Re: the politics of brushing - a semi survey

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@bresnan.net)
Date: 10/23/03-10:18:59 PM Z


Greetings from Big Wonderful Wyoming,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Greant" <ian@51north.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:25 PM
Subject: the politics of brushing - a semi survey

> When I first started hand coating papers I was more than a little
surprised
> how much I enjoyed the actual brushing and brush marks. For a while the
> brush marks were an integral part of my images. Now, a couple years later
> I've calmed down a bit and am not quite as wild with brush. Although how
> much I brush can vary a lot by day and mood :)
>
> Thinking about it and looking at other artists work has gotten me thinking
> and I'd like to toss the following questions out to the group:
>
> 1) Are brush marks part of the artistic process for you or are they just
an
> annoying byproduct of a hand coated product?

With any image that I've created by contact printing a negative, I consider
extraneous brush marks a distraction. However, I've done a few photograms
where the brush marks were an integral part of the image. I think it's very
much a matter of personal taste and preference.

> 2) Over time has your brushing style changed? If so has your clients'
> attitudes towards your prints changed?

My "brushing style" is directed toward making clean and blemish-free prints.
I've found that heavy or excessive brushing can cause degradation and
staining in gum prints for example. Fast, clean and smooth is the goal.
I'm not concerned with the outside-of-negative borders.

> 3) Do you think brush marks enhances some subjects or processes more than
> others?

Yes, I've seen it used quite effectively with certain images created by
other photographers, but for the most part I still consider it distracting.

> 4) Do you think masking the brush marks makes a print look more purely
> photographic as opposed to being a painting or drawing?

Definitely. One of my cyanotype/gum prints won a "Best in Show" award at a
group show eight years ago. Here's the photo:
http://www.alternativephotography.com/dave_rose/dr_stream_fog.html
The judges, professional photographers, had no idea exactly what they were
looking at, they just loved it. They knew it was different but
unquestioningly a photographic image. They asked me about the print and
were fascinated by the process description I provided. One judge had been
puzzled by the odd color, but had thought it was a conventional C print on
"special paper".

I guess it depends on the image and the viewer. It's easy to imagine a much
softer image being interpreted as a 'painting' if brushed edges were
visible.

> 5) What factors affect your decision to exhibit with or without the brush
> marks showing? Is it purely personal choice or are you affected by
> external forces (critics, clients, dealers, etc)

Strictly a personal choice.

> 6) In the end I suppose this is part of a larger question I am reflecting
> on, which is: When we are new to a media or technique is it typical to
> push the limits and find subtlety with experience?

That's an interesting question. With gum printing in particular, the
possibilities offered by multiple printing and manipulation are seemingly
endless. Can you really find the limits and full range of subtleties?
Probably not, but that's what makes alt-photo processes so exciting and
rewarding.

Dave in Wyoming

> Disclaimer
>
> I'm not trying to pry any trade secrets from anyone, I have no intention
of
> publishing, compiling the data or doing anything else with it besides
> starting some conversation and perhaps some more thought about my own
> creative process.
>
> Thanks for your patience and indulgence :)
>
> Ian Greant
>
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST