[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: to mat or not..
When I trip the shutter and create a photo, the only thing I'm
concentrating on is the image on the groundglass. When I make a print,
anything beyond the border of the image is distracting, extraneous garbage.
This may be specific to photography..traditional photography and traditional
thinking.
So why show it? Do jagged brush strokes, wavy borders, torn paper edges,
etc... really add to the image?
All of these elements depending on the way in which "one" envisions their
"images" can add to the final piece!
I don't think so! Why draw attention away
from your work (the image).... unless it's too weak to stand on its own
accord?
I don't necessarily think that any of these things draw attention AWAY from
the work, it all depends upon what you think the "image" consists of. Is it
only what you see through the shutter? In my opinion, and of course it is my
opinion, If I am choosing to work with a substance such as paper which has
many different characteristics other than RC paper, I wish to push those
characteristics in whatever way that I can..brushing, scratching, sanding,
soaking to the point of disintegration in some areas etc. Just as Lukas
said, if an image is Dull, it is still Dull with borders showing or not.
Matting will not help a Dull image just as fancy funky borders wouldn't.
The fact is that 99.99% of the people (including many professional
photographers) who look at photographs have no clue as to what they're
looking at. They really don't care if it's a gum print, platinum,
Cibachrome, conventional B&W silver print, or (heaven forbid!) a photocopy.
So why bother proving to the uneducated masses that your prints are
'handmade' by shoving the evidence (torn paper edges, scribbled notes and
brush strokes) in their face?
I don't really know how many people work with the "masses" in mind..I
particularly do not..I don't see it as PROVING that the prints are hand
made..just a different way of working.
Will they understand or appreciate what they're looking at? Not likely.
No one can be the judge of what anyone is thinking when they respond to some
type of imagery. I would like to think that the response would be to the
piece as a whole and not just the central image area..if border marks are
included. Of course by matting something you are directing the viewer to
only concentrate on the framed area, this of course is a personal choice.
the image itself.... isn't that what really mattered anyway when you tripped
the shutter?
I guess we come from two entirely different schools of thought. I really
believe that my background and the way that I envision and create my work
has much to do with the vehicle by which my imagery is placed as well as the
photo's that I choose to take and combine.
So for me, it is not just about the image itself..it is what the image is on
and how it is presented, the marriage of these substances.
I can appreciate a wonderfully clean matted photo as well as one which is
not matted and has some other things going on..borders showing, writing etc.
neither is wrong..just different!
Rosae
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com