Lost

[Matt Laur]

I'm sure, Eugene, that you understand the difference between a necessarily long title or bit of contextual explanation from the artist and such delights as, "My oeuvre and its muse, the inquisitive spirit bound irredeemably to a dying pateranlistic framework of a creative cultural lexicon, seeks to de-polarize the glowering light cast by the half-truths that catalyze the de-evolution of our society's native longing to dance to the mystical insights that once sang the song of our births and deaths. I re-shoulder this vital burden each time I create a new paper-mache puppy Christmas ornament. Thanks for shopping, and don't forget to check out my specials: some of my best work is 90% off!"

 

There's a big difference between saying, "In this image you see the very last tree in an old growth stand being cut down to make toilet paper," (since the viewer might sense the drama, but can't know that fact without being told it), and some of the sophomoric word soup that folks feel obliged to submit along with their application to an exhibit jury. I think it might be helpful to come up with another phrase to describe "Information the artists knows you need to know to actually understand what you're looking at," so that the artist is relieved from having provide "The artist's loopy manifesto, bromides, greeting card sentiments, and faux-edgy art-school-speak" out of fear of not being taken seriously.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>I'm sure, Eugene, that you understand the difference between a necessarily long

title or bit of contextual explanation from the artist and such delights as ... </i></p>

 

<p>Sure I do, but there is no reason to cut down an orchard because of a few bad

apples.</p>

 

<p>The art-school-speak you're referring to can be quite annoying sometimes, but it is

also necessary sometimes. If you know business speak, you sure are familiar with marvels

like "the synergistic principles of this partnership will provide exclusive benefits in the

emerging market economy." BS is found everywhere, be it an art school or a school of

management, but there is no reason to dismiss free market economy because of it.</p>

 

<p>My litmus test for these cases is whether the artist can talk in plain language about

his or her work. If he/she can, then whatever BS is provided with the work is forgiven,

otherwise there is a problem...</p>

[bobtodrick]

My experiences do not bear out what you say John. Firstly, like Jeff I have quite a few photo books. In many of them no technical stuff is ever discussed. I don't think I have one photo book (other than Ansel) where, for example, they explicitly state that they printed on fibre-base as opposed to resin. From the books on my shelf I have no idea what cameras Brassai or Man Ray used, though this is not to say that in some cases I have researched a photographer to find out what he did use.

 

But I have many instances where I have not done the research and I find that I enjoy the images no less.

 

As well I am an exhibiting photograher. You can see a list of my exhibits here: http://www.artists-society.ab.ca/artists/default.aspx?id=2232

 

I have sold quite a few prints...and I have very seldom been asked what gear do I use, and only once or twice in 20 years what paper I print on. And in all these instance the people asking the questions were not people who were buying a print, but other photographers who for whatever reason attended an exhibit. I've truly found that the only people interested in gear/paper were other photographers.

 

Yet at the same time I do agree with you that at times it matters, on a philisopical level to me, though less so as time goes by. I used to be somewhat of a photo snob...'I use Leica'...'I print on Portriga'...but again, as I've gotten older I've realized (and now hope) that in the future my work will not be judged on what an image was taken with, but by how it makes the view feel when they see it. And for the most part what it was taken with/what it is printed on will be irrelavent.

 

A case in point. I have an image (that I don't have handy so I can't show it) of a little boy, perhaps 5 looking on at two young women (in their early 20's) who are very...ahhh, photogenic. What makes the image is a sign that just happens to be next to the girls that says 'treat station'...just the expressions on everyones face makes it a very humorous photo. Now I know that it is shot on Tri-X (for grain), scanned and printed on Hahnemuhle Albrect Drurer paper (for lots of texture). Everyone likes the image...but not one person has mentioned the grain or asked what the paper is...they all just say it is a very humorous photo...it just as easily have been taken on a 3mp P&S and printed on inexpensive Epson paper...it would still be a very humorous photo.

[waltflanagan]

<i>Most people can't tell the difference between a diamond and a Cubic zirconia either. To me they look the same. Why is one worth more?</i><p>

Two reasons.<p>

Diamonds are the hardest known natural material and have many industrial uses such as saw blades.<p>

The second reason is that diamonds are rare but made even more rare by the Debeers cartel artifically controlling the supply. Diamond engagement rings only became popular after their massive ad campaign in the early part of the century. Basically we like them because we believe their stupid ad campaign. Debeers is one of the most unethical companies in the world. They make Haliburton look good.

<p>

Zircons aren't as useful industrially and no one has put a big ad campaign behind them. Basically some earlier posters are saying the same thing. If you advertise your print as "hand crafted silver gelatin blah blah blah" you will get some gullible people to artifically inflate its worth.

[704 studio]

Thank you to all who took the time to respond. I was happy to read so many different ideas. Some of them will likely help as I think about how I want to proceed.

 

Also interesting was the later responses discussing artist statements. One of the reasons I like Harry Callahan's work is his ability to describe something complex in a simple way.

[jtk]

Bob, Thinking about my Weston, Adams, Penn, and Capa books...all either specify or show specific cameras. But thats not my point. Books don't hold photographs, they hold reproductions.

 

Naming cameras may be a distraction (as I agreed earlier), but I think collectors (and certainly museums) usually want to know what kind of print they're handling.

 

Galleries and museums are still negative about RC paper, whether individual photographers are happy or not. Around here they label inkjet prints technically (eg pigment Vs ink), though rarely mentioning brand . They've used "gelatin silver" forever, which does strike hobbiests as snobbish, but their paying customers and museum patrons are certainly upper-crust...I think many understand what that means.

 

Their visitors want to see original prints, right? Collectors are VERY demanding about type of print, increasingly so in the case of inkjet, I'm told. As well, it means something to them to know that a print was made BY the photographer (not by Prosumer Lab Inc) and WITH a contact print or scan or whatever from 8X10 chrome or digital file or whatever...not relevant?

 

We all want books and magazines and online galleries, and I think we all want to see those images in context...don't we want to know about Capa's D-day experience? Are we that different from collectors?

[d_s31]

I enjoy the process. Yes, I'm all for making an image, but I also enjoy the process of making them. Meaning, composing the photo (or seeing something on the spur of the moment), photographing, the time I spend in the darkroom developing and printing or working an image in GIMP is all part of the experience. If I didn't enjoy the steps in making a photo, I wouldn't be doing it.<p/>Although, if I were making my living as a photographer, I'm sure my outlook would b different since I would be paid on my results and I would focus on results, there by taking the pleasure out of it - for me anyway.

[bobtodrick]

Ahhh...but that's the difference in our outlooks John. I really don't photograph, and never have, with the 'collector' in mind. I don't use Leica's because they are collectible but because they best suit my shooting style...often hand-held low-light. Again, the collector of a Warhol original may care what it was printed on...the person looking at Mathew Brady's civil war images probably doesn't. My documentary work (what I mainly do now) hopefully in the future will appeal to the latter viewer.

 

As an aside...10 years ago what you say about galleries concerning permanence was true. Most galleries I deal with now realize a proper prepared inkjet on rag paper and pigment inks is likely just as permanent as silver gel.

[Spearhead]

John, the collector/print market is infinitesimally small. I don't see it as a major factor. On the other hand, the book/magazine market is huge, and is the way that most people see photographs other than on a computer.

 

Photographers, and collectors, get very wrapped up in the print market without taking the time to reflect on how tiny it is. I've been in art museums all over Europe and never once seen a photograph. I'm sure there are occasional photography exhibits, but they are not particularly common based on my experience. And when I have been in art sale events, photographs (not just mine, which don't have suitable subject matter for the average over-the-sofa location) sell substantially less than paintings, drawings, and even inkjet reproductions of paintings. I've only seen one photo by a famous photographer on someone's wall, and that was a recent print of a Strand photo, not a vintage print, but I have been in quite a few homes with famous painters hanging, from Rembrandt to Picasso to Warhol.

 

The point of this is that the "gelatin silver" market is pretty much irrelevant except to a small number of photographers and collectors. It's not something driving photography in any way, and it is not in any way "better" than images in books and magazines, just different. Many photographers shoot for books and magazines, not prints, and have done so for many years, particularly in Europe.

 

BTW, there are well-known photographers whose work hangs in museums and galleries who use RC. The most prolific example is Moriyama, whose work has been in museums around the world and sells lots of bucks, but prints on RC. It's really about the photographer, not the material - all the pretensions in the world go away once the photos are good enough.

[jtk]

Bob, Jeff, interesting to read about your experiences. My experience in "art" and life generally is different, as is obvious from what I post.

 

For example, here's one of a half dozen "important" and heavily attended exhibitions of classically fine photographic prints (gelatin silver, bromoil, palladium etc) in Albuquerque so far this year:

 

http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2007/03/29/Culture/Photos.Showcase.Oddities.Of.Medicine-2812458.shtml

 

That someone's failed to see photos anywhere in Europe proves it's possible if one tries, but what point does that make? You could live on burgers in Moscow if you wanted.

 

My visits to a dozen galleries in Paris and 'burbs turned up lots of fine vintage and avant-garde photos (and I wasn't seeking photos), as of course everywhere in my lode stars, San Francisco and NYC.

 

Santa Fe is crowded with genuinely fine photo commercial galleries and museum exhibitions, but it's a photo-kinda-town, like Paris...lots of buyers.

 

"Moriyama" is simply one guy. Never heard of him before. Online he seems trite fwiw. One more trendy imitator of snapshooter-style. The photographer he's ripped-off with one of his online images has retired near here. It used to make sense sometimes, for practical reasons, to make big prints on RC paper...but fwiw inkjet would be better in terms of traditional photo virtues (sharpness etc) unless he's making some sort of point by telling the viewer that it's RC.

 

It does seem that the use of "pretensions" is intended as an aggressive put-down of people who actually do appreciate "print quality." There seem to be lots of them in my wedge of the universe.

 

You're right that a huge market does prefer cuteness, overblown scenics, wheeling seagulls, homeless hairy characters, big hooters, sappy inspiration etc.

 

Takes all kinds.

[jtk]

...Bob, maybe I didn't make it clear that I love inkjet (except for the computer it springs from).

 

I'm enough of an elitist to think it's "good" in the absolute sense if a photographer prints his own. Isn't just a little independence OK in Bush-era? :-)

 

A few Santa Fe galleries still won't hang inkjet, but that's changing. Inkjet's visually a better technology than gelatin silver or projected color IMO (sharpness, tonal control, color control/accuracy, subtlety).

 

There's a resurgence of platinum and bromoil printing, some of it beginning from digicam snaps of old barns, thanks to inkjet :-)

[Nowhereman]

Jeff:

 

>>> I've been in art museums all over Europe and never once seen a photograph. I'm

sure there are occasional photography exhibits, but they are not particularly common

based on my experience.<<<

 

Europe is a pretty big place and the various countries and are all very different, so to

generalise in this way doesn't make much sense. For example, in Paris November is "Le

mois de la photograohie" with lots of galleries having photo exhibition and in the four

days since Thursday there is the huge Paris-Photo photography fair at the Louvre, with

some 100 international galleries participating and some 40,000 visitors.

 

 

>>>The most prolific example is Moriyama, whose work has been in museums around

the world and sells lots of bucks, but prints on RC.<<<

 

These days Moriyama prints on the Epson 9800 printer as well. Almost two years ago at

the Sydney Biennale there was a room full or sixty Moriyama 40x60 inch (100x150cm) prints made with this printer. At the end of August I saw smaller Moriyama silver prints as

well as large digital Moriyama prints in Tokyo galleries.

 

--Mitch/Paris

[Spearhead]

I was talking about museums, not galleries. I have been to art museums in Spain, France, Italy, and the UK. I've never seen a photography exhibit, over quite a few visits.

[Nowhereman]

Jeff, you've got to get around some more.

 

Paris has a few photographic museums, including the Maison Europeene de la

Photographie and the Jeu de Paume (Hotel Sully), as well as other museum that regularly

exhibit photographs, such the Centre Pompidou (Beubourg), the foremost modern art

museum, which currently is showing it's photographic acquisitions from the years 2002-

2007 and the Jeu de Paume (Concorde), which has a large rertospective exhibition of

Steichen. There is also the Fondation Cartier pour l'art contempoaine, which is currently

showing Robert Adams, as well as sevaral other museums that have photographic

exhibitions. The same is true of London.

 

--Mitch/Paris

[Matt Laur]

I was just in Verona, where a permanent subterranean exhibit/tour space (surrounding old Roman foundations and the more recent layers on top them) included a contemporary photography exhibit. The space is only used, generally, by out of town tourists, so they decided to put up some different material to bring in the bored-with-the-ruins local Veronese. Interesting juxtaposition, too - 2500 year old masonry and tile work, right next to this decade's photographic work.

[don_e]

If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera. -- Lewis Hine

 

Photos with his contextual "statements"

 

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

[jtk]

Don, that's a GREAT link. Thanks. I sent it to my schoolteacher sister.

[jtk]

Mitch, fine B&Ws. All GRD, shot AS B&W? That's a Photo Philosophic point in itself.

[Allen Herbert]

digital photography is traditional photography on steroids."

 

Like most folks you are too concerned with the process, the tool, the pixels; but not the vision.

 

Sad, but the god of " materialism " rules in a serious way.

[peter_helenius]

I did not read all the responses to your post so I apologize if I am repeating what others have said.

 

What you see on a monitor is not what you get on paper. From talking to printers it seems to me that a good digital print takes as long as a darkroom print. Printing an identical print at a later date is obviously easier digitally. There is an effect on the environment with either process. A lot of water is used in the darkroom, but there is a lot of water and a lot of acids used in chip and computer production. Computers and digital cameras become outdated quite quickly, a good camera and enlarger can last a lifetime. The darkroom is physically demanding, this I believe is a good thing. Sitting still all day long and staring at a monitor is physically demanding in quite another way, I believe it can have a negative effect on ones well being.

I myself have also become a little lost in this new age, not only for the issues you mention and because of the multimedia possibilities. I do post production work for http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/ and it has brought up a lot of issues for me. Does sound add or take away from a photograph? Should video clips be part of the mix? How meaningful is the experience of sitting with a photo book as compared to watching a "moving" photo essay? What is the effect on your shooting of "not knowing" what you have as opposed to the immediate feedback that you get with a digital camera? Time spent looking at the screen is less time spent in the moment looking at the world and less pictures taken for example. As far as which process is more meaningful, I would suggest that the experience of paying attention to what you are doing is what creates meaning. What speed are you comfortable working at? , what technology are you comfortable with ? only you know whats right for you.

 

A good book s a good book because of the story, whether it is passed on through time by oral hisory, written in pencil, pen, or typed on an electronic device. Its the work that counts.

 

Peace

[Nowhereman]

>>>Mitch, fine B&Ws. All GRD, shot AS B&W? That's a Photo Philosophic point in itself...<<<

 

Thanks, John. The first nine pages are taken with the GX100; after that there are a lot of

pictures with the GR-D and the D-Lux 3, as well as the M6. I shoot in RAW and convert to

B&W, these days using LightZone for all post=processing.

 

--Mitch/Paris

[Nowhereman]

>>>"Moriyama" is simply one guy. Never heard of him before. Online he seems trite fwiw.

One more trendy imitator of snapshooter-style...<<<

 

Moriyama Daido in my view is great photographer. He's a leading influence on many

photographers in Japan and elsewhere. Unfortunately you cannot get much of the sense of

his work from his website: you have to look at his books.

 

--Mitch/Paris

[jtk]

Mitch, I'll look for Moriyama originals.

 

The world (and my immediate region) is full of "great photographers" who don't seem originals, and some Moriyama looks extremely derivative.

 

I think most good images are almost automatically better when huge, if done well (especially when done well digitally)...many will disagree with that :-)

 

Similarly, a photographer with well-reproduced book gains an impression of "importance."

[jtk]

"A good book s a good book because of the story, whether it is passed on through time by oral hisory, written in pencil, pen, or typed on an electronic device. Its the work that counts."

 

That's an understandable point of view, but only one perspective.

 

Sometimes the tool is virtually a part of the author or photographer. Some great writers still use typewriters and pens, just as some painters have abandoned oil and canvas for digital motion picture direction. Some still photographers use digital techniques to make bromoil prints. The medium is crucial, to some, irrelevant to others.

[don_e]

I agree with you, John that "Sometimes the tool is virtually a part of the author or photographer", but have not found a way to make the argument convincingly here.