From: David Cardelús (davidcardelus@retemail.es)
Date: 07/31/02-12:39:21 PM Z
Hi, Shannon.
What you say about Photoshop as created for graphic designers ... Maybe we
photographers are now in the same point as they were years ago when they
began working with computers. Computers sure changed their way of thinking
about their work.
For us, digital makes me feel we are losing some kind of tempo, a kind of
lounging rythm about the many years to learn how to think about what you
want to photograph, to find your own way of looking at the world, to
translate it from your head to the print ...
Digital is fast, too fast for me. It's trial and error at ultra speed, and
this speed maybe imposes its own aesthetic.
Regards from Barcelona
David Cardelús
----------
>De: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
>Para: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Asunto: Re: digital aesthetic
>Fecha: miér., 31 juli 2002 07:39
>
> Jack wrote:
>
>> I find it interesting in that most are employing a sort of visual poetry to
>> better define intent. However, the "bad" art of much of this praxis merely
>> obfuscates (in a deliberate manner) identity and create visual enigmas that
>> are a pretence for art.
>
>
> I think one reason for the huge amount of "bad" photoshop work is that
> photoshop was originally created for graphic designers--people making ads,
> brochures, etc--and that is the kind of photoshop product that we're used to
> seeing: cd covers, ads in magazines, etc. Naturally we unconsciously
> absorb the commercial, slick look of those Photoshopped images and sometimes
> unconsciously "copy" that look, even if we don't want to, and not in an
> ironic "Pop art" way. It's hard to find or get to see real fine art made
> with Photoshop and digital imagery. I worked on my project without having
> seen any other photoshop artwork at all, other than that of my fellow
> students. I was inventing it from scratch, as it were. There is very
> little of a fine art digital tradition as yet for us to draw on. So, we
> draw on collage and montage, as well as conventional photography, and
> painting. And we just make stuff up!
>
> In March, though, Fotofest in Houston had some digital art, and some of it I
> liked very much, particularly the work of a German woman whose name I can't
> remember right now. Again, the work was very surreal in feeling, and also a
> bit humorous. (I think humor is a sort of inherent quality of Photoshop, as
> well as surrealism.) All of her very large prints sold to one collector, I
> heard. Some of the other digital art I saw at Fotofest was of the rather
> bad album cover variety, or reminiscent of scenes from computer games.
> I hope that in the future we will see more digital art in galleries and
> museums and books. I saw one of Dan's prints in the John Cleary gallery in
> Houston, which was nice.
>
> Maybe it's ok for fine art digital imagery to draw on popular commercial
> digital art, like album covers, ads and the like, but most of that kind of
> stuff looks sort of vapid to me. I think digital imagery can go a lot
> further and be a lot more subtle and thoughtful than that, like surrealist
> painting or Dada
> collage.
>
> --shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:01 AM Z CST