The Photographer as Artist

[Dwig]

For me, photography as an art only "clicks" when I am in complete control from making the exposure through making the print. Since I never really printed my only "analog" color work it never really felt complete. B&W film work and both B&W and color digital, though, both felt/feel the same as I print my own digital these days and always printed my own B&W film in the old days.

 

[fdarnell]

I bought a copy of NewYorkDan's book which I felt was an artistic expression. Don't think it would have mattered to me if they were digital or film (Rolleiflex). I like the images for the images.

It's funny - when I shot film, I was always after finer grain and more resolution. Now when I am shooting the X100T I am trying all the film effects plug-ins to make the images look like digital. 🙂

Perhaps it is a permanence thing. I know my Kodachrome 25's shot on a western US trip in 2004 will be around a long time with little effort. I have CD's burned in 1993 and 94 when you could first do them that I can still read today, but will I be able to in 10 years? Many of us are probably moving digital files around just to make sure we can still get to them. My slides are safe in air-conditioned storage right now, along with film negs. Having worked professionally in the darkroom I can say I much prefer the computer when it comes to professional work, since it can be done faster, but I'm not so sure about these methods as art forms for my efforts. However, when I play with ProCreate on my iPad, I can sure see the artistic value in those who make great digital art.

And anyone who has ever tried to get 6 color black prints out of their Epson knows how much effort that takes. So overall, I don't think it really matters - it's the images that count.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Maybe its just me, but when I work with film and print my own analog prints, I feel connected to the final images as an art form.

In contrast with digital images and digital printing, with digital photos I feel the same as if I am working on a word.doc document.
Sure the image is there, but I feel no personal connection to it.

Analog or Digital, does it makes a difference as far as art?

Yes. Hadn't thought about it this way, as it has been a long time since i printed in a darkroom. But, it reminds me of a crappy picture i took in college. I remember buying Oriental Seagull paper from the college bookstore basement, and printing it in the dorm's darkroom.... A dark, 'mysterious' print.... But, i still have it and when i look at it and touch it, it has 1000% more appeal to me than any (far more technically 'better') print that has ever been ejected from my Epson. And, now that the old fiber print is creased and edge worn, it's even more of a tangible representation of the difference between analog and digital.

I'm not anti-digital at all. I prefer the look of film and the look and feel of silver prints, and we can go further and say that Platinum is even further along the 'art' scale than silver. Just saw the Mapplethorpe exhibition at the Getty Center, and there were a couple of examples of the same image, silver next to a Platinum print, and the Platinum was just 10% more 'special.' If i could hold that print in one hand and an inkjet in the other, i'm certain one would feel much more precious, and the other a bit more commercial/common/ordinary?

I don't know about 'art,' per se. That's got more to do with the actual content combined with the process, and not just the process. But, i'm kind of an art snob. I've been (sort of) a photographer for 35 years (and a graphic designer for 20) but would never call myself an artist. Maybe i just think that's something for other people to assess. I kinda hate it when people call themselves artists when they're not actual ('fine arts') painters or sculptors, etc. I know that's my issue, though....

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bob,
While I agree with you on this, I can't help but to ask a question: then why bother with 6x7 bulky cameras and film?

A very fair question and one with a subtle answer. I like the quality of prints from a 6x7 neg. No question in my mind they make a better impression. BUT, the difference is subconscious in the minds of 99% of the viewers and adds to the credibility of the message. Only camera geeks consciously note the difference at the expense of your message. It is like dressing well when you make a presentation. When someone remembers how you dressed, you know your presentation did not get across. But you know that dressing well will be one of the multitude of factors that will subconsciously make your audience believe you know what you are talking about and believe you.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I voted Both. I started in film but I grew in digital. If I hadn't taken a 30 year hiatus from photography I might be more analog influenced but I didn't. It would take me hours to get a picture the way I want it in the darkroom and I just don't have the patience for that. Let alone the room for a darkroom. My feeling is that digital photography was invented just for me.

 

[jojoman2]

This is the exact reason why I'm hesitating to go digital. I'm worried that it would change my relationship with photography, and I'm not quite ready for that yet. Someday I'll probably want to shoot in color more often, though.

 

[lawrence]

Analog and digital feel the same to me as far as 'being an artist' goes but then again I've never much liked the terms 'art' or 'fine art' when applied to photography. I can say with confidence that I am a photographer no matter what I shoot but 'artist'?

The look of film is usually very different to digital, even when scanned, and in general it's a look that I really like. Last night I watched 'Blow Up' and, apart from the intriguing story line, very much enjoyed the colours, slight graininess, gradation etc. of the film stock that was used. To me the problem with digital is that it either looks too perfect or it looks crap and there doesn't seem to be anything in between. I can tell the difference between Pan-F and HP5 but with digital this is problematic because I don't go for that look where the PP becomes too obvious (heavy desaturation etc.). I would say that of the many photographs that I absolutely love, nearly all were shot on film.

 

[__jc]

My understanding is that an artist is a person who creates art.

 

[kbg32]

Some people stay with analogue like it's gospel. Some people have embraced digital technology with no problems. I think it's great to learn the "old fashion" way before deciding on which chosen tool to use. It's these kinds of threads and arguments that really turn me off of RFF. Every so often someone has to post a thread about about film vs. digital, as if it isn't a polarizing issue here to begin with.

Is it art? Time, history has already decided.

 

[jsrockit]

Only camera geeks consciously note the difference at the expense of your message. It is like dressing well when you make a presentation. When someone remembers how you dressed, you know your presentation did not get across. But you know that dressing well will be one of the multitude of factors that will subconsciously make your audience believe you know what you are talking about and believe you.

Exactly...

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I printed for many years in both b&w and color darkrooms, so I understand the craft/art connection you feel. However, from a viewer's standpoint, it makes no difference... its the image that counts. In my opinion, all issues of methods/gear used to produce a print go away entirely when the print goes up on the wall. Either its beautiful/art or it isn't... to the viewer. Enjoy your time in the darkroom, its a lovely time of contemplation and creativity.

 

[robert blu]

It's difficult to make comments without falling somehow in the old digital/film debate.

Not sure when a photographer stops to be a photographer and becomes an artist...of course in many cases it's like that, Michael Ackerman or Trente Park or Robert Frank or Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon or the famous from the Dusseldorf School, Thomas Ruff, Andreas Gursky and the others...each one with his own style, using his preferred tool.

IMO digital or analog it's the commitment to the work which makes the difference, the attention to all the details in the workflow, the originality of the point of view...

robert
PS: anyway interesting thread with some points in the contribution to think about...

 

[danielsterno]

Content rules. Its irrelevant of how we get there, they are all just tools, each have their own place, like pencils or brushes. Though the more features/functions/mega pixels, better-faster more perfect etc that come into each new cameras body, to me, they tend to become more sterile, more lifeless thus i tend to prefer to do more with less to achieve the "perfection of imperfection".

 

[mdarnton]

I shoot film because there are some things I like about using it, but I scan and print digitally. With all of the tasks that used to be so hard in the darkroom (or, regarding some tonal manipulations, nearly impossible) being so easy in Photoshop, there's no way I'd go back to silver printing. This isn't about some idealism or lack of it; it's about getting the visual results I want in the most direct manner.

 

[back alley]

the only thing that i miss about shooting film is the cameras...i know, been said before by many others...

 

[Doug]

I can be very imperfect even without film... missed focus, camera shake, over-exposure, under-exposure, distortion of various kinds, color fringing, weird color balance, dust bunnies on the sensor, high ISO noise, compression artifacts, and more! Full of life... 🙂

 

[__jc]

Unless it is Duchamp?

Appropriation - or, perhaps more appropriately in Duchamp's case, recontextualization - is most certainly a form of creation.

 

[__jc]

I was thinking more of the period between 1918 and his death, when Duchamp took leave of the New York art scene. He was still an artist but not making any art.

Perhaps we can then call that period an extended - what? 60 year? - sabbatical (although it is not quite true to say he didn't still create some art). Or maybe it's like those old car bumper stickers - "Old
fishermen never die - they just smell that way". For an artist (specifically, in this case, Duchamp) it may be "Old artists never stop creating - they just play chess". Or something.

 

[lawrence]

I was thinking more of the period between 1918 and his death, when Duchamp took leave of the New York art scene. He was still an artist but not making any art.

So you can be an artist without creating art but can you create art without being an artist?

 

[Steve M.]

Duchamp made art.... and then he didn't, and made playing chess his art. If someone doesn't understand his Readymades, well, this is not the place for Art Appreciation 101. His Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 is one of the better paintings in the last 100 years, and caused an uproar when first exhibited.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl..._5OM&itg=1&usg=__3JQ5LX9d_l2VLRcqc6J8ARKdyMY=

http://nymag.com/news/features/scandals/marcel-duchamp-2012-4/