Brian Ellis (beellis@gte.net)
Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:39:02 -0500
Damn! Where are the list minders when you need them? This message wins the award
(which I hope we start giving) for longest message with least interest to anyone
except the sender. Brian
jewelia 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