Is Photography Dead? [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

fdigital

12-04-2007, 07:32

Nothing has changed. Digital is the modern equivalent to film. I still love film, but I also like digital for numerous reasons.

With film, you burn it onto a film plane, develop it in a darkroom, dodge/burn/change the negative or the print using darkroom methods and then print it.

With digital, you burn it onto a sensor, develop it in a "lightroom" (computer), dodge/burn/change the file to how you want using image manipulation methods and then print it.

The above is the process with RAW files - with RAW being the equivalent of a negative. If talking about JPEG files, it's more like this:

Burn it onto a sensor, take out your memory card and hand it to a lab, they print, you pick up.

The film version:
Burn it onto film, take out the film and hand it to a lab, they print, you pick up.

Photography isn't dead, it evolves like everything else on the planet. The things that don't evolve die (think do-dos and dinosaurs). Film is still a current media for usage in photography and will be for a very long time. The basic workflow of shooting the picture to the final print is more or less equivalent with film and digital.

crawdiddy

12-04-2007, 07:33

Well they were right, painting as a method of recording events, or even portraits was totally eclipsed by photography, and painting took on totally new forms, especially in the 20th century the modern era. But of course as you point out, they were also wrong.

Photography's definition is certainly changing, how it evolves is partly up to you.

.

You're right, Fred, that painted portraits have been eclipsed by photography. And yet, artists still do them. Remember the portrait of Bill Clinton, commissioned for his official White House portrait, after he left office? It even turned out to be controversial, because of the pose, the flattering waistline, and the missing wedding ring. Granted, historical portraiture of this type seems anachronistic. Indeed, it is a nod to high culture of the past millenium. But I would bet that students of painting still do portraits.

grizzlyadam

12-04-2007, 07:34

well I say whatever helps the artist put their ideas out. I am only 25 so I am yungin but just like sitemystic said it is merely adapting. I am not worried. I will still shoot B&W film alongside my digital camera. there is a feeling from film you can't get from digital. it is all about how the artist wants to use the medium.

f/stopblues

12-04-2007, 08:51

This article seems to have an undercurrent of questioning if photography was ever an art. His quote, "Photography is finally escaping any dependence on what is in front of a lens.." alludes to his belief that photography up to this point hasn't had merit as an art form. Finally escaping? Yeah, we've been held down by "reality" for 168 years and are just now getting to the cusp of breaking free :rolleyes:

Oh wait, here he starts to admit that we haven't been out there merely documenting the earth.. "Of course, great photographers have never merely recorded visual facts indiscriminately, like a court stenographer taking down testimony."

But of course then he goes on to suggest that early photography up til thr 1920's when the Brownie appeared were just reaching to be art. "They've selected their subjects carefully and framed their views of them precisely, in order to give their pictures the look of "art.""

While the jist of the article has plenty of truth, I have trouble believing that photography is an art form that is striving to break out of its shell of reality. I don't believe the natural evolution of photography is ever pulling us closer to imagined/created/composite type images. There will always be examples of this throughout our medium, but presuming this art wants to be closer to another art is severly misunderstanding the heart of the photographic medium.

Just my $.02 :)

toyotadesigner

12-04-2007, 09:54

Yes, photography is drop dead.

Everything has been photographed at least once, so there is no need to do a second shot. Particularly not with drop dead film.

If you need a picture, type http://www.flickr.com, submit your search string and the image of your desire will pop up.

Why take all the hassle to schlepp around a camera if everything is already there?

And all the clients that pour into our biz are drop dead as well. Just ghosts from abandoned cemetaries, souls from the past.

Photography is absolutely dead and already stinks, because now we have the MMS in cell phones which is much easier, faster, more hip & trendy. And tomorrow a few brainless guys will run around with hi res digital video cams and 24 hour coverage, churning out gazillion still images per day, uploading them to flickr or facebook to make your life much more pleasent. No, you don't need a camera anymore, just a connection to the Internet.

Who will participate in the funeral of photography end of this week?

f/stopblues

12-04-2007, 10:12

mmm... what you say, not so much.

You believe that photography, at its core, is always attempting to evolve to a state that is more imagined and less reality? We have a distinct difference in our view of this medium if that is the case.

crawdiddy

12-04-2007, 10:39

BTW, Music as an art form has been completely exhausted also. All possibilities have been exploited. The creative well has been drained. New compositions or performances will be derivative, fraudulent and ultimately pointless. It's all been done.

ruben

12-04-2007, 10:49

"Film photography's artistic cachet was always that no matter how much darkroom fiddling someone added to a photograph, the picture was, at its core, a record of something real that occurred in front of the camera. A digital photograph, on the other hand, can be a Photoshop fairy tale, containing only a tiny trace of a small fragment of reality. By now, we've witnessed all the magical morphing and seen all the clever tricks that have turned so many photographers—formerly bearers of truth—into conjurers of fiction. It's hard to say "gee whiz" anymore."

For me this is the cornerstone mistake of all the following in the article.

Fred, as a New Yorker yourself, could you enligthen us where the lunatic comes from, and the athmosphere in which such a decadent article can be published, sustaining itself just by associating itself to current and past stones of photography ?

Just an insult to the common sense of the average reader.

Cheers,
Ruben

Socke

12-04-2007, 10:55

Interesting figures from the camera industry:

138 million cameras sold in 2007, 10% more than 2006
126 million are digital
12 million are film cameras

The world wide market for digital SLRs will surpass 7 million this year

The german market is at 8.6 million cameras in 2007, this means every 10th german bought a new camera this year.

So I think someone will find a new and creative way to take a photo :-)

http://www.photoindustrie-verband.de/amateurphotomarkt/Wachstumsmarkt-Photo-und-Imaging-photokina-2008.htm

amateriat

12-04-2007, 13:49

(A slightly incoherent philippic follows)

This question really has been done to death. And hardly restricted to photography: some writers I know have freeted about certain clever bits of software that can "create" a novel seemingly without human intervention. That one's pretty old too.

There are, to me, two schools of thought about this.

The first school: The less skill required for something, the lower that thing is valued. If anybody can can run outside with their digiflex and create a "masterpiece", what value is there in creating a masterpiece (however a significant portion of us might define it)? If somebody's album won a Grammy next year, and the artist, while accepting the award, mentioned that s/he spun the thing from whole cloth on a MacBook with Garageband, would you smash your Strat against the wall and jump off the nearest (sufficiently tall) precipice? If some joker started a sci-fi oriented "novel-generating" script on his computer on Friday, printed out a manuscript of the results on Saturday, shopped it to a pulisher on Monday, got a major advance for publishing rights the following Tuesday, and the following month generated industry buzz as being "The next Michael Crighton", should Crighton hang himself?

(I have the answer to that, but most Crighton fans out there won't like it)

The Photography is Dead and It's All Been Done and Does Art Even Matter Anymore? smacks of hand-wringing, nihilistic BS. Photography, like many another creative medium, has always been malleable in substance. No film? No camera? Been done, a long time ago. Didn't kill "straight" photography at all; in fact, I'd argue that it informed and strengthened straight photography. Is Photoshop killing photography? Why not ask if Illustrator (with a Wacom tablet) killing painting or drawing? Also, these two powerful tools won't make a silk purse from a sow's ear; you still need creative chops.

As far as the "art" thing goes, in relation to technology, I think there's a question about raising the bar when it seems it's being lowered all around us. That's not a matter of the technology at hand, but everyone's approach to it. Most of the "masses" clamoring for much of this digital hardware will come nowhere near scratching the surface of what's possible. It still takes a bit of time and more-than-casual interest to do something above the passably-interesting (but more people will be doing it). Lots more people will acheive well-focused, well-exposed photographs. For the vast majority of people, that's the beginning and end of what "photography" means. This is prpetty much how it's always been; creatively ambitious photography has always been a pursuit of a minority of people packing a camera. Lots of people like to wax "creative" when they break out that digiflex (or any SLR for that matter; the idea of "moving up" to an SLR to "improve" one's photography goes straight back to the 1960s, and I have the ad copy to prove it :)), but where the light hits the sensor, other stuff seems to get in the way. So, a few halfway-interesting snaps get made, thrown into the computer, tarted up a bit, then uploaded somewhere. And that's where it stops.

The second (abbreviated) school, which I guardedly adhere to more, is: That Which Doesn't Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger. Film is my primary medium, and will likely remain that way unless I can't get the stuff anymore. However, I was an early adopter of the digital "lightroom" and Photoshop, and I regard these as some of the best things to happen to photography. Putting together any kind of darkroon has long been daunting for most people who were more than mildly interested in having one; Creating a great darkroom has been impossible for all but a relative few who had the time, funds, and, most important (and usually even more scarce than the first two), space. The ability to take one's film, make high-quality scans, digitally retouch and manipulate ("manipulate" has become a dirty word of late, but I use it in the strictest wet-darkroom sense as far as my work is concerned) with a higher degree of precision than before, then print the resulting file at home or via pro lab, still amazes me. There are no minuses here, nor is this a dis against the wet darkroom: the lightroom can go where no darkroom is possible, 'tis all.

There'll always be people doing with Photoshop what Jeff Koons does with sculpture (namely, spectacularly silly, but that's my taste intruding here again). Silliness and bad art abound, but that's long been the case, and just because there are cameras built into damn near everything now doesn't mean tossing your Leica away and saying "---- it, I'm outta here." The world feels smaller than it is these days, but it's still bigger than we imagine. That's the thought that keeps me getting up in the morning.

- Barrett

mikeh

12-04-2007, 14:12

If someone does a "photography" exhibit, but produced it entirely in front of his computer, photoshopping stock images into wonderful surreal art (but never actually tripping a shutter), is he still the "photographer"?

Gabriel M.A.

12-04-2007, 14:40

Sculpture did the same thing a while back, so that now "sculpture" can indicate a hole in the ground as readily as a bronze statue.
I say it's another triumph for the "Who Cares?" Morovulgatti, who compensating for their lack of talent and technique say "if I say so, it is so"

mfunnell

12-04-2007, 15:22

I say it's another triumph for the "Who Cares?" Morovulgatti, who compensating for their lack of talent and technique say "if I say so, it is so"Certainly there seem to be way too many of them. The trick, if you can pull it off, is to appreciate work you might not "get" at first, and try to understand it, without wasting time on the aforesaid talentless types. The heuristic I use is to look further into things only where the artist has demonstrated competent use of their medium and materials. This is on the principle that if they can't be bothered to get the craftsmanship right then their "art" is unlikely to be the real deal. At the very least, if an artist is a competent craftsman then its likely that their work is deliberate and came out as they intended it to. And it they couldn't be bothered learning the craft as an underpinning to their art, well, how committed can they really be?

To pick an example that's important to me personally, whether you like Jackson Pollock's work or not, its quite obvious that the man knew his way around canvas, brush and paint. Having realised that, and looking into his work further, I came to appreciate it rather a lot. But even if I hadn't liked his work (as has happened with other artists) I would have gained some insight into why others did, and seen the value in work that I didn't personally care for.

...Mike

foto_fool

12-04-2007, 16:40

Good discussion, and I submit that the fact it is happening is evidence that he's just mostly dead, and mostly dead means partly alive. "To blaaaave..."

Gabriel - great new sig! For a long time I also have been calling myself a jelly donut, to friends who understand the fun that can be had with a poor translation.

RE: the article itself, I tend to agree with Ruben. The whole genre of "fill-in-the-blank"-is -dead writing has been done and done, and by better writers. I found the work derivative.

- John

40oz

12-04-2007, 16:46

It would seem you are misreading... there is no question that definitions of image making in general are being blurred.

I suppose the issues being noted are very far away from the discussions on RFF. I would not know where to begin discussing my photographs on RFF, since 99% of their creation exists outside of the camera. For that reason I think of the RFF as an equipment discussion.

But dumb, hardly.

To start with, the author demonstrates an ignorance of the history of photography, both as an art and as documentation. A discussion of the factual inaccuracies would be an article in itself, and the author hasne't earned that kind of attention. IOW, even a passing knowledge of mid-century photography would reveal the fallacies found in the article.

Secondly, how can the widespread use of captured images in various forms and manipulations for artistic purposes possibly mean photography is "dead?" Perhaps the author was using a definition of the word "dead" that I am unfamiliar with, one counter to the traditional sense. Or perhaps the author is not nearly so clever or educated as he thinks.

RdEoSg

12-04-2007, 17:28

To start with, the author demonstrates an ignorance of the history of photography, both as an art and as documentation. A discussion of the factual inaccuracies would be an article in itself, and the author hasne't earned that kind of attention. IOW, even a passing knowledge of mid-century photography would reveal the fallacies found in the article.

Secondly, how can the widespread use of captured images in various forms and manipulations for artistic purposes possibly mean photography is "dead?" Perhaps the author was using a definition of the word "dead" that I am unfamiliar with, one counter to the traditional sense. Or perhaps the author is not nearly so clever or educated as he thinks.

Sooooo... what you are saying is that the article is dumb and you know why, but you are unwilling to offer any sort of proof that your opinion is correct and his is not.

Interesting.

dadsm3

12-04-2007, 19:08

Wow, I thought film users were over-defensive. Methinks thou dost protest too much....
Who doesn't lose the "gee-whiz factor" once you realize a swan landing in a misty pond is photoshopped in rather than caught in real life by a craftsman lying in some reeds? Maybe they're both art, and I'll leave that to the philosophers.
But I have a hell of a lot more respect for a real photograph that someone fought for over an image that some computer savvy technician with nothing more than a good eye whipped up in his basement one night.

amateriat

12-04-2007, 19:08

Chris: Well, you have to admit, the article got us out of our chairs, which at least in small part was the idea, no? :rolleyes:

- Barrett

literiter

12-04-2007, 19:58

The article is indeed interesting but, I'm still not sure from reading it, what condition photography is in.

Mary Ellen Mark ( famous photojournalist ) came to our little town one day. We were given the treat of our lives as this marvelous photographer showed slides of some of her work and gave an interesting talk.

When the talk turned to the subject of digital photography the woman became immediately vituperative. She exclamed in no uncertain terms that digital photography would kill photography. ( It is of course interesting that this photographer is still alive and still producing images. )

I don't believe this at all. I believe another large branch is growing on a large tree.

Perhaps I miss something (as is often the case) but how someone of the stature of Ms Mark could worry about photography dying by the addition of another tool (an inevitable tool) could concern her.

Us humans are an odd lot, myself notwithstanding.

mfunnell

12-04-2007, 20:47

Demand - Casebere - Wall
The only well known artist heavily using Photoshop is Barry Frydlender, using many hundreds of images to build one.

:confused: I think I'm missing something here. Are those examples trying to show me that photography is or isn't dead, or something else entirely? Whatever I think of those particular works or artists, they really don't speak to me one way or the other about the state of photography as such.

...Mike

amateriat

12-04-2007, 21:13

literiter: MEM is entitled to her opinion, just as the rest of us are. (I don't entirely agree with her on this one, but i don't entirely not agree; depends on the day. ;))

- Barrett

amateriat

12-04-2007, 21:18

Capital "P" Photography (concrete?) is dead, like capital "A" Art...?

Just want to be sure I'm reading you right on this.

- Barrett

literiter

12-05-2007, 03:18

Interesting that "literiter" would think of MEM as a photojournalist, and I guess in a very limited way she is, mostly because of her social subject matter, but few would think of her that way. She is an artist, illustrator, but a journalist? Maybe for a some of her work, but much of it would never fit in any mainstream journalism... too Larry Clarkish.

Of course MEM is what you say, but this is how she described herself. I will not argue. As I saw her she was indeed; more of an artist, an illustrator a social commentator.

Her opinion that photography was dead, because of the advent of digital cameras, was likely a statement of some ongoing frustration rather than anything else.( I actually wonder if the lady isn't using digital equipment now, as she continues her career. ) Her concern, in part, was the possibility of manipulating the image.

My feeling; If the picture is true why do we care how we draw it?

dave lackey

12-05-2007, 03:48

Quote: "The ability to take one's film, make high-quality scans, digitally retouch and manipulate ("manipulate" has become a dirty word of late, but I use it in the strictest wet-darkroom sense as far as my work is concerned) with a higher degree of precision than before, then print the resulting file at home or via pro lab, still amazes me. There are no minuses here, nor is this a dis against the wet darkroom: the lightroom can go where no darkroom is possible, 'tis all."

Hi, Barrett...

Interesting diatribe and I have only one nit to pick. A personal one but maybe not too rare.

I have been working photoshop with my D2H for years now. My results have been satisfying and I have continued to shoot film and am now trying to master film photography as if I had not been shooting for 35 years.

Why? Well, I am typing with one finger now due to recent surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome which is nerve damage to the ulnar nerve at the elbow. Caused by thousands of hours at the computer resting my arms/elbows on the desk and chair arm. You can google the term for more info but I awoke one morning with numbness in my left arm which quickly resulted in paralysis of my hand and severe pain. Surgery was immediately done and I can only wait 6-12 months for a prognosis. Not fun but it has givenme an opportunity to go back to shooting and selecting those negatives/slides that I like for printing.

I am forced to back away from hours of PS.

The best part is my photography is changing for the better as manual focus lenses and film force me to not only slow down while shooting but to think through my objectives for shooting in he first place.

YMMV...but Photography is NOT Dead for me. It is just beginning!

Thanks for your post as this is turning into an interesting thread.

literiter

12-05-2007, 04:08

Here is an interesting thing I bookmarked a while ago.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1534

noimmunity

12-05-2007, 05:37

You should read the article again. I am not sure what you mean by "captured images" but what Peter is talking about are fictional images, I don't think the title is the best, but he is not trying to be clever to trick anyone.

below fictional images

There is a lot of misreading of the article here. The article's argument hinges on a very conventional and utterly pedestrian view of photography that we can call "reflection theory". According to this view, photography is a reflection of reality. This is a naive platonism, period. From this perspective, it seems as if the advent of virtual technologies has destroyed the indexical function of reality that "photography", in the sense understood by the author, formerly relied upon for its prestige. Hence, the author concludes that "The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality".

This kind of "reflection theory" view of the technologically-reproduced image was anachronistic as soon as the advent of cinema and mechanically-reproduced works of art. What is so striking about this article is the fact that the author can mount such a naive argument in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the history of the image in the twentieth century! Apparently, it is easy (for the corporate media) today to consign to oblivion the innumerable ways in which art of the image in the 20th century has led us to go beyond the idea of ONE SINGLE UNITARY REALITY (phew! that has to be written in capital letters), giving us precisely a precious and nuanced sense that "reality" itself is actually composed of many layers which themselves have no more, nor less, substance than an image. Images are substantial--everybody here knows that!

I suppose next thing we will be told by the pundits of oblivion and forgetting is that post cinema and virtual photography should be banned from the City.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 06:40

...lets go look at some Photography, and we go over and look at 11x14 prints, with 3 inch wide mats on the top and sides, 4 inches on the bottom, in natural dark wood frames, hung at eye level, all spaced 4 1/2 feet apart. We look at strangers on the streets, or dead in wars, or more strangers in the streets, all perfectly positioned...

Nothing wrong with those kind of photographs, except that perhaps the novelty has worn off. We've been looking at photos of that type now for, what, a century, so anyone who's spent any time in galleries has become entirely too familiar with them.

Your post hints there's something passe about them and that 'fictional images' are somehow artistically superior, but I think a more primitive part of the brain is simply reacting to a new(er) stimulus.

Kevin

12-05-2007, 06:52

The incompetent writer closes with "The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way."

This fool stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the simple concept of tradition.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 07:13

I don't hint. Not that I do not occasionally enjoy the comfort of MOMA's iconic sections, with the simple frames. There is a peace in it.

While I can respect that there's always a need to push forward and break new ground in art, I must object to the notion that there's some sort of moral or intellectual superiority in the appreciation of the new. All it indicates is that a person has already seen the old and wants to move on. Period. There's no special merit, superiority or status there. That's close-minded, insider thinking, and a good reason that so much of the art world is trapped on a little island, talking only to each other. :bang:

crawdiddy

12-05-2007, 08:11

Actually you are right we talk to mostly to each other. I for one (and I think I speak for many of my friends) do not feel trapped at all.
>>

Many prisoners become so accustomed to incarceration, that they no longer feel trapped either.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 08:30

Jeez, are posters allowed to delete their responses after they've been replied to? It makes a mess of the thread....! :confused:

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 08:36

Jeez, are posters allowed to delete their responses after they've been replied to? It makes a mess of the thread....! :confused:

Yes they (me) are, but not to worry, this is absolutely the last time I will comment on photo content, and the quotes live on, undeleted. I will reserve my opinions to equipment.

This thread had such an undercurrent of hatred and posturing, that I found it, in the end, intolerable.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 08:36

Actually you are right we talk to mostly to each other. I for one (and I think I speak for many of my friends) do not feel trapped at all.

Honest question: Don't artists have some sort of obligation to engage the world at large? I'm not 'just' being a smart-ass when I say that, as a group, U.S. artists seem to be trapped on an island, it saddens me, too. Will we have to have another great depression, with WPA art projects and the like, to get artists out in the general public again? :confused: :(

kevin m

12-05-2007, 08:40

This thread had such an undercurrent of hatred and posturing, that I found it, in the end, intolerable.

I'll have to go back and read the whole thing.

There does seem to be more than a little animosity between the art world and the public at large, though, and both camps are the worse for it, I think. The art world seems to spiral ever tighter in on itself and the general public seems content to wallow, almost literally, in filth.

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 08:41

No Kevin we do not have any obligation whatsoever to engage the world at large. We do talk however, and we publish, and make films, and do a public works.

If this is a serious question, and I am not being baited, this is a widely discussed issue among those (including me) who have received public money.

When I received my National Endowment Fellowships (two), there was a hidden undercurrent of political conformity expected. A responsibility not to so offend the government, so that other artists will not receive the grants. In the end the NEA (started by Johnson) was lost to the moaning of the conservatives who did not want any money going to Godless artists.

I however prefer money from private funding, collectors, fellowships like the Guggenheim.

The hatred of artists is a tricky issue. Only a few politicians like Rudy Guliani actually use it in public to further their careers, but it exists in such an odd form, that I never really understand where it will strike again. It does certainly have class roots, hatred of learning or career without purpose, and there is a homophobic component.

As I said, most of the time I do not bring it up, especially among groups of older men I don't know, who are often almost violent in their need to make a mean-spirited statement or two. When asked what I do, I usually just lie.

And yet the museums are flooded on weekends, go figure. Thank God for women, especially moms like mine. There is far more public funded art now than ever during the WPA, so there are signs of hope. I spent part of the weekend with the artist that is doing the huge sculptures in the new Census building lawns.

>>

kevin m

12-05-2007, 09:07

If this is a serious question, and I am not being baited, this is a widely discussed issue among those (including me) who have received public money.

It is, I swear, no baiting! When I'm being nasty, it's usually pretty obvious. :angel:

I wasn't thinking at all about public money, I was thinking about the huge gulf that exists between, say, the people in the place where I grew up (central Illinois, in the heart of "fly-over country") and the people I know now who live and work in NYC and are part of the art world, to some degree. Both camps seem content to live apart from one another, one knowingly, the other barely aware the other exists, and that seems a sad state of affairs.

A responsibility not to so offend the government, so that other artists will not receive the grants.

No more "Piss Christs", right? The obligation I was talking about is the obligation to connect, one person to another, thru the artist's chosen medium, and not the obligation to spend public funds a certain way, which, I agree, is a silly form of censorship.

MikeL

12-05-2007, 09:22

Both camps seem content to live apart from one another, one knowingly, the other barely aware the other exists, and that seems a sad state of affairs.

Kevin, I'm curious why you see this as a sad state of affairs. Ideally what should be happening? I'm not baiting here either.

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 09:22

No Kevin I do not believe connecting one person to another has much to do with making art, unless that is the artist's goal. Bruce Nauman's well known sculpture put it clearly.

Until a few years ago I still owned a farm in southern Illinois, not a place dear to my heart, I still have cousins who think nothing of saying "It's those ---s in Chicago that keep the soy prices so damed low." (I wrote the full quote but could not bear to leave it in place.) I am frankly fed up with the thinking, based mostly on fear, of most of my past, I am so relieved to be apart.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 09:55

Ideally what should be happening? I'm not baiting here either.

Mike, I have no clear idea. But can art survive in a vacuum? Can the "general population" survive without art? Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations? :confused:

kevin m

12-05-2007, 10:05

I do not believe connecting one person to another has much to do with making art, unless that is the artist's goal.

Not with the making, but certainly with the performance/display/exhibition. Or am I way off base here?

Until a few years ago I still owned a farm in southern Illinois, not a place dear to my heart, I still have cousins who think nothing of saying "It's those ---s in Chicago that keep the soy prices so damed low." (I wrote the full quote but could not bear to leave it in place.) I am frankly fed up with the thinking, based mostly on fear, of most of my past, I am so relieved to be apart.

I was an adult student in the film department at SIUC. (small world...!) I made a super-8 film that attracted some notice from the faculty, earned me an "A" in the course and a film maker's grant from Kodak. I made the mistake of showing it to my parents -- Nothing but the sound of clearing throats.

I'm glad to be gone, too, and have NO intention of ever moving back. But I guess I have some lingering sense that the people I left behind don't quite deserve that fate, either. There has to be something more to life than shopping, Fox News, church and The Olive Garden.

toyotadesigner

12-05-2007, 10:10

Socke,

138 million cameras sold in 2007, 10% more than 2006
126 million are digital
12 million are film cameras

You forgot to mention how many film cameras there are on the global market available. Billions! So what is 126 million compared to billions?

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 10:19

Not with the making, but certainly with the performance/display/exhibition. Or am I way off base here? Oh I suppose in a perfect world yes, and I am sure I have many friends who would be more open to dialog than I am, certainly much more hopeful that exhibitions will be uplifting and make the world a better place. You can't really argue with that. I am not perhaps the best choice of an artist to ask, but certainly the deeper dialog will be among the creators.I was an adult student in the film department at SIUC. (small world...!) I made a super-8 film that attracted some notice from the faculty, earned me an "A" in the course and a film maker's grant from Kodak. I made the mistake of showing it to my parents -- Nothing but the sound of clearing throats.

I'm glad to be gone, too, and have NO intention of ever moving back. But I guess I have some lingering sense that the people I left behind don't quite deserve that fate, either. There has to be something more to life than shopping, Fox News, church and The Olive Garden.
I had a wonderful youth riding my bicycle without adults bothering us, swimming in the rivers in Missouri, but it has changed now and I do not recognize it. There is so much fear, and in St. Louis so much violence. And yes The Olive Garden, each serving enough to feed a family of five in NYC, but I miss Steak 'n Shake.

MikeL

12-05-2007, 10:20

Mike, I have no clear idea. But can art survive in a vacuum? Can the "general population" survive without art? Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations? :confused:

Seems to me people tend to self sort, right or wrong. Not everyone is comfortable or interested in exposure to new/different things, whether going from the coast to the middle or vice versa. I know I'd feel out-of-place or "not my scene" at a nascar event. Could I learn to appreciate it? For sure, but the activation energy is there, and why put out more energy when there isn't enough time to do the things I want to do already? I imagine others feel the same way about art.

Isn't it all just entertainment in the end (nascar or art), or are there mystic truths?:)

Gabriel M.A.

12-05-2007, 10:41

Mike, I have no clear idea. But can art survive in a vacuum? Can the "general population" survive without art? Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations? :confused:
Borrowing from a great fictitious character: "Art is as art does".

Some people love peanuts; others have a lethal reaction to it. As peanuts, art is different things to different people. Wars, political careers, fortunes and countless establishments have influenced it, been influenced by it, and many others have been blissfully unaware of it.

The peanut farmer may not have much time and/or interest in the works of O'Keefe. And that may or may not have something to do with farming, but the priorities of the farmer. Just as much as an "artist" may not have much time and/or interest in the difference between high-yield crops, organic fertalizers, and soil rotation; the "artist" still needs somebody to know all of those for the "artist" to be fed.

Unless it's a "starving artist".

I wonder if all of this is "posturing"? You certainly need to do some posturing if you don't want your spine to go bad. And if you want a good, controlled portrait. Or a comfortable ride on the bus...

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 10:55

Generally there seems to be a fair amount of humble honesty about personal work on the RFF, but for some reason there are some who want to be seen as "artists," and are really pissed off if they are not.

I love bicycles, buy them by the truckload, know everything there is to know about them, ride 100 miles a week, but I never confuse myself with Lance Armstrong.

Sometimes you just need a hobby.

Which is not to say there are not some really beautiful photos around... just now looking at rff member "SteveMPhoto's photos" of Arizona on Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevemphoto/ whew!!

kevin m

12-05-2007, 11:54

There is so much fear, and in St. Louis so much violence.

I can't help but think there's a connection between that and the lack of real art out there. Honestly. I don't know exactly what the connection is, but I feel it. The emptiness out there. The fact that all their creative, different, weird children who don't quite fit in and end up moving to either coast must have something to do with it.

I miss Steak 'n Shake.

Me, too....how sad is that? I especially miss the weird, old Steak 'n Shakes in downtown St. Louis. The ones with stainless steel and white tiles everywhere...

kevin m

12-05-2007, 12:06

Isn't it all just entertainment in the end (nascar or art)

There's an element of entertainment, sure. That's the honey that draws the flies, so to speak. But I have to disagree that that's all there should be to it. I think the risk is what draws an audience; the risk of death, in racing, and the risk of....what...self? in art. You have to put yourself out there or it doesn't matter much in either case.

But Nascar is a ghetto now just as much as the art world is. It accepts no outside influence, now; the technology is laughable ("the car of tomorrow" ...with a carburetor? :eek: ) and the competition seems as fixed as the WWF.

furcafe

12-05-2007, 12:19

While I agree w/your broader statement that the author overstates his narrow thesis (something that rarely occurs in newsweeklies, I'm sure :rolleyes: ), I don't believe the issue of the "reflective/indexical" nature of photography is really the same as the questions posed by the mechanical reproduction of all art (IIRC from my long ago readings of Benjamin, et al.). Mechanical reproduction is not the same as mechanical generation, which I believe is the main concern of the author.

There is a lot of misreading of the article here. The article's argument hinges on a very conventional and utterly pedestrian view of photography that we can call "reflection theory". According to this view, photography is a reflection of reality. This is a naive platonism, period. From this perspective, it seems as if the advent of virtual technologies has destroyed the indexical function of reality that "photography", in the sense understood by the author, formerly relied upon for its prestige. Hence, the author concludes that "The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality".

This kind of "reflection theory" view of the technologically-reproduced image was anachronistic as soon as the advent of cinema and mechanically-reproduced works of art. What is so striking about this article is the fact that the author can mount such a naive argument in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the history of the image in the twentieth century! Apparently, it is easy (for the corporate media) today to consign to oblivion the innumerable ways in which art of the image in the 20th century has led us to go beyond the idea of ONE SINGLE UNITARY REALITY (phew! that has to be written in capital letters), giving us precisely a precious and nuanced sense that "reality" itself is actually composed of many layers which themselves have no more, nor less, substance than an image. Images are substantial--everybody here knows that!

I suppose next thing we will be told by the pundits of oblivion and forgetting is that post cinema and virtual photography should be banned from the City.

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 12:58

Mechanical reproduction is not the same as mechanical generation, which I believe is the main concern of the author.

I was beginning to despair, but finally!

furcafe

12-05-2007, 12:59

I think there are several reasons. 1 mentioned by nikonhswebmaster is the class or cultural preference for the practical over the aesthetic & the physical over the intellectual, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as hatred (unless combined w/homophobia) so much as a lack of respect. I'm not sure I would agree w/those (incl. many Europeans I've spoken to) who believe that Americans are inherently anti-intellectual; I think it has more to do w/our tradition of anti-elitism & the fact that art is always, @ some level, elitist & in a way that isn't as transparent & "practical" as other endeavors or professions (the same might be true of other egalitarian countries like Australia). Another factor, mentioned by MikeL, is the tendency for people to self-segregate, which many believe to have accelerated in the past few decades (e.g., "Bowling Alone"). Nowadays, there's not a lot of crossover between ethnic & socioeconomic groups & subcultures, period, not just between artists & society @ large. This may be due to increased affluence & social mobility. Back in the day, the sensitive artist stuck on the farm really was stuck on the farm & couldn't easily escape to Chicago or NYC; the artist is better off today, but it's worse for the folks back in Smallville (a similar argument has been made w/respect to the movement of professional & middle-class African-Americans from the inner city following the end of segregation). Finally, & this may be the reason that you're most concerned with, is the fact that as "high" art (or art-for-arts-sake, the kind that is funded by grants & appears in galleries), has become increasingly abstract, non-representational, &/or conceptual since the mid-19th century, it is no longer congruent w/the aesthetic lives of most people. This isn't to say that modern art is bad, just that for the most part, it doesn't speak to the ordinary person today the way that even the most esoteric work by Michelangelo or fill-in-your-favorite-old-master-here would have to even a peasant (were he/she fortunate enough to be allowed into a palazzo to see it).

Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations? :confused:

kevin m

12-05-2007, 13:11

furcafe, thanks for the post.

I agree with many of the points you made, particularly the anti-intellectual bent of many Americans. Art and Democracy seem to be increasingly at odds lately, that's for sure. If artists feel no obligation to give back to society and the general public is content to view any attempt at self-improvement as snobbery, then where does that leave us?

I still think that it's the artists who need to make the first move. They, after all, are the ones who are aware of this situation. I think "art for art's sake" is an idea whose time has passed.

You mentioned a palazzo...I remember walking into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul for the first time. Even in its present condition, with the mosaics faded, etc., it still has the power to inspire simple awe. The harmony of the proportions; the light that seems to come from inside the golden tiles of the mosaics...it simply shuts your mouth. Which, I think, is a key effect of art: hushed reverence. Even this far past its prime, and to a modern eye, it can have that effect.

What is there in modern America that the common man has access to that can have the same effect?

Gabriel M.A.

12-05-2007, 13:15

I still think that it's the artists who need to make the first move. They, after all, are the ones who are aware of this situation. I think "art for art's sake" is an idea whose time has passed.
Oh, no! So you mean that Shostakovich was wrong in being at odds with his Soviet government which pretty much contended that "Art" couldn't be "for its own sake" but something more utilitarian like "for our sake"?

nikonhswebmaster

12-05-2007, 13:16

This isn't to say that modern art is bad, just that for the most part, it doesn't speak to the ordinary person today the way that even the most esoteric work by Michelangelo or fill-in-your-favorite-old-master-here would have to even a peasant (were he/she fortunate enough to be allowed into a palazzo to see it).

I think the ordinary man, forced to walk on the streets of Firenza, looked down upon from the walkways to the palaces by the wealthy, still took pride in the art in his city. That, even if he never could see the work commissioned by the rich, drew pride from it.

Few seem to understand the power/prestige that existed for American art during the "Modern" era.

furcafe

12-05-2007, 13:36

Ah, I've yet to visit Istanbul (on my to do list).

True, not all the great art was in palazzi, er palazze (sp?). Whatever the faults of the church, they did (& do) have some great art, much of which was intended mainly for straightforward didactic/instructional purposes, but just happened to be executed by the greatest artists of the time. The same could be said of public art in the classical period.

Harking back to MikeL's comment, I think the modern secular analogs to basilica & cathedral are entertainment arts forms, like popular music, cinema, & television. For better or worse, those are the venues where artists, or @ least those practiced in the arts, engage w/ordinary people today.

You mentioned a palazzo...I remember walking into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul for the first time. Even in its present condition, with the mosaics faded, etc., it still has the power to inspire simple awe. The harmony of the proportions; the light that seems to come from inside the golden tiles of the mosaics...it simply shuts your mouth. Which, I think, is a key effect of art: hushed reverence. Even this far past its prime, and to a modern eye, it can have that effect.

What is there in modern America that the common man has access to that can have the same effect?

noimmunity

12-05-2007, 14:03

While I agree w/your broader statement that the author overstates his narrow thesis (something that rarely occurs in newsweeklies, I'm sure :rolleyes: ), I don't believe the issue of the "reflective/indexical" nature of photography is really the same as the questions posed by the mechanical reproduction of all art (IIRC from my long ago readings of Benjamin, et al.). Mechanical reproduction is not the same as mechanical generation, which I believe is the main concern of the author.

You're right, furcafe, there is a difference between mechanical production and reproduction, but mechanical reproduction according to Benjamin posed challenges for art precisely by undermining the primacy of the original production. Once everything is a copy of a copy, it is not very long before one questions the concept of origin in general. To question the ontological primacy of the origin and to reverse platonism and see something akin to the image at the heart of ontology---this was the course of continental philosophy in the 20th century, from Bergson and Heidegger, Barthes and Benjamin, to Deleuze and Derrida. Deleuze shows how cinema was on to this idea from its very inception...

Amyway, I'm not sure these points are as important as observing the fact that this thread has revealed some deep intolerance...Nikonshwebmaster's commentary pretty much sums it up. For that reason alone I'm on my knees in gratitude to furcafe for bringing discussion back into the thread.

OT rant: Island? America the nation-State lives on a proverbial island in more ways than one, folks. Why single out artists? There is a HUGE scalar transformation going from individual artists to State and Corporate actors. If ya hafta vent about bein' outta touch with the reality of "most people" why stop at the limits of the national, especially given today's global economy and transnational security regimes. Once the category of "most people" begins to include more than the 5% of the world's population chewing up 35% of its resources (= the United States), you can begin to see the incredible inequity in facts such as the 345 individuals whose income equals 45% of the global population. Who is living on an island now? If you want to bring community back into the discussion, why not start with State and Corporate actors rather than artists? Singling out artists while ignoring State and Corporate actors is part of that whole strategy I call proactive immunity, in which the overexposure of a certain view is used to fundamentally disavow the real problems. End of rant.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 14:11

nikonwebmaster, I'll be honest with you and say that I don't "get" Rothko. The work has nothing like the impact the Hagia Sophia had on me. It seems too intellectual and dry to me. But I haven't been to the Philips in person, so it's entirely possible that it would have an effect in person that can't be duplicated in pictures.

Another confession: the first painting I saw in person that had any effect on me was the one I've attached below. I saw it when I was 18 years old at the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.. I didn't "like" it before I saw it and I still don't "like" it, but it still stopped me in my tracks upon first viewing. I just stopped and stared at it for the longest time, wordless. Later, the thought that came to me was, "how did Monet get light into his painting?" I knew nor cared nothing about art at the time, but that experience of hushed reverence is one of the defining characteristics of art that I've come to recognize. Perhaps it's different for everyone, but I'd like to think it's universal.

The Guggenheim wasn't yet built when I was last in Europe, but I will see it next time I'm there.

kevin m

12-05-2007, 14:59

Oooh! "Painter of Light," and, yes, that's my final answer!
:D

Gabriel M.A.

12-05-2007, 15:44

Two words: Thomas Kinkade
::shudder::

It's half a notch above the wild ducks and grey wolf paintings I see for sale at the mall, at least.

But it sells. And in this culture it's all about "selling", whether be a product or an idea.

crawdiddy

12-05-2007, 21:16

Americans definitely have a populist, anti-elitist bent, and those qualities are pervasive on this forum. There are no "experts" here. Nothing prevents an individual from deferring to an "authority" about a particular subject, except independence of thought. But that is sufficient for most. Although some members derive their livelihood from photographic craft or art, everyone who participates does so out of passion, even those who just need a hobby. I have yet to run across any who have all the answers.

crawdiddy

12-05-2007, 21:34

... the first painting I saw in person that had any effect on me was the one I've attached below. I saw it when I was 18 years old at the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.. I didn't "like" it before I saw it and I still don't "like" it, but it still stopped me in my tracks upon first viewing. I just stopped and stared at it for the longest time, wordless. Later, the thought that came to me was, "how did Monet get light into his painting?" I knew nor cared nothing about art at the time, but that experience of hushed reverence is one of the defining characteristics of art that I've come to recognize. Perhaps it's different for everyone, but I'd like to think it's universal.

Your reaction seems universal to me. I had a similar reaction to Henri Rousseau's Sleeping Gypsy. I was familiar with the painting, but had never thought much about it. When I first saw it I was transfixed. It was one of the most amazing things I had ever seen. There was a wonderful depth to the rendering of the sky, and the whole piece had a sort of magical stillness to it.

I haven't seen the Hagia Sophia yet, but I intend to. I recall having a similar response to the Pantheon in Rome. The scale is much smaller, but it's an incredible interior.

kevin m

12-06-2007, 16:21

I think it must be true that pictures just don't do justice to paintings. It doesn't make "sense," but there it is; you have to see them in person.

Thanks for the lively discussion, everyone... :)

40oz

12-07-2007, 16:39

Sooooo... what you are saying is that the article is dumb and you know why, but you are unwilling to offer any sort of proof that your opinion is correct and his is not.

Interesting.

Sooooo... what you are saying is you have no comment on the article one way or the other, but find my short post far more interesting and worthy of comment.

Interesting :)

amateriat

12-07-2007, 18:21

I think it must be true that pictures just don't do justice to paintings. It doesn't make "sense," but there it is; you have to see them in person. Oh, it makes tons of sense.

Some years back, I went to see an Andrew Wyeth retrospective at the Whitney. A week before, I had received by mail the accompanying book to the exhibit, Unknown Terrain. I've long liked Wyeth's work, and winced at the cat-calls he's long recieved from certain critics. And, upon seeing the actual works on exhibit, I was once again reminded of the vast gulf between art reproductions and original art. I was quite taken away by it all. It was also a reminder that that good art isn't, or shouldn't necessarily be, an either/or, above- or below-the-neckline (beltline?) experience in order to resonate beyond the moment.

It's good to get out more, especially for art. :)

- Barrett

nikonhswebmaster

12-07-2007, 18:43

jan normandale

12-07-2007, 18:50

Go look at the "Night Watch" in the Rijksmuseum if you want to see what a photograph can't tell you. Spend a day in the Picasso Museum in Paris and you'll come out a believer.

I don't mind 'wall art' I'm glad it's there. It might lead the buyer to think about what art is and what else there is. This is a start as far as I'm concerned. "Americans don't have culture"... gimme a break. There is a ton of great art and artists from the US, from the easily understood like Rockwell, Sargeant or Homer to artists some people complain about and say "that's not art "like Pollock, Koons or Warhol.

amateriat

12-07-2007, 19:47

Andrew Wyeth is tricky -- everyone likes him, but we know it is kind of the pedestrian quality that makes us nervous, like crying at corny movies.

My attitude has always been I like him, but he is not all that filling, but sometimes he hits the spot. We all know the "truth" he tells is mostly in our imagination, but I miss that truth, especially at this time of year.
I think you're onto something here. I've had a somewhat less-ambivalent regard of Wyeth (yeah, as a kid, I was force-fed "Christina's World" like everyone else), but I get your drift. This also got me thinking about so-called "high" and "low" (popular?) art, remembering an argument with someone some time back, while standing in front of one of Jeff Koons' Puppies, that I couldn't see the art in that piece, but could acknowledge the art of, say, a vintage Warner Bros. cartoon (I mumbled something about "low" art having been informed and influenced by "high" art in the early-to-mid 20th century in the U.S., before "pop" started chasing its own tail a bit too fervently, though not without its own delights).

With any luck, by next September, I'll be on the other end of the firing line, with my first one-person show. I think every self-appointed critic should have one. ;)

- Barrett

John Camp

12-07-2007, 21:40

One reason Mary Ellen Mark may have reacted the way she did to digital photography is that her photos rely on her getting very close to strangers, and to building a tight net of trust so that she can take authentic photos of them. With digital, that can actually be faked -- the guy got caught doing it, but remember the LA Times guy who made a good war photograph out of two not-so-good shots? He made that dramatic shot on the fly, with Photoshop on a laptop, in the field...A real good Photoshop guy would have created a hell of a fake photo, and would never have been caught -- not even by the people in the photograph, I suspect. And it would have had great continuing political effect, since it seemed to show a heavily armed US soldier intimidating an Arab guy and his small child, when in fact, IIRC, the photos were made at a food distribution point.

When the Newsweek writer was talking about the "end," I think it referred to a kind of trust you could have with a silver photo. When the Russians would erase a person from a photo on Lenin's tomb, they'd always get caught, because before digital, that was extremely hard to do convincingly. Remember the old "flying saucers photos from the 50s? And there's a famous art photograph, by a photograoher whose name escapes me at the moment, of a plaza scene of people and their shadows in the early morning. One of the walkers apparently was placed badly, creating an ambiguous image, and so he was very carefully and skillfully removed from the photo, using old technology, re-photographing, etc...except the photographer forgot to remove the missing guy's shadow, which is still there, a trace of reality...

It may be possible, I suppose, for the trust to be entirely eliminated, leaving the viewer without any intellectual fame of reference. Is this photo real, or is it all Photoshop filters? Jeff Wall is attacking the "reality" of photos from a different direction, but it has the same effect...the trust diminishes, and without getting into any big argument about it, I think it was an important aspect of photography.

How many people now can look at a photograph -- any photograph, like a war photograph, and react in a visceral way, without the automatic...wait a minute? Is that a Photoshopped propaganda photo? Or is that real? Because it it's real, I'm going to act this way -- and if it's not, I'm going to act another way; and if I can't tell, I won't act at all. I think that's a serious problem.

JC

literiter

12-08-2007, 02:33

Sometimes I think of W. Eugene Smith and his amazing photograph "Tomoko in her bath" taken during a photo expose of mercury poisoning victims in Miimata Japan. To enhance his point Smith may have postioned lights and posed his subjects (I have heard this suggested). I believe this may have been characteristic of Smith and some of his contemporaries. This in no way lessens the impact of the message but was the image manipulated?

Minimata and Tomoko was a fact. It was up to Smith to present the idea as best he could.

Now we have a issue with digital manipulation whereby a complete image can be created to illustrate the truth or a point of view. We are left with our willingness to trust the image maker. Perhaps we have always had to trust the image maker.

nikonhswebmaster

12-08-2007, 11:28

Smith was not a passionless wallflower that is for sure, but his work is honest.

literiter

12-08-2007, 12:55

Smith was not a passionless wallflower that is for sure, but his work is honest.

Yes, I find it satisfying that he created such work, using the tools at hand. I'm sure he worked with pretty basic stuff, like Leica Ms etc. No built in meters, probably no zooms, etc etc.

So in addition to his ability as an artist, he had the skill to use the crude (by todays standards) tools available to him. The single minded devotion to his work, Wow!

W. Eugene Smith was not the only one, not by a long shot. And today we may have people that come to his standards at least.

I looked over the Magnum site, a bit last night. Yes I'm old enough to have seen their stuff in "Life" and "Look", when some of these photographers published their pictures but now in my later years I'm even more impressed.

I think, now, we look to some videographers to meet the challenge of a story as well as some equally courageous still photographers.

kevin m

12-10-2007, 05:25

The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way.

This is, actually, a very good point. I would guess that most photographers have always known that their images weren't actually "reality," but they certainly have been viewed that way by the general public, especially since the origin for all photographic imagery until very recently has been the "fixed point" of a film negative.

I don't think the big change that's occuring now in photography is one of technology so much as it is public perception. I've read that human eyesight was the last of our senses to develop, so perhaps that's why, until now, we've placed a much greater degree of faith in that sense than we have all the others. With the widespread use of digital imaging, I think the public is beginning to understand what photographers and artists have always known: that human eyesight is no more reliable than any other sense.

40oz

12-10-2007, 16:59

This is, actually, a very good point. I would guess that most photographers have always known that their images weren't actually "reality," but they certainly have been viewed that way by the general public, especially since the origin for all photographic imagery until very recently has been the "fixed point" of a film negative.

I don't think the big change that's occuring now in photography is one of technology so much as it is public perception. I've read that human eyesight was the last of our senses to develop, so perhaps that's why, until now, we've placed a much greater degree of faith in that sense than we have all the others. With the widespread use of digital imaging, I think the public is beginning to understand what photographers and artists have always known: that human eyesight is no more reliable than any other sense.

I beg to disagree. Photographers, and especially hollywood films, have always fooled the viewer with an endless variety of tricks. Photoshop merely duplicates the very same techniques that have been available in a darkroom for decade upon decade. Hence it's called Photoshop, not 'Computershop," or "Digitalshop."

Only people with a limited knowledge of photography and an almost willful ignorance of movie special effects would be foolish enough to think Photoshop tricks were anything new. And those people shouldn't be writing articles about the state of photography except as a lark.

It's pretty hard to believe a nationally circulated publication would give print space to such poorly researched and obviously flawed writing. Yes, the casual reader might confuse the article for insight, but the casual reader isn't going to be discussing the article later. And even the casual reader, assuming they had ever watched a fictional war movie, would be aware of how film is routinely manipulated to give one an impression of an event that didn't really happen.

The only people that have ever used the phrase "pictures don't lie" were defending lies. Pictures have never shown truth. They only showed what the photographer wanted them to show. For instance, it's a simple matter to make daylight look like nght in a photograph. Or to show the same person in two different places in a room. These tricks are not new, are not rare, and are not mystifying to the general public. They never required digital imaging, computers, or anything more than a very simple camera. The basic premise that "Only now can we not trust an image" is foolish to the core.

kevin m

12-10-2007, 18:33

Photographers, and especially hollywood films, have always fooled the viewer with an endless variety of tricks.

Yep.

Photoshop merely duplicates the very same techniques that have been available in a darkroom for decade upon decade.

Nope.

Darkroom techniques required some original photographic image from which to work. A point of origin. Photoshop has no such requirement. You can make it all up. That's the point of the article.

mfunnell

12-10-2007, 19:56

For anyone who is interested, there's been discussion of this and along these lines over at The Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/12/proper-terminol.html). This essay (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml) might also be pertinent.

...Mike

40oz

12-15-2007, 12:04

Nope.

Darkroom techniques required some original photographic image from which to work. A point of origin. Photoshop has no such requirement. You can make it all up. That's the point of the article.

I disagree. I can color transparencies with crayon if I want, and make a print. Or skip the darkroom entirely if I so wish. It's not like crayons were invented long after photoshop.

nikonhswebmaster

12-15-2007, 12:13

Yep.
Darkroom techniques required some original photographic image from which to work. A point of origin. Photoshop has no such requirement. You can make it all up. That's the point of the article.

Kevin we are miles and miles from the article, but it is NOT about Photoshop, it is about creating images in the real world... e.g. Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, Thomas Demand those kind of images.

You cannot create photos, even with Photoshop, without a photo as a starting point. Then they would be an illustration, or a collage, or a drawing, but not a photo. You can use photos in a collage, but then it is not photography.

In someways Photoshop is misnamed, it is a non-vector based (pixel based) image manipulation application. It can be used to manipulate any pixels, not just those of photos, but images created solely by photoshop, are not photos.

A rather zen statement -- only a photo is a photo.

Just as an aside you are ignoring the darkroom images of Man Ray, which are not photographs, but use photography materials.

http://www.manray-photo.com/catalog/images/photos/photographies/1132.jpg

40oz

12-15-2007, 21:30

Kevin we are miles and miles from the article, but it is NOT about Photoshop, it is about creating images in the real world... e.g. Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, Thomas Demand those kind of images.

You cannot create photos, even with Photoshop, without a photo as a starting point. Then they would be an illustration, or a collage, or a drawing, but not a photo. You can use photos in a collage, but then it is not photography.

In someways Photoshop is misnamed, it is a non-vector based (pixel based) image manipulation application. It can be used to manipulate any pixels, not just those of photos, but images created solely by photoshop, are not photos.

A rather zen statement -- only a photo is a photo.

Just as an aside you are ignoring the darkroom images of Man Ray, which are not photographs, but use photography materials.

http://www.manray-photo.com/catalog/images/photos/photographies/1132.jpg

exactly. Digital is nothing new, merely another way to do what has always been done. Whether we call them "artists" or "photographers" is largely personal preference. Often the preference of the artist/photographer.