kl (isabella32@earthlink.net)
Sat, 06 Mar 1999 10:00:14 -0800
Before William subscribed to this list, William went back to the
archives and looked at several hundred posts. Except for some ridiculous
thread involving some petty argument among two members of the list,
William found this forum to be an amazing resource for alt-photography.
Alt-photography as it is traditionally defined-photography using mostly
pre-gsp printing techniques. So, WIlliam subscribed. What WIlliam did
not want was endless threads involving bickering between one egotistical
member and another, or silly, pointless posts that can only be
considered on the topic if you stretch the definition of
"alt-photography" to the point that it becomes meaningless. Jewelia's
post,to William, seems somewhat akin to going to a restaurant and
ordering something off-menu. You can harangue the waiter and explain
sensitivity analyis to him all day long, but you should have have just
gone to a restaurant that served what you wanted. IF you are lonely, or
just want to post vapid movie reviews, William bets there is a forum out
there just for you.
Good day,
William Linne
ccccccccjewelia wrote:
>
> 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