Digital BW, The Print

At 09:38 AM 2/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I am reluctant to be pulled into this thread, however I would like to defend
>the position of the magazine and the photography dealers at AIPAD that have
>not included digital images.
>
>I should start by saying that my defense of the "non-digital" photo world
>has nothing to due with my use or enthusiasm for digital processes.
>
>1. There is very little (in comparison) critical and intellectual discourse
>about the nature of the digital image.
>
>2. There are very few individuals that have established themselves as
>"masters" of the medium - and certainly no one exists that can say that they
>have devoted a full artistic career to the use of digital imagery.
>
>3. Camera based images have existed for centuries before the invention of
>photography and we must consider that medium practiced by individuals on the
>list is as different from photography as photography was from all the images
>created using the camera obscura that came before.
>
>4. Photography deserves the right to stand on its own as a distinct medium -
>respected for the great difficulty that photographic artists go through to
>control a medium with so many limitations. My favorite definition of
>photography is that "it is a medium of limitations."
>
>5. Finally we should avoid the trap of comparing (in that we seek approval
>of these images in the context with photography) the digital image with the
>photograph - I believe there is little of value or potential down that road.
>
>Wendel
>
>At 04:10 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>This could be a great press vehicle for us. We should
>>send this item to PDN news section. Maybe  we should
>>protest out on the sidewalk in front of the BW
>>offices, wearing nothing but big plastic G4 boxes, and
>>we'll throw fixer or hypoclear on the officers when
>>they walk by on the way to lunch.
>>
>>Mark my words, this guy will eat his words. The only
>>question is how long it will take. Gentlemen, gather
>>your arms. The time is now.
>>
>

Wendel,

I feel like dismissing your post as one hundred percent nonsense and leaving
it there. BUT....

That camera obscuras were used before the fixed image has nothing to do with
photography. There was nothing remotely like photography before photography.
Read Batchen's "Burning with Desire" for one of many helpful books that
clear up that issue. 

Why make a distinction between digital printing and the dozens of other
methods of making an image from film?  One could privilege any method of
printing in that way. 

There are no masters of the digital print? How can you know that? Even if
that were true, do collectors collect the work of printers or photographers?
There are lots of poorly made prints by notable photographers starting with
AA - check out the 100th birthday show. 

Have you noticed how easy digital printing isn't? I put as much blood sweat
and tears into preparing an digital image for ink jet printing as I did in
the damn dark with the film. I'm good in the dark too. Even so, on a craft
continuum where do we begin devaluing one technique over the other.  I have
find that the best dark room workers reduce their methods to the absolute
fail-safe level of production. No art, just science. I'm convinced digital
printing is sorcery and only those born with a special sign can master it. 

I don't know what you mean about seeking the same approval for a digital
print as a chemical photograph. Getting others to value it for its material
qualities? For its craft? Certainly you can't mean aesthetic merit!
Idependent of the image itself each printing technique is valued for its
intrinsic (or monitary) uniqueness. 

AZ







 
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround