Re: Alternative Processes and Concept and Temporality and...

Hello Jack, very nicely put.. Susan.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Brubaker" <jack@jackbrubaker.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative Processes and Concept and Temporality and...

>
>
> Here are my comments on your note...
> Steve wrote:
>
> i have a question for you on this: regarding the
> > viewer, you discussed when a viewer sees a print from "bare paper," they
have
> > a
> > certain response. what though, do you think the viewer is responding to?
>
> We hope to reach something in the viewer. We hope they see something in
the
> print that isn't the image, something beyond it. Everyone who succeeds at
> creating objects that people connect with is putting something in there.
> What is the something is the question. It is probably different for
> different workers. For some of us on the list using alt techniques is one
of
> the ways of putting something in there that we don't feel is there without
> it. It may only be a frame of mind. Or, it may be that the extra
> manipulation of the materials is creating more psychic involvment with the
> final object. Pye in the book mentioned before says that using methods
that
> have a high level of uncertainty is one of the definitions art. I think
that
> the positive side of uncertainty is one of the reasons I am attracted to
alt
> methods.
>
>
> if
> > they don't have the information necessary to know that hours and hours
were
> > put
> > into a print? do you think it's an innate response? instinctual? that
they can
> > feel that this piece involved a great deal of craft and effort?
>
> No, I don't think it matters to the average observer how the image is
made.
> If it grabs them, it grabs them. To believe that the observer must know
and
> understand that there is extra effort in an alt method is to miss the
point
> that what we want to do is stimulate that something in the observer. The
> image must contain more for the effort to have worthwhile. Sometimes the
alt
> print speaks for itself. When it doesn't it's probably not worth doing.
> Which is not to say that the viewer won't appreciate learning more about
how
> an image that grabs them is made, but it should grab them first, I think.
> >
> > i think a lot of people may look at a title of a piece and see that it
says
> > "archival digital print" or "silver gelatin print" or "c-print" or
"pt/pd
> > print" what if the viewer doesn't really know the difference? do you
think
> > there is some kind of mystical quality?
>
> I think the moments where a work speaks to the viewer can have a mystical
> quality. The trick is to use the tool to get there, not count on the tool
or
> method to give it to you. This is where the element of work is involved,
and
> why I see work as so important in the process. Sometimes work is nearly
> instantaniuos and sometimes it seems like drudgery, but either way can be
a
> path to a successfull piece.
> >
> > i'll check out that book. definitely looks like a good read. can you
tell me
> > more about these other cultures and their feelings about work? or point
me to
> > some reading?
> >
> Most of my awareness of these ideas have come from talking with
> artist-craftsmen and folklorists. There is a book on African blacksmiths
who
> are also shamen. I'll look for it. It's not all that well written but
> examines a special case where the ritual nature of making things and the
> symbolic content of the product is clearly defined by the culture.
>
> Jack
>
> > thanks,
> >
> > steve
> >
> > Quoting Jack Brubaker <jack@jackbrubaker.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> I like to think about the actual effort we put into making abjects, be
they
> >> alt prints or what evers. In this age it is common to regard effort or
work
> >> as a negative (if it takes extra time to make something, or if it is
more
> >> physical, than the effort is misguided). Many cultures in the past had
very
> >> clear ways of thinking about the possitive attributes of the energy
that
> >> goes into making something. That energy was often given magical
qualities
> >> (a
> >> village would believe that their fruit would not spoil because it was
> >> packed
> >> in the ceramic jars made by the potter of their village who put special
> >> energy into his pots). Many traditional trades had incantations or
gestures
> >> that were to banish the evel spirits from their work, not just so it
would
> >> not explode in the kiln or crack in the quench but because these
gestures
> >> made their products better in some fundimental way.
> >>
> >> Today most people believe they are too wise to believe in such things
and
> >> yet they honor that input of energy and individualism that they know
(deep
> >> down inside themselves) only comes from creative work (sometimes the
> >> emphisis is more on the creative and sometimes more on the work). The
> >> puplic
> >> lacks awareness and words for their relationship with this magic, but
they
> >> sence it just the same. Most of us have had that moment when an
observer
> >> stand in front of our art and can't move. Most people can't put their
> >> finger
> >> on what it is that touches them but they feel some energy enter them.
> >>
> >> I think that the work of making a print from bare paper effects us and
our
> >> creative energy and when all is right can add another layer to the
viewers
> >> responce.
> >>
> >> On a different note read:
> >>
> >> The Nature and Art of Workmanship
> >> by David Pye, published by Cambium Press
> >>
> >> A very thoughtfull piece about the difference between mass-produced and
> >> artisan made objects. He came up with very clear (if densely written)
> >> definitions for the differences and their meaning. Highly reccomended.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 12 07:23:11 2004