From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/13/01-11:38:03 PM Z
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
> Judy Seigel wrote:
> > ... If you work primarily on intuition, you have to be
> > able to afford the brain power, effort and *attention* so required.
>
> But is not this part of being an artist?
No. It's a side track. A stunt. Nothing to do with "art." Like wiggling
your ears.
> But this is why I put together a procedure to quickly assemble
> variations in negatives and prints for comparison that may otherwise
> have taken years to collect by chance. And yes, one should have an
> ability to concentrate and the discipline to apply the effort.
I myself have to choose my shots. You may be able to cover all points. In
any event, my own photography is about other things.
> Judy Seigel wrote:
> > Nor do I see that the judging of negatives has one single thing to do with
> > being a creative artist, photographer, or even a good person. ...
>
> I can agree with whether being a good person, but if one does not have
> understanding and control over their materials, then how can they master
> what it is they are attempting. I have never accepted the argument that
> art is some random or mystically given event that is somehow thrown upon
You assume that the ability to judge "by eye," or a capella as it were, is
required for understanding and control in photography. I don't. And,
what's more, it's of no interest to me. !!!!!
There are all kinds of understanding and control, as noted by others on
this list, some absolutely seminal works have been done by photogs don't
know how to print. What did Lartigue know when he did his greatest work
with a box camera, aged 11? (ETC ETC ETC ETC.)
> the world. Not all photographers are artists, and that is OK. But to
> be a creative artist, one must possess the intuition, brain power,
> effort, and attention (even if subconsciously).
My definition of "creative" is other than yours, runs more to imagery,
ideas, concept, etc. etc. etc. Not the trick pony act. Although I'd say
that defining it in advance is asking for trouble anyway.
> Does a poet have an intuition and understanding of words?
> Does a composer have an intuition and understanding of notes?
> Why then should a photographer not have an intuition and understanding
> of tonal values?
I don't buy the definitions (simultaneously vague and pat) or the
analogies, and definitely don't think photography is mostly "tonal
values," NOR, for that matter, that you have to do the eyeball trick to
*understand* tonal values. I think one can have a very sensitive
relationship to tonal values, should one have those inclinations, and
STILL save brain volts by using densitometer. But for one such as myself
who takes photographs (of the world) without the care and concern of the
view camera person... I think I wouldn't do it if I could. I need
whatever certainty I can get. I'll place my risks in other territory.
[Vive la densitometer !]
> They must have as it is essential to what they are doing.
I don't claim to have a clue what's "essential to photography." But if its
already a given, what's left to discover? Then it's merely following a
script.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST