Artistic Expression and Quantity of Photographs

<p>In looking at Walker Evans' career, I was surprised to see that he published less than 150 pictures in book format even though he felt that a book format best portrayed his intent. His lifetime output was probably less than what each of us digitally shoots in a year. Due to the technology available, this is probably true for most historic film/plate photographers.</p>

<p>Avoiding the quantity vs. quality issue, I'm wondering if our current technology is pointing us to a new method of artistic expression somewhere in between single photographs and movies. Perhaps some variant of the slide show in which each picture contributes to a final image? Something different from a collage?</p>

 

<p>"Perhaps some variant of the slide show in which each picture contributes to a final image?"</p>

<p>Hmm, this is something I've considered for quite a while, Jon. For whatever reason, I became a little bored of churning out (and looking at...) at single images, and now much prefer to present pics as little sets. This has the advantage of allowing pics to act as some kind of visual/contextual support/contrast to each other, and thinking about these aspects is often far more interesting to me than looking at the individual pics themselves...</p>

<p>Sometimes it's a very satisfying exercise to take a bunch of pics, none of which may work particularly well as individual images (for me, I mean), and select/arrange them such that they all become far more interesting (to me...) when viewed as part of a set.</p>

 

<p>I think you cannot compare the 150 pictures of Walker Evans with our thousand of shots. First of all: How many photos did Walker Evans shoot in a lifetime in order to identify the 150 to be published. Secondly, none of us are probably a present Walker Evans. My modest contribution to the story tells me hat out of almost 800 uploads here on PN, I'm satisfied with one or two and none of them might be candidates for publication. I'm still searching and hopefully improving.</p>

<p>Anders, let's avoid the quantity vs. quality issue. Since Evans was always experimenting and cutting up negatives, it's interesting to speculate on what he would have done with digital media.</p>

<p>One thing I've considered is making a "slide show" were one particular photo is displayed for much of the duration of the presentation, and alternate photos occasionally fade in and make a brief (or not-so-brief) appearance before fading back to the main photo (or to some other photo...).</p>

<p>If I get time over the Christmas break, I may try to put something together, just as an example.</p>

<p>I think it is already done and perfected in professional advertisment for many years. As long as pictures are taken and/or served for human attention the capasity on human part is the first limit. Most of todays imaging technologies are way more efficient then average persone need or can effectivelly consume or enjoy. The times are also changing fast and example of W. Evans as an scrupulous, ideosyncratic aesthet who had a chance to publish a book of those 150 images bringing it to the attention of maybe few tenths of thousands likeminded intellectuals for given costs, over many years of time, helped with his publisher probably, is rather irrelevant today because now we are millions, we can produce and publish practically unlimited number of images with almost no time delay all over the world each on our own, simmultaniously. And many do. The perspective of publishing a book or exibiting in a gallery as such is not really attractive for todays version of W. Evans. We think of personal ability to form considerable audience and keep their attention for the time being with whatever technology available.</p>

<p>"Artistic expression" in photography refers to nearly exclusively to "wanking." Digital has increased that.</p>

<p>John, I think wanking has been a digital process for quite some time... :)</p>

<p>Jon- "...a new method of artistic expression somewhere in between single photographs and movies." </p>

<p>Definitely true about a portion of my work, although not video, but prints. Not collage either, but installation: www.beaconart.blogspot.com . Of most people's work however, slide shows will have to be it. And really, for most photographers (including me) its still about the print medium, wether its magazines, CD covers, advertising or coffee table books. These days, with our short attention spans, if you can manage to keep someone's attention long enough to watch a "slideshow" you must be doing something right. The great photography book, however, is tactile and has a seductive quality all its own. They will always be around.</p>

<p>A friend of mine, a Czech conceptual artist, asked people to send him copies of their unwanted digital photos - subject irrelevant. He received a vast number. He then displayed these pictures at "random" sequentially on a computer screen in a gallery. After a short period the script he was using faded each image to black, then deleted the photo. By the end of the show there were none left. I'm generally no great fan of conceptual art as it's old hat (see Marcel Duchamp) but I liked this and besides, he's a friend of mine. The Czech conceptual artist that is, not Duchamp.<br>

And no, I don't know if the "originals" still existed; or if the images were digitally shredded.</p>