Since I started my graduate work, I have been constantly under attack
concerning the following:
Why, in an age of electronic wizardry [digital imaging] would anyone want
to make the drastic and retrogressive decision to work in an alternative
photographic medium?
It has been suggested that alt. photo is popular because of the lack of
pre-visualization. I quote: "It is filled with happy accidents and
suprises". Bullshit. Sometimes when I'm under the darkcloth of my
Deardorff I get giddy when I think of how the image will look in lampblack
gum, my visualization is nowhere near hampered, just altered to fit the
medium.
Part of my problem is that I'm dealing with other graduate students and
professors who have taken the "alternative processes" undergrad class and
could "never get a handle on tintypes"; but instead of ignoring them and
doing my own thing, I need to be a representitive of my choice of
processes, and I need to do so in an intelligent and informative manner.
For this I need some input from this mailing list.
And on a more art-philosophical level, the concept of painters being
associated with photographers; part of my graduate study concentrate is
painting. If I could have my way, almost half of my formal education
should be painting and the study of artistic components. Since I have
started this track of thinking, my work has changed drastically. My
advisor looked at my slide portfolio last week and said "Pre-Raphaelite".
Hmmm. I've reached a point where the medium is a tool, not a basis for an
image, or a "hook". The success of an image relies soley on it's artistic
content, of which the medium is a factor.
In all, I hope that there are still some who feel that an
alt.photo-secession is still a possibility in the electronic age. Any
discussion on any of the above topics would be a welcome addition to my
education.
Regards,
Peter Howey
Kirtland College
Roscommon, MI USA