Process and photography
A recent APUG thread was started to discuss (among other things), the relationship of process to the expression inherent in Art. Basically, is process also inherent in a work of Art, particularly photography? Or is it simply a means to an end? This was my reply:
In my opinion you can't separate the content from the craft. If you do, you have something else other than the original. I am someone who appreciates impressionist painting enormously. To think that you could change the texture of the brush stroke, and have the same thing...well,no.
One of the really beautiful aspects of photography that initially drew me to it was its sense of physical, tactile process. Sure, ultimately the final product is the culmination of processes undertaken for the goal of expression. In the end, I agree that it is the work that needs to do the final "speaking".
But the expression lives in the process as well. It is ingrained in it. In photography, it starts at the negative, A negative is not merely a matrix. It is a product of process influenced by the mind of the artist. I don't make negatives haphazardly. I influence the materials with a knowledge of their strengths and shortcomings. A negative can be a beautiful object. And it is the mind and craft inherent in its making that influence its beauty, both physically and as it relates to the goal of the final print. This is probably my biggest qualm with digital imaging. It has a way of sanitzing process to the point where it becomes irrelevent. How is this photography? It isn't.
In my opinion you can't separate the content from the craft. If you do, you have something else other than the original. I am someone who appreciates impressionist painting enormously. To think that you could change the texture of the brush stroke, and have the same thing...well,no.
One of the really beautiful aspects of photography that initially drew me to it was its sense of physical, tactile process. Sure, ultimately the final product is the culmination of processes undertaken for the goal of expression. In the end, I agree that it is the work that needs to do the final "speaking".
But the expression lives in the process as well. It is ingrained in it. In photography, it starts at the negative, A negative is not merely a matrix. It is a product of process influenced by the mind of the artist. I don't make negatives haphazardly. I influence the materials with a knowledge of their strengths and shortcomings. A negative can be a beautiful object. And it is the mind and craft inherent in its making that influence its beauty, both physically and as it relates to the goal of the final print. This is probably my biggest qualm with digital imaging. It has a way of sanitzing process to the point where it becomes irrelevent. How is this photography? It isn't.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home