Photography Must Die or John Sevigny Yaps Again

[2Billion]

I suppose it's about time I elaborate on the photography is based in reality.

Paintings can be pure imagination, using the tools at hand to express whatever is in the artist's mind.

Photography, even in most abstract sense, is still capturing moments of reality. The difference is, you can't just take paint and do whatever, you have to manipulate reality in order to get what you want. Perhaps that's a part of the artistic expression, how you change the world in front of the lens in order to express what you want to through the end image.

If I paint a man on a canvas, the paint is all the man ever had to be and ever will be. If I draw a man with a flashlight in a photo, that's me arranging the world in order to create something that doesn't exist. It's a perception thing, as the man never existed there either, but by changing the way the camera sees the world, I have created something. Regardless, it's still reality, just molded in the manner I see fit, like telling a small child about Santa Claus almost. He was never really there, but the child sees evidence of Santa Claus and by manipulating his perception, you create a nonexistant man who the child could depict. Cameras, in effect, are like the impressionable minds of children. By using various techniques, you can make them believe what you want, and give you the image you desire, but you still have to change the world around them to get the required results.

Holy shit I got a little pretentious.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

But a photograph is not "real" it's actually a likeness, just as a painting is a likeness.

Look at it this way, do you know what Elvis looks like? I bet you do, right? If I were to show you a picture of Elvis, you could look at the picture and say, "that's Elvis" (if you're too young to remember who Elvis is, use somebody more current.)

The problem is, you don't "know" Elvis. Probably never met him, don't know what he was really like. You've been sort of tricked into thinking you know him because you know his likeness. To really know Elvis is to know what he was *not* as much as it is to know what he was like. Neither the photo nor the painting of him are "real" Elvis, only he was real. (He was three dimensional and his photos are all flat.)

If I were to take a photo of Elvis, sure, there would be a "real" Elvis, but the photo would be just a likeness, subject to my interpretation, my imagination, my mental image of "an Elvis." For me, it would be no different from painting him. Neither would be "real" both would be my ideal, a sort of "how Elvis looks to me" journey into my view of Elvis.

For me, I think perhaps the biggest strength of photography as a medium is that you can have an element of "real" and abstract at the same time, in the same image. It's much harder to do that with paint.(Not impossible, just harder, though perhaps I am a crappy painter or just a better photographer than painter.)

Holy shit I got a little pretentious.

Don't worry, we're not really pretentious. It's just the whiskey talking.

(Pretentious or not, this is a very interesting discussion.)

 

[Ladamaha]

But a photograph by default doesn't lie. Photographer might make his reality to look like something it's not, but by default the photo itself doesn't lie.

Let's continue with Elvis. What if photography was not invented by the time he was starting to spread hysteria in teenage girls? I bet the Christian part of society had pictured him with a pair of horns as the Devil and spread that image as the truth (well I guess they did, but anyway). That is of course a lie because it has gone trough the hand of the painter. You can't bribe a camera. Painting or drawing can represent reality, but you can't be sure.

 

[hansvonaxion]

The lower image is a painting, watercolor on paper.

Really? So you consider a transfer a painting? A polaroid rubdown is now considered painting?

It's a photograph.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

A polaroid rubdown is now considered painting?

The lower image is not a Polaroid, the upper one (square one) is.

And, yes, a transfer can be considered a painting, depending on the method used and how much paint is applied. You can transfer a drawing, for example, and use this as the basis of a painting. You can also use a transfer as an under painting. If the surface of the result is mostly paint, I'd consider it a painting. (If one of my transfers are heavily painted, I'd consider it a painting or "mixed media" which is generally understood to have some paint involved.)

The top image is pure Polaroid (well, it's a scan.) There was no paint applied to the surface and it was made with light sensitive materials, so I'd consider it a photo. It would be printed on photo paper.

I have done some Polaroid transfers and don't consider mine paintings because, the way I do them, the surface of the result is not paint. I sometimes paint on those, but it's more like a "touch up" so I don't consider them paintings, as they are more photographs (even though they look like paintings.) I have some friends who do them and put stuff like gold leaf on them, painting them a lot in the process. I would consider those "mixed media" or paintings.

The reason I identify a media at all is to archive the work, with preservation in mind. If the surface of something is mostly paint, it needs to be archived as a painting and not as a photo, otherwise it will decay. Same thing with a photo-it needs proper storage to keep it happy.

I'm not a plein air painter-I mostly paint from photographs or do abstracts.

Photographer might make his reality to look like something it's not, but by default the photo itself doesn't lie.

I get what you are saying, there has to be some truth there, I mean, we took the picture, right? But, in the end, it's still a likeness, and that likeness is separate from the original, so there's some "wiggle room" there as well.

There are cameras now that, for example, are designed to make you look 10 pounds lighter than you are. That's an outright lie, even advertised on the box, but I'd say they are just toying with the likeness.

 

[hansvonaxion]

You took a photograph, printed it and transferred it to watercolour paper. To try and pass it off as a "painting" as opposed to a "photograph" in the context of this discussion is misleading in the least.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

You took a photograph, printed it and transferred it to watercolour paper.

Then painted on it.

There are all sorts of ways to paint. Some painters used the camera obscura and "trace" things, and there's the modern art projector. I've used tracing paper before, transfers, or just paint on canvas with brushes. I paint from my photographs (tape the photo up on the wall next to the canvas and copy what I see.) Doesn't matter. If it's made from paint, it's a painting.

 

[2Billion]

On the Elvis front, you still have to have Elvis - or, nowdays, an impersonator - in front of the camera to make a likeness. Sure, you can manipulate it in all manner of ways to get a different image, but you're still getting what the camera sees. In a sense, it adds a layer of symbolic depth to whatever it is you're trying to convey, since the odder - and less realistic - you're getting, there's still that sense of trying to lie to a machine to get the results you want.

It reminds me of something my friend told me when he showed me some sort of odd image from a tower with a fisheye (and tried to get me to get a fisheye). "It's actually on a different building, and since it's a fisheye it looks higher than it is. So really, it's a lie. Imagine all the lies you could tell!"

 

[hansvonaxion]

Which one of these is a painting and which is a photo?

One is a photo and one a painting.

The lower image is a painting, watercolor on paper.

You never mentioned that it was watercolour on a photograph or mixed media, you simply said watercolour on paper. That's not completely honest.

I obviously don't know how much paint you applied, but if this is the original pic it doesn't look like much to me.

Both responses were correct ,"neither" and "both" because you asked people to classify two images as either "painting" or "photograph" according to your personal definition, which no-one knew at that time.

You yourself classified the same image as a "transfer" when you linked to it in another thread.

Oh, an according to your definition of a painting, my photographic prints on canvas are all now paintings, considering that they are pigment on canvas.

________________


But as for the OP, I don't know what school(s) he has been to but the 2 I've attended taught art history, colour theory etc alongside technical classes.

He's bitching about a problem that doesn't exist.

...our photography professors are hung up on f-stops and shutter speeds, or megapixels and software. This is not by choice. It's because the vast majority of them have never studied photographic history, much less art history.

Well I don't care if the guy in the lab has never studied art history. He's just there to teach me how to print, or process, whatever. The bigger the geek, the better.

If we want the medium of photography to grow, or even survive, we have to stop thinking about cameras and start thinking about art.

This is what got everyone riled up. "Stop thinking about cameras" my arse.

 

[P5138]

^

I agree!

I am a technical photographer in the sense that when I get an idea for an image I have to go through a listing in my head of settings and conditions needed to achieve that goal. I cannot see that as any different than a painter mixing base colors to create a new tone or a sculptor taking the first chip away at a block of marble. You cannot "stop thinking about cameras" if you want to be a good photographer. Every medium has a technical side that one must move past to succeed, the only two real differences I see between photography and the rest of the visual media is the complete reliance on a series of physical and chemical reactions to create a result and the instantaneous product of an image.

MY photography professor was the exact opposite of the one described in the article. Though he did go over a litany of technical processes, he focused more on the works of other photographers and their attempts to move photography forward. But even then, you have to be able to see the technical framework behind the final photograph...

(And... on a side note: What's wrong with the photography in National Geographic?)

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

@Hansvonaxion, I would call neither of those two images in your last response "photos."

The top one is digital, so I would not call it a "photo." I would list the media as "pigment inkjet print" or "digital." To me, photo = something that went through devo/stop/fix and that thing did not (it's a digital print.)

The bottom one did not come out of an inkjet printer and has paint (watercolor) on it (the sky, for example, is all paint.) I would also not call it a photo because, again, no devo/stop/fix. (Transfer is a process not a medium.)

There's a huge market right now (for example) for Cibachromes. Those, to me, are photos. The Polaroid that I posted (as image 1) earlier is a photo-it went through devo/stop/fix to come into the world (believe it or not.) Neither of those two things above did, so they aren't photos.

Oh, an according to your definition of a painting, my photographic prints on canvas are all now paintings, considering that they are pigment on canvas.

If they came out of an inkjet printer, where you printed on canvas and then stretched it, I would call them "pigment inkjet print on canvas" (or simply "prints") not photos. If you painted on them, that is applied paint to the surface of the canvas after they were printed, and the end result had paint on it, I would could call them either "mixed: pigment inks + oil (or whatever) on canvas," "oil on canvas" (if you used the pigment ink output as an underpainting) or, yes, simply paintings.

The point I was trying to make is that there are tons of photographs that look like paintings, likewise, there are tons of paintings that look like photographs. The appearance of brush strokes does not make a painting a painting (the paint does) nor does the "realistic" look of a photograph make it a photo (the light sensitive media does.) Sevigny talks about this some in his post ("Few photographs boast the psychological insight of a Velazquez portraiture such as his dwarf portraits from the first half of the 17th Century.") If you think that my process is not being honest, you can also google "photorealism" to find lots of works that are painted using many processes (and media) which look *exactly* like photos and I'm sure you can dig through someplace like flickr to find photos that look like paintings ("brushstrokes" and all.) (And, you know, apologies for getting us tripped up on the process instead of the medium.)

Though he did go over a litany of technical processes, he focused more on the works of other photographers and their attempts to move photography forward. But even then, you have to be able to see the technical framework behind the final photograph...

(And... on a side note: What's wrong with the photography in National Geographic?)

According to John, you are lucky-his claim (I disagree with him on this, btw) is that *most* photography professors do not focus on the work of artists (including other photographers) but spend all (key word: ALL) of their time teaching us about megapixels and how to use software. (That is his gripe.)

As far as Nat. Geo, he didn't say anything was wrong with their photography, just their vocabulary. He points out that the use words like "capture" (as a noun) to describe a photographs, while a painter (or artist working in another medium) would say "work" or "product" to describe their output.

He (John) also discounts the work of people who both paint and take pictures (to some extent.) My photography teacher did both, my teacher's teacher did both, and now I do both, but Sevigny thinks we do not exist because, as soon as we pick-up a camera, we are lost in the world of "f-stops and megapixels."

 

[Top Geek]

^ No offense, but you lost a lot of points from me on that post.

 

[hansvonaxion]

The top one is digital, so I would not call it a "photo."

Well, considering that most of us in here work purely in the digital medium, none of us are photographers! Wow.

The Polaroid that I posted (as image 1) earlier is a photo-it went through devo/stop/fix to come into the world (believe it or not.)

But then you scanned it and it became digital, I am looking at it on a monitor so it is no longer a photo according to your logic, it is a piece of "digital art".

If they came out of an inkjet printer, where you printed on canvas and then stretched it, I would call them "pigment inkjet print on canvas" (or simply "prints") not photos.

Wow. Again, they are still photos. There are many ways take, process and display photos, but they remain photos. Labelling them for archiving purposes is simply that, labelling the printing technique. A "watercolour on paper" and an "oil on canvas" are both still paintings.

The point I was trying to make is that there are tons of photographs that look like paintings, likewise, there are tons of paintings that look like photographs.

If that's the point you were trying to make you would have done better (in my eyes) to simply post the second pic, the transfer, and ask us if it is a photo or a painting - because it straddle the line between them.

If you think that my process is not being honest,

I have no problem with the process, just your labelling of it as simply "painting", especially within the context of your post.

As far as Nat. Geo, he didn't say anything was wrong with their photography, just their vocabulary. He points out that the use words like "capture" (as a noun) to describe a photographs, while a painter (or artist working in another medium) would say "work" or "product" to describe their output.

Nat Geo photographers are commercial photographers. I think he needs to get his head out of his arse and realise that there are many types of photographers, each with a different goal.

Most people who study photography do so to become commercial photographers.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

Look, it's not just my designation and I'm not making these terms up. The Center for Fine Art Photography for example (a place with the word "photography" right in its name) does not consider digital media to be "photos." I'm in a show there right now and the work is called "archival pigment ink on paper" (unless they were produced in a darkroom.) They use that as a media designation if you print digitally. The reason for this is because there are collectors who pay a lot of money for photographic work (now it's in the millions of dollars for some pieces) and those people want to know how to preserve that work. Again, not my words, I'm just repeating what is standard in the fine art community. (I am a fine art photographer. When I exhibit my work in their galleries and museums I adhere to their standards and terms.)

That's the point I was trying to make about Cibachromes. They are collectors items now so, when you put the label "Cibachrome" on it, it sells for a certain price just because of the label.

considering that most of us in here work purely in the digital medium, none of us are photographers! Wow.

You're photographers who produce "archival inkjet prints" (or photos if you use a darkroom.) Again, not my words, it's very standard and can be found in almost any gallery or museum. I agree with you, I think it sounds a bit long, but I'm in the fine art community, so I try to use the standard terms.

And, it also depends upon the show and market. If you said to me you were going to do a show at a local fair, for example, and charge $100 for your "prints" I would tell you that you probably don't have to put the term "archival inkjet print" on there because you will only confuse the locals. If, on the other hand, you're showing work at the Center, you damn well better put "archival inkjet print" on that thing because, if you don't, and you send them a digital print, you're going to get a call from Larry whats-his-name over there telling you, "this isn't a photo so I can't label it as such." They will also happily price your work for you over the telephone-this is just how they operate. (They know their market and collectors and know exactly how much the going rate for an "archival inkjet print" from a certain photographer will fetch. Larry over there can freaking tell me before something is going to sell and, if it's going to sell, for how much. It's freaking uncanny, very insular, and probably a bit scary but welcome to the fine art world if you aren't in it already.)

A "watercolour on paper" and an "oil on canvas" are both still paintings.

If I use watercolor pencils, would you consider that a drawing or a painting? What about if I take those same watercolor pencils, smudge them, mix them with water, and then paint with them, using a brush? Using a sponge? Using a stick? What about if I take a big sheet of paper, do a little bit of everything on there (draw with some watercolor pencils and also paint with some watercolors?) What about if I take a drawing, use it as a basis for a painting and paint completely on top of it, covering all of the pencil (or watercolor) with paint? What if I just fill it the spaces with paint? Is it a drawing then? Or a painting? Maybe it's an illustration instead? What about if I take a photo, develop it, print it, and tape it up next to my easel, then make a painting that looks just like it? Is that a painting?

The reason for a media designation is so that the curator can preserve the work-they are assuming a legal and financial risk of taking on the piece. There job is, first and foremost, to preserve and they need to know what the thing is order to do that. That's why, when talking to a curator or giving a media designation, I don't use terms like "photo" or "painting" but I use the more formal "archival inkjet on paper" (or "archival inkjet on watercolor paper" because they need to know if it's one vs. the other.)

The reason for a "process statement" is to tell the viewer or buyer how the work was produced. That's where you get your answers to how the work came about ("I smudge paint" vs. "I use brushes" vs. "I transfer stuff" vs. "I paint from photos" or "I use a variety of techniques to express myself" yada yada.)

There's also the complexity of marketing if you show your work in galleries. A Polaroid transfer, for example, looks more like a painting than a photo so, even if they are 100% photo, it would be a wise move to display and show that type of work in a place where there are more paintings than photos. (If you call anything "mixed" they are going to assume you put some paint on there, unless you say otherwise.)

Just tonight I went to the opening for a local show where I had some "archival inkjet prints" on display. They are 100% digital "photos" (ahem, "archival inkjet prints") but they look like paintings and are hanging in a gallery with mostly paintings. The gallery owner introduced me as a "local painter" and my work as "paintings" even though the label clearly said "archival inkjet print" because that's what they (the same gallery!) wanted to call them. Doesn't make any sense but, if put in that situation, I'm going to just nod and agree-the gallery owner knows how to sell the work better than I do, right?

Besides, it doesn't matter to me what it's called-I paint, I take pictures, I do lots of stuff. Art is art when it comes down to it. To me, photography is just as much art as any other thing, so to your point about us not being photographers because we are digital, no nobody here is a "photographer" we are all artists who just happen to work with cameras.

This topic needs more booze.

 

[Top Geek]

Well, whoopdeedo for those snobs. I can say that a piece of pork is piece of beef, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still pork and it came from a pig.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

Well, whoopdeedo for those snobs.

They're trying to protect you.

Look at it this way. Next week, when you take the greatest photo you've ever taken, the museum of modern art calls up and says, "we've cleared out all the other crap and we've not got an entire Epp_b wing setup and ready for your work" you're going to send them a print, right?

If you call that work a "photo" somebody can steal it more easily. If, on the other hand, you send them "signed, limited edition archival pigment inkjet print" that protects you (a bit) from somebody ripping you off. Also, how will future generations of Epp_b wanna-be's, working 200 years from now, be able to see your work? If MOMA can't protect and preserve it for future generations, what good is it? Are they going to want to put it in that Epp_b wing? They are going to want to help you preserve that work for those 200 years, so they are going to need to know exactly what it is and present it accordingly (matte board buffered to the correct levels, protective plexiglas, etc.)

The same was true before the digital era. Let's say you worked using film. They didn't always call it a "photo" because, again, too easy to rip off, too hard to archive, so you called it a C-print or a "whatever on fiber paper" or a "Cibachrome" or whatever it was that you did. They did that to protect the artist and preserve both the work and the money that you can make from it. The term "photo" is too broad a term so they avoid it. That doesn't mean you're not a photographer, or that you didn't produce "photos," rather you produced something they called "C prints" (or, you know, whatever.) Curators are technical people too and they are trying to protect our work by using those pompous sounding terms.

My work is strictly fine art. I'm sure things are different in the commercial, print, or just about anything else. I'm just telling you like it is (or how I've seen it) in that little bubble, apologies if it comes across as snobbery or misleading, that's really not my intention at all.

 

[Top Geek]

For me (and for most people, I suspect) a type of artwork is defined by the process, not the result.

If it was recorded using some sort of automated natural process (exposing a chemical-coated plastic film or a piece of silicon covered with photosites), it is a photo. If it was made by applying coloured liquids on a sheet of canvas/paper/whatever, it's a painting. If you used pencils to draw on a sheet of paper, it's a drawing. You get the idea.

One group that defines a "photo" as something else doesn't change the Webster definition.

 

[hansvonaxion]

The same was true before the digital era. Let's say you worked using film. They didn't always call it a "photo" because, again, too easy to rip off, too hard to archive, so you called it a C-print or a "whatever on fiber paper" or a "Cibachrome" or whatever it was that you did...

..The term "photo" is too broad a term so they avoid it.

That doesn't mean you're not a photographer, or that you didn't produce "photos," rather you produced something they called "C prints" (or, you know, whatever.)

You started by saying that anything produced on light-sensitive paper/material is a photograph and everything else is not a photograph.

But now you say photographs aren't really photographs either, they're cibachromes, RA prints, C-prints etc.

I know where you're coming from and I understand the distinction between inkjet prints and prints made on light sensitive paper, but in the context of this discussion, that distinction is irrelevant, especially considering that both images were presented as digital files.

If it was recorded using some sort of automated natural process (exposing a chemical-coated plastic film or a piece of silicon covered with photosites), it is a photo. If it was made by applying coloured liquids on a sheet of canvas/paper/whatever, it's a painting. If you used pencils to draw on a sheet of paper, it's a drawing. You get the idea.

This was my point.

Why label one simply as a painting and leave out the process description when you knew that photography was a major part of the process? You certainly wouldn't leave out the process statement when exhibiting in a gallery, would you?

 

[Ramseus]

Photography is a piss poor art form. Photos can be nice to look at, even eyegasmic, but fuck you, all you did is push a button. Anyone can do it - give someone some expensive equipment, a killer subject, a quick lesson on what to do, BAM, work of "art" in a fraction of a second. Put a room full of random people in front of a killer subject, get them to capture it in whatever medium you want that isn't photographic, tell them exactly what to do, unless they're already skilled all of their results will be utter shit.

I never listened to carolslittleworld much, but this thread has made her seem even more pretentious in my eyes.

How you doin?

 

[Clockwerk]

Photography is a piss poor art form. Photos can be nice to look at, even eyegasmic, but fuck you, all you did is push a button. Anyone can do it - give someone some expensive equipment, a killer subject, a quick lesson on what to do, BAM, work of "art" in a fraction of a second. Put a room full of random people in front of a killer subject, get them to capture it in whatever medium you want that isn't photographic, tell them exactly what to do, unless they're already skilled all of their results will be utter shit.

I never listened to carolslittleworld much, but this thread has made her seem even more pretentious in my eyes.

How you doin?

Tell that to the scores of people with thousands of dollars worth of equipment trying to duplicate Ansel Adams photographs.