From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 03/09/02-11:37:51 AM Z
Sorry if this message is a repeat. My mail program says it did not go
out the first time!!
SK
Alejandro López de Haro wrote:
>
>
>The future of commercial and everyday photography it seems is in the so call
>digital photography. But, Fine Art Photography future and present is in the
>prints made by the hand of the artist.
snip, snip
>
>The art of doing Art by the hand of the artist and the way it is translate
>into the image because in the manner in which the artist makes the strokes
>of the brush on that special paper, which he could have made himself, or
>because the rhythmic movements of his hands when he wants the image a little
>darker or lighter on silver base image. All of these, plus others
>intangibles like the artist delicacy in applying the coat on the paper, the
>application of pigments, the care of the print when it is being clear, wash,
>tone and dry, somehow makes a projection to the viewer which makes him
>respond with an special attraction to the image that is before his eyes so
>as to feel the full power of that which has been created by the virtuosity
>of the artist hand.
The idea you express are virtually identical to the aesthetic
ideology espoused by the Pictorialists over a century ago,
specifically, only photographs that show hand work or intervention by
the photographers could be considered works of art. That idea, then
as now, is too narrowly construed. So too was the opposing modernist
view that photographs should only be made on glossy silver gelatin
papers.
One of the most outstanding photographers of the pictorial school in
Spain, Migue Goicochea (died Pamplona in 1983) made in 1928 a
statement about processes that I consider to be equally valid today.
My translation of the original statement that appeared in Spanish in
the magazine Foto follows.
"Let's talk about processes. I am convinced that they all have the
potential to produce art. If Robert Demachy were to read this he
might be incensed, since he was of the opinion that only the pigment
processes are capable of giving artistic results, and indeed, only a
few of these. But we should not be so intransigent in this matter.
Exclusiveness blinds us and prevents a proper appreciation of many
worthy things."
Regards,
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST