Open ended images?

<p>Can you imagine an open-ended kind of photography? A kind where nobody knows or cares how the data gets used or what to call it?<br>

Got to wondering recently while night table book browsing. There was a bit in an old <em>Aperture</em> about Talbot and Daguerre's simultaneous announcements for "natural drawings." Nobody, including the inventors, had a word for them, so "drawings" were all they would be for a while. What to call them? It was ALL open ended then.<br>

Other items I read were about the conceptual challenges contemporary photographers and other artists have with photographs in a post modern era. ZZZZZ. Works every time.<br>

The articles confirmed that I might soon get bored with my life-long, conceptually comfortable photography. I now remind myself that each image is NOT destined for print. Why should a non printer, non exhibitor, artist continue making work with a pre-digital, ready-to-hang outlook? A little epiphany before nodding off. <br>

For example, do you envision in the back of your mind a print or a gallery installation of prints . Say -- a bunch of 16 x 20 salon prints? I have concluded that the numbers of images I make will never amount to but a tiny fraction of production. Then, why should I think the same way about making them? As for people just getting interested in photography, they may never think of leaving the data-only mode to do work other than for digital display. <br>

<strong>How is photography conceptualized that never leaves the data state? </strong>General trends as well as personal re-thinking of your work might be interesting. </p><div></div>

<p>One can look at a screen image as data or a digitally-produced photo as data if they want. That's the small picture, the micro subtext. One can look at a print as data as well, ink on paper or light impressions on paper. And what more do you see?</p>

<p>Materialism such as this takes you as far as you want. Any food for thought could be what feeds one's photography, and the deconstruction of your materials (funny that as you're practicing post-modern thought, you're making fun of it with a series of Zs) is as good a morsel as any. Ultimately, it's about how you express it in a photograph, or in a <em>datagraph</em>, as you might like to call it.</p>

<p>Since I just had my first gallery show, I am not a little more inclined to envision the final print, though I have a ways to go in honing that way of seeing. When I do my work at Plowshare, I often envision series and slide shows. Finished products vary as does what I visualize. I did some portraits of a friend last weekend and knew he would probably only see them online, so I envisioned what they'd look like on the screen . . . sort of not the consciously but, looking back, I know that was part of my overview and context.</p>

<p>My last paragraph should read: <em><strong>I am</strong> a little more inclined to envision the final print . . .</em></p>

<p>I've never done a show, and probably never will do so. Since I've been using digital cameras exclusively, my shooting or processing an image never has been accompanied by thoughts about printing it. I rarely print any photographs, unless it's one I really one to hang up in my house or give to someone as a gift.</p>

<p>Oh, getting a gallery show isn't that difficult. If your work is all framed and stuff, they like that. The problem is selling the stuff. You can tie up a whole lot of coins in frames/matting, plexi, etc. Digital shooters that don't print still look at their pics on a monitor, a sort of ersatz print. To me, nothing beats a print on the wall. I'm sure all of us got interested in good photography by going to galleries, coffeehouses, and art/photo magazines. If there had been no prints in the first place, we never would have got anywhere.</p>

<p><<<getting a gallery show isn't that difficult>>></p>

<p>LOL! For me, <em>getting</em> the show wasn't difficult at all, since it was at my home studio/gallery. Conceptualizing it, printing, matting, framing, lighting and, of course, what food to serve, were the difficult (and most creative, rewarding, and educational) parts.</p>

<p>Alan, your camera is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_the_Purple_Crayon">the purple crayon</a>.</p>

<p>Julie, so is yours; so is everyone's.</p>

<p>Steve, as little as I am interested in doing a show, I am less interested in selling any of my stuff. So that wouldn't be an issue for me. For whatever it's worth, wouldn't it be possible to have a large high definition monitor on hand at a show so that attendees could view your work? You could run a slideshow as a continuous loop, and it would be possible for an attendee to stop it to view a particular image. I'm sure you've considered this, but I thought it was worth stating.</p>

<p>Fred, hopefully I can locate the image of yours at the bottom of this page. It looks like the subject is your father reading from, presumably, a prayerbook.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Since I started making photographs in the 1960's, the "data state" consisted of negatives and prints. Today, shooting digitally, I continue to think of my image data as being equivalent to negatives, and I tend to envision my images as prints. I spent years learning how to make prints, and how to mount and matte them. I own my own dry mount press. I was thinking to myself just recently that it is curious that as more and more photographers produce images primarily for device based output, the newer cameras are making bigger and bigger files: 24-36 mp images, suitable for very large prints, which is really overkill for web size images. Like Michael, I am less interested in selling prints, but I would like to get them out to be seen by others. I did make a "coffee table" book with Blurb recently and I was very pleased with it. These books can be purchased inexpensively by others as well, or made and given out to friends and family.</p>

<p>Not sure I understand where you personally see going with this, Alan. In the realm of digital photography the raw unprocessed data (in camera or post exposure outside the camera) is not often used as such, except as reference for further creation of monitor images or monitor manipulated images or those transformed to print. </p>

<p>One open-ended application that is possibly quite underused at present and which I have been thinking a bit about is to take small elements of data, like small elements, or "fractals" of an overall light capture and subject, and to mold several of them into a new composited image. The result may be abstract, or it may be reconstructed "reality" (or a figurative result of some kind). This would seem to me to be open-ended in regard to the treatment of photographically derived data. Uelsmann has already done this in figurative manner, somewhat more simply than what I postulate, but very effectively. </p>

<p>I don't know if this is germane to what you are talking about, but I see the proliferation of photographic images in web based venues such as facebook as part of the "conversation" and communication that is going on: the communication that people are partaking in through their internet devices. When people talk they use descriptions of images, so why not use an image itself? These images are not meant to be preserved in print for the most part, but are like speech in a conversation. On the other hand, many of us want to make images to preserve in some fashion, like a mounted print, to be shown as art. These images are not just an addendum to a conversation, but are objects in and of themselves, and can be looked at by anyone and can be interpreted in a different way by each observer. Furthermore, the art image is meant to last over time, unlike the web images (which are preserved in time anyway, heh). One <em>could</em> collect a bunch of random internet images, print them and show them as a conceptual piece, but that's putting a different spin on what they were meant to be used for in the first place.</p>

<p>For me pictures have always been objects. They became data without my noticing. I shouldn't care but I like to keep closer than I have been with what's happening. Why should I keep making incomplete work? I should be making work that is complete in its digital form.<br>

I realize that, to whatever degree it personally matters, the urgency of expression -- <em>saying something</em> --- is fulfilled the same with data as it is with material creations. <br>

Back in the 60's I remember a lot of talk about "the end of art" and "the end of painting". Seemed like everything was ending. Near as I know nothing ended. What was on everyone's mind was the end of <em>stuff</em>. Too much stuff! The attic is full. Henceforth art as <em>concept</em> is all we've room for. To prove the point we made plans for stuff and <em>didn't</em> <em>make</em> it. HA! <br>

It was material culture on <em>pause</em>. Waiting for global culture to ramp up. "Yea, more stuff! " But wait! We have been saved by <em>DATA</em>. Graphic arts don't have to be material any more. <br>

The idea of distressed or inappropriate materials or tools for art has always been intriguing for artists. Cell cams and the like <em>fake</em> that look wonderfully. <br>

The missing part for me is not in the <em>doing</em> <em>,</em> the endless creativity, but in the ambiguity of outcome. I am doing a lie (and liking it) if I am thinking about a print that will never be realized. Too easy.</p><div></div>

<p>Data shmata.</p>

<p>What is "work that is complete in its digital form." I don't know. Maybe you have to define it for yourself. For me it is not complete just because its bouncing around the internet. I still feel, as I stated above, that most of the images in data form are meant for communication and conversation that connects people, or tries to. We are an aggressively social species. "I am doing a lie (and liking it) if I am thinking about a print that will never be realized?" It doesn't have to be that way. For me, just the act of being creative is half the fun. Even if you don't make a print, posting on a site such as pnet or your own blog or web site does share your work with others. Its a step. I see you've done several blurb books. How satisfying is that? The basic question is "What do <em>you</em> want?" It sounds like you are struggling with that. </p>

<p>I believe the philosophy of it all is worth discussing. How the medium has been thought about over time is what this forum is about. Some don't think it matters. That seems rather odd. There are always many challenges to how we've done things in the medium.<br>

We discussed <em>intent</em> and <em>concept</em>. If your intent is a thrown pot one would think you design it to be made on a wheel, not coiled. Those who DO think of concept and intent may want to explore current ideas. We will, no doubt, look back and see an era when photography became digitally open-ended, or values-free. </p>

<p>A co-worker of mine takes a lot of digital photos of his kids/family, particularly his newborn. He shows them on an Ipad, which he carries around to use as a digital photo album. He also posts them on facebook. I suspect most of these images will never be printed. BTW he is using a Nikon D7000, which has 16 mp images, suitable for very large prints. Yeah, things are changing. When my kids were born in the 80's we had cheap 4x6 double prints made from our rolls of film we dropped of at a kiosk in the lobby at work. The rejects got thrown out and the extras went into albums for the grandparents. Photography is becoming more open-ended, as you say. I don't know what you mean by "values-free" though. Sorry.</p>

<p><<<<em>Some don't think it matters.</em>>>></p>

<p>That might be the case. I think it's also the case that some think it matters but that your description is off.</p>

<p>What I consider in some of my digital work is the difference between what one of my images will look like when back lit and viewed on a monitor and what it will look like when printed. That's why I have two different files for each photo, processed often quite differently for the medium being used for viewing. Some digital "looks" are different from film looks, for instance the difference between noise and grain. I've spent some time on working with noise and have, in some instances, found some success in using it to provide a more home-made look. Generally, I haven't done too much of that myself and haven't yet seen many instances of noise used as well as some grain in providing a certain type of feeling to photos.</p><div></div>

<p>That it ("open ended) doesn't matter to some <em>philosophically</em> is what I mean. A bazillion photographs a second, alone, is bound to influence how we think of photography. I asked how open ended -ness would change the way <em>they</em> worked as well. Intent and concept "doesn't matter" is a philosophical judgment. If they are "values-free," in other words, no concern at all for what happens after the exposure, then that informs the creative expression. To me it mighty mean I haven't gone with the <em>idea</em> of photograpic posibility all the way. Maybe not.</p>

<p><<<I asked how open ended -ness would change the way <em>they</em> worked as well.>>></p>

<p>Sorry, Alan, don't get what you're driving at. Who is "they" and what do you mean by open-endedness? That a photo might not get printed, might not ever be seen on screen, might not ever been seen period? </p>

<p>Alan, I see these "bazillion photographs," as I mentioned above, as more a part of communication and conversation online. This is of course, open ended and value free for the most part. Its people "talking" with other people using photos in the conversation. I don't think people are using these types of photos as "creative expression" as much as to illustrate their conversations. You and I may think of our photographs in a different way, as art, for instance. </p>

<p>Adding to my previous post: I do in fact put images on facebook which I would never place on photonet or make prints of. These are things like photos of the cat living on our porch, a salad I just made (for my foodie friends), trees I cut off the bike trail, etc. My wife posts the latest images of our pregnant daughter and so on. These are some of those bazillions of photos a second. They serve a purpose in communicating to others and that's all they are meant to be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me pictures have always been objects. They became data without my noticing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How weren't they data before? How aren't they objects now?<br>

What really is the dividing factor here? It sounds like silly (and pointless) film-vs-digital thinking. Nothing changed. Photos didn't become data anymore than unprocessed negatives were finished objects. Prints didn't suddenly become in the past, but took effort and they could change plenty to call a negative "open ended" in respect to the final print, in exactly the same way a digital file can.<br>

<br /> For myself, frequently I'm done with a photo at some point. Shot, edited, saved and that's it. With some, I can go back and try more, see if another approach works and compare different techniques. But that does not make the images open ended. It might have more to do with me being open minded about what the final image should be like, and whether there should be a final image at all (which I'd answer with a clear 'no').</p>

<p>Gateway time out. </p>

 

<p>There is a thing such writing for the desk drawer and I suppose there is such a thing as printing for the desk drawer or saving for the hard drive. It's all a maker of what you want to do with your life as an artist. I prefer to publish. With writing that is all you can do. With photography you can exhibit. I have exhibited, gotten prizes and good reviews. Exhibition costs, it is time consuming and it comes to an end all too quickly. Publication is cheap, quick and it is forever. That is what I do these days.</p>

<p> </p>