picture by Deborah ~ object-ification
Monday, June 20, 2011 at 10:17AM 
picture by Deborah • click to embiggenIn the past I have commented upon the idea of printed pictures as objects, in and of themselves - in a sense, independent of what is pictured. That is, the print itself as an object of beauty.
IMO, the making of finely crafted prints is an integral part of making pictures. As Sir Ansel stated, the negative is the score, the print is the performance. I am in total agreement with that statement, to the point of suggesting if you don't make prints, you're shooting blanks, so to speak.
The idea of prints as (crafted) objects recently came to mind when I received an email, with images attached, from a Landscapist follower by the name of Deborah. In the email she stated, The oddest moments cause me to try and capture what I see and feel... Re: the attached pictures, she stated and asked, ... a little goofy, but tell me what you think.
My very first thought was I wished I could views prints of Deborah's pictures before making any judgement. The reason for that thought is based in my belief that, if you really care about what you see and then choose to picture, making a finely crafted print is the ultimate visual expression of your vision - what you saw and how you feel about it and, in the process, creating the oportunity of letting others in on your little secret.
Taking that idea a step further, IMO, making a finely crafted print is especially important if the fancy of your eye is found in the everyday experience of living, or, as Deborah stated, life's "...oddest moments".
Many a picture maker has gotten a free skate based upon just the visual strength of his/her pictured referent alone. Things like sunsets, majestic scenery, cute animals / kids, et al. Any minimally competently made print of such referents can pass as a good picture. IMO, it takes more than that to visually express, in a convincing fashion, your love of the everyday.
And that is why I make my prints to appear as finely crafted objects, an act of objectification. As the dictionary states, to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense.
So, in answer to Deborah's query, re: "tell me what you think", I like your picturing MO but I would like to see more craft and more respect for the medium's expressive possibilities by moving beyond the act of merely recording.
And a question for anyone - if you don't make prints, finely crafted or not, are you a "real" picture maker or just a shooter of snaps?
Reader Comments (2)
I think photography, like most technology, continues to evolve and that does not necessarily detract from older techniques but opens up new ways.
This reminds me of my music creating interest back 20 or 25 years ago. I was (still am) a pretty poor piano player but was at that time interested in creating music with a synthesizer. When I inquired about music lessons at a reputable music school they insisted that I needed to learn piano before I could learn to be a synthesist. Upon questioning this stance I was told "you must learn fundamentals of the traditional instrument first". After thinking about this it occurred to me that perhaps I really should learn the harpsichord, because that was the tradition before the piano forte.
The reality is that each technology has its own character and requires different skills. Sure there are shared knowledge and skills, but they are different.
Which is my long winded way of saying that in my opinion pictures on a computer screen do have value which you prove almost every day. It is not the same as a fine print, but it can be equally valid expression with-in the limitation of the medium, but it also has benefits.
There is another aspect to producing a print; in addition to it being an object, it also requires a certain amount of craft. But is a digital print as "worthy" as a print hand-made from a negative?
With proper calibration, there is little difference between an image displayed on a screen and an image displayed as a print.