My way of working has been to find the print in the printing, to think,
what if I try it this way, and tear it up or wipe it off if it's NG. That
may be a stupid approach but there it is and hardly practical by
appointment, during business hours, with a giant hi tech intermediary at
$70 or $80 a pop. Or let me put it another way: what I'm interested in
doing is *printing* not shooting (I believe all photographs have been
taken) and the Iris would put me out of business.
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Pollmeier Klaus wrote:
>
> <If his work was mediocre, no process will make a real difference.>
>
I disagree again. Art history shows many artists who excelled in one
medium or vein and were mediocre in another. Even photographers.
> (Sorry, What does FWIW mean?)
For What It's Worth. (Klaus I'd rib you with "what's the matter, can't you
speak English?" but fear some might not appreciate my humor.)
> Probably the results look similar. And for the observer it may make no
> difference how the prints were made. But nevertheless you don't convince me that
As for the claim that looks are all that count, and how the print was made
doesn't matter -- I think of the difference between a zircon and a
diamond. So much of art *and* photography is in what we know, not just
what we see.
But a big problem with this discussion is we seem to be talking about two
different things, and switching between them at random. Thing One is the
Digital Negative. Thing Two is the Digital Print. I doubt the
considerations are interchangeable.
> Conventional photography also needs an intermediary (camera, film/paper & wet
> process). You may be more used to the conventional intermediary, but principally
> you have the same or even more <ready interaction, the improvisation, discovery,
> the benefit of
> trial & error> with the computer. And conventional photography has no better
> relation to drawing or painting than digital imaging - none.
If for you the cost and personnel and other conditions of making an Iris
print don't make the experience dramatically different from your own
studio or darkroom, well, you're different from me.
> photography in it's early days when people chose the iconology of painting
> because photography didn't have one of it's own? Somehow this early digital art
Photographic imagery fed back up the chain just as much as "art" fed down
-- a two-way street, as, say, Degas's painting compositions show, among
many others.
But I think of Crawford's comments in the intro to Keepers of Light, about
how process changes changed esthetics. So be it. But puleeze, do not
pretend that the experience of making an Iris print is like making a print
on one's own, physically, conceptually, practically or economically.
Cheers,
Judy