Comments on: Score and performance http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:34:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-737 Karl Zipser Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:25:17 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-737 John, I am fascinated by what you are doing. I will look more carefully at your pictures. I looked quickly before in order to reply to your comment. -K John,

I am fascinated by what you are doing. I will look more carefully at your pictures. I looked quickly before in order to reply to your comment.

-K

]]> By: John Joannides http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-735 John Joannides Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:48:28 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-735 "The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position." Interesting you should say that. Much of that hair, bottom right quarter, is from another photograph. Same girl, different hair growth, combing etc. I clearly failed in my attempt at subtle integration as your subconscious picked up on "hair". “The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position.”

Interesting you should say that. Much of that hair, bottom right quarter, is from another photograph. Same girl, different hair growth, combing etc. I clearly failed in my attempt at subtle integration as your subconscious picked up on “hair”.

]]> By: Colin http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-734 Colin Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:31:55 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-734 There is a sense in which <i>most</i> photographs are linked to a moment in time. The exceptions are Paul's long moments, and photos taken with scanning backs which are very much not single moments. With some genres of photography the momentness is extremely important (hence 'the decisive moment'). However, in many areas the connection with a moment is trivial. For example I visited a particular location at least weekly for ten months in a project just ended. The photographs that I was making toward the end of that project were still fractions of a second - a particular moment - but they were also distillations of those ten months. Post processing time is also not an irrelevance. If a photographer is using that time to perfect an initial visualisation, then it doesn't matter whether the processing takes seconds or years. But if a photographer is creating something new from the base of the negative or raw file, then the connection to any original moment weakens. Further, it is routine for photographers to combine images in processing. This may be to use pictorial elements from more than one original, but it is increasingly likely to be done to use different tonal elements from more than one original. Are these photos connected to one moment, or two, or more. Or is the momentness an irrelevance? A photograph can be heavily tied to a particular moment, but there are significant exceptions such that there is no identifiable moment at all. And there are many types of photo where the connection is trivial, or irrelevant, or a confusing way of thinking of the resulting artwork. There is a sense in which most photographs are linked to a moment in time.

The exceptions are Paul’s long moments, and photos taken with scanning backs which are very much not single moments.

With some genres of photography the momentness is extremely important (hence ‘the decisive moment’). However, in many areas the connection with a moment is trivial. For example I visited a particular location at least weekly for ten months in a project just ended. The photographs that I was making toward the end of that project were still fractions of a second - a particular moment - but they were also distillations of those ten months.

Post processing time is also not an irrelevance. If a photographer is using that time to perfect an initial visualisation, then it doesn’t matter whether the processing takes seconds or years. But if a photographer is creating something new from the base of the negative or raw file, then the connection to any original moment weakens. Further, it is routine for photographers to combine images in processing. This may be to use pictorial elements from more than one original, but it is increasingly likely to be done to use different tonal elements from more than one original. Are these photos connected to one moment, or two, or more. Or is the momentness an irrelevance?

A photograph can be heavily tied to a particular moment, but there are significant exceptions such that there is no identifiable moment at all. And there are many types of photo where the connection is trivial, or irrelevant, or a confusing way of thinking of the resulting artwork.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-733 Karl Zipser Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:13:15 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-733 A photograph is usually linked to a short moment in time, less than a second. Not always. The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position. If I were drawing this person from life, it would take at minimum five minutes to draw these details. To render then with a similar degree of detail as in the photo would require painting over a longer period of time. The subject would change in that time, if only in position. Remeber, this discussion only makes sense considering the relative time scales of capturing information from the light in painting versus photography. The post-processing time is not the issue, I think. Or else you still need to convince me. I'm interested believe me. A photograph is usually linked to a short moment in time, less than a second. Not always.

The picture you link to above is linked to a moment in time. A week later, the subject could have a haircut. A minute later, the wind could blow her hair into a different position.

If I were drawing this person from life, it would take at minimum five minutes to draw these details. To render then with a similar degree of detail as in the photo would require painting over a longer period of time. The subject would change in that time, if only in position.

Remeber, this discussion only makes sense considering the relative time scales of capturing information from the light in painting versus photography. The post-processing time is not the issue, I think. Or else you still need to convince me. I’m interested believe me.

]]> By: John Joannides http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-732 John Joannides Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:00:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-732 Yes, so it is the speed of the initial capture that ties the work to a moment in time yet so much of my work takes weeks of visiting and revisiting to create. There is also often no intent on my part to capture a particular moment. To say that a photograph is always linked to a moment in time because of the mechanics of light hitting a sensor is to bring unfair generalisation to a whole genre of art. It is also a generalisation that is not true or, at the very least, is meaningless. The question, "what moment in time is Colin's leaf image tied to?" can only really return the answer "the moment in time that the shutter was released". It means very little. Then take this image: http://www.makingimages.co.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=221 The negative was captured on a photo sensor. Then weeks of work and of thinking and of changing and of trying/learning new techniques were applied to eventually create the image. Light was captured in an instant as physical fact but the image is no more tied to that small part of the creative process than it is to any other part. Yes, so it is the speed of the initial capture that ties the work to a moment in time yet so much of my work takes weeks of visiting and revisiting to create. There is also often no intent on my part to capture a particular moment. To say that a photograph is always linked to a moment in time because of the mechanics of light hitting a sensor is to bring unfair generalisation to a whole genre of art. It is also a generalisation that is not true or, at the very least, is meaningless. The question, “what moment in time is Colin’s leaf image tied to?” can only really return the answer “the moment in time that the shutter was released”. It means very little.

Then take this image:

http://www.makingimages.co.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=221

The negative was captured on a photo sensor. Then weeks of work and of thinking and of changing and of trying/learning new techniques were applied to eventually create the image. Light was captured in an instant as physical fact but the image is no more tied to that small part of the creative process than it is to any other part.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-731 Karl Zipser Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:46:16 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-731 "An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms." Let's take the statement in context then. We have a painter, Dan Bodner, discussing the creation of images. Relative to painting or drawing, which are processes that develop images over a potentially long period of time, and which may refer to no particular time in their subject matter, photographs are almost instantaneous in capturing light coming in the camera at that moment. I cannot think of a tighter connection to a moment in time than that. True, Colin escapes the feeling of the moment in his leaf. This is an intentional use of photography to escape the connection to a particular moment. If there were a drop of water in the picture, and this drop of water reflected a cloudy sky, then the element of time would enter the photo more explicitly. “An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms.”

Let’s take the statement in context then. We have a painter, Dan Bodner, discussing the creation of images. Relative to painting or drawing, which are processes that develop images over a potentially long period of time, and which may refer to no particular time in their subject matter, photographs are almost instantaneous in capturing light coming in the camera at that moment. I cannot think of a tighter connection to a moment in time than that.

True, Colin escapes the feeling of the moment in his leaf. This is an intentional use of photography to escape the connection to a particular moment. If there were a drop of water in the picture, and this drop of water reflected a cloudy sky, then the element of time would enter the photo more explicitly.

]]> By: John Joannides http://artandperception.com/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-730 John Joannides Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:22:32 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/10/score-and-performance.html#comment-730 “A photograph is always linked to a moment in time, the moment it was taken.” An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms. Sure there are likely many photographs where the moment in time they were created can be linked to the image but there are also many, many images that are not linked in any meaningful way to a moment in time that they were taken. To justify the statement one will have to provide “evidence” of the moment in time one is speaking. Take Colin’s leaf. What moment in time was that then? Well, it’s in colour, that leaves out a few million years of the past but speaking within the context of this forum there is no identifiable “moment” as far as I can tell. Certainly no definition of the word moment that cannot also be applied to a memory transferred to canvas. If the statement actually refers to the mechanical and technological “quickness” that photography affords us for grabbing negatives as partially filled canvases then it’s the same argument as saying that speed of work ties the work to a moment. I don’t see it. “A photograph is always linked to a moment in time, the moment it was taken.”

An interesting statement, but ultimately meaningless if taken in general terms. Sure there are likely many photographs where the moment in time they were created can be linked to the image but there are also many, many images that are not linked in any meaningful way to a moment in time that they were taken.

To justify the statement one will have to provide “evidence” of the moment in time one is speaking. Take Colin’s leaf. What moment in time was that then? Well, it’s in colour, that leaves out a few million years of the past but speaking within the context of this forum there is no identifiable “moment” as far as I can tell. Certainly no definition of the word moment that cannot also be applied to a memory transferred to canvas.

If the statement actually refers to the mechanical and technological “quickness” that photography affords us for grabbing negatives as partially filled canvases then it’s the same argument as saying that speed of work ties the work to a moment. I don’t see it.

]]>