> > Is there a platinum aesthetic that differs from the silver gelatine
> > aesthetic ? Or is it just a matter of printing styles and personal
> > preference ?
>
> This question moves me to quote John Dewey, one of the few esthetic
> philosophers whose comments seem relevant to the actual "art experience."
> In looking at art, he says, we mentally recreate or follow the action of
> the artist in creating it.
(First of all, thanks to Terry and Judy for bringing this issue up.
Now, as I rise to the bait like a trout to a fly...)
The quote certainly sounds like classic Dewey though I don't recall it
per se. That said, Dewey like many late 19th and early 20th century
thinkers suffer from from a case a moral self-rightousness in that they
often stated their period and culturally biased beliefs as fact without
much research to back them up.
Having delved deeply into the world of learning disabilities and
special education, I have become strongly suspicious of Dewey as his
ideas don't pan out in the real world of multiple intelligences and
learning styles. I especially take exception to his idea about
experiencing art.
> If the viewer knows the difference between
> platinum and gelatine s/he will therefore respond accordingly. If
> s/he doesn't, the response will be limited to superficialities and
> content. Indeed, if process ("the poetry of material") were not crucial
> to our sensibilities, we would all do laser prints.
Here is where I disagree with Judy. I don't think it is important at
all to know the difference between the silver and the platinum processes
to experience the "poetry of material." If a platinum photographic
syntax isn't present in what the viewer actually sees, then it isn't
relevent to the experience of the image. Fortunately, the argument is
moot, as I've never seen a platinum print that a percetive viewer
couldn't tell was different from a silver print - even if that viewer is
completely ignorant of the differences in process.
No one should have to know about the process in order to "receive" the
experience of the print. This isn't to say that an educated viewer
can't have a richer experience, just that the experience shouldn't
depend on things that any perceptive but naive viewer can't bring to
the image.
A corollary to this is that an image seeks its processs (or, perhaps
the photographer seeks the image for a process). The image you shoot
for a platinum print (contrast range aside) shouldn't be the same one
you would take to make a silver print.
>
> Not to denigrate laser prints across the board -- I recently bought a
> living wonder -- but it, too, is another order of creature. In fact, part
> of the fey charm (or "hit") of the one I bought was *exactly* because it
> was a laser print, and I mentally recreated handing the slide to the clerk
> & having this image pop out.
>
> And in this context I will repeat what I have said before (forgive, but
> it bears repeating): All too often the "authorities," those creating
> hierarchies in photography, in fact those who determine which works will
> live, are appallingly ignorant, I would say, oblivious of process. A
> workshop with Beaumont Newhall in the early '80s was a great delight, but
> hearing him airily dismiss questions about process was not. Naomi
> Rosenblum's "History of Photography" has about 15 technical errors in 3
> pages on "alternative processes." I have read major photo historians
> and critics making giant bloopers about basics of process and materials.
Dismissing process except as it creates a visible syntax in the image
is not the same as being technically ignorant. One may be both, but one
state of mind doesn't necessarily support the other. Of course it is
inexcusible to be an historian of a process and not know the difference
between a Woodburytype and an offset print. That however, is different
from an ablity (or inability) to see and appreciate the difference
between the two.
>
> And you bet it matters. Does it matter whether you're looking at a
> watercolor, an oil painting or an etching? If you don't know the
> difference, your response will be little above the boy on a pony or story
> level. In which case a photograph of the most beautiful object in the world
> would be the most beautiful photograph in the world. N'est-ce pas?
Viewers will know the difference because they can see the difference,
and if they are not total philistines, feel the difference. That doesn't
mean I need to know the difference between the water color and oil
painting process, just that I can appreciate the diffrenece between
the water color and oil painting esthetic.
I'll stop here. Thanks again Judy, for giving me something to chew on.
Carson Graves
carson@ileaf.com