From: Christopher Lovenguth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 01/05/03-11:34:05 AM Z
Since I started this maybe I should add a couple thoughts here.
Within my work I really try (I assume most people here do) to bind the
process to the subject matter and purpose for my images. BUT,
subconsciously, I think I cheat at this or try to force it. For example, I
might have a transparency (which is what I'm using to make my
daguerreotypes) that is not the best, but will spend hours and valuable
resources trying to make it work as a daguerreotype convinced that the
imagery will be better once it's on that medium. My experience and training
should tell me otherwise. You have to understand when I first started out I
was one of those people that if an image didn't work, I'd process it in to
conformity. Solarize here, tone there, reverse print here, scratch the
negative there, print it in a college on 4 sheets of 30x40 on and on.
To me the most important point of my FINISHED work is to evoke an
intellectual or emotional response (this is after the act of making which is
really the first reason). I do not work strictly visually. I'm greedier then
that, I want to provoke thought in the viewer. That is why I find it
troubling when 90% of all my responses from people about my work is about
inquiry in to the process. Granted I'm not showing to a wide audience, but
in the circles I'm in to have work evaluated, this seems to always be the
focus. This is how it was in school; this is how it is with "critique
circles" I'm in now. That is why I feel that process is getting in the way
of my work.
My answer to all this is that I'm thinking of going back to a universally
"familiar" process like black and white. My thought is that since people are
familiar with a process like B&W, they will have to focus on imagery if they
are to give me review. This way maybe I can find out why my imagery isn't
melding with my processes.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST