Re: the shape of alt photography & the list & the movie pecker


Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 06 Mar 1999 18:57:01 -0500 (EST)


On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, jewelia wrote:
> .... Policing alternative photography
> and lists .... 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.

Jewelia, you touch on some points that seize me today as I am in the
throes of essay for #3 titled "Violating the Medium through Photo History"
a (naturally humorous, readable) compendium of the edicts of photo police
since day one.

> ...., 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.

There is a long history of preaching *purity* -- from PH Emerson to
Clement Greenberg and beyond. Do you know there is an entire literature
just lamenting gum bichromate? I don't want to spoil my surprise, but....
well, just a teeny hint, how about "mongrelized"? and "miscegenation"?
You wouldn't believe the NAMES who said that. (OK, maybe you would.)

> ...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

When Bea Nettles and company came on with the first flush of "breaking the
rules" was a thrilling moment. Now as "alt" approaches mainstream, has
its ups & downs.

We're in an inspiringly pluralistic time in *art* (great show at the
Armory two weeks ago, the downtown armory). In the '70s when all that
happened in "alt," painting was nearly dead from Formalism. Now, seems to
me there's a real alt risk of getting hung up in making perfect long-scale
zone type prints except in some other medium. That can of course be
exquisitely beautiful, but doesn't feed my soul -- or not that *alone.*

> ...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.

Jewelia, you take the words right out of my mouth....

> ...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.

But if you do this in pl-pd, you are clearly very brave.... or
uninhibited. I have trouble experimenting with material that's worth more
than I am, tho maybe that shows lack of art spirit. There are questions
about VDB archivality (if it matters), tho cyano is gonna last longer than
silver, longer than we 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?

> ..... some just want to solve
> technical problems or to circulate portfolios,

Some people do not want esthetic discussion on the list (or anywhere else)
period. They want facts and formulas & how many steps of gray. I sort of
agree, partly, too, because those esthetic discussions tend to get VERY
diffuse...

Which may be why efforts to introduce esthetics or theory on the list have
generally come a cropper... But does that matter? I suspect esthetics are
very personal and that you can't *argue* anyone else into them, any more
than you can convince someone about religion or impeachment by *argument*.

Then again, if it chases the "free spirits" off the list, it's bad. I do
get the sense of some feeling that the list is, well, in shorthand I'd say
"platinum esthetic." Not what platinum MUST be, but what it seems
generally taken for. True, Mac Legrandi has been free wheeling all over
the map, but that's not been the norm. Maybe it just doesn't take any
discussion and it's all in the work or the Web page? Or maybe those types
are more taciturn.... or turned off.

> ....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.

You leave out the pull of the cyber-soap opera....

cheers,

Judy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:55