jewelia (jewelia@erols.com)
Sat, 06 Mar 1999 08:59:49 -0800
i am responding to william linne and bob maxey's concerns about "pecker" &
to limit the scope of alt photography:
"what is" alt photography can be defined as a "space" or "volume" within say
art, photography, or you just could say the universe. Any such "space"
would have dimensions---length, width, heighth of the physical spaces that
it occupies -- that might be summed up using some methodology to describe it
physically--but we would all agree--at least i am assuming this is the
case-- that this isn't good enough or that alt photography would have to be
something more. so already we are confronted with a need to describe
something in terms of more than three dimensions. a space of this sort > 3
dimensions is more difficult to visualize--it is abstract to our vision and
we are visual beings---but there are ways to help "see" some of it and we
know now --have ever since the "discovery" of relativity and quantum
mechanics for pretty sure--that there is more to nature than what we will
ever "see" with our eyes despite whatever tools we will ever develop. We
will never "see" a parallel universe--at least while we are stuck in our
bodies on this planet--and we will likely never "see" a quark--not because
it is so small but because "seeing (proving)" one may be theoretically
impossible. (some people say we have reached the end of physics you
know--in a way they may be right but in another way I suspect there will
always be new discoveries--but also we can guess at this point we will never
know it all--that nature will never really disappear and always will remain
a mystery. so i always say to them "okay but as long as you know that you
can't have it both ways -- is it the end of physics or the end of nature
because if physics is over, then nature isn't because we don't know it all,
vice versa?" --and of course this is a double-binding trap begging to be
sprung --you just can't have one without the other ---and i leave them with
their new found confusions over the great mystery -- and i go on to print
something of philosophy myself -- in my mind physics has proved --perhaps
not by intent--the "beauty," if you will, of nature -- and left a little
room for --lead us back to -- humanity and art.)
we have ways to model these abstract spaces of more than 3 dimensions --- my
favorite is the linear program (the name might seem an oxymoron--but the
linearity is an assumption made for little components of the definition).
the linear program is a great model -- rather simple and complex at the same
time-- used to think about complex spaces -- and what i am getting at is the
definition of alternative photography and the policing of the list. linear
programming is used to optimize systems having very complex geometries and
is capable of working with spaces that are defined by dimensions that could
approach infinity in number -- as many variables as you are willing to
program into it. the model has really only two components--an objective
that is to be optimized and a set of constraints --sometimes thousands of
linear equations are used to model them-- that limit the space that a body
(system) occupies. So for a "problem" such as the definition of what
alternative photography is --you have many variables to consider that
together constitute a space having far more than three dimensions. we know
that maximum and minimum points must be at the extremities of the body or
space they constitute--that's sort of defined when we say max or min--so we
can ignore the contents when we work with the problem and sort of play with
the skin-- just like photographic notions of detail in a way --- an
algorhtym is used to solve the system as defined according to an objective
function to be maximized or minimized -- it plays with the system in three
dimensional pieces or chunks--in a sense rotating around the body until all
possibliities have been covered -- it may be "better" to visualize this as
dropping through wormholes to alternative universes looking for
answers" -- including what alternative photography is/isn't.
there are two approaches of concern used with such modeling--one is to take
on a set of assumptions to construct a model--this would include deciding
upon choosing either a maximizing objective function or a minimizing
objective function and in this approach--the system is said to be "solved"
and you accept the solution taking into consideration the risks of it using
a sensitivity analysis--sort of a set of confidence factors that are also
calculated. I won't describe the details of sensitivity analysis but will
make one point about it--in order to calculate the degree to which the
solution is sensitive to the assumptions made in describing the system, the
algorhythm constructs what is called its the dual or shadow version. This
approach just utilizes the notion that you can't know what something isn't
unless you know what it is. sort of jungian theory of clinical mathematics
here. In the other approach--rather than a concern for the "Solution" the
concern focuses on the set of constraints--this is the more useful approach
in my opinion -- that if there is any hope for say a progress -- then it
lies with working to loosening the set of constraints (we are talking focus
here not a this or that approach remember).
the point of summarizing how a linear programming model might be useful in
seeing a complex universe of many more than three dimensions might be useful
in helping to understand the "nature of alternative photography or any other
for that matter." as with all definitions these days--there are two
essential philosophical paths taken--either one works to limit and refine
the definition or one works to expand it. Policing alternative photography
and lists come under the former i would say. In my opinion, and what that
is worth depends upon how you personally want it to be, such minimizing
thinking is not good for alternative photography if it wishes to remain
associated with art, creativity, and expression. the former would tend to
see art as objects of very narrow types that can only be made by experts and
the latter would tend to think of art as a process that can be experienced
by most everyone---that art, creativity, expression, and ideas of even
alternative photography are simply part of the aspects of being human. the
former reduces (is a reductionist way of thinking) art to just craft. tthe
extent this is the case is also what feeds the notion that if you want to
make art you must make it with the technolgy of the day -- not really true
but one tact often advised. personally, and maybe i'm lacking more than
what i think and i think a lot (ambiguity intended as usual), i believe i
can make as much art with working with what are commonly called alt photo
techniques as with any other--whatever they are if i am not willing to
constrain myself to purity of form. i myself like to have a basis of
simplicity to address "my" complexity.
so what we have in alternative photography are many people who comprise a
sort of subuniverse along with many other factors--some persons want
alternative photography and the list tightly controlled and dominated --
often by themselves i might guess for the extreme cases. and on the other
extreme, we would have persons who want to expand the definition of
alternative photography because we would tend to see that as a good
thing---to expand the scope of technique and persons who work within the
sphere-we tend to be boundary crossing types i would guess at the extreme.
now while this expansion is going on in our little system of alternative
photography, at the same time, it is going on in the other fields of
scholarship and art. if you have no clue as to where art and scholarship
has been for the last several decades -- one thing happening is that no one
is sure how to categorize art, scholarship, or much of anything anymore.
this can cause anxieties to emerge because change is happening everywhere --
or you can be excited about the opportunities that can come from it even if
you can't predict where, when, what--but that's the nature of all true
discovery you know. yes, it can be chaotic (just like nature i suppose) but
that has -- i suspect generated as much creative thinking for some as it has
retrogressive anxiety for others. the Renaissance sprang from The
Inquisition -- chaos is and will always be part of nature and life -- or so
the theory assumes. New types of artists are emerging likewise everywhere
including on this list as we type, partly in response to controlling demands
over the definition of what art (and true for any of its forms) is.
so in alternative photography we have those who want to make it rigid as if
it ever has been a certain practice and those who oppositely want to
incorporate computers, silver gelatin, philosophy, painting, printmaking,
spirituality, edges, dye sub, cibrachrome, ethyl alcohol, aesthetics,
politics, and what have you into the process/scheme --some of us work to
break down stereotypes of who an altenative photographer is in the
process--i mean there are notions out there that alternative photography is
dominated by a certain demographic class of persons who have a very narrow
range of vision and thinking. hasn't always been that way you know--there
was a time a few decades ago when at least for a short time alternative
photography was at the forefront of what was happening in photography and
and art. As with all stereotypes (the term stereotype has a certain
negative connotation these days and i am using the term to illustrate the
sameness the term "stereotype" has with the like term "classification" --
this text play is another way to make an image you know --). the fact is,
as is always the case, there are virtually hordes of exceptions out
there--there is a lot of interesting work being down out there by
interesting people most of whom don't participate much in what is usually
assumed by the alternative photography "community" and the "list" --
inlcuding myself in the past. a lot of experimental work that is more
interesting to see takes place in van dyke and cyanotype and gum while say a
show of platinum prints has become somewhat more predictable--this reflects
a lot of perceptions--the cost, where these prints are made, and the who is
making them. Personally, i see no reason why this necessarily should be the
case and i do a lot of my own work in platinum and gravure--during the last
two years i think i have made significant progress myself escaping the
limitations i formally set up around myself in my work by focusing too much
on "expectations of technique." more and more i invite chaos into my work
and remake myself and my thinking---perhaps i may never take this beyond
what might be called a deterministic chaos rather than an entropic variety.
that is, for myself as well as some of us, we have an enthusiasm to expand
the language of what alternative photography or this or that technique is.
in case you aren't a fan of art history--i will just state that this sort of
work has tended to be what becomes an important focus in the end--usually
after van gogh and the other artists who did it are dead--& true most of
these are never recognized--but no matter--we all die and after -- well, i
sort of doubt it will ever matter. so, for instance, i could be interested
in working on new papers to have my own little territory, but why?, or i
could be interested in working with other artists to think about other ways
to present an image--using new papers or say digital technology including
those not intended for artists--to see where we might take the platinum
print for example as in what has been done already with thinking types who
have experimented on washi or invented new ways such as the ziatype -- i
mean somewhere in the bunch are some of us would like to see if we can
generate any interest in say the platinum or general alt process print
beyond its archival and tonal range qualities --and this will require more
than thinking and discussing just technique--and some think this is a threat
to the system they know but how so? how does an expansion of a discussion
whether in picture, text, or equation really limit or harm anything that
already exists. in fact, by some of us working together in various fashion
to expand alternative photography -- we can generate a lot more interest in
what alternative photography is at the moment and what it is to become --
attracting more artists into it to work somewhere in the body--either in the
traditional interior or at the boundaries of what alternative photography or
one of its so-called processes is. i tend to be one of the latter and yes,
i am interested in helping to make an expansion happen--sorry if this makes
any of you feel insecure or threatened but all i can say is that some of us
will work towards it just the same. i think that despite some anxieties it
is good for everyone -- even if you decide to print yourself as a sort of
traditional purists or just want to print your family photo album in
cyanotype. i mean how are you hurt and where does your authority to control
the universe of alt-photo come from if you are one of the grand ones?
as for the list and what belongs or doesn't--well it calls itself
alternative process photography and is indexed in various ways, and well in
order to confine the discussion of alt-photo you have to know what it is and
isn't. there are some who would like to restrict the discussion to
something they can understand easily or gives them some sort of perceived
advantage--something they can dominate or sell--nothing wrong with flaunting
your expertise and products--its good to make things convenient in my
book---but it doesn't take awhile to see that the list discussion is
dominated in focus and by a certain small set of people. some of them are
motivated some by desires to be the experts--nothing necessarily wrong with
that at all -- makes it easier for everyone. some just want to solve
technical problems or to circulate portfolios, find someone who is somewhat
known in the community--nothing wrong with convenience in my book. but,
some want to control and limit alt photo to their style of work, needs, and
thinking and others who wish to set themselves up as dominants---say
experts/teachers of a tight class easy for them to control. some, the
status quo, would want to subject every new idea to a vote or who came
first--because they know they can kill off the new before it gets a chance
to grow -- mercantilist thinking to maintain status or just pure ego
perhaps--hardly worth the analytical bother because what does it matter.
but, again, the but of it always --the list is more than the domineering
subscribers whether the domineering are good or bad in result or intent--the
list is more than
all of the subscribers in fact--part of what goes on in the list is the
struggle over what alt - photo is/isn/t, who alt-phot is/isn't, who the
experts in alt-photo are/aren't, and so on. In fact, the list turns up in
web searches all the time--those archives!-- and i would guess that some
people understand that hapens and work diligently to establish their
presence in alt photo land by establishing a regular expert-like presence on
the list--some see the list as an opporutnity to have a real discussion and
to introduce new ideas into the field conveniently--without having to write
a book or curate a show, others find it just a good resource to learn
technique or to prevent from making some of the mistakes as they venture
forth from the fronteir of the space they themselves know. as many reasons
as people i suppose.
so, jewelia why bother with the list--why not just go on in your former
happy way--i mean you have found your audience, you are already
controversial in certain neighborhoods, so why jewelia do you bother with
this list--? don't you know that performance, computers, washi don't fit--?
and why jewelia do you still make those platinum prints of landscapes--??
don't you know that "pecker" has nothing to do with alt-photo?
Huh??????...................well i guess i--jewelia-- doesn't see it that
way--in fact, i, jewelia, see the film as precisely about the motives behind
your responses--so i see it not as a film about the techniques of
photography or alt photography or how you want to break it down but the
system of controls that try to limit what art is that apply just as well to
what alternative photography is. not everyone i would dare say is provoked
to express some sort of controlling fear when they see something different
in front of them and understand that alternative photography, whatever it
is, is more than a small set of techniques and people.
but what the list becomes is a collective image all its own of alternative
photography.
we are living in a great time -- although there are a lot of nihilists out
there preaching the end of art, science, the world-- but seems more and more
all things are coming back together--physics has run back into religious
studies, psychology, philosophy, and art -- as they were at the time of the
renaissance when the great artists were diversely also the engineers and
scientists -- had some gender and other problems back then -- as we do today
so we still have subjects -- we may have come full circle in a way during
the past millenia - and specialization has run into its marginality -- where
it may cost more than what it is worth to continue this way. so for the
past several decades there has been great interests amongst some scholars
and artists into integrating knowledge to bring things together again--to
expand definitions--not to limit them. this is one of the more exciting
things happening today and mandlebrot, one of the geniuses of chaos theory,
turns out to be an artist too afterall.
personally, no matter where i go these days--physically or abstractly -- i
am bound to be beat up -- but more and more i learn i also make precious
connections with others--a progress of my own and by knowing more of where i
am not and know more as to where my boundaries lie--so i know what to work
on, so to type, speak, print. so beat me up if you will -- i can work right
around the corner my friend and make your controls my material of the day.
auugggh=jewelia--you have already made a personal work of art today and your
spouse is not yet up--not bad --ehh?
btw: seems i have heard some thanks for the notice--there is still hope for
my pandora???
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:55