This is the fun of a listserv: we all get to piggyback onto each other's discussions! woo hoo.
my 2 cents: When you talk about the age of an image adding to its "aura", I think you are touching on one of the fundamental elements that makes photography different from other art, specifically painting. Photography was looked at as the "painting killer", or the killer app of the 19th-century art world, because of its ability to seemingly record exactly what was in front of it when the lenscap was removed and the exposure was made. Of course, this is a fallacy (you as the photographer are making a very subjective record of the event/scene by choosing where to stand, what to point your camera at, and when to make the exposure), but the artifact produced--the photographic print-- has an air of authoritative recording that gains further legitimacy as an "objective record" with the addition of time. This is one reason we are fascinated by Brady's Civil War images, or Frith's Egyptian prints: because (to us) they show a scene that is no longer there, something that was one, but is no more. Any art form can do this, but since photography has the illusion of truth behind it, we treasure the old photos, and raise them up as true artifacts of an age, a place, a moment in time.
Digital images have this as well, but we're not removed enough from them in time to look back at them and view them through the sentimental lens of history. ABC news ran a report last night (2/8) on how digital images are edited (deleted) on the fly if they don't appear to be relevant to the news assignment, and are therefore lost to history. All our future historians will see are the ones that "made the cut", not the ones that the shooter made, that at the time seemed superfluous, but perhaps in 10, 50, 100 years might have some significance. The story was rather short, and sort of flaky on the details, but it raised an interesting point. With analog images, those negatives of the shots are still around, and can be mined for historical "truth" later.
In other words, AZ, you are right: the material record adds legitimacy, even though it may be only an illusion (look at the "photoshopping" Stalin's photographer had to do!)
-Alan Bucknam
p.s. AZ, i hope you didn't mind me sticking my nose in ;) -ab
On Feb 9, 2004, at 7:31 AM, rand flory wrote:
----- Original Message -----------------
From: "Alan Zinn" <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>
| Rand,
|
| Side to side comparisons will turn up pluses for each mode depending on
| use. I think before making a comparison between digital and film
| photography you need to go back to basics. I've given a lot of thought to
| this lately because too many discussions of digital v. film completely
| ignore THE important distinction. That is that digital is a virtual
record
| and film is a material record. The very idea of photography (call it it's
| mystique) is in large-part based on the materiality of its record. For me
| the distinction is essential to how to think about art photography.
|
| AZ
|
Alan,
What an intriguing reply! The mystique is based on the materiality of the
record. That is an interesting concept.
I can almost understand that concept when thinking about old photographs
that have survived from years ago. The delicate nature of their very
existence does seem to add to their aura. I am having a conceptual problem
understanding how it applies to art photography. Would you care to put forth
more of your thoughts? You have certainly captured my interest with your
note.
pax,
rand
<x-tad-smaller>notchcode creative services, llc
3300 ingalls st.
wheat ridge, colorado 80033
303.915.5459 tel.
303.238.0598 fax.
www.notchcode.com
AIM handle: notchcode</x-tad-smaller>
