Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>As photography changes with society and the advancement of technology, I've become interested in the use of the Internet as a substitute for traditional art or photographic galleries. Places like Facebook and Youtube are more social utilities or freakshows rather than an electronic space dedicated to showing creative photographic works. I have been going to this site over a number of months: <a href="http://www.burnmagazine.org">http://www.burnmagazine.org</a> to see the posted essays. </p>

<p>I'm wondering the general reaction to seeing the work electronically rather than as prints. While I like the immediacy and ability to see the work without having to go anywhere outside of my workstation - but, I really miss the ability to interact with the work personally by changing viewing distances and the tactile, visual feel of a print. </p>

<p>I'd also be interested in reactions to this essay: <a href="http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2009/05/michal-daniel-in-your-face/">http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2009/05/michal-daniel-in-your-face/</a> (more of the work can be seen at: <a href="http://www.640x480.net/album.php?posn=first&size=small">http://www.640x480.net/album.php?posn=first&size=small</a>). All of the work done with less than cell phone camera resolution using an Eyemodule 2 640x480 camera. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I don't miss the ability to interact with the work personally by changing viewing distances and the tactile, visual feel of a print because I still go to museums, galleries, photographers' studios, etc. I just saw Frank's Americans at SFMOMA and it was great.</p>

<p>I don't see one form of viewing as a substitute for another. For me, each is a different medium and they seem to co-exist nicely.</p>

<p>The internet allows me to be exposed to more photographers, for instance here on PN, which I just otherwise wouldn't see. </p>

<p>I don't miss anything when I view images on line because I don't distract myself from the experience at hand by comparing it to a different medium. Similarly, I don't regret not having the rhythm and movement of cinema when looking at still photos. Because I know still photos offer a unique experience from cinema, as internet or monitor viewing does from gallery and print viewing.</p>

<p>As for the link, I like the work for its consistency and respect the photographer for following through with a vision. It doesn't move me all that much. It seems to express more the idea and cleverness of the series than much in particular about the individuals. The backgrounds seem graphic and they work on a visual level but they don't seem to relate to the persons uniquely. He's gotten physically close but I don't get an indication that the closeness goes any deeper than that. In other words, I'm not that drawn in.</p>

<p>It's funny that the photographer, in his statement, talks about not impacting the scene because overt camera use can alter the situation and the scene. His camera use and perspective here so clearly affects the scene he brings to us that I'm not sure his concern about not impacting the scene is realized. I know he means he doesn't want to affect what his "characters" may do when they know a camera is present, but that seems like more of an ideological than practical concern since his presence and the camera's technical qualities come through so clearly in what he's presenting, impacting at least the viewer's experience of the people and the scene much.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>It seems photographically atavistic to artificially restrict the online or projected experience to views of single images in silence.</strong> Why bowlderize the technology that way, especially if one is playing with cellphone cameras?</p>

<p>Naturally, the response here to talk along that line has been <strong>panic </strong>because most photographers are, like me, stuck in the old-time still-photographic metaphor. The leading-edge exceptions are today's Capas and today's successors to essayists like Frank, Smith , and Lyon... the cohort of thinkers/photographers recently-formally-educated in photojournalism...many are using <a href="http://www.soundslides.com">www.soundslides.com</a> (see the many projects) and its more sophisticated relatives. Virtually all the best print publications (eg New York Times) offer online slide shows using similar technologies...those that don't have failed to do so due to lack of money and lack of vision.</p>

<p>IMO the visually-best-executed online work is in essays at Magnum's site. Magnum photographers are photographers-in-full IMO, not just nostalgic, decorative, graphic or illustrative.</p>

<p><strong>In any case, online viewing is a primative approach to digital display.</strong> Giant screen TV is far better visually, and that will be abandoned by demanding photographers when digital projectors start to enjoy longer-lived lamps (projection LEDs). <strong>The only reason a "still" photo person claiming to be into digital display lacks a monster TV now, instead of a computer monitor, is lack of committment</strong>...it takes a few thousand dollars to get a decent, big screen.</p>

<p>Personally, I increasingly love physical prints on fine paper. Their worst aspect for me is that they now require sitting in front of a computer, which I do too much already. I do miss the analog darkroom experience/mindframe, B&W and color. For me the problem with Soundslides.com is that like other serious photography, it implies a coherent project, more commitment than I need to make for short sequences of occasional still concepts or portraits.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John--</p>

<p>What you're saying seems a little like saying "Why make a movie in black and white when you can make it in color?" "Why write a piece of music for solo piano when there's a whole orchestra beckoning?" For that matter, "Why limit yourself to 50 or so keys when there are 88 available?" or "Why make a still instead of a movie?"</p>

<p>Because technology has the ability to go further doesn't mean that all uses of that technology have to utilize all those capabilities. If that were the case, I'd be mired in Photoshop bells and whistles forever instead of focusing my use to suit my needs.</p>

<p>There's no doubt that there's plenty of room to explore online technology. I don't know why that precludes assessing someone's work on the basis of what he's accomplished with his usage of it instead of on the basis of what someone else <em>could</em> accomplish.</p>

<p>When I've made slideshows, I've avoided music like the plague. I usually experience accompanying music, though not always, as trivializing. People may get better at it and I may want to explore it at some point. So?</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see one form of viewing as a substitute for another. For me, each is a different medium and they seem to co-exist nicely.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It has nothing to do about co-existing, or whether the viewing experience is unique, or whether you still go to galleries and museums - I know the difference. I like seeing the work and can appreciate it for what it is on-line.</p>

<p>But, in the back of my mind I wonder, is this the best viewer experience available for the images? Is this HOW they're meant to be seen, or only an interim substitute for seeing them as a print? I like the ability just to see a variety of images, however, I find it's a bit like an appetizer before the meal...tantalizing yet not totally filling (or in the E-viewing experience - fulfilling) - leaving me wanting more. Are the images finished at that point in the final display medium?</p>

<p>With a print, there is the choice of image size and presentation that furthers the photographer's image statement. I look at the images and wonder - what size would they be and how would they be presented (printing method, paper type, etc.). There is so much more that can be done to enhance a viewer's personal experience with the image.</p>

<p>While the Internet allows you to make the images ubiquitously available, how do you conceive the images so that the best medium for the message is the monitor? Granted, this may be a personal limitation for me at this time...I'm just trying to figure out how I would make images that were finished at the point of being viewed on a monitor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve--</p>

<p>I see your point better now, especially when it comes to images you're seeing on screen that you may know have already been printed or were made to be printed. Then I understand that you would wonder what they would look like in print form because the monitor image is, indeed, a substitute, almost like looking at a thumbnail instead of the full size.</p>

<p>But I do think a lot of the images we see on our monitors are not meant to go any further, so I'm not sure the wondering what if is in the same vain in those instances as much as it is being tied to what you're familiar with.</p>

<p>Many images generated today are only done so for monitor viewing. I've already done a couple of portraits for people who only want to use them online, on their web site, etc. They don't want prints and I don't consider what they would look like printed.</p>

<p>I think there are unique qualities to monitor viewing, most obviously the back lighting. I can't say I'm a savvy enough photographer (actually the reason is probably that I don't have much pre-digital experience) to yet utilize those unique qualities in the process of creating my photos. More experienced photographers than me have told me they are trying to make digital photographs that utilize the unique characteristics of digital relative to film. I don't think many people are yet conscious of these differences enough to really work with them and "see" differently when using digital instead of film, but I suspect it will come.</p>

<p>In some ways I experience something similar to what you're describing when I view prints, sculptures, buildings, etc. When I saw the Robert Frank exhibit I wondered several times what the prints would look like under different lighting conditions and displayed in a larger space than SFMOMA afforded. Often, when I see a sculpture, I wonder about the shadows being cast by the lighting and whether the sculptor would approve or even thought about such matters. I saw the Frank Geary buildings in Dusseldorf recently, on a pretty cloudy day, and would like to have gone back at several different times of day and under varying weather conditions.</p>

<p>I'm not sure there actually is a "HOW they're meant to be seen" regarding visual arts. There are definitely varying degrees of approximation, but context will always play a role. Thank you for bringing it up. Context when viewing is rarely discussed in these forums and it impacts work significantly.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I've known Michal Daniels through the web for close to a decade, and am honored to be, as he describes it, "one of the pillars on which the work stands", by engaging in discussions, discussing preliminary early edits, and analysis as the 640x480 work evolved. It is an extraordinary -- and unique -- body of work. Michal, btw, is also an expert street photographer in the more traditional (aesthetic/methodological) sense as well as a master photographer of stage plays.</p>

<p>[sS] I'm wondering the general reaction to seeing the work electronically rather than as prints.</p>

<p> It's the way the great majority of photographers and potential clients are used to looking at images. I've had the good fortune to see a huge number of prints in person, and to handle thousands of prints in private and museum collectins with my own gloved hands. I see this dichotomy as an also-and situation. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I would much rather do preliminary edits of others' work (and my own) digitally than from work prints. I've judged many Salons and contests over the web, including one for Canon, over the web, and had no problem with it. The huge majority of images today will never be seen as prints, and in the future, will probably not be <em>hung</em> as prints, either. Have you ever seen a Dura-Trans print? Many artists, like Adam Fuss and others have used them. The internal luminance from one can only be obtained from a glowing screen. This is neither good nor bad, just what it is.</p>

<p>There are many viable web niches for displaying and selling artwork. I would caution people to not reject social networking places outright. Many artists I know get commissions and sell prints from them, specially at the local level. Several artists have found good sales in unlikely places like Second Life. If one makes prints that lean to the decorative, ETSY has brought clients & print sales to many.</p>

<p>___________________________________________________________</p>

<p> Having said all that, I should say I appreciate and enjoy the physicality and reflected image nature of my own eclectic collection of prints, drawings, paintings and postcards</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luis, it's good to hear more about you.</p>

<p>Rear screen projection has always been more "internally luminant" than any print form, including Duratrans and film itself, sitting on a light box. It needs to be done well, of course, and that means controlling ambient light.</p>

<p>Prints will continue to be valued for convenience (a book is more convenient than a Kindle if you are a physical entity), our inherent animal appreciation for "thinginess," and their distance from electronica (many of us have love-hate relationships with electronics, which explains the contined existence of the SLR form factor). </p>

<p><strong>The dream of living in cyberspace was yesterday's news... it's got an amusing nostalgic flavor, like cat-suits, Robbie-The-Robot, and personal helicopters.</strong></p>

<p><strong>We're nowhere near experiencing digital tech to a high visual standard</strong>. That makes audio and motion relatively more important in the mix.</p>

<p>I'm in test market for a mysterious wifi modem, thanks to French TV5: full screen TV images that are almost DTV quality...far better than conventional Internet imagery. <em>Until websites can deliver something close to that, and we won't anytime soon, it's unlikely that many "serious" print-oriented photographers will switch primarily to digital display. <strong>But we'll die off, leaving the Flickr people...a significant percentage of whom are fabulously creative despite Steve's distaste :-)</strong></em></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A typical 72 dpi image on a screen (which more than often does not reflect uniformly as you change the viewing angle) can only give a hint at the qualities of a photograph. There is absolutely no substitute I know of at this time that can replicate the the viewing of a fine image in the traditional manner, either via a high quality darkroom generated photographic print or a high quality digital print on a suitable paper substrate, either viewed at an optimum distance (given the print size and the focal length of the objective of the camera).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First of all, drop the 72dpi, it's meaningless. Screens aren't 72dpi, they are whatever. Second, for many people over a long period of time, the primary viewing of photographs has been in magazines. That's where it's at for many people. They don't see prints, except for happy snap prints. Third, the screen is fine, even on the phone, for many people. This is where it's at now. It may not be how you view the world, but a new generation sees it that way and there is nothing wrong with that. There are new ways of relating to photography, ones that are much more integral to one's life, much more prevalent, and they usually involve screens. Everyone should be celebrating what is happening because it has made photography much more important on a day-to-day basis.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff, the opening sentence of Steve stated:</p>

<p>"As photography changes with society and the advancement of technology, I've become interested in the use of the Internet as a SUBSTITUTE for traditional art or photographic galleries."</p>

<p>People go to galleries to view, to decide and possibly buy art or photographs. Whereas some images may sell on Internet, the latter hasn't replaced (substituted for) the art gallery for more critical viewing of a painting or photograph before purchase. You cannot get the impression of the colour nuances and details and texture of a painting without seeing it up front. The same is true for fine photographic prints (we are not talking here of posters). Much much better to see it in the flesh, especially if youare paying many of your hard earned dollars for something that has only an aesthetic value in your household. </p>

<p>This does not deny that Internet does not have its place and who cares what the mass culture is doing with cell phone photos, or whatever, They are great as such. They can coexist with traditional art media. Craft glassmaking will not disappear because Walmart sells made in China mass produced goblets.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff, your comments above about the importance of the screen and Internet should be taken in the context of what you have recently said on a companion post (Photography as value):</p>

<p>" "Magazine" here is used as euphemism for "web site." As far as I can tell, there is no real magazine, it's a web-only thing. The "cover" appears to be a small flash-based image gallery in one corner of the splash page. It ranks at number 1.8 million in traffic with exactly one site linking in. For comparison, photo.net ranks as number 2213 in traffic with 7500 sites linking in. It has no ads or even a link for advertisers. In other words, it's nothing. The articles are probably free, the photographs are free, and there is no revenue. There isn't even an advertising rate card. I don't think anything having to do with this site matters to anyone, in the end."</p>

<p>There seems to be a gap in your logic. Number 2213 in traffic does not seem to make an important photo site important in the minds of the cyberpopulation. Do the internet sites (web-only things) have value in your mind, ...or not??</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not sure what my post on a website calling itself a magazine has to do with this, and that specific website is not part of this discussion as it is, as I pointed out, an irrelevant website posing as a magazine. My comment here about magazines was directed at the ubiquity of print over galleries and museums. You have completely confused a website claiming to be a magazine with what I stated as a print publication. </p>

<p>The number of people that see prints in galleries and museums is ridiculously small, class-driven, and irrelevant to photography overall. More and more people view photography primarily on screens, including tiny ones, and ignoring that is ignoring what is going on in photography. This has very little to do with internet sites specifically, although that is the primary mode of display. It has to do with how people view and interact with photography.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"The number of people that see prints in galleries and museums is ridiculously small, class-driven, and irrelevant to photography overall. "</em><br>

<em></em><br>

OK, inconsequential but correct as far as that goes..., <strong>HOWEVER the OT specifically expressed his "class driven" values,</strong> and correctly assumed we all embraced them. They are <strong>my values</strong> and, hilariously obviously, <strong>"street photography" values</strong> as well as Steve Swinehart's.. "class driven values" are embraced by this thread as well as by every participant.</p>

<p><strong>To imagine "photography" involves a classless democratic value system is amusing, is more accurately ridiculous.</strong> George Eastman ended that by hanging himself. Cell phone photography is wildly expensive by comparison to minilab photography. </p>

<p>Steve S's OT began by indicating he recognizes that he's "above" that and <strong>proudly NOT classless</strong>.</p>

<p> Steve...am I right?<br>

<em></em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this is being characterized as a new phenomena.

 

Fortunately, over many years the internet and other viewing systems have expanded photography both in terms of access

and the amount of material that can be enjoyed.

 

I suspect resistance to the shift is mostly generational.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I worked at a major NYC Camera store there were maybe 150 photographers of various levels of skill, interests, format, etc. Although I am an avid gallery attendee, and love looking at actual photographic prints (I'm 57 yo btw), it was like pulling teeth to get any of those 149 others (mostly younger than me) to go to a gallery or art museum.....even to see artists they knew and admired....let alone new stuff they never heard of before.</p>

<p>But, those same photographers would spend half the day on JPGmag, digital journalist, national geographic, etc web sites looking at all kinds of photography.</p>

<p>Now that may have been just to avoid working, but I think it still shows the modern day acceptance of the "monitor image" as a viable form of displaying and viewing art photography. Who can afford art photography prints these days anyhow. Every thing I see in galleries that I like is way out of my price range....but my self and those other photographers can go on the web and view our favorites anytime we want.</p>

<p>If you ask me, galleries are going to price themselves right out of existence.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Jeff is right: People who actually walk away from the computer and physically go to see artworks in person, socialize with their peers, meet photographers, network, exchange ideas in person, become a part of their local art culture/scene, etc. <em>are </em> a different class<em>. </em> No better or worse than those who only experience photography in front of a glowing screen, but definitely different.</p>

<p>I am the last person to ignore or disdain the impact of the web on the medium and its future, but think it absurd to declare everything else 'irrelevant'.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>[TS] "Who can afford art photography prints these days anyhow."</p>

<p> Enough people can to have poured $15m USD into just three top auction houses in the 90 days of Spring 2009 this in NYC alone. Total sales over those same three months for all print venues are many times that. 82% of all works met or exceeded reserve and were sold.</p>

<p> Again, in no way am I dissing the elephant-in-the-room significance of the web, even in the art markets. Some prominent galleries are going web-only to increase profits, since their reputations and client list translate readily into web sales. One of the big surprises is that enough buyers are willing to buy significant, very expensive prints over the web (with guarantees, of course). Kathleen Ewing's prestigious Washington DC gallery would be the most prominent example of this.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It appears that I am being selectively quoted.<br>

<br /> If you look at the context of my use of the word "irrelevant," it was coupled to the word "overall." The fact is that photography in galleries and museums has as much social impact these days as the impact of the Bugatti on people's perceptions of cars. Most don't know it's there, and many that do see it as some sort of rarefied activity. But most of them go out and use their car every day. With the increasing availability and use of photography, the same thing has happened there also - most people take photos now (yesterday I watched people snapping themselves or their phones on a city bus) but they don't go to, or even know about, galleries that show photos.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff, This Forum addresses ideas that are of no interest to "most."</p>

<p>"Most" are poorly educated. "Most" stopped pursuing challenging ideas a long time ago, if they were ever even exposed to anything challenging. "Most" are struggling to survive. "Most" Westerners are digital media consumers, not digital media creators, not even "photographers" in the sense of "most" Photo.net visitors (judging by posts and images). </p>

<p><strong>I doubt "most" is similar to the photography of anybody here, yourself included. </strong></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John--</p>

<p>That's a great point. I really hadn't looked at "us" that way but it makes a lot of sense to do so. I'm thinking how that could make a separate, interesting thread and may start one if I can figure out the right approach.</p>

<p>It also got me to wondering, though we are not "most," how much we might still be influenced by "most." I do sense a lot of influence in many photographers' works of the cell phone aesthetic. I think "pop" culture is likely to pervade much "refined" culture (I hate these words but not sure how to better express the difference). I think, for example, of how Leonard Bernstein and Michael Tilson Thomas have been influenced by what "most" people do. There's no doubt a little Michael Jackson in MTT. Nevertheless, if the great photographers, painters, and musicians really let themselves be driven by what "most" people did, we'd be in sad shape. How that relates here is that those greats had plenty of impact, though they weren't for the most part mimicking or caring about what "most" were doing.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, earlier, I said there were plenty of highly creative people in Flickr. There are plenty of highly creative players in every game, that's the nature of humanity.<strong> As a species we're gifted. But "most" can't or won't take advantage. </strong></p>

<p><strong>"Most" is dead weight</strong> no matter the enterprise, whether due to lack of curiosity (insert politician name), bad geographic luck (Somalia), or other curse. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I got that, John, and agree about Flickr. What I'm intrigued by is the notion that even the very non-creative players who take cell phone photos, as a major trend and a very large group, have an influence on the few who are doing photography out of curiosity and challenge.</p>

<p>Just becoming accustomed to all the mindless snaps on Facebook, etc., as part of the new landscape, even if there were no creative types like the ones you refer to on Flickr, can stimulate the open and curious mind to do great things.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...