| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/21/2016 09:06:53 PM · #1 |
The Evolution of Photography.
My particular heroes in photography are ManRay and Imogen Cunningham. They took the state-of-the-art as as they found it, and expanded it.
There has been considerable discussion about 'what is photography' in this thread
Rather than continue in a thread devoted to another subject, perhaps we can find a new & good discussion on "what is photography." A corollary to this is how photography has evolved in various sites devoted to this entrancing subject.
Some say "x" is allowed, but "y" is not. Others say the reverse.
Still, I call to mind again, ManRay, Imogen Cunningham, and yes even the legendary Ansel Adams and even perhaps (look him up) Ernie Braun.
Would photography have evolved without the efforts and discoveries of these photographers and others like them?
As they say, "discuss"...
|
|
|
|
01/21/2016 09:30:56 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 09:44:40 PM · #3 |
| sometimes I think all my photos are photogarphs. |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 09:48:57 PM · #4 |
Photoshop and its ilk, as I'ved posted a million times already, is merely a set of tools. Overuse any element of PS to the point where you notice the PS more than the pic, and you've failed. If an image looks great, then try to spot the PS, cause it's surely there, but been used subtly and effectively so that is ISN'T glaringly obvious.
But first...if you don't have a good image to start off with, all the PS in the world won't make it any better and if it's a crappy photo, PS will usually only make it look even worse.
I would go on but have to wash my hair and get up in the morning, so nightynight |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 10:13:38 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 10:37:32 PM · #6 |
| but, but I LIKED photogarphs. it shed a whole new light. |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 10:41:34 PM · #7 |
Concentrating on what's wrong is rather stifling, looking for opportunities is more to my liking. Technique is an admirable and essential craft skill but realism is only one aspect. I'd hate to see sharp realistic renditions of any Monet or Van Gogh.
|
|
|
|
01/21/2016 10:51:58 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by daisydavid:
Concentrating on what's wrong is rather stifling, looking for opportunities is more to my liking. Technique is an admirable and essential craft skill but realism is only one aspect. I'd hate to see sharp realistic renditions of any Monet or Van Gogh. |
Yes, I agree. If I had a photography teacher who only told me what not to do...I'd ask for a refund.
We create reality by our observation of it. Photography is one among many ways of observing reality.
Message edited by author 2016-01-22 00:25:14. |
|
|
|
01/21/2016 11:21:16 PM · #9 |
While that story link was interesting, it didn't say much about the experimental nature of photography.
Pushing the boundaries of photography can bring more beauty and innovation.
If painting were to remain static, then we would still be stuck in the (say) renaissance period, and never would have seem the Impressionists or any of the other comparatively recent genre.
my point being, photography evolves - sometimes well - sometimes grotesquely. How do we know what's a 'keeper' and what's merely a fashiom?
Is it time, or acceptance? Or? |
|
|
|
01/22/2016 11:52:54 AM · #10 |
The notion that any art evolves is difficult to defend and easy to attack. The most experimental work often occurs at the beginning of a new art form. For example, look at one of the earliest novels, "Tristram Shandy." What you call evolution, I would call a continuing effort not to get stuck in a rut.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2016 12:16:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
...If I had a photography teacher who only told me what not to do...I'd ask for a refund. |
Don't do that! ;-)
|
|
|
|
01/22/2016 12:25:57 PM · #12 |
I think that the evolution of photography is a little like the evolution of life... it is driven by competition, but strongly influenced by environmental conditions. In the case of photography, the competition is the interaction between artists, the discussion of what we as artists define as photography. The environmental conditions are the technological changes that redefine what is possible.
Just as changes in the physical environment may open new ecological niches, changes in photographic technology inevitably open new photographic frontiers. Just as life forms rapidly evolve to fill new niches, photography evolves to encompass the new frontiers.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2016 12:27:45 PM · #13 |
This discussion is utterly pointless unless we are all interested in achieving the same thing with our photography. It's too subjective otherwise.
Message edited by author 2016-01-22 12:30:31. |
|
|
|
01/22/2016 02:40:49 PM · #14 |
Perhaps we could take a sub-set, and just think of processing techniques.
Books have been written about the way Ansel Adams worked over this negatives in his chemical darkroom.
ManRay manipulated his film & negatives mercilessly! And wonderfully.
Now, I tend to think of the various photo editing programs as the digital darkroom of the present time
and as an improvement over the chemical type. If nothing else, they are less 'stinky'.
So, where does the art created by manipulation of pixels rather than film become something other than a photograph?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2016 02:58:06 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, where does the art created by manipulation of pixels rather than film become something other than a photograph? |
Some people on this site think there is a clear "edge" between photograph and manipulation, but there is none. There is no pure photograph. The camera manipulates the image. The medium in which the image is saved manipulates the image.
If there were no manipulation there would be no art. If there were no manipulation there would be no craft. And no skill. And no challenge.
Any definition of "photograph" that excludes Photoshop is a philosophical one, and is open to philosophical debate, and open to historical scrutiny. When somebody proclaims definitively what a photograph is, they are begging the question. Google "True Scotsman" to see what I mean by begging the question. |
|
|
|
01/22/2016 11:55:55 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, where does the art created by manipulation of pixels rather than film become something other than a photograph? |
It was never a photograph. It is a digital file to which we have decided to assign the designation of photograph. It's digital. It can be archived 'forever' without degrading. It can be perfectly copied an unlimited number of times & perfectly printed over & over. An infinite number of 'originals.' Not art, either.
|
|
|
|
01/23/2016 09:30:03 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, where does the art created by manipulation of pixels rather than film become something other than a photograph? |
It was never a photograph. It is a digital file to which we have decided to assign the designation of photograph. It's digital. It can be archived 'forever' without degrading. It can be perfectly copied an unlimited number of times & perfectly printed over & over. An infinite number of 'originals.' Not art, either. |
I'll be sure and tell the museums that all their etchings were never "art" either, they're gonna want to know. But let me ask you this: if I capture an image, process it to make it more-than-just-a-capture, make a single print, and then delete the image files, NOW do I have "art"? |
|
|
|
01/23/2016 10:50:15 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, where does the art created by manipulation of pixels rather than film become something other than a photograph? |
It was never a photograph. It is a digital file to which we have decided to assign the designation of photograph. It's digital. It can be archived 'forever' without degrading. It can be perfectly copied an unlimited number of times & perfectly printed over & over. An infinite number of 'originals.' Not art, either. |
I'll be sure and tell the museums that all their etchings were never "art" either, they're gonna want to know. But let me ask you this: if I capture an image, process it to make it more-than-just-a-capture, make a single print, and then delete the image files, NOW do I have "art"? |
An etching or engraving changes slightly with each print. Eventually the original that was used to make the print can't be used for printing any more. It degrades. Prints are usually numbered.The 'artist's proof' or first print is usually the most-desired.
Yes, but only if you can prove you deleted the original file. And, yes, the more the photographer makes personal decisions about the processing, the closer it gets to 'art.'
***
Film photography.
***
Because the moment-of-capture can never be repeated, the photograph has some claim to 'art' in the sense that each capture is unique. The file itself is not original because it can be copied exactly for an unlimited number of 'originals'. Once that happens, the photographer becomes irrelevant.
Message edited by author 2016-01-23 11:29:15. |
|
|
|
01/23/2016 11:28:55 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
An etching or engraving changes slightly with each print. Eventually the original that was used to make the print can't be used for printing any more. It degrades. Prints are usually numbered.
Yes, but only if you can prove you deleted the original file. |
Hrmmm... I'm not taking this exchange very seriously, but it's sort of fun. So, to your points:
1. "Eventually" is the key word there, it takes quite a while for that degradation to occur. Many, many copies can be made that are indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Meanwhile, my "non-art" photograph is at the mercy of the paper it's printed on, the nature of the printer, and the competence of its operator, not to mention the consistency of the ink coloration from batch to batch etc. So I think that's a wash... Etchings, silk-screen prints, etc (if you want to be consistent) can no more be art than a photograph can. Adios, Andy Warhol! It was fun while it lasted!
2. I will petition the governing bodies of this thing called "art" to train and make available a cadre of neutral observers who a photographer may hire to be with him throughout the creative process. They will follow the same sort of evidentiary procedures that law enforcement does, and will assure that the chain of custody was never broken, that any test prints were destroyed, that only a single final print remains, and that both the physical media on which the capture was made and the hard drive from which the processing was done were destroyed once the print was consummated. They will also assure that the processing machine was incapable of being connected to the internet during that period of time.
It'll be ART! No ifs, ands, or buts involved! ART!
(I'm NOT making fun of you, BTW: I'm having fun with the concept. I hope you are too :-) |
|
|
|
01/23/2016 11:39:06 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Because the moment-of-capture can never be repeated, the photograph has some claim to 'art' in the sense that each capture is unique. The file itself is not original because it can be copied exactly for an unlimited number of 'originals'. Once that happens, the photographer becomes irrelevant. |
Hrmmmph.... Filmic "originals" (slides and negatives) CAN be reproduced; we used to pay people to do it, in the Architectural Photography biz...
Let's do a though experiment; let's say, for the sake of argument, that Ansel's "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" (a heavily manipulated print with the soul of the photographer poured into it) was, at some point (at the point of capture, at the creation of the first finished print, whenever) a work of art. So when did it STOP being "art"? It's tricky, because Ansel *changed* the way he printed that image many times over his lifetime. He likened the negative to a score, famously, and the print to a performance.
It seems to me, sometimes, that in one sense there's nothing MORE artistic than photography, simply because you can "create' so many variously nuanced performances off the same score> |
|
|
|
01/23/2016 11:42:32 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
An etching or engraving changes slightly with each print. Eventually the original that was used to make the print can't be used for printing any more. It degrades. Prints are usually numbered.
Yes, but only if you can prove you deleted the original file. |
Hrmmm... I'm not taking this exchange very seriously, but it's sort of fun. So, to your points:
1. "Eventually" is the key word there, it takes quite a while for that degradation to occur. Many, many copies can be made that are indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Meanwhile, my "non-art" photograph is at the mercy of the paper it's printed on, the nature of the printer, and the competence of its operator, not to mention the consistency of the ink coloration from batch to batch etc. So I think that's a wash... Etchings, silk-screen prints, etc (if you want to be consistent) can no more be art than a photograph can. Adios, Andy Warhol! It was fun while it lasted!
2. I will petition the governing bodies of this thing called "art" to train and make available a cadre of neutral observers who a photographer may hire to be with him throughout the creative process. They will follow the same sort of evidentiary procedures that law enforcement does, and will assure that the chain of custody was never broken, that any test prints were destroyed, that only a single final print remains, and that both the physical media on which the capture was made and the hard drive from which the processing was done were destroyed once the print was consummated. They will also assure that the processing machine was incapable of being connected to the internet during that period of time.
It'll be ART! No ifs, ands, or buts involved! ART!
(I'm NOT making fun of you, BTW: I'm having fun with the concept. I hope you are too :-) |
"D
I have been known to pick a side & defend it, just for exercise. Etchings and engravings are beautiful, the black is so deep & rich.
from Wiki
"The type of metal used for the plate impacts the number of prints the plate will produce. The firm pressure of the printing press slowly rubs out the finer details of the image with every pass-through. With relatively soft copper, for example, the etching details will begin to wear very quickly, some copper plates show extreme wear after only ten prints. Steel, on the other hand, is incredibly durable. This wearing out of the image over time is one of the reasons etched prints created early in a numbered series tend to be valued more highly. An artist thus takes the total number of prints he or she wishes to produce into account whenever choosing the metal."
***
Yes I agree your points are valid. Though it's easier to use an editing/production process that can't be repeated. The world might pay $4.3M worth of attention for a printed photograph that is unique in & of itself. Less likely for one copy of many identical copies.
And I don't at all mean to imply that 'art' and price have anything to do with each other. |
|
|
|
01/23/2016 11:52:08 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hrmmmph.... Filmic "originals" (slides and negatives) CAN be reproduced; we used to pay people to do it, in the Architectural Photography biz...
Let's do a though experiment; let's say, for the sake of argument, that Ansel's "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" (a heavily manipulated print with the soul of the photographer poured into it) was, at some point (at the point of capture, at the creation of the first finished print, whenever) a work of art. So when did it STOP being "art"? It's tricky, because Ansel *changed* the way he printed that image many times over his lifetime. He likened the negative to a score, famously, and the print to a performance.
It seems to me, sometimes, that in one sense there's nothing MORE artistic than photography, simply because you can "create' so many variously nuanced performances off the same score> |
Yep. Slides/negatives can be reproduced. They are the analog version of copying a digital file. The slides/negatives degrade over time because they exist on physical media. When it degrades, it takes its copy of the original with it.
Digital files can be recovered without damage when the media fails.
The original, in photography, is the moment-of-capture. Any copy of that moment, including the first one, is a copy.
Photography is interesting to me because I can create as many variously nuanced performances as I want to, and starting each time with the exact same starting-point file. This is impossible with any other process (except maybe a musical performance). If I am painting the water lilies over and over, each time I begin another nuanced performance I am starting from where I am now, with a blank canvas.
Message edited by author 2016-01-23 12:16:05. |
|
