Spirals 1

Rick, I mean no offense but it appears these may have been produced without the use of a camera - maybe only using computer methods of creating images.  I have no trouble with artists using whatever methods they enjoy to create images, but I am long enough immersed in photography to think of lenses, f/stops, shutter speeds, etc. as being the basics of photography.  If I am misinterpreting what you have done, do please explain.

Jerry Matchett

Jerry,

As one who has been … immersed … in photography for … a while, no offense taken.  Yes it is purely a computer generated image.  I find the work/art/process a nice diversion.  In addition, for me, the basics of photography: light (exposure/shutter speeds), depth (f-stops), composition & framing, all still apply. And in order to make a satisfying image, must be followed.   The computer allows me to move … outside/beyond/alternative to traditional means.  As you well know, experimental means are nothing new (the processes used however…).

To make this image (analogous): I took two exposures, developed one normally & push processed the other.  I hand toned the negatives, reversed one & sandwiched them together.  I then placed them against a textured background and took that picture.  In the darkroom, I did some dodging & burning to get the final image. Again analogous, not homologous.

You yourself have used digital means, quite deftly, to manipulate some of your images. I too have done the same.  Pure digital is the next logical iteration (for me at least).  For some reason this reminds me of a similar conversation I’ve had.  

Back in the late 70’s & early 80’s I was using only Kodachrome 64 slide film (I miss that).  There would always be a frame or two of mounted blanks.  I started using candles & heat to melt through layers of emulsion to bring out colors & to make amorphous shapes.  I kind thought they were cool & used a few in a talk I was giving just as images.  After the talk I had someone come up & ask if I thought they were photography.  I though about it for a bit & answered, “They were on film weren’t they”. 

I wasn’t trying to be flippant then, and am not now.  What is digital film if not digital memory?  Isn’t it the same whether it is compact flash, SD/XD card, or, your computer for that matter?

My endeavor was to answer your question & explain why I think this type of image belongs here.  I do not know if I have.  If I haven’t, you are in good company. My wife agrees doesn’t see my viewpoint either (sigh).

Rick

 PS: Sounds like something to post in Philosophy of Photography and then step back … quickly.

Rick, 

Thank you for the detailed answer.  Artists often redefine a technique or invent a new one altogether.  That seems to be what you are doing and I applaud your efforts.  It will be the critics and history who decide what to name what you are starting.

If we take another example, sculpture has a long tradition of a solid having parts broken or chipped off of something like a chunk of stone.  Most would allow carving of wood (as in, say,  N.W. Native American and Canadian First Nation "Totem Poles" and various Masks to be in the sculpture category.  If someone creates an art form that utilizes the gluing together of tiny fragments of material, is that also sculpture?  One seems to reveal a hidden something and the other to synthesize a new whole.

One process involves the removal of parts to reveal a form and the other synthesizes a new form from fragments.  I have read now that computers can cause a "printer" to create a new structure by "printing" layers.  To the alarm of certain authorities it can print a working hand gun that fires real bullets.  What will the synthesis of new objects by printing of layers finally be called?

I remember a speech given by a sculptor at the Univ. of Washington Art School.  He was adamant that his art was about the removal of material to reveal the hidden form within.  I wonder what he would say about the computer generation of form.

Since I spent most of my life working in darkrooms creating negatives, transparencies and prints, I entered the world of digital photography with a natural bias.  Whether history will uphold that bias by naming what you are doing with another category title or not is interesting to speculate.  You should know that I find most of the HDR computer manipulations garish and not within my definition of photography.  But that is just the bias of my experiences in life.  I read about photography at age 11, got my first adjustable camera at age 12 and just continued experimenting and creating images.  It seems that 63 years have gone by and that is a long enough time to build biases.

Perhaps it is time to ask, what the limits of the term "photography" might include.  When I taught photography I defined the term as meaning "light-drawing." The camera, the lens, the diaphragm, the shutter, the latent image (in film) and the digital image (in digital) all seem to fit nicely in the category "photography." Once the image is in the computer,light seems to be at a minimum and drawing at a maximum.  There is no simple answer to the question, but I sense that the creation of images by total computer input and no camera at all (and therefore no light) will eventually be viewed as a separate subject (just my guess at future history)

I notice that in the data that one can type into a Photo.Net image there is a place to declare that the images has not been "modified."  That was very important to photographers when I first signed on to P.N.  In fact one tropical photographer kept accusing me of using "too much brush stroking."  I could not convince him that the "brush strokes" were actually condensation of water vapor effects that I saw frequently in a temperate climate but which were never seen in a tropical one.  He so much as accused me of telling fibs.  Now most ignore the idea of photos without modification as virtually all do it.  I still view it as the equivalent of retouching the negative.

  As my skills at Photoshop increased I increasingly ignored it too.  I guess my sense of my own bias is that you cannot call a refrigerator a stove but maybe future devices will do both.

Regards,

Jerry

P.S.  I too miss Kodachrome, especially the ASA 10 version.

Jerry,

Interesting analogies & I agree about about letting the futurists figure it out.

A stove that can do both ... why not?  :)

Thanks for giving me a reason to pause & reflect ... and also your input & point of view.  I really do think that Philosophers would have a feeding frenzy over this one. Always a pleasure hearing from you.

Rick

I have no intention to take side in this very interesting exchange of different views of the idea of artistic expression but i have to say this: with the eye of a person who just started taking pictures and trying his hand in digital alterations in his old age / turned sixty .../ maybe seeing this from a different angle. As a person who never was immersed in the traditional film/chemical era i view digital photography and manipulating the proccess to achive the desired result as a new form of Art.

Finally, yes i like this fractal very much. I looking forward to have some time and go thru the rest of your portfolio..

Thank for listening.

My best regards.

Andy,

Don't have to take sides. Jerry & I had an interesting echange about our ideas of what an image is.  In the end, my wife agrees with him, I look at it more as you do. The past has allowed us to better (?) use the new tools at hand.  Thanks for looking & commenting.

Rick