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

f16sunshine said:
Sure but where does this end? How far back should we go?
Since "you" are are not coating your own glass plates but rather relying on the pre-packaged emulation coated plastic sheets and bottled development chemicals…. is Respect for human creation and personal commitment in fact being abandoned?

Where is it reasonable to stop with this argument?
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense. It's equivalent to saying a carpenter can't be considered a craftsman unless he forged the steel used to make his hammer. As I said earlier, computers have caused a paradigm shift. We need a new definition for the work produced via a computer interface. I suggested "computer interface production". Digital photographers might then be known as "interfacers". :)
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Your argument makes no sense. It's equivalent to saying a carpenter can't be considered a craftsman unless he forged the steel used to make his hammer. As I said earlier, computers have caused a paradigm shift. We need a new definition for the work produced via a computer interface. I suggested "computer interface production". Digital photographers might then be known as "interfacers". :)
Click to expand...

It's not an argument Bruce read it again. It's a questions. Where does this idea of "true artisan" begin or rather... stop?

Some would say a true craftsman does make his tools. I certainly know a few of those folks.
 
If we're to adhere to an orthodox definition of "artisan," then NONE of us are artisans since we don't make the materials to create the products of our craft.

Perhaps the only photographic artisans are those who shoot wet-plates?

Aside from that, I'm probably sure there was a rift in the photographic community when wet plate was replaced by dry silver emulsion sized onto a nitrocellulose substrate.

There was certainly a bit of a backlash when the beloved Barnack cameras came into production and the insignificantly sized (and proportioned) 35mm film began to be exposed.

I remember the backlash when autofocus began to be prevalent. I still prefer to use manual focus lenses but on a digital camera. I love film very much but digital is just so much more convenient in spite of it's "lack of artisanal qualities."

As for Gibson, he's a photographer. That's it. He draws with light. The fact that he still gets around and shoots at his age is something to be applauded as well. Who gives a crap if he uses digital or film? Really?

If you don't want to use film, shoot digital or paint or draw or just experience life and capture the memories. If you want to use film, then do so. Why judge someone who wants to change up their work after they have produced more than many of the users of this forum combined. These film v digital arguments are just ridiculous and are one cause for all the bitterness which has plagued this forum in the last few months.

Phil Forrest
 
f16sunshine said:
It's not an argument Bruce read it again. It's a questions. Where does this idea of "true artisan" begin or rather... stop?

Some would say a true craftsman does make his tools. I certainly know a few of those folks.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that computers have changed the way we have to think of many arts/crafts.
 
Sparrow said:
... no it isn't, "by hand" doesn't preclude computerisation except in your opinion I would contend :)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're wrong. A Bootmaker who uses CAD design and a CNC Laser cutting machinery, then has a computer controlled stitcher doesn't mean he is making the boots by hand. (even if his hand controls the computer)

here is a definition from the dictionary:
A worker in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand.
"street markets where local artisans display handwoven textiles, painted ceramics, and leather goods etc.

It a simple definition, numerical controlled machinery isn't part of the artisans workflow; your contention is controlling a mouse telling a PC to make a print is not making it by hand.

The problem here is Artisan=built in Value to the advertising generation and people who feel that they are excluded from that feel somehow denigrated–they'll have to explain why.
 
The end product for which he is known and what is the hallmark of his work, that is, images and prints which were recorded on film and printed by conventional darkroom techniques.
Using the digital vehicle to arrive at a similar end and what might appear to be the same as, or as good as can only create a product which by either of these designations can only have the appearance of fulfilling the terms.
A digitally created image by its nature can never do so, because it is in reality something entirely different and has to be seen by its own merits and criteria and not in comparison to a thing that it can never be. And likewise the comparison of analog to the digital creation.

That being said, we do not know what is in Mr. Gibson's mind and his reasons for the change. Perhaps at his age analog work is simply to difficult to keep up with, while the digital requires more of the mind rather than the body to accomplish his vision and continue working.

What we know is that he has decided to do something different from what he has always done. It is a different medium and distinct from his former work in method and materiel.

This is not so unusual, save for his former vigorous critique of that which he now embraces.
 
well, people like Gibson tend to be immensely rigid in the short term but flexible in the long.

changing your mind in the face of new evidence is only seen as weak by idiots.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Zauhar put it very well a number of comments ago:

"There is a tension between those who care only about 'product', and those who think the process and the organic involvement of the artist are critical. The latter set feels that the product is indeed not the same when the process is changed.

The point of view of those who think that all that matters is product is a trivial one - yeah, you made X, that's all that matters. I can sit in the chair whether a skilled craftsmen spent 20 hours on it, or if a machine turned it out in one minute.

The other point of view is deeper by construction - it pulls in the human element of skill and care, the involvement of the eye and hands. It shows respect for human creation and personal commitment."
Click to expand...
My post doesn't say that only the end result matters at all-- rather that both processes have artisanal / craft / skill components and rote technical components, and both have output.

There are well-used enlargers and poorly-used enlargers. There is well-used software and poorly-used software. It's irrational to arbitrarily say film processing is the be-all and end-all of image manipulation. It is far more assisted by technology (NOT MANUALLY) than painting-- an ultra realist can render a look to near identical so some photographs, yet it is well suited to some kinds of images and not others, though it is certainly WAY more manual.

Why can't software be accepted as another brush in the palette? Seems so weird to me, but I guess thats what makes it a religious rather than philosophical debate-- it is about faith and desire rather than logic. Studying art in school I quickly let those arguments by the wayside, and focused on 1) what do I want to say and 2) what skills do I have or want to learn that best communicate it and 3) which do I actually enjoy doing.

Fortunately, history shows that new mediums evolve while old mediums may recede, but they still retain their place and we just add more brushes, paints, and canvases to our set of what humans can use to communicate, as long as someone still finds something they want to say that way.

But to say one particular work flow it is inherently "better craft" is a kind of bigotry. Certainly it's not an exclusive path to long-term creativity.
 
wogg said:
But to say one particular work flow it is inherently "better craft" is a kind of bigotry.
Click to expand...

What absolute rubbish. It's now bigoted to have an opinion backed up by reasons, whether you happen to accept them or not? What next? Am I a bigot if I prefer malt whisky to a blend? People like you see bigots round every corner and are usually the most intolerant of individuals.
 
When you are 76 and ditch film it is most likely because you found something better. If film was better than digital he would not ditch film.
 
This whole seesaw of definitions and words like bogot and idiot flying around are why the digital v film posts are the most inflammatory here.

People like to shoot what they like. Can't we all agree on that?

If you want to talk about artisanal v manufactured, then what about the computer designed tools that the artist uses? Lenses, cameras, emulsions, saws, hammers, etc.

All this back and forth is just argument for argument's sake and often times it gets nasty but to what end? None. You film people will keep shooting film and you digital people will keep shooting digital. Some will shoot both. The real question should be "Why do you care?" If Gibson had not told the world that he was using digital capture, you'd all be happily ignorant to him pulling the wool over your eyes.

Phil Forrest
 
sig said:
When you are 76 and ditch film it is most likely because you found something better. If film was better than digital he would not ditch film.
Click to expand...

I would say most people went to digital from film because it was easier, not better, and of course, no ongoing film costs.

And, define 'better'.
 
sig said:
When you are 76 and ditch film it is most likely because you found something better. If film was better than digital he would not ditch film.
Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily follow at all. There could be a number of reasons. He might not be up to spending hours in the darkroom, he might have got a better deal financially from Leica to represent them and use their cameras, the galleries that represent him may have requested digital output or he might be selling so few prints that most of his output goes into books in which case digital might well be easier and more convenient for him. Since he's always had a good relationship with Leica, he could have used any digital rangefinder from the M8 onwards and switched to digital years ago instead of waiting until he's 75.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom