I hope I have kept the attributes straight.
From: LES SATTINGER <e2vasat@fre.fsu.umd.edu>
>In an age of preprocessed food and laugh tracks attached to _point_
>out the humor, probably the most valid reason to attempt old technology
>is to experience first hand the manual skills and temperment necessary
>to achieve successful results.
To me, this is a good definition of a hobby or perhaps an effort at
living history, sort of like re-enacting the battle of Gettysburg.
Valid reasons, but in the context of an art department (which is where
the discussion began) it is missing the component of self-expression.
i.e. what is being said when the goal is limited to mastering a
technique? Leaving aside process as a performance piece, which I don't
think was the point here, mastering a technique without entering into a
contract with self-expression seems like a hollow goal. When I start
something I want to know how the choices I make with regards to process
will affect my vision.
I like analogies, so let me try one here: Suppose Columbus decided one
day in 1492 to just start sailing from Spain. No particular direction,
no particular goal, no way of knowing when he had gotten where he was
going. Now consider the decisions he did make, i.e. to sail west until
he reached the spice islands (India). This not only gave him a direction,
but a way to gauge his progress.
Of course, Columbus never reached India, he discovered something
completely different. That didn't keep his discovery from changing
the perceptions of Western Europeans about the world they lived in.
And it didn't change the validity of Columbus's original reasons
for making the attempt.
Now, extend this analogy a bit further. What if steam ships had
been available in 1492, or even 747's. Would Columbus and his crew
have made their trip in sail boats? Would their choice in
transportation have changed the significance of their discovery?
I don't think that they would have placed much value on their
manual sailing skills if a faster alternative were available.
>There is, by definition, a training
>period where one becomes accustomed to the peculiar characteristics
>of a particular technique. After this initial period, the reasons which
>may have drawn a person to this medium, will be modified and change
>according to the results. If the physical attributes of a certain
>medium can enhance the artist's expressive vision, then further explor-
>ation may be attempted.
>The tendency to be "blown away" at the manipulative power of a program
>like PhotoShop is soon replaced by the realization that mere electronic
>shifts in image qualities may or may not enhance/alter the meaning of
>the original image in any significant artistic fashion. So, again, one
>must rethink the value of the particular application.
>Limestone still holds the attention of some who have become comfortable
>with the reality of how the stone reacts to their marks/thoughts/conceptions.
>Getting one's hands dirty is quickly becoming misunderstood/unappreciated
>in a technologically sophisticated society. There _is_ something to be
>said for the experience of control, even though older mediums are fraught
>with there own intrinsic problems. Although there may not be a valid
>scientific explanation for the attraction to possibly dangerous chemicals
>and time consuming proceedures, there is a word which might suffice: love.
The interesting thing here is that each one of our "alternative"
processes was the PhotoShop of its day. Gravure, Woodburytype, and
Collotype, were the "quick and dirty" processes that simplified 19th
century printed illustration. Previous to that, photographs were
illustrated in printed matter by printing the negative on a woodblock
and having a wood carver render an approximation of the photograph in
the wood so it could be inked and printed. I'm sure that a lot of wood
carvers thought that something was lost when an image could be printed
"untouched" by human hands. Would anyone be surprised if, in 50 years,
people talk fondly about PhotoShop and the good old days of digital
imagery.
I think that it is important to separate the nostalgia from the art. It
isn't that one is better than the other, it is just that the two are
different.
From: "Olivo Miotto, DBS/It- @VAR - DTN 787-8444 27-Apr-1994 1048"
<miotto@pavone.enet.dec.com>
>I've had similar discussions re:books. There is no way that CD-ROM based
>electronic books, for all their hypertext, will ever be a pleasurable
>replacement for paper-based literature as far as I am concerned. Similarly,
>even the best reproduction cannot be a replacement for an ancient original
>edition. In my view, it is the texture, consistency, smell, even the
>imperfections of an object, accompanied by the knowledge of the workmanship
>that has gone into its production, that give the value.
If all hypertext could do was imitate a printed and bound book then I
would agree with this. But, in fact, it is a very different medium.
Bound books stress a linear narrative, (well designed) hypertext
permits a narrative to flow in a number of directions and have a number
of extensions not available in paper. I realize I am probably behind
most of you in the technology age, but I kind of flipped a few months
ago looking at one of those CD-ROM encyclopedias when I realized that I
could click on an icon and hear an actual recording of Wm Jennings
Bryon giving his "cross of gold speech." I'm not saying that the
current implementations are all that terrific, but printed matter can't
(and shouldn't) complete with this. Quality paper-based literature is a
small fraction of the print market and I certainly hope it won't go
away. Most printed matter, though, is better off online.
From: "James M. Justen" <juste001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
>The worst part of it is the fact that to practice these methods becomes
>hazardously expensive. I certainly appreciate that _somebody_ is attempting to
>make supplies available, but having worked in commercial labs, I know they are
>profiting immensely from reselling bulk chemistry to artists. Ive practiced
>_passe_ methods that were not yet _obsolete_, then they are in essence, decreed
>obsolete by Kodak...and suddenly an inexpensive alternative method becomes the
>domain of niche art. Witness the demise of proprietry raw chemistry from Kodak.
>Ironically, I can forsee when ordinary silver-based printing/film will become
>the haunt of fine arts practitioners as well. A vast amount of Gee Whiz digital
>manipulation is really quite easy and a little inane. Yet is regarded as
>wizardry. Somebody mentioned love as the missing ingredient, that sounds about
>right...theres alot of love missing in contemporary digital imagery. I like to
>think that we who practice alternative processes can plan on a time when our
>command of an _inexact, analog_ process becomes a kind of wizardry itself to the
>general public and graphics market. Here's hoping, eh?
I suspect (but can't prove) that platinum/paladium printing is less
expensive now, in terms of real dollars (pounds/yen/etc.) than it was
before WWI. Kind of like gasoline being cheaper now (in inflation
adjusted currency) than it has been in the past 50 years. I imagine
that this is true of some of the other processes we enjoy, although I
think the general sentiment of the above statement is true. I know we
won't see the dime-a-sheet Kodabromide that I started with ever again.
However, I'm a little surprised at the antagonism toward digital
imagery. If any group can understand and embrace the process of digital
manipulation of photographs, it has to be a group of photographers who
already have experience with how hand manipulated processes can alter
visual syntax. If digital imagery is missing passion, it is only
because no one invests it with passion. There is no inherent lack of
it in the process, any more than there was less passion in a collotype
than in a wood cut. Process is process, which I guess gets back to my
question of why master a process just to say that you have mastered it?
(uhmm... I do accept the zen idea that the journey can be everything.
But, if you use that argument then you still have to justify why you
are using a particular photographic process - or any photographic
process - for that journey.)
Whew! If you have read this far, you have my sincere respect.
Carson Graves
carson@ileaf.com