Ingmar Bergman in my youth, and lingering in my vision for another thirty years.
.
Ingmar Bergman in my youth, and lingering in my vision for another thirty years.
.
I am not sure that I can consider this work as a photograph. A photographic image (or even painting) perhaps but not a photograph. I think that accepting this work as a photograph will make by extension anything on the photosensitive material, that we would conventionally not consider as such, a photograph. For example digital art on the photographic paper would become a photograph.
I think that there should be some form of the camera present to make a photograph.
This of course does not mean that direct manipulation of the photosensitive material could not stand as a separate form of the art.
A fun experiment is to use your photographic vision to inspire other media!
Go on a short outing armed with only a small sketchbook and pencil and instead of taking snapshots with a camera, sketch the same scenes/situations using a minimalist drawing style.
A eight or twelve or so of these sketches can give you insight on how you notice things.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I'm guessing Kodak Paper of the 90's was perceived as for Kodak moments and not art... The good old rich Kodak papers of previous generations were gone. Kodak paper in the early 90's was commonly RC VC paper with Kodak written diagonally on the back. Kodak was going down hill in their paper business. They made more and more crappy consumer films like APS and disc. They ended their paper business. For a long time they were merely suppliers of a few good films to pros while spinning wheels elsewhere in business. Ilford had clean white boxes, like we expect from Apple now. Ilford had artistic photos on every box label. It didn't have a manufacturer's name on the back. It was a carte blanche literally so we could buy it and do so artistically. That's my experience from the 90's as an amateur photographer.
kind of the same but different. you don't consider her cameraless work to be photography
i was schlepping around similar work to galleries in the early 90s
and told me they weren't photographs ..
kind of like what you said ...
so instead i joined up with a handful of people paid rent and part owned a gallery.
naaah it wasn't the paper, they just didn't "get it" ( it being printed on fb sw paper )
Last edited by jnantz; 22-Sep-2018 at 14:02.
Bookmarks