Comments on Analogue and the Processes of Art

I include here a thread of recent emails between myself and my friend Frank. Frank recently returned from a year in Costa Rica, and after a short stay here in Raleigh will be off to Europe for God knows how long. I think its really great that he is willing to just pack up and venture out into the unknown. I guess I'm a little envious of that.

Frank
Hola amigos!

I'm back in the good ole USA and I will be here in Raleigh this week enjoying this 99 degree heat. Anything going on this weekend or maybe a chance for lunch? I would love to see you all and caught up on the latest events. I hate that I only have a week here but I've got to wrap up some things before I head to Europe in July.

I've finally updated the blog. If you haven't see it in the while or read about my near death experience, you should check it out. It will give you a good laugh.

Hope to see you soon,

--
Frank

Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I must learn of him.
-Emerson

Me
Glad to see you survived. There is a get together this friday night at Brent and Becky's. Some wine tasting or something. I guess they live in Durham now. How about you come and keep us entertained with stories of your life in the tropics.

Analoguer Man
Defender of true Photography,
Justice and the American Way

Frank
That sounds absolutely perfect, Analoguer Man. (What does Analoguer Man mean?)

Traveler Man
Defender of Casual Sex
Freedom, Sex & Love

Me
Just another way of saying digital sucks.

Any Analogue process demands a sense of craft, skill, and vision as its measure of mastery. Analogue knows there is nothing easy about conviction, so it offers no shortcuts, no slick algorithms for the lazy, or feeble. Instead it demands knowledge. Most often acquired through struggle and failure. Its secrets contain its power. So Analogue reveals Truth by the glimpse. And with each, the Master extends his vision into the mysteries of beauty. This is the goal of any true Artist.

Digital processes tend to trivialize Art by eliminating the need for any sense of mastery. But this is just another step in the degradation of Art in a Postmodern world. Substance has no place in the world today. Its all about image (Even if it is only interesting or famous for 15 minutes). This is true in Art, politics, and society as a whole. It is like a plague of locusts descending on our culture.

Frank
Hmmm. As a child of the digital age (to coin my own phrase), I understand your point given that we, at least as Americans, are raised in the "now" mentality which anything worth striving for is lost to something else that we can have now.

But at the same time, could one argue that, in the hands of a master, digital photography frees him of some responsibilities so that he can explore and reach further into other areas than he could have before. Similar to when calculators were introduced, in the hands of someone trying to learn math, it becomes a crutch because the student relies on the calculator for simple arithmetic (choosing an easier path than actually studying). But at the same time, it allowed engineers to perform their tasks faster and become more productive.

Food for thought.

Me
The point you make and the example you provide, I would agree has application in certain areas. Art is not one of them. I recall an early argument that technology will be more efficient , and provide us more leisure. In reality, it allowed us to increase volume. Whether that volume of work was actually productive or was quality enhanced is an open question. What we know for sure is much of technology's advances did not create more leisure time for us.

When I speak of process and craft, I understand it to be inherently linked to creativity. Mastering the tools catalyzes aesthetic vision. The extent of creative knowledge grows proportionally with mastery of the tools applied. There is a spiritual, some would say existential element to the making and viewing of Art. In some sense Art is above or at least other than reality. The more indirect the process becomes, the less aesthetic and more trivial the work becomes.

An analogy that comes to mind is that of an architect. First, he cannot be an architect without thorough knowledge and understanding of the processes involved in construction and design. If he relies on templates and algorithms to determine structural engineering, is he really an architect? He may have more time to dream up stuff and try it out, but that is just asking the algorithms to apply their knowledge. He is no more than an evaluator of a programs work.

If you have a vision, and you are limited by knowledge of technique or application of tools. Your vision cannot come to complete fruition. it might be quite beautiful in your head, but chances are thats where it will stay. I can't think of a single instance in creating Art over the last 30 years, where my initial vision did not evolve as I proceeded through the process. Process cannot be removed from the vision. In many ways thats exactly what happens with digital imaging technology. To refer to it as photography is irresponsible and an affront to photographic Artists.

Conversations like this are part of the reason I get kicked out of photographic forums.

Frank
Kicked out of forums? That's great. Good for you.

I understand what you are saying (the verbage) but not having one ounce of artistic understanding and possibly not ability (never practiced so I don't know if I do or not), I do not feel I "truly" understand what you mean.

For example, you say "Mastering the tools catalyzes aesthetic vision. The extent of creative knowledge grows proportionally with mastery of the tools applied. There is a spiritual, some would say existential element to the making and viewing of Art."

I want to propose a challenge. Can you show me or bring a piece of artwork tonight to help me to understand? To see what you see in art or in a piece of artwork. I'm going to the NC Art Museum later this afternoon. (Egyptian exhibit) I don't feel like I have an eye for art but I would like it. I just don't feel like I've ever been moved by a piece of art like others are.

If you can show me this, I may (no guarantees) concede that analogue is the only way to go.
Are you up for the challenge?

Me
Ahhh...Now you are venturing into the stormy waters of Creativity. I don't think I could show you any work of Art and explain it into impacting you in a personal way. I can certainly explain the ideas the Artist tried to encompass with the work, but I couldn't make you feel anything about it.

People intellectualize constantly. I guess thats a good part of it. But its not what makes it important. Theres something else about Art that just strikes a chord in you sometimes. I try to explain to people what its like to make Art....its pretty much impossible. Sometimes I say its like tuning a radio to a static free tone. Its when looking through the lens forces my mind to focus on a single object outside and inside simultaneously. When that happens its like hearing a pure single tone... free from the static of the world. Its really weird.
Its weird that the instant I make a photo, the image burns into my mind, and I can see it long after its past. Its like my mind is the film. A lot of times when I look at freshly processed negatives, I'm looking for the images I saw when I squeezed the shutter. Its not like I want to see what I got, but rather, I want to find what I saw.

The show at the museum will be pretty awesome. But if you ever have the chance to see A van Gogh show. (His work is housed in a gallery in Holland), you should take the opportunity. van Gogh was everything Postmodern Artists are not. He was spectacular. The force of his works are so blinding that it seems like he must of taken his thoughts and somehow smashed them into the canvas. Which is exactly what he did. Many of his paintings were completed in an afternoon... the whole thing. He could do two a day. It was unheard of.
He was mad, pretty much out of his mind... at least in regards to the reality most of us live in. But not so completely, that he didn't recognize that he was going insane. He knew it, wrote about it, and painted from it.

Van Gogh was almost completely self taught. By shear force of will he taught himself to draw. His early drawings look like those of an eight year old. But he doggedly worked the tools and gained mastery through repeated failure and refinement. It took awhile. Few Postmodern Artists would ever have the stamina for it today. And thats because they haven't the strength of will. Why bother when you can move from one 15 minute gratification to the next? Of course when the 15 minutes is past, so has the value or worth of the Postmodern work. Art today changes more rapidly than fashion. It is nothing more than Pop entertainment, and worthless when its time is up and a new "in" thing takes its place.

When I say "Mastering the tools catalyzes the aesthetic", I mean that Art is a process. And performing the activities of the process enhance or multiply ones ability to be creative. Creativity isn't simply something you do. Its something you discover. Mastering the tools of a process gives you a better chance of making such discoveries.

When you go to see the Egyptian exhibit, keep in mind what the tools and processes might of been. Egyptian Artists didn't have Photoshop or CNC machinery. Yet much of the work you see will be finely crafted, and constructed with materials that were meant to outlast the Artist, or the culture he came from, or the cultures that came after. That alone is an idea worthy of consideration. How long will the 1's an 0's in this program last? Where will these ideas be when they are unreadable?

Copper Plate Photogravure

Ahh yes... Copper plate photogravure. The ultimate challenge in technique. Lets see, my goal was to have ten images by the end of March. I set that back in December. So far, I have made 2, and they're not where I want them yet. I'm a little behind. Damn day job chewing up my time... Anyway..
I'm making progress. This is the second image I've made. Its getting there. The struggle is with contrast (Same struggle I had with polymer photogravure), but unlike the polymer plates, copper has a lot more room to play with. The tonal range is there, its just tweaking the resist and the etch to deliver.
There are two technical problems that continue to drive me crazy with this process. The first is related to dissolved oxygen in the water. Any free oxygen in the water will create an air bubble in the resist which will over etch and create a dark spot in the print. I'm using distilled water, and I'm boiling it, and I've gone as far as mix all wet processes with up to 80% alcohol, and still... the damn bubbles rear their ugly pimply heads on occasion. I am going to switch to a dry laydown process and see if I have any better luck. The texts say to use a mangle for the dry process. My first reaction was "What the hell is a mangle? I'm doing a pretty good job at mangling these things on my own." Well it turns out a mangle is the set of rollers that a 50's housewife used to run laundry through. Now that I think about it, I remember my mother doing such things to our laundry. However I doubt if I would ever find any old whirlpool mangle squirreled away in the garage. Maybe rusting out in the woods behind the house....I'm going with a steal rolling pin... Just have to see what happens.
The other issue is...harder to put my finger on. What I want to create are prints that are photographic in their tonality. Yet what I'm getting is more of a raw, etched look. This is where an experienced old master would really come in handy. Somebody that could just look at the materials and processes and say, "Yeah, you twit use this, or stop doing that." Man that would be helpful. But I'm pretty much on my own. Some of the literature I've read indicates that a dirty blanket could contribute to a rougher look. The blanket looks fine to me, but what do I know? I'm saving up my lunch money to buy one of those new fangled rubber blankets. Maybe that will do the trick.
I mean, the work is looking pretty good, but I want smoother tonality. Anyway it looks like this is going to spill over into the summer projects.

The end of Forte

What I consider to be the finest enlarging paper available will be discontinued in February. It will be a sad day when the coating machines are turned off at the Forte factory. It is yet another example of the growing trend toward the demise of analogue photography. It is hard to accept such ignorance, let alone understand it. But reality resides in the power of the purse. And the blind masses waste their money on digital media. They are incapable of seeing the difference, or simply don't care. What matters to them is what is instantaneous. Quality, class, beauty.....these are all foreign terms to most of the multitude. They waste their time and money on gratifications that don't last or make them disgustingly fat.

The "Craft" debate

Again and again, the digital/analogue disussion crops up on APUG. The latest involves a discussion on the idea of craft. This has come up before and I'm sure I have addressed it in APUG and on this blog. But for the thick minds that seem to infest so much of the online world (at least the online world I live in, here again is another analogy that describes the difference: Note that I am not questioning the digital medium as an Art form. I am pointing out a difference in the two mediums, (Digital imaging and Photography). I feel there is a significant difference in the way the medium is exercised. The difference is most apparent in the use or application of craft.

I will try to describe the difference through analogy:
I work in several mediums, photography being one of them (The primary). I also work as a cabinet maker, and use the tools and materials that make up the Art of woodworking. The term can describe a broad spectrum of craft/aesthetic influences and capabilities. Wood as a material is very diversified. In some ways it is not unlike sensitized emulsion in its ability to display a range of characteristics that ultimately affect the final work, and influence the sensibility of the Artist in determining the direction of the final work.

Characteristics influencing creative and functional decisions include: Hardness, machining capabilities, paintability, stainability, weather resistance, stability, etc. Now imagine a woodworking-like photoshop tool that works kind of like this:
The User inputs all requirements related to the final piece. These could include characteristics like functionality-Use, (this could include non functionality/display only, or any use in between), color, finish, wear resistance, etc.

The user then creates an image of the piece using software driven drawing tools, (Using the algorithms inherent in the software.) Creation is initiated when the “Enter” button is hit. The software evaluates the match between the requirements and the design and determines the wood (emulsion) right for the job. Further, the software is attached to a machining tool that performs all the cutting, sanding, milling, routing, gluing, etc.
Maybe this machine exists today, I suspect it probably does.

So the User in this example can create a work of Art using a tool that calls on algorithms to supplant human knowledge.(or at least the knowledge of the User in this example). It effectively negates the craft that necessitates the need to understand the materials. It also eliminates any of the tools required to actually create the physical piece.

Is the user in this example a cabinet maker? Is he/she an Artist? Are the processes of decision and creation similar enough to traditional cabinet making to justify a complete blurring of the two approaches? Should the public, society, the culture itself lose or become ignorant of such differences?

In my opinion, the user in this example could very well be an Artist. The work created can be Art. But, the user is not a cabinet maker. The process is not the same as cabinet making and should not be referred as such. This analogy can be applied to the Digital vs analogue debate.

digital imaging is not Photography

I recently completed a workshop with Ron Mowrey on emulsion making. In the workshop we made 3 emulsions;
1. An Azo paper emulsion,
2. A bromide enlarging paper emulsion,
3. A 40 speed ortho film emulsion.
I decided to take the course for many reasons, one of which is the fact that the science of photography is integrated with the aesthetics of the medium in such a way that it is impossible to accomplish much without understanding the tools and applying that knowledge to a personal vision.
Chemistry is the language of the photographic aesthetic. Think of it as akin to writing. A writer (or a story teller for that matter) cannot be so if he has no understanding of physical language. Perhaps he could shape a series of mumblings into a sequence of sounds that communicate something, but this approach seems to be limited to a very primal communication at best.
One of the beautiful aspects of photography has always been its ability to engage both sides of the brain. A beautiful photographic image must be a culmination of right and left side application. A subtle, extended tonal range cannot be separated from its sensitometry. Luminance, with all its wonder resides in the sweep of the dLogH curve. The rich blacks and glowing whites that create the dynamics of contrast grow out of the grains of chemistry.
Perhaps I take this too far for some. It is true that I have a mind that prefers the left lane more often than not. But, to separate the work from the knowledge of the tools that built it, more often than not will not produce anything that can stand very high.
I write this mainly because I see a rising generation ignorant of the tools of photography. Many people hold the belief that photography is "evolving" into a digital medium. They think that a digitized image (Whether on print or film), is the new photography. But it is something else. An Art form? Yes, it has that potential. But a medium that integrates the mind and hands through knowledge and craft..... No, it is not that.
Digital imaging has its place, especially in the commercial world. Having worked as a professional for many years, I acknowledge the advantages the digital medium has over the traditional analogue processes. Advertising will never go back. Its a matter of economics if nothing else.
It is the loss of craft that makes the digital process so limiting. So barren of soul. A negative is a work of Art. It is a culmination of thought, experience, craft, and vision. A negative can be a very beautiful object. And it is the aim of photographic artists to apply their vision through the use of craft to create a fine negative.
A digital negative is a different thing altogether. It is a point of departure. For this reason, the process of creation requires very limited craft. The negative is foundational only in that it is something to be manipulated by algorithms. These coded rules do much if not all of the thinking in the process leading to the final work. There is nothing wrong with this I suppose, but its not photography. And a digital artist is not a photographer.
Some people have told me that the digital process is an easy way out for those people who were unwilling or unable to master photographic printing. Indeed, printing contributes much to the craft of photography. Imogene Cunningham once stated that printing was the most difficult skill to master. The tools have improved with time (VC papers, finer emulsions, etc.), but photographic printing takes years of commitment and refinement before one can truly master the controls. How can photographic printing be likened to photoshop manipulation and ink jet printing? Sure it takes some effort to learn the software of the latter, but thats where the similarity stops...as well as the level of mastery.
I believe there is truth in the "easy way out" explanation. But then it has become the trademark of modern culture. Photographic Art is not alone in suffering the shortcomings associated with an instant gratification mentality. In the extreme, it has the ability to influence the very definition of quality by modifying the general understanding of what is identified as "Standard". It does this by aligning the term with the new limited product or process. (This seems to be the goal of most if not all marketing philosophies). Eventually, sub standard becomes standard and is taught to an uninformed or unconcerned public. For some, it may be all they know. This indeed is a great loss to photography, and breeds a generation ignorant of what was lost.

Reflection and reality

I once read about an exhibit where you were asked to look into a box. The inside was completely black. There was nothing to see or any way to judge the size or depth of the interior. It could have been a foot deep or as wide as a light year. Then you were asked to move a lever at the top of the box. The lever lowered a chrome wand into the blackness. The wand was brilliantly lit. It turns out the box was not empty at all. On the contrary, it was filled with an intense light.
The physics is so strange, I mean, who really knows what a photon is? And how can it be what it is? A Messenger of reflection.
The exhibit demonstrated the irony of our visual reality. What it shows us is that we have no concrete visual understanding of the universe. All that we see...is reflection.
How can we say anything we see is true? If you plunge a stick into a pool of water, you can see it bend. But physically, it is not bent at all. What you see is the reflection of the stick in refracted light. We all know the stick did not physically change shape.
So how does this idea affect our perception of beauty? If what we see may or may not be real, how do we know what is beautiful?
Beauty is the supreme mystery...But it is always true. Its being is not just a reflection of image, but a reflection of mind. Beauty is always something you feel as well as see. How we know it is the mystery.

The Artist and the Flamingo

This was a story that was told to me when I was a student. I was struggling at the time, and feeling discouraged. My grades were acceptable, but I knew my work was far from being anything of real substance. I knew what great work was. I could feel the power of it, and nothing I had ever done had remotely approached that.

Going to a museum or gallery was always a bitter sweet experience for me. I would stand in front of some of the most beautiful things I had ever seen. The emotional force of the experience was like being physically lifted off your feet and slammed against the wall. It could be quite compelling.

But every time I walked away, I would be washed with a wave of depression. Seeing those great works would leave me acutely aware of my own limitations as an Artist. I knew that it was not enough just to feel something. There was nothing really unique or special about that. Standard human condition took care of it for me. And it was not enough to know something, My training in photography provided for all of that.

The real force of my depression stemmed from the same question every Artist must ask himself, and that is simply; what if everything I am doing is a lie? What if somehow I'm faking it? What if my dreams are nothing more than delusions? And worse, What if I am using this deception in an attempt to fool others into believing me, when there is nothing of substance to believe.


I mentioned this to a young professor at school, and he told me the story of The Artist and the Flamingo. At first glance, it may seem to be just a lesson on mastering technique, but it is much more than that.

Technique is just technique. It is a matter of learning a set of rules and continually practicing them. If you want to know technique, that's all you have to do. If you want to master it, you must give more. Mastering, in a way removes the effort of the medium. Mastering transcends the Artist's tools. And that, is not an easy thing to do. For an Artist to succeed in that, he must be willing to go in and be torn to pieces. Over and over again. Art demands courage. That was the force that grabbed me when I saw the works of the Masters. I recognized how brave they had to be to do what they did.

At the end of this story the patron comments that the drawing is the most beautiful thing he has ever seen. What he saw was not just a drawing of a Flamingo, but a picture of the Artist in the Flamingo. There is a difference between knowing something and understanding it.

It was a worthy story for a young Artist to hear.


There was a man who loved Flamingos and really wanted to have a picture of one. So he started asking around town to find out if there was anyone who knew where he might get one. Eventually he learned that there was an artist on the outskirts who might be able to help him. One day he took the train out to the artist's studio to ask him if he could draw him a picture of a Flamingo.

When he arrived at the studio, he found the Artist totally absorbed in his work. There were several paintings on the walls that impressed the man very much, and he was hopeful that the Artist would be able to make a picture for him. Very lightly, carefully, the man knocked on the open door to get the Artist's attention. When the artist looked up, the Man said, “Excuse me, I have been informed that you are a very fine artist. By the looks of the work hanging on your walls, I would say that the information is correct.” The artist looked at the man and said, “Thank you for the compliment.” He gazed at the work around the room and said, “How can I help you?” The man said, “Well, I was wondering if you could draw a picture of a Flamingo for me. I love Flamingos, and I would like to have a very fine picture of one for my home.” The artist thought for a minute and then said, “Yes, I think I will be able to help you. Come back in three weeks and I will have it ready.” The man was thrilled. He thanked the artist and promised to return in three weeks. The two agreed on a time, and then the man left.

Three weeks pass and the man returns. He finds things the same as they were the last time he visited. The artist was intently working on a drawing, there were paintings and drawings around the studio. They were very beautiful, but nowhere was there a picture of a Flamingo. The man carefully knocked as he had done before. The artist looked up and welcomed the man in. “Come in,” he said. “You have come for the Flamingo?”, He asked. "Yes," said the man. “Is it ready? I don't see it anywhere among the other drawings.”

The artist removed the drawing he was working on, and placed a clean sheet of drawing paper on his easel. He began to draw with sure sweeping strokes, and within minutes a beautiful Flamingo emerged. The man had never seen such a drawing. Its sense of elegance, was magnificent, its presence, absolute.

When the artist was finished, the two just stood for awhile and looked at the Flamingo. Finally, the man said, “Its more beautiful than I could have imagined. You are indeed a fine artist. I thank you for this wonderful drawing, but I must ask you why did you make me wait so long when it is clear that you have the power to make such things instantly?”

The artist smiled and motioned the man to come with him. The man followed him into an adjacent room. In the room there was a large closet. The artist walked over to the closet and opened the double doors. Inside there were hundreds of imperfect Flamingo drawings. “You see my friend,” he said. “If I am indeed a fine artist it is only because I have had the greater opportunity to understand my own failures.”