civilized ku # 73 ~ a real triptych
Friday, January 4, 2008 at 09:51AM 
A 'natural' triptych • click to embiggenAnother 'benefit' of my recent presentation to the SPS (in addition to yesterday's entry about megapixels) was the experience of looking at a large number - about 40 - of my pictures as prints as opposed to images on a monitor screen. It should go without saying that the difference in the total viewing experience is enormous.
Unless, a monitor / screen is your chosen medium of expression, there is absolutely no substitute for viewing a photograph in a print format. 'Print format' includes books, posters, photographic prints and, in the case of a few artists, large print transparencies on a light box.
A monitor is a very poor media for viewing photographs. First and foremost there is the very real issue of issues of color, contrast, brightness and size. At best, all you can view is an approximation of the real deal. I really have to laugh at the idea of critiquing a photograph on an online forum. Any and all comments regarding color, contrast, brightness, hue / saturation, shadow / highlight detail, sharpness, etc. is simply speculative and totally provisional.
As to issues of meaning, narrative, truth, etc. - the connoted in a photograph, 2 issues prevail.
First, there are the aforementioned issues of visual approximations - in as much as these things both effect and affect your complete perceptual apparatus to a considerable degree, your ability to discern the connoted is indeed impaired.
Second, and perhaps most important, is the simple fact that the web, in and of itself, is not suited to the act of contemplation. Any picture created with the intent of communicating intelligent ideas that are worthy of attention, appreciation and investigation requires contemplation. It demands repeated and prolonged viewings. It needs to be 'lived' with. Then, and only then, can a more complete and varied 'understanding' of the picture be had - that meaning and truth that resides beyond / beneath the 'surface' of the picture.
That is why my New Year's resolution is this - to have, by the end of 2008 (at the very latest), an 'actual', not 'virtual', photo gallery operational and open to the public (over 1 million people a year visit my area). A photo gallery, not just for my work, but for the work of others who are attempting to create pictures that communicate intelligent ideas that are worthy of attention, appreciation and investigation.
More on this tomorrow.
The group of pictures to the right are the only pictures I presented via projection during my 'lecture' at the SPS. The reason for this was similar to the above mentioned 'issues'. I knew from prior experience that what these 
'Lecture' presentation images • click to embiggenpictures would look like projected was anyone's guess. It would depend entirely on room light, projector quality, the screen calibration of the laptop that ran the projection program, etc, etc.
True to form, they looked like crap. That is why they ran as 'wallpaper' during my 'lecture. Nothing in my 'lecture' depended upon an accurate perception of the pictures. I did provide a separate group of prints of these 12 pictures for viewing after the presentation so that the audience could see what they really looked like.
FYI, the group contains my 'best' photograph ever. Anyone care to venture a guess as to which one it is?
Reader Comments (21)
Yeah, I love the roadside flowers but I don't think I could dare venture a guess as to what you think your "best image ever" is Mark. I know I'm gonna enjoying reading your explanation though.
I'm also drawn to the butt and back prints in that green chair. Quite an immediacy to it.