From: Jack Fulton (jfulton@itsa.ucsf.edu)
Date: 03/09/02-12:08:55 PM Z
I'm going to fully support the contention of Sandy King in the below
statement he translated.
The phenomenon we enjoy is the verisimilar nature of a light sensitive
medium and lens (or photogram). It is lovely to realize an individual
coated, or cajoled via chemistry and temperature, an image recognizable as
'true to life.'
For me, it is the content described by the composition that is compelling.
It is not important if this image is a fine print. There are so many
'perfect' photographs that are not of much interest. Ms. J.M. Cameron, who
has been mentioned prior, is an example of a Pictorial artist employing a
photographic means to achieve memorable results. Most likely it was both
fascinating and rather contemporary when she used that medium.
There are other examples of such endeavors in all forms of art expression.
The digital manner being employed today merely gives a greater amount of
people an opportunity to present a technically better image.
Inherent in the achievement of such perfection (so called) is the aspect
of laziness and guile. I mean, does one care if the image is nice looking if
the content is vapid. Well, it'll depend upon the eye and intellectual mind
of the beholder.
I can think of actresses here, too. Does the socially approved (male)
beauty of Pamela Anderson or Brittany Spears approach the beauty of Helen
Mirren or Judy Dench. There is no contest.
Jack
>> 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