C. Michael McKinney, MFA (mckinnm@host1.swosu.edu)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:54:19 -0600
At 12:24 PM 2/24/99 -0500, aharwell@hhpa.com wrote:
>The concept of the "authenticity" of art is something that has vexed critics
>and artsits alike throughout the latter part of the twentieth century. . .
. Perhaps unethically, the vast majority of contributors to a
>project are never recognized.
>
>A similar condition exists in photography, although on a smaller scale. The
>photographer is recognized as a sole creator, while in fact it is possible
>that there are many that cotribute to a final image including the lighting
>assistants, paper designers, lab employees, printers, etc. It is the role
>of the photographer to synthesize these elements with his vision into a
>final product, an artifact which derives greatly from the visions of many.
>
>In this sense, it is irrelevent who prints an image, or even who clicks the
>shutter. What is important is who the purveyor of the final artifact is;
>who directs the synthesis of the elements of light, chemestry, paper, and
>vision.
>
> Andrei S. Harwell
> HHPA
>
The motion picture industry solved this problem years ago with the advent
of craft guilds. Of course, the credits in some blockbusters seem longer
than the film. Nevertheless, who had a hand in the final image in
photography is relevant, if for no other reason than the "smaller scale"
referred to. No one is condoning forty signatures at the base of a print,
but as a personal rule, I give credit to those labs/individuals that print
my ciba/ilfa chromes and dye transfer prints.
TTFN
Michael
C. Michael McKinney, MFA
Southwestern Oklahoma State University
http://www.swosu.edu/~mckinnm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54