From: Jonathan Bailey (quryhous@midcoast.com)
Date: 01/05/03-09:39:20 AM Z
Greetings,
I'll stick my oar in too...
First the "Cliff Note" version: It seems to me there is a great deal of
alt-process work out there where image and process simply *cannot* be
separated. The two things have become greater than the sum of their parts.
And, for *me* - that is the essence of my interest in photography.
Carl said (in a particularly well written post):
> There has to be an underlying image straight from the lens for me <snip>
> ...Anyone who wants to reverse that and consider the printing
> to be the essence certainly can do so without any concern for my opinion.
If I may use this as a point of departure (and *not* something with which I
find fault):
Printing is no more "the essence" for me than is exposing the negative or
the resulting composition. Neither act holds more importance for me. Which
in not to say they are unimportant - or, God forbid, "random."
Katherine wrote:
> ...and (I) have been able to make images that express my vision, without
worrying
> about whether photographers think they "look" like a proper photograph.
> Perhaps one reason I appreciate Giacomelli so much is I understand that
> need to force the medium to make the images I want to make.
Your points are all well taken, Katherine, however, from my point of view -
I honestly don't find "expressing my vision" terribly interesting - in
fact, while I'd never admit this at a cocktail party, I get pretty bored
with it. And I certainly do not want to "force" the medium to do anything.
Maybe Giacomelli really saw things the way he reproduced them. At any rate,
I very much doubt Giacomelli felt he was forcing the medium into any kind of
submission.
We obviously all have to make decisions about how to proceed with our images
at any given moment. I am not abdicating any responsibility for those
decisions - or suggesting that I say, "whatever..." and allow random acts to
dictate final results. (Although I believe many of us appreciate a sense of
serendipity - one of this medium's greatest gifts.)
I'm saying that for me, shooting with the camera, printing in the darkroom,
and then the subsequent toning and "after-printing processing" I do with my
images - are *separate* activities, literally and psychically, with only a
casual connection. I enjoy each of them in their own time for the pleasures
they bring. Frequently, two or three years separate the first part of the
process from the last. I have found allowing this kind of time to pass
makes producing the image much less about "I want..." and allows for a
broader sensing of the possibilities. For me, it becomes much easier to
sense when a move I've made is not in the image's best interest.
Perhaps it is the "I want" which creates - or contributes to - Chris'
dilemma about technique getting in the way of image?
Judy wrote:
> In fact I find it one of the most dynamic, perplexing and intriguing
> issues in the visual arts.... the transmogrification of an image by its
> color gamut.
Yes, this seems along my lines of thought. Perhaps to develop that a bit
further: ...and, in the process to make images which are about/elude to
photography itself as much as (mere) "personal expression."
Cheers-
Jon
www.jonathan-bailey.com
Tenants Harbor, Maine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST