Ralph Gibson: Why would you ditch film in your 76th year?

That appears to me to be a digital bash with lots of hackneyed analogies thrown in for good measure. If Gibson wants to explore image making with pixels instead of silver that's his choice.

YMMV of course.
 
Why not? Because he's older than most, he's got to be set in his ways?

My grandfather made it past 100, he may too, still got quarter of century left in him maybe, time to go to digital and back again.
 
"Now it'll be just the same heavily manipulated pixel pap that I'm getting fed up of seeing on Flickr and other forums."

Made it that far and closed the page again. Another nonsense sentimental 'wet is the only real thing' post.
 
I found the article repugnant in so many ways. What is it about photography that makes certain people so fanatical and dismissive of each other's tools? Can you imagine such a vitriolic article about a painter starting to use acrylic paint? It's absurd.

It takes a lot of guts and open mindedness for someone after an entire career of successful work and at the age of 76, to completely move out of his comfort zone and switch medium. I applaud the guy.
 
Keith said:
That appears to me to be a digital bash with lots of hackneyed analogies thrown in for good measure. If Gibson wants to explore image making with pixels instead of silver that's his choice.

YMMV of course.
Click to expand...

Of course it's his choice. I did say it's a free country. I'm also free to wonder why he chose to do so.
 
jippiejee said:
"Now it'll be just the same heavily manipulated pixel pap that I'm getting fed up of seeing on Flickr and other forums."

Made it that far and closed the page again. Another nonsense sentimental 'wet is the only real thing' post.
Click to expand...

Shame. If you'd read further you would have seen that Gibson advanced much the same argument as I did (not put quite so bluntly) just 12 years ago saying, ""I'm interested in the alchemy of light on film and chemistry and silver. When I'm taking a photograph I imagine the light rays passing through my lens and penetrating the emulsion of my film. And when I'm developing my film I imagine the emulsion swelling and softening and the little particles of silver tarnishing.

"But anyway, the big emphasis in digital photography is how many more million pixels this new model has than the competitor's model. It's about resolution, resolution, resolution as though that were going to provide us with a picture that harboured more content, more emotional power.

"Well, in fact, it's very good for a certain kind of graphic thing in colour but I don't necessarily do that kind of photograph. So when it comes to digital, I have to say that digital just doesn't look the way photography looks: it looks digital. However, I strongly suspect some kid is going to come along with a Photoshop filter called Tri X and you just load that and you've got yourself something that looks like photography (laughs)." My italics, Ralph's laughter.
 
nongfuspring said:
I found the article repugnant in so many ways. What is it about photography that makes certain people so fanatical and dismissive of each other's tools? Can you imagine such a vitriolic article about a painter starting to use acrylic paint? It's absurd.

It takes a lot of guts and open mindedness for someone after an entire career of successful work and at the age of 76, to completely move out of his comfort zone and switch medium. I applaud the guy.
Click to expand...

That's a very narrow-minded interpretation of what I've written but maybe that's because it's what you've chosen to read into it. It's about more than digital v film. It's about the way the computer interface is displacing the artisan in society.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
That's a very narrow-minded interpretation of what I've written but maybe that's because it's what you've chosen to read into it. It's about more than digital v film. It's about the way the computer interface is displacing the artisan in society.
Click to expand...

Why is it invalid for an "artisan" to use a computer?
 
Keith said:
That appears to me to be a digital bash with lots of hackneyed analogies thrown in for good measure. If Gibson wants to explore image making with pixels instead of silver that's his choice.

YMMV of course.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly.
 
nongfuspring said:
Why is it invalid for an "artisan" to use a computer?
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia (I know but it's handy):
An artisan[1] (from French: artisan, Italian: artigiano) or craftsman (craftsperson)[2] is a skilled manual worker who makes items that may be functional or strictly decorative, including furniture, sculpture, clothing, jewellery, household items and tools or even machines such as the handmade devices of a watchmaker. Artisans practice a craft and may through experience and aptitude reach the expressive levels of an artist.
 
The problem is that even 'artisan' in this digital age has gotten new meanings. Doing things by hand is not the only way to create 'valid products'. My gf is a professor at an arts academy's fashion department. Students design fabrics through software much like photoshop, designs and patterns that are then produced on giant digital weaving machines. The possibilities are endless, and very different from what one would be able to produce 'by hand'. Same with designers using 3d printing machines: honeycomb structures are replacing solid bodies, making designs much more efficient than older techniques.

Are all these designers and artists frauds? Or using the techniques available to them? Artisan techniques evolved. Just like digital photographic technology moved into the 21st century through digital possibilities.
 
jippiejee said:
The problem is that even 'artisan' in this digital age has gotten new meanings. Doing things by hand is not the only way to create 'valid products'. My gf is a professor at an arts academy's fashion department. Students design fabrics through software much like photoshop, designs and patterns that are then produced on giant digital weaving machines. The possibilities are endless, and very different from what one would be able to produce 'by hand'. Same with designers using 3d printing machines: honeycomb structures are replacing solid bodies, making designs much more efficient than older techniques.

Are all these designers and artists frauds? Or using the techniques available to them? Artisan techniques evolved. Just like digital photographic technology moved into the 21st century through digital possibilities.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit of a strawman. I didn't say anyone was a fraud and I didn't say that anyone's products weren't valid. The definition of artisan hasn't changed. You and others might choose to attach new meanings to it but that doesn't alter its definition.
 
First Thought...Senility
Then I thought : ahhh, a Wise Man with years of Experience embracing the New Modern World

Change can be GOOD !
 
Koolzakukumba said:
The definition of artisan hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

I think my point was that with all these new tools available, you can't restrict artists, to be valuable or relevant, to using 19/20th century's techniques only. Or are today's digital techniques 'artisan' only in the 22nd century when we moved on to holographic quantum printing and consider inkjet printing on paper 'that beautiful old artisan skill'?
 
In my opinion, anyone is free to use whatever tools s/he wants to use. I see no reason why anyone should be dismissed or, worse still denigrated, for choosing to use one tool or process instead of another.

Personally, I don't like Gibson's subject matter but I can see that he has good control over his medium. If he now decides it's time to change his working style, that seems to me to be a matter for him alone.

Perhaps we should leave these religious wars outside the forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom