making pictures ~ one way or another
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 03:29PM 
Maggie with Maggie Parts ~ illustration for portfolio • click to embiggen
Brahms To Blues • click to embiggenIn the medium of photography, there are two kinds of picture makers. Those who make pictures as opposed to those who take pictures. The difference between the two, of course, is in the making.
Those who make pictures are generally considered to be "serious" amateur/pro picture makers, while those who take pictures are generally considered to be snapshot picture makers. The former expend a fair amount of thought and effort together with technique / craft in the making of their pictures, most often in the pursuit of creating art (Decorative or Fine). The later are true point-and-shoot practitioners whose primary motivation is to create memories.
However, within the ranks of "serious" picture makers, there are also (IMO and that of many others) 2 kinds of picture makers - those who make pictures of the found/seen variety and those who make pictures of the world inside their heads. For the former, think Henri Cartier-Bresson - although the found/seen is much broader than just HC-B's "street" work, to include referents such as landscape and nature. For the later, think Jeff Wall (or closer to [my] home, think of my son, The Cinemascapist) - once again, the picture the world inside your head camp is broader than Wall/Hobson-the-younger style work, to include genres such as still life to name just one.
In my mind, and once again that of many others, the best discriptive difference between the 2 "serious" picture making camps is to state that the found/seen practitioners make pictures which are often considered to be Art whereas those who make pictures of the world inside their heads make images - using the medium of photography and its apparatus - which are also often considered to be Art. The first camp's practitioners consider themselves to be photographers, aka: picture makers. The second camp's practitioners consider themselves to be artists first and foremost, and, most often, emphatically not photographers.
In my picture making life, I have, on numerous occasions, ventured into the camp of artist using the medium of photography and its apparatus to make images which would not necessarily be considered to be photographs in the strictest sense. In many cases, the work was for commercial clients. Two examples thereof accompany this entry.
At first glance, the first image, Maggie and Maggies Parts, looks less like a photograph than the second image, Brahms to Blues*. However, Brahms to Blues is a hand-colored BW photo of the Gibson guitar merged with a background picture of rice paper (the shadow was computer generated). The original print - on fiber-based matte paper - looks more like a photo-realist painting / illustration than a photograph.
It should be noted that, as the work of Wall and Hobson-the-younger demonstrates, images made in the artist using the medium of photography and its apparatus to make images genre do not have look like painting / illustrations. In fact, most often, those images appear to be regulation photographs, no matter the manner of their making. It is also worth noting that, despite the fact that many artist using the medium of photography and its apparatus to make images genre images (which appear to be regulation photographs but, in fact, are complete "fabrications") do, nevertheless, address very real truths.
I haven't delved much into the artist using the medium of photography and its apparatus to make images genre of late. One notable exception has been my recent life without the APA series - body of work I intend to keep expanding.
Have any of you delved into the artist using the medium of photography and its apparatus to make images genre?
*One of 8 images made for the Pittsburgh Symphony.
Reader Comments (1)
You seem to suggest there is a dichotomy: the "found/seen" and the "inside their heads" picture makers, but it seems to me these are the extremes of a continuum. "What is real" is obviously in the first camp, but isn't the picture maker that uses Photoshop beyond curves and balance, IE modifying picture elements... what most would call "photoshopping", really just moving from the real to the imagined?
It certainly is not correct to present photos as being real or documentary that have been manipulated, but what about the concept of "artistic license"? Isn't that just a step toward "inside the head"?