Re: [microsound] Post-digital photography

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If I've interpreted what you wrote correctly,
> you don't think photography is any different
> from other 2-D visual media because the results
> are always images. Consequently, there's nothing
> unique about digital photography.

no, you missed  what I said -- I specifically
pointed out there are the differences in syntax
-- defined by the material limits,
characteristics, and possibilities of each tool
-- but this is a very materialist point of view
which personally I do not subscribe to...  And as
such, a materialist point of view generally
spawns the same endless discussions that can be
compared to the question "what kind of film did
you use to get that picture?"  I am more
interested in the capacity of a work in its
elemental form to carry energy rather that how
the energy is packaged...

> But the images produced by painting,
> photography, drawing, etc. are unique from each
> other in the ways they reflect their different
> tools. Such reflections would be clearly visible
> if a painting, a photograph and a drawing were
> made of the same object, all from the same
> angle, in the same light, etc. I think it is
> indisputable that the three images would look
> different from each other due to the tools, etc.
> that were used.

no dispute there -- again, I'm not interested in
those syntactical differences, but more in the
experience of each/all of the three in carrying
the energy (to provide inspiration)...

> What is more controversial is the idea that a
> digital photo and a film photo are
> distinguishable from each other. I personally
> think that digital photos are usually relatively
> indistinguishable from film

...snip...  syntactical differences exist always
to greater and lesser degrees -- both within a
"discipline" (which lens, camera, film, developer
were used; which OS, software package, a-to-d
converters, monitor, ink-jet printer) and across
those arbitrary materialist disciplinary
boundaries.  Again, an endless source of
discussion which was used...  but in the end,
isn't it about how that 'final' product 'works'
in the process of creative sharing...

> Obviously, such visual works might not be of
> interest to everyone, but to many people
> 'abstract photography' is photography reflecting
> the abstractions made possible by film
> photography's tools; however, they still call it
> a 'photograph'. If they view a 'abstract'
> digital photo displaying the abstractions of
> digital technology, they find it hard to accept
> it as a photograph, preferring to call it a
> 'digital image'.

this seems to be a semantic problem rather than a
real problem...  substitute the word painting in
the above paragraph...

> Whereas photography may have struggled to be
> considered a 'real art', 'digital photography'
> needs to be no longer considered as 'film
> photography with different tools', but as a
> distinct form of photography, not just by its
> viewers but by its practitioners. This is why
> the differences need to be discussed, so that
> the full potential of digital photography can be
> explored by artists and viewers, even if this
> exploration is just another way of ?putting a
> mark on a surface/screen.?

this area has been well-explored for more than 15
years (since some curators, in the frenzy of
post-modernist academia declared photography to
be dead in 1989, officially ;-), and there are
many threads to follow in that regard -- I don't
have references in the moment, but can direct you
to some texts after I go digging back into the
archive.

certainly little has changed in the viewing realm
-- except that (digital) photography is more
screen dependent than traditional photography
was...  a back-lit 2D surface versus a front-lit
2D surface of a framed print...

cheers
John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org