Ender100@aol.com
Date: 11/02/01-12:00:23 PM Z
Dick,
I agree that digital has probably allowed more people to "make art" and not
all of it is "good art". Regardless of the medium, be it inkjet print,
platinum print, etc. a bad image is a bad image. I've seen some terrible
platinum prints...but the were PLATINUM PRINTS, and because they were
technically good prints and PLATINUM, everyone went "OOOOOH" and "AAAAHHHH,"
but the images were bad. Just because you can make a good platinum print
doesn't make you a good "image maker."
As a tool, I think digital provides a lot of new possibilities. Let's forget
about the obviously manipulated stuff... I think people will get that out of
their system soon (I hope). I get tired of looking at digital work and
identifying which PhotoShop filter or plug-in was done to "get that cool
effect."
However, for "straight photography," digital offers an alternative tool that
some can use to produce results that are just as good as traditional methods.
Anymore, there are so many points in a person's workflow that they might
employ digital methods (original shot with digital camera, scanned film to
make digital negative, film recorder used to make digital negative, and on
and on) that it becomes rather fuzzy since so many combinations of digital
and traditional methods might be employed in the workflow that produces the
final image. And, it's the final image hanging on the wall the counts. Does
it have value to the person looking at it?
I appreciate the traditional methods and I think that it is interesting that
in spite of the growth of digital there is a growing interest and utilization
of 19th century processes. Thank God for people like Sandy King and all the
others (Many on this list) that work so hard to perfect these processes and
share their information with others. I hope they all continue to add to the
richness of our lives and professional work. At the same time, I hope they
soon have a zillion pixel camera that everyone can afford, printers that will
print perfect images without dots you can see on any substrate, etc., etc.,
etc. At the same time, I plan to learn to do some 19th century processes
during this coming year. I may even buy a banquet camera and play with that.
Oh, and kudos to Dan Burkholder for his hard work at joining digital and
19th century processes.
I wonder when this topic will die a natural death hehehehhe
Mark Nelson
PS: I just had a show in Chicago of work that was all printed digitally. A
couple were even shot with a digital camera. I had a number of "traditional
photographers" tell me my prints were fantastic—and they liked the images
too. ;)
In a message dated 11/2/01 11:20:23 AM, richsul@earthlink.net writes:
<< Digital is a new creation tool and perhaps in time we'll see esthetic
standards evolve out of it, but for now it's like bad money driving out
good. I overheard at an opening here a leading art gallery owner musing:
"If I see another digital picture...." >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:21 AM Z CST