LOL DrTang!
LOL DrTang!
...Dilettante! Who you calling a Dilettante?
Great, Dr.Tang, I recall Henry Cartier-Bresson - on n'est pas des paintres ratés...Originally Posted by DrTang
Gentleman, there are two different questions about what Frank sad: the lack of filter and the amount of photos.
When young, I remember had crossed millions of newspapers with zillions of photos and the publication chain was very very large. But there was the filter chain: publishers, photography editors, as today, but there was no other way to publish - or almost - without passing trough the visual/criteria filter.
What's happening and maybe annoying situation is the lack of filter, criteria. The "popular" criteria is an expanding sea where I don't pretend to be drowned... The internet is a damned horizontal platform where much more then we need is shared, from the good and from the bad.
Cheers,
RSalles
Anyone who makes a comparison of digital versus analog gets trashed by the intolerance of the "digivangelists". Seems to me you could not have uttered a less tolerant or more oblivious misstatement. Why don't you try thinking about things rather than speaking from your gut. Frankly, if you felt your work was equivalent you wouldn't make such an inflamed and intemperate statement.
It is notable that those who began their careers in digital don't seem to care about looking at the difference. But those who converted to digital production are suspiciously quick to condemn those who question the value of their choice.
The statement "photography is photography" is a particularly specious, yet familiar statement. It means nothing, all photography is not equivalent. We don't all have to agree, nor accord unearned and unwarranted respect on processes some feel are of lesser value.
Oh you darkroom printers think you are photographers but you are not. The print is a reproduction that is a second generation product; the negative is the first generation product. The print is one step removed from the actual process of capturing the light striking the capture medium. Only a process direct to the display medium which is the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate can be the real thing. You should switch to a collodian plate process, or an equivalent, if you want your product the be considered the real thing. The plate is the real thing; not like a print which is not the real thing but in fact a reproduction.
That's not just nonsense, it's baffling. My post, which you quoted, explains that I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. What could be further from "digivangelism?"
If I felt my work (again, gelatin silver almost exclusively) was equivalent to what?
I don't have a career in photography and never did. I've been alive for six decades, photographing for pleasure through nearly five of them. There's no "production" associated with my photographic activities, digital or otherwise. I continuously evaluate the state of digital methods in comparison to gelatin silver methods using the only criterion that matters, i.e. looking at the difference. I don't condemn those who question the value of choosing to use digital. I don't condemn those who question the value of choosing to use gelatin silver. I am railing against those who, with almost religious fervor, trash one photography method while elevating the other to exalted status.
Red herring. Words have specific meaning. Photography is photography. It's all the capture of images using a lens in front of a chemical or electronic sensor. The statement neither explicitly nor implicitly says all photography is equivalent. Gelatin silver photography using a disk camera, with its 8x10mm image area, cannot be considered remotely equivalent to gelatin silver photography using an 8x10" view camera. Nor is making negatives with that 8x10" view camera equivalent to capturing a snapshot using my Canon G9. Yet, all three are photography. We're each entitled to our own opinions, but can't make up our own facts.
Again, this insistent trashing of digital methods smacks of religious zeal. "Gelatin silver, the one, true way." I suggest that anyone who doesn't want to use digital should simply avoid doing so. There's no need to accord the technology "respect" in an Internet forum. There's also no need, nor is it civil/respectful, to trash it at every opportunity. Running digital down might motivate a few from your same "sect" to chime in, but it mostly has the effect of causing others to conclude that your opinions don't warrant respect.
Please bear in mind that I'm almost exclusively a film/darkroom worker. So far, I like gelatin silver better. And I'm put off by the digital trashing. After nearly 15 years as a member of this community, I've had enough and plan to do whatever I can to counter it from now on.
Hey, guys, I started the thread to discuss Robert Frank's statement and observations. If you're going to post in the thread, could you please keep it on topic? I have no interest in another Mobius strip about digital and photo-chemistry unraveled into a few thousand posts. If you are set on that topic, then could someone start a new thread??
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
It might have been good to consider that lack of interest before submitting post #17.
I'm not interested in starting a new, useless thread. My posts in this one are simply intended to counterbalance the digital trashing where it occurred.
Last edited by Sal Santamaura; 6-Aug-2014 at 21:01. Reason: Updated to reflect editing of quoted post.
I really don't buy Frank's position. We are bombarded by many things, not just imagery. Food, music, TV shows, clothing styles, ... Yet the general public generally is pretty good at recognizing food of a higher standard, music of a higher standard, movies of a higher standard. In my experience, the bombardment of average or low quality products actually makes it easier for high quality to stand out and be appreciated.
We also have to keep in mind that our medium has the unique quality of be available for many purposes. The vast majority of people making photos with the camera phones or point-and-shoots is not for art. They are making photos as a recording of a personal moment for them. Then we have other people with cameras, doing commercial assignments for advertising, fashion, editorial,... all with different purposes. THen we have people making art. All different purposes, and many not intending or pretending to be art.
And last but not least, one must consider that Frank has a very specific perspective. He was a recorder of American society. He would naturally things differently than a Uellsman or a John Paul Caponigro. Frank isn't exactly an optimist either.
Frank is a very smart and insightful guy, but I see nothing smart or insightful in his remark. What's the right number of photographs for the world? Once upon a time, when Nicephor Niepce made the first image, there's was only one. Was that better? The numbers jumped by orders of magnitude with the invention of the daguerrotype, and again with the wet plate, and again with the dry plate, and again with film, and again with the brownie, and again with the minilab, and again with digital, and again with phone cameras. Is scarcity or exclusivity the only source of value? Of "specialness?"
That's a pretty shallow well from which to draw value.
I think "The Americans" would have been no less special if there had been a thousand times as many photographers and photographs in the 1950s. Getting the book seen and published might have have been harder, but that's a different subject. And Frank may have made more pictures of sad old cowboys in gas station restrooms taking selfies ... also a different subject.
I agree with some of what Frank is saying. As photographers, we have a different take on the art we love than does the general public and at times it might be hard for us to separate what we feel to be true from what the non-photographer public feels.
I get the sense that the general public has grown tired of all of the imagery out there and no longer places much value on a photograph. Gallery owners have told me, as have several photographers, that the middle market has sort of been wiped out (I think of this as the work priced between $500 and $1,000) and many people who might have started collecting art by purchasing photography no longer do so. I rarely see good photography at art fairs any more and what good is there has to compete with low end work being sold everywhere so pricing has taken a hit. In addition, I feel that many younger, talented photographers are having a more difficult time getting noticed and selling work (maybe not in major art hubs but elsewhere) and cannot make enough money to cover true cost.
So in many ways, I get what Frank is saying. There is so much out there today, the general public is getting to where they really don't care about photography.
On the other hand, I do believe photography when practiced at it's highest levels is art and the fact that major museums all collect it and show it lends credibility to photography being art. We may be the young sibling to other art forms but we will not be turned away. I am happy that we are seeing many younger photographers taking up historical processes and learning about the non-digital forms of the art. Digital is great but to many who are serious about photography, learning other ways of creating images is an important tool in the ability to express themselves creatively.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks