Re: "Antiquarian Avant Garde" and Nostalgia and spleening my vent

[Christopher Lovenguth <zantzant@hotmail.com>]

Here we go again with the what is art debate... :)

Actually I found a group on yahoo groups the other day where people are 
trying to make their digital work look like alt processes. So they turn 
their digital image blue, put one of those Photoshop brushstroke mats over 
it so that it looks like applied emulsion and call it a cyanotype.

...and they are being serious about this trying to make their work look like 
POP and van dyke, etc.

If you want to look here is the link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traditionalphoto/

Back on this topic I can't wait to look at this book! I guess I shouldn't 
say anything until I view the images in question. Should have it sometime 
next week. -Chris



>From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: "Antiquarian Avant Garde" and Nostalgia and spleening my vent
>Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> > > One thing that really pissed me off about this book (and alot of alt 
>work
> > > these days) is how they glorify the rough edges and "mistakes" of alot 
>of
> > > early processes. No wet plate worker worth his salts would have shown 
>a
> > > plate with the rough edges and blemishes that so many present day
> > > practitioners seek.  I don't understand why the "mistakes" have become 
>the
> > > prevailing aesthetic. The processes are so beautiful on their own. 
>Also,
> > why
> > > do so many wet plate workers shoot the exact same subject matter that
> > > photographers did in the 1800's. I saw some Spagnoli dags that were 
>taken
> > in
> > > NYC recently. Those were beautiful. Do we really need another wetplate 
>of
> > an
> > > antique tea kettle on the porch of a log cabin?
>
>When I was in art school a gazillion years ago, the mantra was "form
>follows function," which at the time meant that the work should show its
>function in its form.... That is, don't try to make a radiator look like
>the Venus de Milo.
>
>I could as well ask, why do certain photographers feel the need to hide,
>or manicure the form of their process, to make a photograph look as if it
>were made by a machine?  I find what you seem to consider "perfect" in
>this respect to be hard and mechanical looking, while the "artifacts" of
>*process* are beautiful in themselves.
>
>So when you say "the processes are so beautiful on their own" I would
>agree, but not with your interpretation, which looks from here like
>photography in DENIAL of its process !!!
>
>I hasten to add that a lot of what "they" taught us in school has
>vaporized over the years, or we vaporized it after a long struggle, like
>quitting smoking.  But the notion of "truth to materials" or "voice" of
>the process, or trace of the hand, or honest artifact, or any of the many
>ways it can be described, is apt, current, and important.  Think for
>instance of a painting with every mark of the brush removed. That was the
>hallmark of the 18th or whatever century, but if someone jumped up and
>down today on a painting for showing the signs of its making (drips,
>strokes, impasto, etc.), we'd become.... what was that phrase ... rude and
>confrontational?
>
>I could also ask, do we really need another literal, tight rendering of
>NYC buildings even if its in the vaunted daguerreotype?  I haven't seen
>those dags, but except for the medium, is it anything we don't know?
>And if you're going to explain that it's the *medium* that makes them
>different.... watch out. You've just sort of denied that.
>
>best,
>
>Judy
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com