan was a quote form an web article, not an expression of my "polarized linear thinking". To understand exactly what McCluan meant would require a full reading of his book, with some context in thinking about art in the mid 20th century world.
What I understand from the book, which I read in late 1960s as a foundation work in a doctorat program, is that the forms and methods = medium used to communicate information have a significant impact on the messages they deliver, not that the form is more or less important than the content. It seems obvious that one can not exist without the other.
My own thinking in terms of the photographic medium is there are certain tangible qualities of physical prints (texture, color, sheen, relief, etc.) that create what we might call a photographic syntax. A very thorough elaboration of the importance of the intersection of form and content as it pertains to the medium of photography can be found in Part 1 of William Crawford's seminal book on the handcrafted print, The Keeper of Light, published in 1979.
Sandy
Sandy,
I wasn't referring to your post when I mentioned "polarized linear thinking," but rather responding to Bernice's (rhetorical) juxtaposition of "message" and "messenger" as opposites. Just a little diatribe on my part to clarify my own thinking (which is what the majority of my posts here are for) and maybe further the conversation.
I love the concept of "photographic syntax"! I'm going to steal that from you and add it to my descriptive toolbox. I've got Crawford's book around here somewhere; it's about time I re-read it.
Best,
Doremus
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Klein
Drew, wouldn't that be an appreciation of the craft rather than prizing it on aesthetics or content as a non-photographer might consider it? Not that there's anything wrong with valuing a job well done.
Here we go again, separating the skill of the artist and their mastery of their craft from the aesthetic content of their works. One feeds off the other and vice-versa, symbiotically and synergistically.
And, the more one understands of the craftspersonship in a work, then the more potential for appreciation there is. Realizing something was a conscious choice on the part of the artist instead of an accidental result of whatever they were doing adds to the understanding of the expression.
The fact that the uninitiated don't appreciate the skill, techniques and craft that goes into making an artwork just means that they bring less to the work and, therefore, have less potential to fully appreciate it. Trained musicians can appreciate Bach much more than a lay listener; they understand the skill inherent in the counterpoint, the finely-orchestrated sonorities, the creative genius that transcended the best works of his predecessors, the sheer facility of inventiveness, etc., etc. all much better than one who has never learned anything about music. Sure, there are a lot of people who nevertheless appreciate such works despite not having a lot of training or familiarity with the medium and the craft involved, but this appreciation is, of necessity, at a different level.
Best,
Doremus
Re: Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?
My thinking/feeling on this has been evolving. I used to be an absolute purist about no digital anything. To be fair, in the early days of digital imaging (1990s/early 2000s) when digital prints had a life expectancy of years to at most decades, and the quality of the source material was extremely limited, there was legitimate reason to be a skeptic and disparage that output. But in the intervening 20 years, the technology has caught up to the promise, and now you can make pigment ink prints that are, if not on the same level of archival stability of a platinum print, at least on a par with a silver gelatin fiber print. So that has eliminated my concerns as a collector/investor in photographic prints. And I've come to appreciate, as a photographer, what digital technology can provide to ME as a tool. There are negatives I made 20+ years ago that have for whatever reason suffered, and now I can bring them back to life and make images from them again that I would not have been able to were it not for digital technology.
So, with those new appreciations, I really don't care what tool(s) you use to produce the image - I care only about the image I'm seeing. Does the tools used add to the image or detract from it? If it adds, then great. If not, then look at it as a learning experience to figure out what change(s) you need to make to match the intent with the result. But I am still primarily interested in photographs that have been completed (that is, physical prints). If I can only access it virtually, then to me it isn't a finished photograph.