Digital BW, The Print

Chaps,

You totally lose me with the references! But, can I suggest, or ask, that
you each try to summarise in a few sentences where the 'art' comes into the
process for you? Certainly, I know there is skill - but what I am trying to
get at here is that, whilst you may get up in the morning and not know what
objects you will find today... or know who will look at you in the right way
;) ... you are drawn (perhaps) to areas with 'the right light' and how
something may catch your eye... or ... whatever.

Then, you may develop the film, and have further revelations in the darkroom
or the digital workflow - perhaps you are trying to be representational
or... whatever.

For me? The most simple explanation is probably something like: I see
objects that I like, I compose in a way I find attractive... I develop
'normally'... I experiment in the digital darkroom to achieve a pleasing
print and a pleasing image. For me, many of my images seem to have simple
composition (often stright-on to a building, for example)... but the 'magic'
may come from the lighting, the reflections in glass... shadows falling and
the light... but most often, I would say the important element (to me) is
that somehow, these images portray an <arty mode on> unspoken history of the
building or surroudings </arty mode off>. I quite literally see a different
pattern of bricks or fallen plaster... and imagine what might have been
there before...

What I am thinking of getting here is not particularly artist's statements,
but emphasizing that the fact we end up printing off a digital printer in
the end does not impact the fact that we had a vision, or a revelation along
the way. It owuld be nice if this could then be used to back up 'the cause'
for 'inkhaus' or some of my thoughts for MWORDS.

Nij


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 15:43
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>
>
> .
> >
> > Too often however the 'art' part of conceptual art is simply a way of
> > obscuring what was not a very original, brilliant or striking
> idea in the
> > first place. Just as, IMO, the language of some of the French
> semioticians
> > like Derrida obscures a meaning which once disentangled doesn't stand up
> to
> > analysis. Compare and contrast with Wittgenstein or Barthes,
> who can amaze
> > you with a simple sentence, just as Paul Klee can amaze you with a line.
> >
> > --
>  I agree with you totally on this. I had a conversation with a friend
> recently who is a keen amateur painter of the representational school. He
> didn't think much of my street stuff, because it was 'just' a photo -
> whereas his picture of roses took time and craft - all i did was click the
> button. I tried explaining that it takes hours of working towards 'the'
> moment, that the print takes time and craft, and that the vision
> to see the
> moment is an 'artistic' vision. There is a balance in all this,
> between art
> and craft, between concept and object which is almost one of
> dialectics with
> the final piece being the synthesis. BTW my friend also didn't
> think much of
> photoshop and digital printing :-)
>
> Julian