I don't think we have too much to disagree about then Bill.
I am saying the process is important because it can make or break an
image
and may be to a considerable extent responsible for an image's success
if it
is successful.
I don't believe I have ever said that the process is important for its
own
sake. It is a means to an end. What matters is not if the viewer
understands
or enjoys the process (some will, some won't, it's not a requisite)
what
matters is whether the image 'works' - but whether it does or not is
often,
probably always, as much due to the skill in its production as in its
conception or capture. I quite agree that it doesn't need to matter how
difficult that process was, only that it produces the goods.
It's a means to an end - some will enjoy both the means and the end,
some
will enjoy the end and not appreciate/care about the means. That's OK
in my
book.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Stephenson
Sent: 16 December 2006 16:32
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy??
Tim, we may not disagree as much as it seems. When you say that the
printing
processes, tones, etc., make an image realise the artist's vision
(substitute "maker" for "artist" and we're closer - not all sincere
efforts
produce "art") that's true - for the maker, those things are
important. For
me, however, as simply the viewer, all that counts is the resulting
sum of
the maker's efforts.
In my case, if I like an image, I may have some interest in the
process and
materials used in its creation. If I don't like it, I don't care if the
maker spent six months in solitude, feasting solely on dry bread and
cold
coffee, and used home-brewed developers and toners and made his own
paper
and coated it with home-made emulsion. If the image isn't interesting,
then
none of the creation is. At least that's the way I see it.
In simplistic terms, I vote for product over process every time. Only
if the
product is "engaging" does the process hold any interest.
-Bill
On Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 05:27 AM, Tim Rudman wrote:
Well I guess we disagree Bill - which is fine.
However, I never suggested that one needs to be able to see what film
or developer has been used in the makeup of an image, I would agree
thus far.
However, the printing processes used, the techniques employed, the
toners used and a host of other things can and often do 'make' an
image realise the potential of the artist's vision. It's fine if you
don't like it. It's good if someone does. We fortunately don't all
share the same aesthetics in any art form.
Tim
http://www.worldoflithprinting.com
http://www.thegalleryonthegreen.co.uk/events/coldsnap.html
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Stephenson
Sent: 16 December 2006 00:04
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy??
Tim, I have to disagree. How the image reaches the paper has no more
relevance to the impact, interest, or what have you, than how you get
to the Grand Canyon affects how the Canyon looks. Fly and take a cab;
drive; hitchhike; hike - whatever. The Canyon is not affected by your
means of reaching it. A good print ("good" as in "interesting", or
"engaging") is a good print. In exhibitions, I've never walked up to a
print and said "Wow - looks like Tri-X in Rodinal on Ilfobrome
w/Dektol, 68 degrees F for processing" - and I doubt that I ever will.
I *have* walked up to a print and said "Wow! That's an interesting
face
- and a nice image of it."
I don't care what camera, lens, film, light, developer, enlarger,
lens, paper, easel, developer, and so on were used to make a print. If
the print is boring, dull, uninteresting, unengaging, etc., the
process amounts to (first choice word deleted for politeness) zilch.
-Bill
On Friday, December 15, 2006, at 03:58 PM, Tim Rudman wrote:
Yes, I know what the image is Dana, and how it gets onto the print is
critical to how it communicates with the viewer - and therefore how
'interesting' it is (to that viewer), or perhaps 'engaging' might be
a better term for what I mean.
Tim
======================================================================
=
=====
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
======================================================================
= ======================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=======================================================================
=====
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=======================================================================
======================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
