Fall 2012 Tu/Th History of Photography

Photographs, made long ago, are silent testimonies of events distant from us in time and comprehension of captured reality. Even though they are not as strange to us as paintings or narratives they still are veiled from us by inability of technology to deliver clear, sharp, and color evidence. That is why we desperately try to restore old pictures, enhance theirs appearance, add color to make them appear more suitable for our perception of reality.

Well… if humans were only rational, without emotional attachments and requirements, that would be the only way to utilize old photographs. We are not! Sometimes we desire understanding of things on emotional level. We have quantified each time period by our emotional response and contributed to it different aspects of the time; old, grainy, reddish and cracked photo associated in my psyche to a time period when I was around 8 years of age. So how can I compare myself to my son on emotional level? I can either correct the old photo of me, or make a photo of my son look old. That is precisely what Mr. Bornfriend has been doing, taking old looking pictures of soldiers and “paralleling and contrasting” them to the previous war era.

For the same reason, with the same approach, photographers and artists are giving us a chance to evaluate on emotional level new items of clothing like “Converse. Still Life” or even electronic accessories like “Old style ad for Wii” (www.flickr.com/photos/idbehold/2340968011). It is fun to see it, touching and it speaks to our “right brain”.

In my opinion (and I might not be an artist enough to make a judgement like this), making portraits as an art on its own is the only time when the old process isn’t appropriate. It might be beneficial for the photographer to go through the trouble, but surely not for a model (especially if the model or viewer has no emotional attachments to the time period in style of which the photograph was taken). Such pictures appear to me as an attempt to divert my attention from otherwise tasteless composition to the frame, from the “face of the bride to her veil”. Sam Taylor-Wood has a good deal of respect towards specific things and people of specific time period, she adores pictures of them. But then, she tries to transform there herself by making an old style pictures of herself. I sense that Sam wants to say that she doesn’t belong here, in our present, among us. Well… there might be something to it, but I don’t really see her fitting well on such photograph.

Artists, regardless of their chosen medium, are always looking for inspiration and many times it’s found by looking back. Either through the past work of other artists or, as in this case, by reviving old techniques. I think the main reason photographers are now using these nineteenth-century processes is to create images that look and feel different than what is currently being produced by mainstream technologies. It’s a small rebellion against the digital era of photography. As stated in the New York Times article, “the technique has rewards that cannot be matched by any iPhone filter or modern camera.” Compared to digital, the wet-plate process is much more demanding of both the subject and the photographer, and it shows in the images. The long exposure time gives rise to poses and expressions one doesn’t usually see in modern photography. Once the image has been exposed the process requires the photographer to work quickly and get their hands dirty (using a variety of chemicals). In comparison to having digital images appear instantly on a camera screen, experiencing the excitement and anticipation of watching an image slowly appear before your eyes can seem almost magical.

After reading the article, When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye, written by Roberta Smith, where she expresses her opinion on taking pictures of pictures, i could not help but to agree with her. In this day and age, most people own cameras or at least an electronic device that has a camera installed on it. This is why it does not come as a surprise to me that when Smith visited the Venice Biennale this summer she seen numerous people using different types of cameras, especially cellphones. Many people prefer these devices because it allows them to keep up with social networks such as Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. Using a camera on a cellphone makes it must easier and faster to share what one is seeing with the world.

In my perspective taking pictures of pictures, depending on the way you take it, is a way of art. If one is taking a picture so that most of the detail, beauty, and essence of the art work is captured, that is art. I believe this is art because it allows others to see the art work from a different view giving them the opportunity to see it in a way they never seen it before. On the other hand if one is taking a picture of the art work to use it as a way of memory or as a way to say that they have been there that does not count as art. Taking a picture this way does not capture the real beauty of the art work because most of the time it is done in a rush.  In conclusion most people do use electronic devices to take pictures of pictures, and i do not see anything wrong with it, especially if they are sharing it with the world. Doing so just gives the world a chance to experience what that person is experiencing.

The camera has captured and documented countless significant events throughout history. From it’s earliest use in the 1800’s to now, people rely on the camera for multiple different uses. For example, it is used as a form of expression or “art” as some may call it, as a tool to document medical surgeries, and it’s most common use, an instrument used to take snapshots in the moment and have them as a recollection of memories for a life time.

In regard to this, I strongly agree with the renowned art critic, Roberta Smith and her opinions on the usage of cameras in relation to art. Art is something of true beauty and up until a few centuries ago, only something the human eye can capture. Now don’t get me wrong, taking a picture of another photograph isn’t art, but is more collectively known as photography appreciation. This appreciation of photography can clearly be seen at the Venice Biennale exhibit in Italy. This event is held every two years, so when it comes strolling into town, tourists, world renowned photographers and anyone fortunate enough to visit the exhibit are ready to capture the magnificent sight that is purely “art“. This is why it is essential to have cameras on our cellphones.

William Henry Talbot, photographing (or should I say calotyping) Articles of China started a new trend – use captured image not for aesthetic pleasure only, but for practical use as well. Nothing really changed since then: as soon as opportunity presents itself, we use camera to inventory our memories in order to remind ourselves of the past experiences and to share them with others. It doesn’t matter that the picture was taken with a cell phone, that it is blurry and with messed up white balance as long as it serves this purpose.

Roberta Smith is arguing that looking at the scene through the screen of the phone any different then looking at the scene through the viewfinder of SLR camera so much that it is “changing the look of photography”. Well… in my opinion it depends on what photography we are talking about. I don’t see any difference between collecting images of memories or images of China. Both inventories are not pieces of art, and so, it doesn’t really matter how that picture is acquired.

But even if we try to make the art out of the collection, like Bayard did in his Self-Portrait with Plaster Casts, neither of two cameras (daguerreotype or calotype) offered a SLR type viewfinder; so, by Roberta’s reasoning, the look of photography was changed long ago.

It is true though that SLR cameras produce better quality results, but when we speak of art, quality doesn’t always equal aesthetic appeal.