Digital BW, The Print

Any defintiion of art is a problem because you deal with aesthetics, the
philosophy of the beautiful if you like, and this is a minefield. My concept
of beauty is totally different from yours, but we would both agree that
there is a category of something which we could call 'art', or 'beautiful'.
Some philosophers believed that the artist should represent nature, others
that the beautiful was about man's supremacy over nature, others that it was
a realm of thinking or 'being' that escaped capitalism. However whilst this
is a great game for academics all it shows is that there is a philosophy to
back up almost any slant on art. So essentially we are bacl to 'art is what
you make it'. We can debate different stances as being 'valid' or not, but
for photographers, I think it is there job to take photos and like others
hang the tag on them. Wlater Benjamin (I'm expecting a JB Monty Python-like
boot to descend now) spoke about a concept of 'aura' - that when you engage
with art somethign resonates bewteen you and theobjetc. This is totally
constructed internally, but basically it means that the work 'speaks' to
you. And this is my problem with some concept art - there is nothing there
to 'speak' to me. Now others disagree there that should be something to
speak to me, but then , I'm an old fashioned modernist. I know when a print
of mine is 'there' or not because of this 'resonance', the print could be
totally false or manipulated tonally, but it is what speaks to me. Now
volume 2 in all this is what causes something to speak to you but in all
honesty you are better off shooting film. Aesthetics to me is like a game of
chess that  I really enjoy, but all it does is bugger me up for taking
photos, so ...

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nij" <nigel@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> 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
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>