[ Retour index ancien forum | Sommaire / retour index général | | ]
De: cfrot
Date: 14 Aug 2001
Time: 10:14:26
Remote Name: 195.154.157.34
Bien qu'il soit en anglais, ce texte de Sullivan est assez interressant et merite qu'on s'y arrete. Il s'inscrit bien dans le debat sur le numerique et la haute resolution
Christophe
********************************************** I give lectures, talks and demos frequently on alt-photo. Lately the question that comes up is "Why do you go to all of that trouble when you
can do the same thing on an ink-jet printer?" Aside from the issue of permanence, I think there is a deeper issue here.
Excuse me if this starts to sounding like post-modern woo woo. Well actually it won't be too PM, but I guarantee some woo woo for you. I have tinkered with some of these ideas here before but let me try again.
I've recently started a couple of my talks by explaining that I had knowledge of an unpublished report that someone had recently found some
photographic prints made by Leonardo Da Vinci. They were found by accident in a leather folder in the Vatican Library. Those in the audience who were not photographically hip just nodded. ("Ok, so what?") The hipper folks
looked totally startled. ("REALLY???")
Had I said that they were ink jet prints, the ruse would never had worked. The idea of Leonardo's photographic prints came off immediately as real, or at least plausible. Why? Well it is both obvious and not so obvious.
For instance, there are any number of folks here on the list who if they
did a little boning up before hand, could jump into their local time machine and visit Leonardo. They could set him up and train him for making photographic prints within a few months. Camera making was within the skills of any good woodworker. A lens within the skills of a spectacle maker. Glass plates no problem. Collodion, silver nitrate, and other stuff for making and developing negatives were in the realm of the local alchemist/pharmacist. Likewise for the materials for making and toning salt prints. Thus there is nothing implausible about Leonardo making photographs, the only question was, was there enough genius in that one
man to put it all together. If you know anything about Leonardo you would likely say "yes," or at the least:"possibly."
The issue here is one of "technological depth." I would even venture to
say that if one had a bit more knowledge, this could have pulled this off in Dynastic Egypt! The technology is shallow enough for that to have happened, only the cultural mind set was missing to explore and support the making of permanent photographic images.
The second issue is one of "authenticity." Here's my take on this:
I have a acquaintance named Ellen Kahn who is a printer, paper maker, and platinum printer. She has a firm called Fakesimile. Yes, "fake." She makes duplicates of historic documents for display, etc. some are of children's drawings from Auschwitz, some are of Jefferson's writings at Monticello, etc. She makes duplicate paper and makes platinum copies. They look real as hell. But they are not real. I would get goose bumps holding a piece of paper that Jefferson had written on, but these did not have the same magic. They are not authentic.
Ellen's copies are not photographs in the sense that we normally think of photographs .There are really platinum printed photo copies. Real photographs have 3 levels of authenticity., maybe more for now, 3, I want to discuss. There are some on the list who could probably list a dozen but I am not too good at philosophical issues like this.
1. The image is real. Or at least we tend to think of it as "real." Jackson's photographs of the West had tremendous impact. It's debatable,
but some say the impact was far in excess of the paintings brought back from the West. How real is real is another issue, but for now let's accept that reality for the moment.
Level 2 is who made it. A signed print made by Cunningham vs one of Ron Partridge's Foundation prints. The first is worth many times the second.
Level 3, and this is where we tie into the first issue of technological depth. I contend that the depth of technology involved directly impacts the print's authenticity. How close is the maker to the object. Is the image
fly-by-wire or hands on?
Why do we still sign by pen and ink type printed letters? We sign them to authenticate them and to make them real. Pen and ink is more authentic than letters made by depressed keys because there is less depth and the object therefore becomes closer to the person making it. Why is an signed letter by Princess Diana worth more at auction than an email message. Or better
yet, what is the value of a hand written note written and signed by her vs a secretarially typed one that was signed? The issue of industrial age multiples has been discussed since the 1930's but it is still a valid issue, especially when it comes to alt-photo. I once owned but later sold, a Whistler etching that had one of his inky thumb prints in the margin. If I found an inky thumb print in the margin of an ink et print that had somehow worked its way through all of the megabits, the bytes, and circuitry of the computer and then managed to find its way out through the picoliter droplets of the ink jet printer, it wouldn't be quite the same.
As we become more and more machine age (or is it really cyber age now?) oriented, I think we will come to appreciate the "authentic ness" of an image more.
MIND GAME: Supposed someone puts a computer and an ink jet printer in a big box in the mall. You come by and drop a quarter in the slot and 10 minutes later out pops a beautiful Iris print.
Hey that's cool!
Now suppose instead of an Iris printer and computer in the box, there is a real live platinum printer in the box. (I suspect some here would prefer a "bigwig New Mexico Republican" but our biggest is off smoking some weed right now! ) Ok, now you put a quarter in it and you sit back and wait a
bit. You hear some brushing sounds, then a hair dryer, some buzzing of light ballasts, some water splashing, and the whir of a fan. One hour later out pops a finely made platinum print signed in the margin by the printer/ photographer.
Which print is more authentic? Which one contains more of the essence of
the artist/photographer.print maker in it?
Both analogies are clearly doable. If the two were for sale in a gallery
side by side the difference is not so evident. This I propose is partially due to the marketing razzmatazz surrounding the images, but in the setting I described, there to me is clearly a difference.
I think there is some leeway in amount of dilution that technological depth can have on a print's authenticity but at some point there is a catastrophic edge where the fall-off accelerates. Photographs may have the edge here over "real" art due to the "reality" imparted by the photographic nature of the image.
I think that idea of technological depth has some effect on a print's uniqueness, and more to the point, it directly relates to the issue I have been calling "authenticity." The deeper the technology the less the authenticity.
Recently, while my back was turned, I overheard a conversation by two gallery owners at an opening . These were galleries that sell works on paper.. The conversation was initiated by one of the speakers with the statement: "If I see another Iris Photoshop print......"
Saturation seems to be happening.
One last question: "Who's going to let the poor bastard out of the box?"
--Dick Sullivan **************************************
Vous êtes sur le forum de discussion du site www.galerie-photo.com
Le forum actuel est ici : http://www.galerie-photo.info/forum