Photography Reborn: Image Making in the Digital Era

[johnastovall]

Photography Reborn: Image Making in the Digital Era by Jonathan Lipkin, Abrams Publishing, 2005

In my last review, we looked at Szarkowski’s The Photographer’s Eye where he enunciated five elements unique to a photograph.

Lipkin shows that digital photography has ended these unique elements and placed photography more in the realm of the painter than the mechanic. The image is no longer limited by ‘The thing itself’ when then thing maybe just an algorithm in a computer. The image isn’t limited to ‘The Frame’ as we can add what ever we want to the image. As David Hockey said, “Computer manipulation means it’s no longer possible to believe a photograph represents a specific object in a specific space at a specific time – to believe it is objective and ‘true’”

We find here the digital work of Nancy Burson where portraits of famous beauties of the ‘50’s and ‘80’s are merged to show a composite idea of beauty for those times. The Haverhill2000 project in which the 2000 people in the village of Haverhill England were photographed and then blended into a face, which represents the village. Kyoke Date is introduced a Japanese idoru pop star who is just a digital image. Beyond this is Webbie Tookay, the first purely computer generated model to be represented by an agency.

There is a chapter ‘The Indecisive Moment’ where many instants become one in the digital photograph.

I have found this book to be such a source of new ideas for looking at what can be done and even more how to step out of the frame and think digital rather than analogue about images, I’ve got a copy on order, as this one has to go back to UTSA.

[TXhummer2]

Thanks!

[johnastovall]

Another photographer's work found there I was impressed with was Daniel Lee's Manimals series.

I just found a link to his site and the Manimals images.

When looking at his work, I feel I'm seeing the characters in a Cordwainer Smith story.

[kenw]

"Lipkin shows that digital photography has ended these unique elements and placed photography more in the realm of the painter than the mechanic."

I have long felt this way. As one who traces his lineage thru numerous generations of artists, I find that digital photography has freed me from the tedium of mastering a technique. Yes, one must still master a number of techniques, but since digital provides a faster feedback, learning is faster. And in my case, some actually sticks. imho....

photography by its technical nature seems to be dominated by the technicians (aka mechanics) rather than the artists. alas, the technical side of photography is easier to understand by most people, and lacking creativity, empowers some to a feeling of superiority.

I suspect it is true for most mediums. There are many "water color artists" in the world who can quote all sorts of technical rules, own only the best brushes, use only the most superior papers ad nauseum, but their output is creatively void. Then there are those that can create masterpieces with a single Hobby Lobby 10/$1 brush on butcher paper.....

as for me (and probably not everyone):
show me the results; i don't give a rat's @$$ what glass you used, the $$ your camera body cost or even if it is film or digital.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by kenw

"Lipkin shows that digital photography has ended these unique elements and placed photography more in the realm of the painter than the mechanic."

I have long felt this way. As one who traces his lineage thru numerous generations of artists, I find that digital photography has freed me from the tedium of mastering a technique. Yes, one must still master a number of techniques, but since digital provides a faster feedback, learning is faster. And in my case, some actually sticks. imho....

photography by its technical nature seems to be dominated by the technicians (aka mechanics) rather than the artists. alas, the technical side of photography is easier to understand by most people, and lacking creativity, empowers some to a feeling of superiority.

I suspect it is true for most mediums. There are many "water color artists" in the world who can quote all sorts of technical rules, own only the best brushes, use only the most superior papers ad nauseum, but their output is creatively void. Then there are those that can create masterpieces with a single Hobby Lobby 10/$1 brush on butcher paper.....

as for me (and probably not everyone):
show me the results; i don't give a rat's @$$ what glass you used, the $$ your camera body cost or even if it is film or digital.

Another interesting thing Lipkin point out the names for digital tools are more in keeping with tradition artist terms, brushes, palettes, eraser, canvas, etc..

Very interesting book on cutting edge digital photography/imaging/graphics or what ever it is we do when we manipulate those ones and zeros.

[Duffy Pratt]

I will have to give this book a second look. I browsed through it the other day, and thought there were great pictures. But I also thought that he tried to cover "everything,' so I was skeptical about how well he could deal with any individual aspect. In general, I no longer have much use for books that try to be comprehensive.

On the art/technique axis. I like to think of photographers as artisans in the older sense. Of course, it has a toe in the fine arts, but so much of photography is a matter of craft. On this subject, Gordon Willis said, "Art is the painstaking devotion to craft."

And as long as I'm throwing around profound, but probably useless quotes, my acting teacher (Brad Dourif) would tell us again and again that "Talent is the ability to become involved."

Duffy

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

I will have to give this book a second look. I browsed through it the other day, and thought there were great pictures. But I also thought that he tried to cover "everything,' so I was skeptical about how well he could deal with any individual aspect. In general, I no longer have much use for books that try to be comprehensive.

On the art/technique axis. I like to think of photographers as artisans in the older sense. Of course, it has a toe in the fine arts, but so much of photography is a matter of craft. On this subject, Gordon Willis said, "Art is the painstaking devotion to craft."

And as long as I'm throwing around profound, but probably useless quotes, my acting teacher (Brad Dourif) would tell us again and again that "Talent is the ability to become involved."

Duffy

It takes on a more interesting aspect if you read in in parallel with The Photographer’s Eye and see where the five aspects fall apart in a digitial world.

It's not a book of technique or history but rather a fast montage of ideas about what digital images can say and represent.

"Craft and science aim more at the reproducable aspects of the work: the techniques, sanctioned by tradition or empirical study, that lead to predictable results. But art is an endeavor that seeks the particular and individual..."
Otis A. Tomas - ...On Craft, Science, and Art