Digital BW, The Print

Alan Zinn wrote:

>At 10:32 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
>  
>
>You have conflated the two issues. 
>
Nope I haven't

> Medium data isn't about aesthetic or 
>philosophical issues. 
>
Agreed.. And that's why your "unadulterated images" are NOT a question 
of media...

The medium might be "continuous tone carbon pigment on 100% archival rag"...

I CLEARLY stated that your "unadulterated image" appellation is "genre" 
and not medium..

That is NOT conflating.. It is exactly the opposite..

> Exhibitors customarily indicate the medium of the 
>work in some way consistent with the venue.  I have seen many print shows 
>with art that used a slew of techniques and appreciated the more complete 
>(and conventional) descriptions of media.  Not having that information 
>indicates a lack of professionalism by the gallery and the artist.  I'm not 
>being a tight-ass about it - it's just a long standing professional practice.
>  
>
No argument there at all..  I wasn't conflating, I simply LATER returned 
to the other issue, that of  "unadulterated images." and personally I 
think it is Sophomoric, at best, to put a genre label on a individual 
piece in a gallery..  That stuff belongs in show descriptions or 
concordia.. (Unless of course, some of your imagery IS NOT adulterated.. 
If like Picasso you worked and displayed in multiple genre, the genre 
might be germane in a collection/show that presents an overview of your 
work as a whole.)

>Consciously dealing with the photographic idea may seem academic, esoteric, 
>or strange to some but to me it is essential dimension of every picture I 
>see or make.
>
I have no problem there..  But, it also implies in the obverse that 
other images which are manipulate are less faithful in their 
representation,...  When in fact they could actually be more so..

> As for my interest in having the viewer understand I haven't 
>messed with the image that the camera made in any non-printcraft way,  it 
>IS about the viewer's perception (baggage) of objectivity truth, reality, 
>optical verity, whatever. 
>
sounds more like marketing to me...

> In other words, the historical, cultural, and 
>phenomenological idea that is a photograph. (Including, BTW, collage, 
>montage, re-touched, etc. images.) 
>
So, are you saying that all the preceding would qualify as 
"unadulterated images"?  But if the same were done in photoshop they 
aren't... ?  (if that's the case, call them "un-Photoshopped")

>I don't tell the viewer what to think or 
>what I think about the work  (or anything else). The statement simply gives 
>the viewer the starting point that the pictures operate from.  Once again - 
>I have no ethical or dogmatic positions to defend :-)
>
>  
>
LOL... You are kidding..?   No ethical or dogmatic positions to defend, 
yet so passionate about how your images are described? I could see 
worrying passionately about them being attributed to someone else, but 
worrying about finding an appropriate genre description, again, that's 
for critics and agents, not practicing artists)
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]