Panel Discussion

Earlier this year I was invited by colleague Jim Cook to participate in an exhibition of landscape imagery at the Edwardsville Art Center (IL). It's a relatively new gallery and the show was very nicely mounted and pleasantly received. I submitted some inkjet images (which I now call Pigment Prints) of clouds.



The artists were invited to participate in a panel discussion entitled “Digital Media and the Artist: Artists, photographers and others who have made the transition from traditional media to the computer will discuss how digital media has changed their artwork, work processes and more."

The panelists were:

James Cook: Curator and Graphic Designer & Web Developer
Steve Brown: Professor of Photography/Digital Arts SIUE
Jerry Naunheim, Jr.: News & Freelance Photographer
Barbara Nwacha: Professor of Graphic Design At SIUE
Pat Quinn: Digital Artist & Photographer
Richard Sprengeler: Architectural and Landscape Photographer
and myself

The discussion was informally led by Center Director Reneé Johnson and about 50 people attended. I can't give you a blow by blow description of all that was said, but I thought I would provide the somewhat provocative list of questions we were provided in advance, and my notes on how I would respond.

• Are digital works “art?”

What makes a work of creativity “Art” is subject to a variety of analyses, but common among them is the “directedness” of the author. This relates to the intention of those who aspire to create expressions of their psyche, often to be shared by others in gallery, museum or published venues.

Even the “snapshot” or accidental photograph is revered as a form of personal expression. While not intended to be elevated to gallery status by the person making it, the directedness of those who attribute value to the image can complete cycle and manifest an appreciation for the work.

“Art is innate in the artist, like an instinct that seizes and makes a tool out of the human being. The thing in the final analysis that wills something in him is not he, the personal man, but the aim of the art.” Carl Jung

• Does the computer foster or inhibit creativity?

Yes.

It's both. Just as for someone who draws, a blank page can inhibit creativity; while the act of drawing can liberate the spirit.

• Has the computer “democratized” photography and art?

Simplicity of operation was a goal of George Eastman with the introduction of the Kodak camera in 1888 (“You push the button, we do the rest.") Digital cameras and desktop computers have eliminated the need for chemical darkrooms. Photography has never been easier, yet its potential for producing masterful images has never greater.



• Does the computer undermine our traditional understanding of what is art and who is an artist?

What one accomplishes with the tools of photography is less a product of the tools than the motivation behind them. I am reminded of an interesting story about Edward Steichen. While traveling in Greece in 1921, Steichen had the unexpected opportunity to photograph the famous dancer Isadora Duncan at the Acropolis. Somehow, the story goes, Steichen was without his camera equipment. He borrowed a Kodak camera from the headwaiter of his hotel and made photographs of Duncan and of her adopted daughter Thérèse, including this one which he called "Wind Fire".


So keep your wits about you and an open mind and any tools at hand can be employed to further your expression.

• Is the cost of setting up and maintaining a digital photo studio (as opposed to a traditional one) a significant barrier to entry for new artists?

The expense of fine quality digital camera and an excellent laptop is smaller than a darkroom and all the accoutrements that are necessary for processing film and enlarging and chemically developing prints.

• Is the quality of digital equipment high enough for professional standards?

A consumer camera of 10MP can easily approach the print quality of a medium format Hasselblad film camera.

• Are digital photos “honest?”

Is photography honest? Certainly, photographs are “traces” of actual light reflecting from subjects, but the approach of the photographer is persuasive in the outcome of the image.

Photographers constantly explore two windows of modification: position in space, and moment in time. Spatial qualities include the camera position to the subject (high angle, low angle, horizontal, vertical, near, far, etc.) or the choice of lens (normal, wide angle, telephoto): all of which determine which parts of the subject are not only included, but which are excluded from the composition. Depth of field contols limited or extensive focus.

Temporal qualities derive from the idea that the image represents a slice of time; eliminating from the viewer the opportunity to know what occurred just prior to or just after the moment of exposure. A secondary element of time is the duration of the exposure; a long exposure inducing motion related to picture elements (or to the photographer), and a short exposure freezing action. Either direction extends human vision which is limited by the persistance of vision of the retina where an image is perceived for about 1/16th of a second.

The question that is implied is, "As artists is it legitimate to utilize the advantages that digital tools provide?"

Here's an interesting quote from Steve Gubin, a San Diego photographer:

“NOTE: The only post-processing used on these images involve traditional darkroom procedures (cropping, contrast, and sepia or selenium tint) in Adobe Lightroom.”

Now, isn't that like saying, “In respect to the traditions of transportation, I did not use any internal combustion engines to transport myself to this gathering.”

• Should digital works mimic traditional ones?

Why or why not? What is the intention of the artist?

• What is or should be the role of the computer in art education?

Learning in the arts should be open and encompassing to all modes of expression. Artists should be allowed to use the tools of their choice to accomplish their goals, whether carving clay with a spoon or fashioning movie clips with a cell phone.

• • • • •

Coincidental to this panel discussion, there is an exhibition opening at the Sheldon of the work of John Gossage who still uses film and produces silver gelatin prints. But as most photographers who wish to continue with older techniques will find, materials are becoming more scarce and difficult to locate.

I have concocted a project for myself using a 4 x 5 camera and traditional color film. When ordering film from a major photo supply house I found only two manufacturers and each provided only one color negative film (in two flavors: Daylight and Tungsten). Furthermore, photo giant Eastman Kodak no longer manufactures any B/W gelatin silver paper.

But this reality should not surprise anyone with longevity in the field of photography. It hasn't been so long ago that Resin Coated print paper was introduced (1970s--well, it doesn't seem so long to me), and 80% of the choices in fiber-base print material disappeared overnight. The availability of photo materials is driven by market pressures, and fine art photography represents only a minuscule segment of that market.