>Carson's post and this thread has brought this question to my attention:
>If you could, with any other process, digital or otherwise, faithfully
>duplicate another process, indistinguishabily from the original, would it
>be the same thing? So, if I "rephotographed" a well known photograph, at
>the scene and reproduced the entire photograph with another process as to
>make the entire thing identical and indistinguishable from the original,
>would it be the same thing as the original? I don't think so. My point is
>that there is something intangible in art, separate from the final
>product, the image-on-a-support. The procedure, on the way to that image-
>on-a-support, is part of the artistic process and contributes to the
>artistic integrity of the final product.
These are good questions, ones we shouldn't take lightly since there is
a lot of confusion about the role of process in the final image. I like
the idea of two "identical and indistinguishable" prints as a way to
help sort out the confusion.
If you made two "indistinguishable" prints using different processes
you would, of course, know which is which and probably place different
values on each print depending on how you valued the process by which
they were made.
However, if I took those prints, mixed them up in some way and then
asked you identify them, how would you answer the question of which
had more integrity? (remember, the two prints are "identical and
indistinguishable")
Another way to ask this question is: When looking at an object, is your
experience of the object determined by its existence or by the process
by which that object came into being?
For example, if I stood in front of two "identical and
indistinguishable" prints of Moonrise over Hernandez, NM, and didn't
know that Ansel Adams had made one and, say Robert Adams had made the
other, what guidelines would I use to have a different experience of
one verses the other?
>Choice of process is part of that
>procedure along with a lot of other choices, at least one rooted in a
>single irreproducible moment in time. Whew!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But, this contradicts the "identical and indistinguishable" condition
that you have postulated. If your only reference point is the final
"identical and indistinguishable" object, then how has the choice of
process made a difference?
Thanks for the opportunity for the dialog.
Carson Graves
carson@ileaf.com