The Camera as art project finaly launched

<p>*not touching this post with a ten-foot pole*</p>

<p>Thank you Lance;<br>

the 75 was in 2000 when it was an experimental prototype not yet even a littman as we know it since 2001 when Polaroid introduced it to the general public and only a conversion to achieve crowdfunding and get proper jigs.<br>

by now Ive made over 1000 cameras and the earlest cameras had no significant aesthetic variance.<br>

amongst the most notorious owners I can remember of the top of my head are<br>

Bruce weber<br>

Patrick Demarchelier<br>

Paolo Roversi<br>

Paolo Pellegrin<br>

Raymond Depardon<br>

Mariano Vivanco<br>

Gus Van Sant director<br>

Zach Snyder director<br>

Michael Norton<br>

Helmut Newton<br>

Sebastian Kim<br>

Henry Leutwyler<br>

Steven Lyon<br>

etc.................<br>

But most working photographers who used them extensively<br>

rented them from lens and repro like for example Mark Seliger for rolling Stone;</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am glad to contribute to the best of my ability but the road to being incredule is a downward spiral and a dark bottomless pit with decreasing and lower harmonics and anyone who wishes to take that route may not have the appreciation of art as high on the priority list as rule number one would be kindness and consideration sufficient to either agree or ignore what one doesnt find of inerest and choose to focus on what may be of interest rather than have to take out the acid kit as would a pawn shop to verify the carats on a metal because in doing so one has already refused to appreciate unless its validated elsewhere.<br>

I would say if anyone doesnt consider it art then its not art go him and I am very comfortable respecting that as I will expectin turn this discussion to remain respectful and not a corrosive inquiry thank you</p><div></div>

That would imply the engineering involved in the upgrades which

turned this camera into having the highest perfornance in its category

in history would have had to make the difference.

The original camera had great use and utility but didnt qualify as

more responsive than any other Large format camera.

 

This rating was granted by a writer of Popular Photography and who is now

the senior editor of Popular Photography.

 

Some are reluctant to take the opinions of trade publications at face value

But then the most accomplished photographers all agreed in their own words.

 

Some are also reluctant to accept such feedback and then I am shamlessly satisfied

as a reccognized accomplished photographer myself that these opinions are both genuine

and warranted by the results and convinced this is the only legitimate test as pushing the limits

is where performance and reliance counts .

 

I am resigned to accept this is what would be considered as the best proof and resigned to accept

this isnt enough for some and that all the additional satisfaction by amateurs and novices alike will

also not be sufficient for some.

But guess what? People dont shoot as much large format these days and I only make about 20utilitarian cameras a year

now and no longer feel a need to prove anything

Those who disbelive or dislike have a right to and I have no quarrel with their perceptions.

<p>I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand here. The Littman camera itself is being recognized as a work of functional art. This is consistent with MOMA's mission. Precedents include <a href="https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/marcel-duchamp-in-advance-of-the-broken-arm-august-1964-fourth-version-after-lost-original-of-november-1915">Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance Of The Broken Arm"</a>, a snow shovel presented as a form of functional and decorative art.</p>

<p>I'm hoping that someday <a href="http://boyofblue.com/">Wayne Martin Belger's "Boy of Blue Industries"</a> pinhole cameras like the <a href="http://boyofblue.com/cameras/hiv.html"><em>Untouchable (HIV)</em></a> model will also be recognized as functional works of photographic art.</p>

<p>Congratulations, William. In the photography field, crowded with noisy promotions, it's quite an accomplishment to be recognized for contributions in ones lifetime.</p>

The biggest recognition came from Polaroid who after extensive tests under the most rigorous conditions by their criteria

declared my camera was a significant and substantial improvement over the original offered me exclusive manufacture as

a Polaroid O E M sent me a contract and after a year of satisfied customers it was them who proudly intriduced it at the

NY Photo plus expo show with bells and whistles as was the case with Schneider optics.

The fact is this has never been disputed by anyone accredited and embraced and given a very high plateau by those

accredited.That doesnt sit well with some and seems to even infuriate because there is a modification involved .

Please note that for example Popular Photography didnt say the most responsive camera modification but camer

because to a true photographer what matters is the utility at the moment of taking the picture and if the sum of the parts is better

then that is what is being looked at. It is obvious Im no einstein or Picasso but also obvious I am no fly by night self apointee and

I am visiting here to share the progress of the project and not expecting to convince people to buy cameras.

 

We all come from somewhere and some carry the torch where others sign off.

Its the way of the world.

William, you latch on to that question about the modification and believe that aspect infuriates people. But it is the hinge pin in this: (unlike Duchamp's unmodified shovel. With Duchamp it was the fact that he took an everyday item out of its everyday context and put it in a museal context that made the difference) your modification apparently is the thing that makes the difference. So when wanting to know more, it is natural to ask about that.<br>It would be interesting to hear something about that, instead of the list of people who say it is a work of art (the difference between getting to know the artist and his thinking and just seeing a poster advertising an exhibition or the list of people who went to see it).<br>It would also be intersting to hear what you think about the difference between design and art, and what regarding this divide makes the Polaroid be on one side, your camera on the other.

David Lynch recently said, on the topic of

artists being asked to explain or justify their

work: "It limits it," Lynch said, when asked why

he's reluctant to talk about his work in detail.

"It stops people from intuiting and thinking on

their own."

In my opinion the camera has two aspects and thus

the title of the project

opus being work would be interested in the value of the utility of the original camera plus the modification by now

indivisible and the modification as is the original end up as a equal partner where the facilitation to use current films

appears to be the most relevant but is the least of the justifications at this juncture.

Why?

A) because in the begining LF was the only option for hd 4x5 cameras for stopdown photography have been made for over 100

years and unless you expect to shoot thru rangefinder while using slow films handheld the modification attractiveness is

questionable as compared lets say to a linhof which is reliable and better suited for all other work.

 

B)The proposal of the combination of the original utility plus the modifications in my camera was decided to concentrate

on making available a synergistic combination of concurrent features which werent already concurrent on other camera

with the exclusive purpose of being able to shoot as with a leica handheld when the larger negative and separation

beteween film and lens results in shallower depth of field we introduce perfectible parallelism to enhance performance

So lens iris intervention is not required for adequate sharpess then the body is made in two halves then expanded onto a

paralelism containment which results in parallelism similar to that of the medium format made out of a single block

then the linkeages tolerances are perfected and a cam dedicated to the specific lens and the cropping is coupled and

differs for the specific lens and the focusing is combined into the same window and eyepiece optics help bridge the gap

as a rangefinder camera viewfinder can tend to show the outlines of the cropping but when using short to wide angle

kenses barrel distorsions are a fact so our finder lets you see the aesthetics of how your position in regards to the subject

will translate on film .

All this strictly to be more responsive at the decisive moment and since these viefinders werent designed to handle more

than one lens and the bellows extension cannot accomodate anything larger than 150 mm and still offer closeup tgese

have remained as one lens cameras having all possible error removed and all posible justifiable enhancement present but

with that said strictly proposed as a responsive and reliable snapshot camera.

Obviously this makes it attractive for shooting people and in my opinion has no other use besides hand held travel

photography.

What I have written in this post has been echoed by its supporters for the last 15 years and then it makes little sense to

others but now serious scientific journals and publications have taken an interest and covering it.

With all that said it isnt the value of the modification which makes it be art but rather opus as I first said.

I will address the arte aspect in a separate post

BTW Lex

I agree with you 100% I dont feel that art can be succesfuly justified in words as liking something or disliking it is

completely subjective.

 

Some of my earlier attempts while more intricate than the original Polaroid arent art but decoratively enhanced as my

atempts fell short. The original design was also a decorative enhancement.

What is also true is that the original outlines of the Polaroid design arent without merit and go to be equal partners with

whatever final result I accomplsh so I cant take full credit nor intend to

Obviously the utility improvement is a huge effort even if partial and the aesthetic enhancement is sometimes equal or way

larger effort even if partial and I am not a fan of equating obstacles with accomplishment but the opposite so It

makes more sense to me to end up with a camera that does what I expect perfectly even if you could say its no good for

anything else and happy not to have had to start from scratch and I feel equaly about the artistic effort

So far the Polaroid outline has offered a starting point and by years end I feel

that I will be able to trancend this framework and venture further

Did David Lynch also say not to take David Lynch's word on that, because it limits it, "It stops people from intuiting and thinking on their own."?<br><br>There is a reason why things are regarded as whatever it is they are seen as. It does not hurt anyone or anything to investigate that. It is what`, amongst others, curators and art historians do for a living. Those people whose acceptance and approval is very much part of the subject of this thread.<br>They did more than just look and say "nice", and there is nothing wrong with that.<br>Words are capable of expressing every shade of subjetive appreciation we can imagine. And there is nothing wrong with thinking and talking about things. It does not detract from, nor does it want to replace the thing that is the subject.<br><br>And you make a good job of it William. From your first post after Lex's i understand that on the one hand it is about technical perfection. Something your modification produced.<br>I still do not where the boundaries between design and art lie, and what makes these cameras the one and not (or no longer only) the other from the second part. That you share the effort with Polaroid is not that important, i think. You did something more, and that more is what matters (else they could have done with a Polaroid camera what Duchamp did with the shovel, and declare that art as it was).<br>I asked about Hasselblad's attempt to 'bling' old Sony cameras, and clearly (well, to me at least. But i don't know if anyone would disagree) that is not enough to turn those into works of art. You mention decorative enhancements, but what was it, would you say, that made people who think, ask and talk about these things sit up and say "Hey! That's art!"? The combination of something that is both decorative and a technically perfect, usable machine?

A camera having an utilitarian purpose can only be art in part at best

as is the case with architecture.

The flatiriron building in New York is as close to art as you can get

while the chrysler building has a top which is art but as

a whole it balances out somewhat.

 

I believe dual purpose objects can be art when the combination of form

achieve a certain plateau.

 

Some automobiles are beautiful but simply great designs and some which

can have the right marriage of texture and

firmare art or more art versus good design

a lambirgini countach is a great design

a ferrari 350 is art

as are some early Bugatti

a cobra or a 6os corvette is a mixture of good design and art accents.

Putting bling on something is either decorative and or de minimis design unless the addtion enhances

compliments or alters the outline in such a way to transform the whole into sosething which can have a

sculptural quality

BTW The Medalist II is clearly art. the chevron way less as its proportions are

on the amorphic side. The Bantam special design is superb but its proportions can also detract from the art quality.

<p>Surely Duchamp's "Readymades" were originally meant ironically as a poke in the eye of the art establishment that Duchamp once despised? Of course, the only possible response of the art establishment was to embrace and applaud them, and in the process stroke Duchamp's ego to the point where he ultimately became absorbed into that establishment. Mission accomplished by pretentious morons with a vested interest in keeping art elitist (and consequently expensive, collectible and an investment opportunity).</p>

<p>The camera has democratised art, especially the digital and phone camera. One only has to look at the millions of pictures produced and published on the internet everyday. Not all are works of art - or are they? What can we call "art" anymore after its boundaries have been irreversibly blurred by trivial and mundane "works" entering art galleries worldwide, with their pretentious descriptions hung next to them showing more inventiveness than the works themselves? If anything can be art, then everything is art and MOMA along with every other gallery is a redundant warehouse of outmoded inconsequencialities.</p>

<p>Yes the camera should be celebrated, but as a liberator of art, not as an objet d'art.</p>

<p>So, William, does that modified Polaroid actually take pictures?</p>

Since you have asked for clarification about the modification

somehing interesting was finaly demonstrated last year.

Many argued that there was nothing required to improve these cameras

and that all that was required was changing the format back aka

conversion.

As many are aware Polaroid ceased making 4x5 films years ago but for

a while you could still get some.

 

When this dried out some of my clients who shoot fuji 100c started asking

me to make the same modfications I do to the 4x5 but without

changing the format in other words convert it but to 3x4

but with the enhancements of the 4x5.

The result was amazing as the film having less lines than 4x5

benefited significantly from the perfectiblle parallelism when you

can get sharp pictures without having to stop down the lens and overall

quality was significantly enhanced when comparing the same lens installed on the

 

new version as oposed to a conversion to pack film I had made prior to starting

the 4x5 project and had made over 700 pack film cameras back then.

 

BTW what we call our utilitarian cameras all have a nice design

which isnt one of a kind and used on all the non art project cameras

which this 3x4 features.

<p>this is the new 3x4</p>

<p>my pc keeps crashing i hate digitalllll</p>

<p>im trying again</p>

<p>once more;)</p>

William, the thing i'm curious about is that line that divides art from design. The utilitarian aspect is quite possibly one characteristic that does put things that have such on the design side of the divide. But when is something that is something else too (such as a camera) also a work of art? Why, would you say, is the Medalist II a work of art, and another camera not? Is it in the quality of the design, such that very good design is no longer design but art?

In my opinion an object which has a use can be an art object independantly of its use

if its form design and texture are combined in such way as to grant it a scuptural quality as a whole

versus just having an art accent as would be the hood ornament of a 50s car

<p>How about a camera whose viewfinder doesn't cover the format it takes, or whose rangefinder doesn't match the lens used, or that puts the sculptural quality of its body above the image quality of its lens? A dysfunctional but nice-to-look-at object, versus a practical device that produces superb images. Some objects work on both the aesthetic and practical level, and <em>that</em> is good design.</p>

Agreed

My cameras both match the cropping for the specific format and precisely match rangefinder with lens at all distances

when my cameras are delivered.

Provided maintenance is addressed when needed and which there has been little need in recent years that will continue

to be the case.

The awards and recognition from the most demanding professionals on perfomance could hardly come from lack of

performance.

Some people who believe all that counts is the conversion and so buy a Littman second hand which hasnt been

maintained or updated and rate the camera as if it were new.

That would expect the whole camera works because its of a certain brand.

A pirelli tire is the best in my opinion but you have to top it off from time to time

Trust me I believe in that so much that I spent years arguing in favor of precision

and was told it us automaticaly present not required or a sales pitch.

My new cameras come with simple instructions to recalibrate the rangefinder mirror

and a one year warranty which seems to be overprotection since we get little requests

for maintenance.

But we now offer foolproof instrutions for recalibration because the world we live in has

changed ti where 80% of pakages shipped are tossed in some way during the process and

more than 50% of the packages shipped are tossed beyond what is cinsidered acceptable.

 

I have had packages with cameras thrown from outside the carriors truck all the way to the front

Or seen packages thrown on to conveyor belts at hubs right in front of my eyes after

warning thes were fragile and this I am afraid isnt occasional but the norm.

 

In short I dedicated 7 years with 10 upgrades to improve performance

before adding any aesthetics or diverting a second of my time to that.

And there is signifucant evidence the efforts paid off

when Popular Photography declared it was the easiest to use lightest weight most responsive

Large format camera yet .

Popular Photography covers the amateur photography market.

 

then the following year the cameras received thr 2003 American Photo editors

choice awards also based on its performance since as I said

there were no aestetics enhancements to the cameras at that time.

But I havent really answered your question.

The medalist had incredible design on its exterior

And that in my opinion is art.

The rangefinder had a revoultionary technology in

that the image split by optics instead of mirrors

but the implementation was poor

the ektar lenses were incredible but the cropping wasnt.

I loved the camera at a time when I was shooting asa 1600

Trix At f22 in sunlight.

So in this exampe the exterior of the camera is art

the math on the tech is shy of state of the art but due to the fact people shot at f16 in that era

era the camera had a tremendous following.

Rodeo Joe:

You said a very good thing but the claimed democratization has its own dark side

in that while the apps put the world in the palm of your hand the company who makes

the phone and service providers now get all the revenue.

 

Soon you wont have to object to efforts such as mine because

anything that doesnt feed the machine will be deemed unessesary

elitist or the other extreme.

 

I think either extreme is equaly bad.

You now pay more than your dad did for filet mignon but get hotdogs filled with god knows what.

That isnt democratization but dehumanization.

 

Fuel costs are down has any airline passed the savings on to you?

 

At the time of your grandfather constuction was brick and relatively affordable

now its gypsum and shitwood and if you have to sell they tell you

you owe more than its worth if a tornado doesnt get u first.

That isnt democratizationbut dehumanization.

 

I believe art's main purpose is to teach us to coexist despite our differences.

The so called democratization is a scam by which the only one

left with a chance for revenue will be the phone the carrier and your chance for a job

has been sent by phone:) to someone in a country where your so called

democratization has already showing your future.

The guy gets a bowl of rice a day and no phone because he might excersise his freedom

of expression.

 

Now that country has millions of millionaires laughing at us saying"

Look at those Americans" dont have a pot to piss on but they got their principles..

 

 

As far as me while there is breath to be taken and a chance

to do something I am not going to spend it trying to shame everyone

into agreeing with me as they would not really agree but just yieldand that is

not artful living.