It’s all about the image | 06:54AM Oct 23, 2007
I would like to thank you Ryan, Justin, and Elizabeth for your comments on yesterday’s image. Your feedback was fabulous! It opened my eyes a bit and definitely made me evaluate my techniques. The most important thing was the opportunity to see people interacting with my work. Whether positive or negative, the responses that you gave were most certainly given after much thought and that, in its self, is the best compliment one can pay an artist, regardless of their medium.
All this discussion, though, did get me thinking. After reading the responses to yesterday’s shot I really sat down and looked at it. Truth be told, I don’t particularly care for it. However, I did enjoy processing it. It was a challenge, starting with a less than ideal image and seeing what I could get it to turn into. Regardless, it wasn’t a great shot, but what are blogs for if not for experimentation?
Now, in regards to the comment about calling myself a photographer, this is a bit of a sticky issue in my eyes. As in all artistic mediums there are tools that an artist can use to create his or her work. Some are traditional, a brush used by a painter for instance. While others fall well outside the realm of what most would consider traditional, such as blood in place of paint or an artist’s extremities in place of a brush. If a painter decided to use his hands rather than a brush does that make him any less a painter? Perhaps. However, the real question is, does that make him any less an artist?
The true test of an artist is in the final result. Whether it is three-dimensional or two all that really matters is what he or she presents to their audience. Does it capture people? Does it cause conversation or, more importantly, deeper thought? Does it appeal to their senses? These are the questions that need to be asked. For example, when you gaze into the wonderful tones of an Ansel Adams original do you wonder about how many hours he spent in the darkroom dodging and burning? Does it matter? The final print is stunning, flawless in its perfection, regardless of his technique.
Truth of the matter is, that Ansel’s negatives, just like yours or mine, were just negatives. Sure, they were well exposed, and yes the subject matter was admittedly breath taking. However, the thing that separates an artist like Adams from the rest of us is the time he took perfecting each print. The time spent in the dark, developing, dodging, and burning. That is where his images went from ordinary to extraordinary. Is using a computer so different?
The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a purist. Every image regardless of camera, film type, or sensor is processed to a degree. The minute you change a lens, adjust your exposure, crop, or develop and image you have altered its final form. You have stepped in and taken control, you have stopped documenting and have begun to create art.
I cannot understand people’s obsession with the purity of the image. I could use a wide-angle lens, I could spend hours in the dark room, or I could throw on a few layer masks. It doesn’t matter, they are just tools, they don’t come with manuals, there are no rules. All that matters is the final result. Does the image captivate, does it inspire thought. That’s what art is all about, freedom.
All this discussion, though, did get me thinking. After reading the responses to yesterday’s shot I really sat down and looked at it. Truth be told, I don’t particularly care for it. However, I did enjoy processing it. It was a challenge, starting with a less than ideal image and seeing what I could get it to turn into. Regardless, it wasn’t a great shot, but what are blogs for if not for experimentation?
Now, in regards to the comment about calling myself a photographer, this is a bit of a sticky issue in my eyes. As in all artistic mediums there are tools that an artist can use to create his or her work. Some are traditional, a brush used by a painter for instance. While others fall well outside the realm of what most would consider traditional, such as blood in place of paint or an artist’s extremities in place of a brush. If a painter decided to use his hands rather than a brush does that make him any less a painter? Perhaps. However, the real question is, does that make him any less an artist?
The true test of an artist is in the final result. Whether it is three-dimensional or two all that really matters is what he or she presents to their audience. Does it capture people? Does it cause conversation or, more importantly, deeper thought? Does it appeal to their senses? These are the questions that need to be asked. For example, when you gaze into the wonderful tones of an Ansel Adams original do you wonder about how many hours he spent in the darkroom dodging and burning? Does it matter? The final print is stunning, flawless in its perfection, regardless of his technique.
Truth of the matter is, that Ansel’s negatives, just like yours or mine, were just negatives. Sure, they were well exposed, and yes the subject matter was admittedly breath taking. However, the thing that separates an artist like Adams from the rest of us is the time he took perfecting each print. The time spent in the dark, developing, dodging, and burning. That is where his images went from ordinary to extraordinary. Is using a computer so different?
The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a purist. Every image regardless of camera, film type, or sensor is processed to a degree. The minute you change a lens, adjust your exposure, crop, or develop and image you have altered its final form. You have stepped in and taken control, you have stopped documenting and have begun to create art.
I cannot understand people’s obsession with the purity of the image. I could use a wide-angle lens, I could spend hours in the dark room, or I could throw on a few layer masks. It doesn’t matter, they are just tools, they don’t come with manuals, there are no rules. All that matters is the final result. Does the image captivate, does it inspire thought. That’s what art is all about, freedom.
