Brooks Jensen's Questions

[Jim Galli]

A lot of blather in the other thread. Folks should read what Brooks wrote before they get so emotional.

[Editor: As pointed out by Jensen later, you can download the editorial from http://enhanced.lenswork.com/lwcollection.htm. They are in the free overview PDF for LensWork #73.]

Let me pose this question also posed by Brooks but I will extend it a bit. Suppose that photography does in fact become a hobby for the very rich because the ultimate print can only be achieved by an offset press putting the likes of us pedestrian photographers who can only afford silver or ink jets in second place. Suppose also 15 years has passed and no one questions this any longer. What will the museums and collectors want? The original having begun life on a very expensive printing machine can be one or 80,000. In that case who's collecting what?

Will photography become more like it's sister art, music. Will the original capture be like writing the score as Ansel said long ago, and fame, commercial $$$, or whatever the artist is after will be decided by pop culture, as music is now?

Things are changing much faster than my comfort zone was padded for. I'm pretty much stuck with silver or platinum or collodion because I truly do not have the geek gene. I hate my Epson 2200. Things are changing whether we like it or not. I was joking with another photog the other day that in 15 years some one will pick up one of my prints and gasp. "Look at the dirt and mustache hairs! The tones are all wrong, like they used to do. This is a bonafide piece of shit. It's priceless. It's real!"

OK, it might take a lot more than 15 years for mine

[Donald Miller]

I guess that whether the questions posed are from Brooks Jensen or someone else the issue that remains is that, it seems to me, one must decide for what purpose they are pursuing their efforts, no matter what they may be. I really do not get into the analysis of whether my photographs will be used as napkins or wipes for the other end. I just do it because what I do pleases me...nothing more needed on this end.

However, in saying this, I recognize that others may wish to engage themselves in this activity and if that is so I wish them well. If they have a clear view of the future than I wish they would tell me how much per barrel my oil interests will sell for six months from now.

[Kirk Gittings]

Will the original capture be like writing the score as Ansel said long ago, and fame, commercial $$$, or whatever the artist is after will be decided by pop culture, as music is now?

Pop Culture only defines Pop Music. It does not now nor ever has defined MUSIC. You are overgeneralizing. Serious artists will always strive to control technology for the sake of their vision no matter what the technology or genre. It was that way before photography and will remain so regardless of where creative technology goes. A computer is no more the antithesis of art than a gun is the antithesis of peace.

[Merg Ross]

I agree with Jim, folks should read what Brooks wrote. From what I observed on the previous thread, very few even read his comments, but were quick to declare war.

[Kirk Gittings]

Unfortunately, since I have never bought, read much or subscribed to the magazine, I have to go on the paraphrased statements here.

[Merg Ross]

Kirk, well said. My point exactly, one should read the entire Jensen article before forming an opinion.

[Kirk Gittings]

I try not to let the facts get in the way of my well reasoned arguments.

[Merg Ross]

"Well reasoned arguments". Thus is the state of modern photography.

[Eric Rose]

Like my dad always said "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up". I'm with Donald on this. I do it for me, and only for me. If someone else likes it, that's great, for them. I don't feel any better or worse either way.

[Nicolai Morrisson]

I haven't seen the issue yet, was he just talking about mono- and duotone, or full color reproduction as well?