Is a scanned bw neg really art

[Andrew Nichols]

I like the word umbrage

And a well solid argument to boot!

[Ray Heath]

Maris, "Well, right down at the microscopic level cyanotypes, Van Dykes, platinotypes, gum bichromates, etc do emerge from the sensitised surfaces of individual substrate fibres", is not really what your bombastic previous post asserts.

So your argument is basically the old one that only photographers can appreciate photographs?

[Maris]

"Lachlan717"]

Photography is not ink-jet printing, monitor displays, or picture-making done any-which-way, "different" is not "the same". Photographs come into existence via the light sensitivity of the materials of which they are made and as a consequence they claim a unique relationship to subject matter and offer a unique relationship to the discerning viewer.

Obviously, I think that our opinions differ, as I think this is bullshit.

You could be right. I may have made a logical error somewhere. Perhaps I've offered an idea I can't support. Or you have insights that simply have not occured to me. In any case a critique from you could offer a learning experience for me and anybody else fortunate (unfortunate?) enough to encounter this thread.

I also take umbrage at your assertion about "discerning viewers". What a pompous claim.

I'm not sure what's pompous about viewers who have a deep understanding of what they are looking at. But there is also a case for blank-minded viewers. At least they come to a viewing without any prior mental baggage to prejudice their responses. My experience suggests in most cases they finish as blank as they started.

Your theory falls apart when digital negatives are considered. Captured on "light sensitive" film, processed via Photoshop, ink-jet printed onto clear base and then contact printed onto "light sensitive" media. You would have no way of knowing that a contact print was from a good digital negative, no matter how "descerning" you believe you are.

I'd suggest the final photograph "doesn't care" what sort of subject matter is presented to it. Remember, a digital negative, a film negative, and in general any lump of stuff that modulates light can be subject matter as far as the final light sensitive substrate is concerned. It's just not common in informal speech to call negatives (digital or film) subject matter but that's the actual role they play for the final exposure.

The point about a photograph of a digital negative being potentially indistinguishable from a photograph of a film negative is important. Digital methods can fabricate any electronic file that can be imagined. In exchange for this power and versatility picture-making linked to digital technology bears the same mistrust as paintings and drawings. Put glibly this is: "Never existed, didn't happen, never looked like that". In the wrong hands this could lead to a problematic art where "success" is redefined as "successful deception".

[Maris]

="Ray Heath"]Maris, "Well, right down at the microscopic level cyanotypes, Van Dykes, platinotypes, gum bichromates, etc do emerge from the sensitised surfaces of individual substrate fibres", is not really what your bombastic previous post asserts.

If my previous post implied that photographic light sensitive layers are planographic in nature like lithography plates, all surface and no depth, then I'm wrong. Thanks for setting me right.

So your argument is basically the old one that only photographers can appreciate photographs?

I didn't know I made that argument but I wish I had. It's a good one. From interacting with hundreds of people at scores of photographic exhibitions my strong impression is that active photographers know more, think more, see more, and get a far richer aesthetic experience out of a row of photographs on a wall than a group of painters would. And vice versa. My mind tells me that water-colour landscapes are a worthy business but I just can't get interested in them while good film and good cameras are available.

[Ray Heath]

But Maris what about narrative, and emotional connection, and appreciation of beauty?

Surely photography is more than technique, materials and equipment.

But to re-address Andrew's original post;
the original question pre-supposes that other forms of photography are art. This I'd argue with.

Not all painting is art, nor are all sculptures art, so not all photographs are art, but some could be.

[Walter Glover]

Not all painting is art, nor are all sculptures art, so not all photographs are art, but some could be.

Ray,

We sing from the same song sheet.

[Maris]

Not all painting is art, nor are all sculptures art, so not all photographs are art, but some could be.

Ray,

We sing from the same song sheet.

Me too I reckon. If I mention I'm an artist I get asked "Oh, what do you paint"? If I say I make photographs then I get asked if photography is really an art. And my stock reply is NO, photography is not art. It is a medium like many others in which it is possible, but not guaranteed, to do art.

[Walter Glover]

Good grief!! We are 75% of a barbershop quartet.

[Ian David]

Of course hybrid (or totally digital) workflows can produce art. I do have an extra interest in traditional photography, so that an image-as-object produced through wholly analogue methods will often have greater appeal to me than the same image-as-object turned out via an inkjet printer.
But I certainly enjoy looking at, and regularly draw inspiration from, engaging images no matter how they were produced.

Happy new year all!

Ian