david k. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Attended an opening of "Fine Art" photography last night. The photographer, Michael Reichmann of the well known Luminous Landscape website. There were 24 largish (typically 20"x30") prints of his most recent work. There was no technical information, but I assume all would have been done with a Canon 1Ds or better (medium format digital backs seem to be his preferred medium these days). Most of the images are available somewhere on his website, but seeing the prints first hand was what it was all about. My impressions, many of the "images" did not look like photographs, taken out of the context of a photographic exhibition, and exhibited seperately, one would be hard pressed to identify them as photography. The colours, textures, and feel of the images were very different to film based photographs. Approached a different way, only a few of the 24 images looked remotely like film photographs.So, you had a handfull of images that were more graphic art than photographs, about an equal number of images that were film looking, and the majority somewhere in between, all good looking images but just how manipulated were they? On a technical level these images were not in the same ballpark as prints I have seen from Charles Kramer who works with 4X5 transparencies, has them drum scanned and digitally printed. One thing I was quite surprised at was that the Reichmann's images showed obvious dodging. I would have thought PS would be seamless for that type of manipulation, but it was easily detected. To conclude, can digital be "Fine Art Photography" ? I would say B&W traditional photography has the history and will always have value. As for digital, I think it is going to be a while before I figure out where it fits in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 <i> Attended an opening of "Fine Art" photography ... exhibited seperately, one would be hard pressed to identify them as photography. ... only a few of the 24 images looked remotely like film photographs. So, you had a handfull of images that were more graphic art than photographs... Reichmann's images showed obvious dodging. I would have thought PS would be seamless for that type of manipulation, but it was easily detected. To conclude, can digital be "Fine Art Photography" ? </i><p> Assuming that your insightsts about the images are correct, after making clear that Reichmann was going for a less naturalistic, more graphic-art look, why judge them in terms of 4x5 landscapes you're familiar with, or assume that he didn't want the manipulation to be obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Photography is not and cannot be 'art', let alone 'fine art'. Pretentious claptrap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans, Do you have some sort of automated software? So, whenever it sees "art" & "photography" in the same sentence it repeatedly spits out your nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Artistic execution and "art" are two different things. But, to answer your question. Of course digital work can be "fine art photography". I've some work that has a "video" feel and some that is indistinguishable from traditional work. It's about the content!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 FWIW, I always think that MR's pictures on his Luminous Landscape website look like graphic art/poster "art" (and not like photographs). Me, I'd rather have a (hopefully interesting/well-executed) painting or a (hopefully interesting/well-executed) photograph - these hybrids are an unhappy compromise to my mind, which remind me of 1980's Athena poster art.Despite people getting so prickly about pretentiousness, I would have thought it obvious that there is room for some degree of self-expression even in so lowly a form as photography. I agree with your last sentence: I haven't yet seen any digital stills work that makes a virtue out of the "look" of digital - to me digital has so far remained a poor cousin to film photography, carried along on over-hype from the corporations and magazines. (which, of course, means that it will become the de facto standard, whether I like it or not.)p.s. I like the idea that the dodging might be deliberately obvious - like Manet's woman at the bar looking out at the viewer - "I am a fiction - you are looking at me etc.!) Very plausible. Let's give him an honorary degree just in case. Just a minute, maybe Alfie was a genius too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 My last post should say, "I've SEEN some work..." :>] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 WTF is "fine" art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jake Tauber , feb 20, 2004; 10:41 a.m. Hans, <i>Do you have some sort of automated software? So, whenever it sees "art" & "photography" in the same sentence it repeatedly spits out your nonsense?</i><p> The nonsense is spit out by those who claim photography is art. Every time someone claims it, I deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie lemay Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I've been making digital fine art since 1995. I still shoot film and scan it. I am currently using Leica M cameras with Fuji Acros and Provia films. Check it out. www.charlielemay.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 <i>To conclude, can digital be "Fine Art Photography" ? </i><p> From one show by a pictorialist-type photographer, you think a conclusion can be drawn? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie lemay Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Sorry I forgot to upload an image.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 My apologies. What I meant to say was: I've never understood the designation "fine art". Isn't there just, art? So somebody fill me in on fine art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie lemay Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I think it's about intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlpowell Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "Fine art" usually refers to art for art's sake - gallery work and the like. You also have the "graphic arts," where the art serves another purpose (graphic design/page layout, for instance) rather than simply being a thing unto itself. (And, of course, the many things that cross over these lines, and architecture/ furniture design, which aren't either of the above, etc. etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art waldschmidt Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "To conclude, can digital be "Fine Art Photography"? No, but it could very well be "fine-art digitography". It seems that digital is so essentially divergent from traditional photography that it necessitates a different category or designation. It is likely that ANYTHING done by an artist could be an expression of art, regardless of means or medium. In the same sense, donning a beret and smock and dabbing oils on a canvas does not guarantee anything more *artistic* than an evocative, expressive, work in a less traditional or familiar medium. I believe that art has more to do with spirit, vision, and intent, than a condition defined by medium or degree of actual "hands on" physical engagement (a la Beckert's non-metaphysical prerequisite). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 not to be critical of Michael's images, but for someone who stands tall upon the edifice of digital high-resolution and optical purity, he has become enamoured with Photoshop diffusion, compression, sharpening, cropping, and a suite of post-process data deleting operations. it is an irony that makes for entertainment and is a welcomed relief from those resolution shots of high-rise window frames and brick walls. as far as categorization, it is what it is. garner your opinions and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Interesting observations. MR also does a good deal of what I would call rather gratuitous manipulation (cloning to remove electric wires) etc. which is not my philosophy: but we are all different. He is a man with a lot of money and a lot of equipment. I like his site, if only to see what new system he will buy next week. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_edgar Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Surely photography is simply Photography and not Art! Photography was invented to show what something looked like at a particular moment in time. This is what photography does well. Art is judged by values different to photography. The purpose of photography is simply show what something looks like. If you 'get' more out of it, great. You might want photography to be a 'mirror' of what is in your soul, but photography is simply a window onto a world selected by the photographer. Fine Art photography is Art using photography to carry out a purpose for which photography was not invented i.e for creating aesthetically pleasing works. Artists such as Cindy Sherman use photography to create artistic statements, not photographs. Lets not burden photography with all this analysis. Photographs show what something looked like at a particular instant in time. Photography is Photography and Art is something different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "I think it's about intent." Around here it's about obsessions, compulsions, and lathered-up knackered hobby-horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_merrill Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "He is a man with a lot of money and a lot of equipment. I like his site, if only to see what new system he will buy next week." Amen to that. This guy must have an equipment cage that rivals most large studios. I go to his site many times to check links and articles, but I find his images to be too safe for me, like he shoots the same stuff over and over again, but then again, this could be only the stuff he is posting to his site. The one shot I did like from his site is the one he has on his M6 review page of the little boy in black and white. But, it is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 The nonsense is spit out by those who claim photography is art. Or a naked parrot, who keeps repeating it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans wrote: "Every time someone claims it, I deny it." Don't worry Hans, no one is accusing you of being an artist. Peter, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Naw, I hate to admit it, hell, I *really* hate to admit it, but I've got to say that Hans has a point. The trouble is, as soon as you say something is art, all the pseuds crawl out of the woodwork and before you know it the whole thing's gone to hell in a handcart. They tell you what's 'good' and what's 'bad', what's 'in' and what's 'out'..... The great thing about photography is that it's all things to all people and long may it continue that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film rules Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Nice image Charlie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now