Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:17:21 -0800
Jeff;
I fully agree with you. I think that a photographer can be both an
imagemaker and a printmaker regardless of what Coleman says. There was a
time when this current specialization craze was not so popular, and people
were not so impressed that you had mastered only one discipline. It was
called the Renaissance, hence the term Renaissance Man (not gender based)'
is still given to someone who has talents in many fields. I don't know when
artists swerved off this path and became specialists like those in so many
other fields; ie medicine, law, but this push to specialize is very active
in the photo world. There is not absolute. I am not saying that everyone
who shots a photograph must print it. I am saying that any photograph that
I shot, I must print, and I value other photographer/artists who do the same
more than I value works that have been printed by people other than the
shooter, whether it was created under the shooter's supervision, etc. We
all have our own lines of limitations that we have drawn, and I would like
to see more artists adapt the 'whole process' attitude towards their work.
But the way to go about this is not to force it upon anyone. I like what a
Buddhist monk answered when asked why they spend so much time meditating and
improving themselves instead of going out in the world and directly doing
things to change other people and make them better. The monk said that by
bettering herself she was setting an example for others to better
themselves. If they chose to learn by her example, then her sacrifices had
helped someone else. We could adopt this stance also. Those who want to
shoot, process, and print their works entirely should do so. Then let the
public that wants to become 'enlightened' to this . Ummmm...
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey D. Mathias <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- the imp. signature
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
>> A.D. Coleman wrote an essay a few years back where he divided
photographers
>> up into to classes: imagemakers and printmakers. As alt folks we clearly
>> fall into the latter category -- and we are clearly in the minority.
>> ...
>
>I have not read the essay by A.D. Coleman and so am not familiar with
>HIS definition of imagemakers and printmakers (please enlighten, if
>you're able). However concerning the traditional interpretation of
>imagemaker and printmaker, I most definitely consider myself an
>imagemaker.
>
>Clearly, at least to myself, what I am interested in is making
>(creating) an image. The printmaking is an essential part, as is the
>negative making, the photographing, the understanding and training, the
>curiosity and exploration, et cetera, et cetera. Sure, I don't do
>everything. I don't make my own film or paper. However, I do select
>them.
>
>As to printmaking, there is just no way an image could be called mine if
>it is not printed by me. Oh yes, I could stand as overlord and direct
>others to do my biding. But, I just would not be satisfied by that; the
>work would be missing some familiarity. As well, I would never have
>someone develop my film or set up my camera; it just wouldn't be my
>image. Well "you" think "you" can copy or imitate my work; well just
>"you" try it; "you" have no idea or understanding of the nuances
>involved; "you're" just not me.
>
>[NOTE: Anti-flame comment: The "you"s should obviously be interpreted
>as an example and fictitious persona. That's what the quotes are for.]
>
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
>> ... Having darkroom assistants "help" in the process is different than
>> sending stuff off to have it made. ...
>True, but it's also different than doing it yourself.
>
>Anyway, back to the imagemaking. I don't make prints, I create images.
>The printmaking is but a part of the process to get me there. However,
>the nuances of the printmaking are essential to the image; to me the
>image is just not there if not printed properly.
>
>
>I guess an issue for us (alt-photo folks) is how do we get the message
>out there, to the collectors, gallery owners, and museum staff. How do
>we let them know that our work has merit? How do we do this when they
>are preoccupied with the latest pop-con-artists? There is just too much
>cr-- out there. Perhaps a guild could direct interest more toward those
>who deserve it (and earned it)(individual or collaborative).
>
>How does the word get out? It is a travesty that what Judy indicates is
>true.
>Judy Seigel wrote:
>> ... Meanwhile, on the subject of *money*, in my experience a "collector"
is
>> just as likely to be impressed that a photographer doesn't have to slave
>> her/himself doing the dirty work in the darkroom, but is hotshot enough
to
>> have a team of experts to do it for him/her, while s/he spends the energy
>> getting inspiration and hanging out in trendy restaurants. ...
>
>I would like someone to just appreciate my work on its own merits. Ask
>yourself this question: Was the last piece of art you purchased because
>you liked it or because of who made it? The last piece I purchased for
>cash was a ceramic piece I liked at $140. I didn't know anything about
>who made it, I just liked it. It's interesting that the last piece I
>added to my collection was a photograph trade (sight unseen, pot luck).
>
>There is just too much activity in the art world interfering with art.
>At least when it comes to alt-photo art, I feel we can and should make a
>difference. We can educate the collector, the gallery owners, the
>museum curators. We can provide a forum for them to find information.
>We can create standards of credibility and authenticity. We've got a
>good network of folks on this list; let's do it.
>
>Shall a working group (small) be formed to put together a rough draft to
>go out to the list for modification and refinement? This could be done
>by E-mail with perhaps a meeting if appropriate. Perhaps a small list
>server could be set up for the working group. I would be interested.
>What say you?
>
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54