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

[Photo_Smith]

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 the next century we will value hand made things as 'artisan' the same as we do now. The 19th century produced many mechanised production methods that allowed the masses to own products for the first time.

The reaction to that was in the arts and crafts movement of the later part of that century.

So it's not about restriction of using methods as such more the conservation of hand made methods as opposed to those using CNC machinery, computer algorithms or industrial processes .

 

[Michael Markey]

Passionately expressed but I don`t find these sort of articles helpful.
Many people including myself find room for both media.

I don`t see why Gibson shouldn`t be free to do and use what he wants to.
Why would anyone want to restrict someones ability to express themselves in a way of their own choosing.

If you like it fine ...if you don`t ...fine.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

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'?

It's only my opinion but I don't think digital techniques will ever be recognised as artisan. They belong to a new category, something along the lines of "computer interface production".

And if you can't discuss something like this on a forum called Philosophy of Photography it's a rum do!

 

[kennylovrin]

I'm sorry if this becomes a bit too personal, but in this case I just cannot stomach the tone of the post.

Even this:

Now imagine you had a computer on which you could design the chair. Imagine you could fire that design off to a CNC machine that carved the chair out of a block of wood and spat it out ready made and finished in varnish. The initial vision in both cases - the design - is the same. The latter would be the more perfect but which would you rather own?

Or here's an analogy from the music world. You write the song, rehearse it with your favourite musicians and record it live. Or, you write the song, programme various computer-controlled synths to play the the various instruments absolutely flawlessly and record that. Which record would you rather listen to?

You are assuming that the the product is produced is more important than the end result, and while you are entitled to your opinion I think you are taking a tone of "shoving my truth down everyone else's throat".

Personally, I am not so sure I rather buy a hand made chair than a machine made one, whichever I think looks better is my choice, because I care about what I buy, not how hard it was to make it, in a sense.

I also like good sound, so I don't mind computerized recordings if they sound good to my ear.

What I am reading in your post, all I can say about it is that I find it outright ridiculous and disrespectful. Who are you to write a rant about someone else's choice of medium for photography, just because you wouldn't do the same choice?

 

[nongfuspring]

I don't think there is any suggestion it is any less valid, hand crafted products will always be sought after due to the value ascribed to them.

Obviously that's not true.

-

Photography is a practice defined by it's use of intermediary technology. Controlling a dodge tool in PS with a mouse or a piece of black paper in a darkroom, it makes no difference. If digital photography is too "technological" to be artisanal, then so is film.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Passionately expressed but I don`t find these sort of articles helpful.
Many people including myself find room for both media.

I don`t see why Gibson shouldn`t be free to do and use what he wants to.
Why would anyone want to restrict someones ability to express themselves in a way of their own choosing.

If you like it fine ...if you don`t ...fine.

Michael, I'm not saying he shouldn't be free to do what he wants: of course he should.

There is a problem with "finding room for both media". If you're a digital guy then, sure, it's great. You use your DSLR on its own or in conjunction with a bit of film now and again when the mood takes you. If you're film only like me then it's a problem. Digital imagers aren't threatened by film photography but the reverse isn't the case. The more successful and ubiquitous digital becomes the less certain, in my opinion, the long term future of film is.

Now, you could argue that if people choose digital then that's their right and that's democracy and the markets speaking. But democracy is also two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I'm sorry if this becomes a bit too personal, but in this case I just cannot stomach the tone of the post.

Even this:



You are assuming that the the product is produced is more important than the end result, and while you are entitled to your opinion I think you are taking a tone of "shoving my truth down everyone else's throat".

Personally, I am not so sure I rather buy a hand made chair than a machine made one, whichever I think looks better is my choice, because I care about what I buy, not how hard it was to make it, in a sense.

I also like good sound, so I don't mind computerized recordings if they sound good to my ear.

What I am reading in your post, all I can say about it is that I find it outright ridiculous and disrespectful. Who are you to write a rant about someone else's choice of medium for photography, just because you wouldn't do the same choice?

Who are you to rant about my right to express my feelings as I choose?

 

[kennylovrin]

Who are you to rant about my right to express my feelings as I choose?

I was expecting that answer, and yes, you have somewhat of a point. The main difference being that I am telling you personally, I am not declaring on my personal blog that you are a moron for the choices you make.

Perhaps I am reading the post wrong, but I just don't get the point, unless it in fact is to call out someone else as stupid.

EDIT:
I am not questioning that you have the right to express what you want, because you do. What I am questioning is the value of it, and just because we have a right to do certain things doesn't mean we should.

 

[FrankS]

I'm supporting koolzakukumba here. Why the piling on against him? This is a discussion forum for heavens sake.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm supporting koolzakukumba here. Why the piling on against him? This is a discussion forum for heavens sake.

I agree with you. However, I don't see how we can have a discussion, if everyone speaks "ex-cathedra". Discussion, I've come to understand, implies a degree of humility from all the participants.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I was expecting that answer, and yes, you have somewhat of a point. The main difference being that I am telling you personally, I am not declaring on my personal blog that you are a moron for the choices you make.

Perhaps I am reading the post wrong, but I just don't get the point, unless it in fact is to call out someone else as stupid.

EDIT:
I am not questioning that you have the right to express what you want, because you do. What I am questioning is the value of it, and just because we have a right to do certain things doesn't mean we should.

Can you please show me where I referred to Ralph as a "moron" or "stupid"? I have lots of respect for Ralph as an artist. I will defend his right to do what he chooses. I don't have to agree with it.

 

[jsrockit]

But why build a huge reputation over decades on the strength of your film images and then switch to digital?

He built his reputation on images plain and simple... he will make great images with anything. His success has nothing to do with film.

 

[kennylovrin]

Can you please show me where I referred to Ralph as a "moron" or "stupid"? I have lots of respect for Ralph as an artist. I will defend his right to do what he chooses. I don't have to agree with it.

Ok, I guess I have to back off on that one and clarify myself. You are right, I didn't mean that you literally called him out as moron or stupid, so sorry about putting it that way.

But I do however read the tone of your post as you are implying that he is stupid or a moron. But that could be my own fault just as much, depending on what I read into it. In any case, that is the feeling I get.

But in any case, I do respect your right to express what you want, so we don't have to argue about this, you have expressed your opinion and I have replied with mine. 🙂

 

[Ansel]

A lot of people get fooled into thinking digital is easier... it is not.

I thought the article was very good. Some people need to learn to respect other peoples opinions.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

He built his reputation on images plain and simple... he will make great images with anything. His success has nothing to do with film.

Wow! I think you'd get a good argument from Ralph on that one!

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Ok, I guess I have to back off on that one and clarify myself. You are right, I didn't mean that you literally called him out as moron or stupid, so sorry about putting it that way.

But I do however read the tone of your post as you are implying that he is stupid or a moron. But that could be my own fault just as much, depending on what I read into it. In any case, that is the feeling I get.

But in any case, I do respect your right to express what you want, so we don't have to argue about this, you have expressed your opinion and I have replied with mine. 🙂

Fair enough, Kenny. No problem. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

Wow! I think you'd get a good argument from Ralph on that one!

Sure, he's got a distinct processing style... however, if his photography didn't have strong enough framing and content, it wouldn't matter.

Too much of this old fashioned BS about how film is real and digital is somehow fake. It's all photography. The man has been there and done it with film... I think he's earned the right to try something else. If you decide that someone's work is inferior simply because of a process used, that is your hang up and not theirs.

 

[Michael Markey]

There is a problem with "finding room for both media". If you're a digital guy then, sure, it's great. You use your DSLR on its own or in conjunction with a bit of film now and again when the mood takes you. If you're film only like me then it's a problem. Digital imagers aren't threatened by film photography but the reverse isn't the case. The more successful and ubiquitous digital becomes the less certain, in my opinion, the long term future of film is.

Now, you could argue that if people choose digital then that's their right and that's democracy and the markets speaking. But democracy is also two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch.

Yes I can see the argument .
A think the bigger problem is that most of the darkroom workers I know are chaps in their fifties and sixties.

I`ve seen their darkroom prints and they are impressive and yet they are the most fervent advocates of the digital work flow.
It allows them to continue to create in half the time than they did in the darkroom and at a fraction of the cost.

They now have the latest software and injects.

The fact that Gibson has changed his MO so late in life therefore comes as little surprise to me.

As to its wider implications , I think I agree ,film work will only get more difficult and the markets will speak.

 

[kennylovrin]

Fair enough, Kenny. No problem. 🙂

I have to give it to you though, you managed to write a post that stirred some emotion, and that isn't always too easy in todays overflow of information. 😉

 

[Photo_Smith]

Obviously that's not true.

-

Photography is a practice defined by it's use of intermediary technology. Controlling a dodge tool in PS with a mouse or a piece of black paper in a darkroom, it makes no difference. If digital photography is too "technological" to be artisanal, then so is film.

Of course it's true.
So you think that controlling computer software and pressing a print button is the same as making a print by hand? Because to be artisan means handmade.

So obviously that's true by the very definition of computer based vs handmade.
One is using technology so you DON'T have to do it by hand, that's why the little dodge tool in PS has a picture of a hand, its not a real hand but an icon and is used because the software replaces the action of a real hand.

Think about it!