From: Joe Portale (jportale@gci-net.com)
Date: 03/10/02-10:36:22 AM Z
This topic seems pops up every now and again. This is merely a question
about a trend in the artistic time line. Are there any others out there who
remember when the photographic world was dominated by 35mm cameras? That
anyone using a view camera was considered passé and old fashioned because
the pictures didn't have that gritty street feel? No self respecting
photographer wouldn't ever think of venturing out into the world without a
copy of Robert Frank's The Americans under one arm and Nikkormat under the
other? How about the lighting techniques used by the photographers of the
20's, 30's and 40's? The technique that I am referring to is the simulated
stage lighting used by Hollywood in the glamour shots of actors/actresses.
That died off only to be resurrected a little while ago. Now it is the
"Thing" in some circles.
For the most part, photographer/artists are techno-geeks. What is new and
shiny is ALWAYs considered the wave of the future and everything else is
yesterday's oatmeal. This is usually proclaimed by some know-nothing art
critic or self appointed pundent who decides what is best for everyone else.
It is the invention and recreation idea that keeps true artists going. This
must include explorations of new media. Right now, this is digital. I can
remember that Holography was declared as the end of photography. Is
holography out there..yep. Is photography still out there...yep.
Yes, there are those who have abandoned conventional image making, lugging
camera and equipment, painting pallets and paper for the computer screen. So
what? It is their means of passing on and exploring their vision. And if
digital brings the cost of producing art to a level where the working class
dog can afford it, all the better. Like Christopher commented about historic
painters freaking out that cameras would kill their trade. One of the
complaints by the more elitist painters was that it put image making in the
"hands of the common man". The idea that some steel worker in Bethlehem, PA
can sit in front of a computer screen and make something that may be of
artistic value? Leapin' Lizards! Could you image that? The horror of it!
Art is at best a crap shoot. What is trendy and sells today will not sell
tomorrow. It all depends on the gallery power brokers and the fickle tastes
of the public. The pursuit of fame and wealth as an artist can be seen as a
fool's errand. If these material rewards are to come, they will come. If
not, they will not. Fame and wealth should not be the reason to make art.
Like I have told students in the past, "If you want to get rich, become a
stock broker, doctor, lawyer, marry well or figure out how to win the
lottery. If you want to make art, you must take what goes with that life
choice".
We must never loose the sight that history declares what is art and what is
a craft or rubbish. Will a digital artist one hundred years from now hold
the same status as a Van Gogh or Jackson or Weston? Who cares? The artist
should work in the here and now and let history/society deal with the work
in it's own time. Unless someone has a very big secret, most of us will not
be around for that debate.
So, don't get too worked up about this. Some people will work in digital,
some will make salted paper prints, some will use "found objects" to make
their sculpture. None of these means to the end are any less valid. Do what
you love, make no excuses for what you do, don't worry about trends and you
will find yourself much happier and productive.
Okay, I've yapped along enough,
Joe Portale
Tucson, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Lovenguth" <chrisml@pacbell.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: The future of the handmade print?
Everyone relax and don't worry, if we can learn anything from history it is
this:
When photography came along painters thought they were doomed. Their
livelihood they thought was gone since who would want a painted portrait
when the photographer could do it more realistically and easer. Guess what,
painters are still here. So will non-digital photographers for a very long
time. The advent of digital photography will just free up non-digital
workers to do things they might not had ever thought of. That's how
impressionism came about, thanks in large part to the invention of
photography.
As a non-digital artist (I work with computers all day long why would I want
to use them in art ;) I'm excited where this might lead to.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST