From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/30/01-10:49:41 PM Z
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, shannon stoney wrote:
> ... The author of the book says that all new media
> have this problem, and that usually they take another, older medium
> as their "ideal method." His example was wood engraving, which took
> photographs as its "ideal method," that is, wood engravings were used
to reproduce photographs, and they imitated the look of photographs.
I plan to get that book, but if the author is in the habit of sweeping
generalizations of the sort you quote -- uh oh. True, early repro of
photographs used (some rather wooden) wood engravings, but wood engraving
had an honorable history back to Durer & earlier... (I'm not an art
history maven either, but -- I hope the statement was more nuanced than it
sounds here.)
Another example might be the way in which early photography imitated
> painting and drawing,until it found its own "voice." What I'm
Again, sounds like this guy has a terminal urge to the sweeping fallacy.
There was plenty of early photography that was quite itself, and there are
STILL plenty of photographs without a "voice" except imitation -- or what
single "voice" could one say it found? There be schools, groups of
clones, trends, bandwagons, experimenters, oddballs, etc.... with much
photography STILL in reference to painting and drawing, even if
(sometimes) in irony.
> wondering is, what is Photoshop's "ideal method"? It could be
> photomontage, a la Jerry Uelsmann, or collage, like Dada collage as
> done by Johnny Heartfield and Hannah Hoch. I know this is a little
> off topic, but since many on this list are well versed in
Photoshop is a tool, period. It's like saying what's the ideal method for
a scissor, or a camera, or a paintbrush. You use it for what you have in
mind or need or can devise. An "ideal method" for photoshop would put you
in a box at the starting gate (which would at least be an ideal mixed
metaphor).
> photographic history and are using digital media for whatever
> purposes, I thought you might have some thoughts on it.
I desire that photoshop make my photographs more photographic -- adding
the *control* of detail and tone I couldn't get in a grab shot. Who would
dare imagine an overarching purpose?
Then again, on 2nd thought, we've had them telling us these 50 years what
real, or ideal, photography is -- from Beaumont Newhall in the '60s & 70s
to Bill Jay in Photo Techniques year before last.... Uh oh again.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST