Peter Witkop
(K=3189) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
Jon,
I hope you're aware of the range of opinions (and opinions are the best you can hope for) you're going to to get ) From a technical perspective, scanning is not fudamentally differant from taking a digital photogrpah with a view camera and a scanning back, so from that perspective I'd say it is. But everyone's percise definition of what's a photograph varies a little. It's a little like asking what's art, it's most important what the artist thinks is art. Thats my take anyway )
Peter
|
|
|
|
Ray Heath
(K=4559) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
Jon, I agree with Peter, what the artist, you, thinks is the most important consideration, is it a photograph? is it art? is it something else? does it matter? the viewer will bring their own feelings, bias & preconceptions
|
|
|
|
This space for rent.
(K=313) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
By definition a scanner is a camera. A scanner is the digital equivalent of a film copy camera. The fundamentals of a scanner are identical to a hand held digital camera. Not much DOF, but the same.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
So if scanner art *is* a photograph, is it always art? I guess what I'm thinking is that if we could divide photographs up into those created as artistic statements - that is, with the conscious aim of creating a work containing artistic merit, intended to be viewed as works of art - and those created primarily as a photographic record (in which in which artistic merit may exist but is secondary to the informational and evidential aspect of the record) then would a scanner photograph - because of the way it is created - by definition always be a composition in which artistic merit is the primary purpose?
I don't know where I'm going with this.... just interested in how people see the whole process and where it all ends up, ultimately.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Peter Witkop
(K=3189) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
Well Jon, since you brought up the question of photography and art, and I need to take a break from studying for an exam (ok I'll be honest, continue putting off studying). In my opinion, photography can be 1 of 3 things, or any combination really, but one is ussually the primary purpose; an art, a craft, and a science. I just finished (well, I'm still printing, but anyway) a pretty artistic project. There was the craft of lighting, but that was to serve an artistic purpose, and the science of proper exposure and development, but again to serve an artistic purpose. I also recently did a portait of a couple of good friends for them. The final project wasn't really an artistic goal, more of a craft, though not devoid of artistic experssion. But there was artist decisions in composition, lighting, etc. and again scientific components as well. One could also be taking an image to determine just what happens when say a bullet hits a brick of balistic gealine under cerntain circumstances (using a profesor's current project as example this time). The purose is scientific, he wants to know what happens given a set of circumstances, but the images have some artistic appeal, and there's cerntainly craftsmanship in their making, but both serve a scientific purpose. I guese this bit of rambling comes to the conclusion that what ever the end product is (and what it's intended to be really) determines what it is, art or something else. I suppose the same thing could be said of a drawing, very often it would be art. But would a diagram in a technical manual (still a drawing mind you) be art? I'd say probably not, though it could be artisticly done.
I agree with Jon, not sure were I'm heading either, but we'll see were the thread ends up )
Peter
|
|
|
|
This space for rent.
(K=313) - Comment Date 2/22/2004
|
Whether or not photography and art are the same thing is beside the point, since art resides not in a technique but in a knowing application of insight. The problem, then, is not whether photography can be art, but in confusing art with the finished product or the technique employed. It is the artist's psychological attitude toward the process of creation alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the "work of art.
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
(K=24473) - Comment Date 2/23/2004
|
Re. your original question - yes, I think it is a photograph because it is an image registered by light, you know (photo-graph). Interestingly, these terms are so "obvius" that all we get from the dictionary is a pretty circular definition: (dictionary.com):
pho?to?graph n. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.
cam?er?a n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate.
A scanner has a lens, but no shutter as such, no film but the sensors are definitely light-sensitive. I suppose it is not a camera in a very traditional sense, but neither is a digital camera (no film), a pinhole camera (no lens).
I make "photographs" without the aid of a camera, but I do use film.
As for the art question, it get's so much more complicated so I will refrain from even trying ... :-)
|
|
|
|
Richard Milner
(K=1653) - Comment Date 2/24/2004
|
For a useful definition, why not refer to some photo competition rules and see if scanner art is allowed or not?
|
|
|
|
Kosti 7even
(K=6328) - Comment Date 2/24/2004
|
It?s a photograph. I agree with the aforementioned replies. It?s definitely art if you call it art. It?s really evident not only in the end product, but in the process of producing it, in any kind of way, that photography can encompass analysis, direction, synthesis, comment, technical expertise, accident, luck, amateurism, experimentation etc... It can start from an inspiration and an insight, or a need to catalog, document and archive, or to experiment and learn. So if ?by definition? (by no means do I suggest that there is such a definition; that is why I use the ??) art is only within those that were inspired and insightful, maybe the others become art due to the way that one chooses to present them. I mean Duchamp exhibited a ?ready made?, a urinal, and called it art. Moholy-Nagy, of Bauhaus years in germany (?20s), ordered tiles to cover a wall, gave assembly instructions to the technicians through the telephone and called it art. Smithson documented the site of his intervention, his trip to it and his intervention (with photographs, samples of materials he found and maps of the area), giving an account of his methodology and providing information of how to get there, and called it art. And Warhol intervened on existing images, changing the scale and the material and called it art. So anything goes. It makes sense to me to allow the artist to present his/her art and not to judge if it is art. One can definitely criticize it but that presupposes that art called is respected as such. Even if the art I am exposed, sucks big time. It?s still art; just bad art according to my taste. And as criticism, inspired by this discussion, art is not secluded within the walls of a museum, a gallery and a personal collection or the rules that the curator, the gallerist and the collector have regulated in order to prove their validity. Art is.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/24/2004
|
I hope you will forgive me... art is not my thing. At least not in a self-conscious or academic sense of having studied it or thought about it deeply. Probably this is all art appreciation 101 stuff. :-]
It sounds like the consensus is that art is that which we intend to be art. I recall a scene from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in which the main character a non-artist for lack of a better term, uses an entire roll of string to hold some table edging that he has just glued back on in place until the glue dries. His buddy, an art prof, comes by and says "what is it?" He replies flippantly that its his new visual art project. "Don't you think it builds?" His friend is taken slightly aback and looks at it a while before saying with some wonderment "Where did you *learn* that?"
This is perhaps an example of unintentional art... There must be some kind of three-way dialoque between art, artist and audience that would explain it.
So anyway... I tried my hand at some "scanner art", using what I had in my pockets (one item of which led to the title of the piece).
http://www.usefilm.com/image/315124.html
I don't know whether it's *good* art or not (LOL)
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
(K=81109) - Comment Date 2/25/2004
|
your scanning was a willful joke and therefore, it does not work :( I remember some very fine artworks of (portray)face scanning, and some playing with arrangements/compositions scanners are very limited in their working range, maybe this will imporove with the new model of a transparent hp-scanner, which takes the scan by being positioned above (or in fron of) the object. 99% of 'traditional' photos (whether film or digital) are ot art, but scientific/documentary or whatsoever (mainly crap:) so, scanning is no guarantee for producing an artwork :)
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/25/2004
|
"...your scanning was a willful joke and therefore, it does not work :(..."
Damn!
:-]
|
|
|
|
Kevin Bjorke
(K=960) - Comment Date 2/25/2004
|
I'm guessing this question was prompted by the winner of the Canon Digital Creators Contest 2001: "Digital Rayograms"
http://www.canon.com/cdcc/award2001/photo/p1.html
The answer, of course, is "yes." DUH.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/25/2004
|
Nope... I happened to be looking at my scanner and, well... you know the rest.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
Actually, Kevin, I thought your post needed to be responded to in a tad greater detail, since you seem to think the answer is obvious when in fact it is not.
If scanner art is a photograph, what about a group of objects placed on a photocopier? If I take a photocopy of a photograph is it a photograph? What if I take a picture of a textual record is the result photographic or textual, and why? And if I then photocopy it, what is *that*? If a photo copy of a photograph is still a photograph, what about a mimeograph? Or a copper plate engraving, made by an artist working from a photographic original and ultimately used in a printing press? What if the artist puts a piece of onionskin paper over a photograph and traces it - is the result a photograph?
But let's not stop there. If I email you a digital photograph the image you look at is still a photograph. Say that I take a simple black and white photograph and superimpose it on a grid of, say, 100 x 100 squares, then send it by wire using a specialized morse code. At the receiving station the operator fills in a piece of paper marked into 100 x 100 squares - black for every dash, say, and empty for every dot. At the end he has a copy of my photograph. Is *it* a photograph? I suppose you could say that if a mechanical printer was used to make the received image then it might qualify as a photograph, but if you go with that then a piece of ASCII art - which is *not* a photograph - must magically become one when it is transmitted electronically. If that's the case, if the act of transmission can turn a non-photograph into a photograph, then if I box up the Mona Lisa and mail it to you, the product you receive must also be a photograph.
Don't even get me started on clay tablets.
All of these things could be "art" (if that was what was intended) but are they photographs?
|
|
|
|
Kosti 7even
(K=6328) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
Jon, your last comment was very interesting and insightfull. I remember reading an interview of Fellini. When asked about his art and aesthetic he replied that the only thing that he does is to allow light to burn its path on film. He was being literal in both theory and practice. A photograph is just that. Light allowed to burn/carve/print on a surface. Another incident that comes in mind is the problem that got created when "photographs" entered the auction houses. What both the auction house and the client presumed as "photograph" was the negative, since one paper print without the negative (if there was one) was the only way, back then, to secure authenticity and ownership. That ofcourse created all these problems with cropped images, mixed media with one of them being a photograph etc etc. I found your examples so very interesting, that I wouldn't think twice to challenge their authors just for his/her idea to present their creation through such methods. Now that words have lost their meaning and definition, we need to be sarcastic and hummorous and open-minded. Maybe the very first photograph is the Shroud of Turin...
|
|
|
|
bea rowland
(K=2167) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
good forum!
I seem to be using the term "photo-imaging" more than "photography" these days.
if A (ASCII image) + B (electronic transmission) = photograph
it does not mean that A (Mona Lisa) + B (transport of actual painting by mail) = photograph
the terms have the proposition have changed. if I send a painting by mail, it is still a painting.
I love the image of a person filling in grids!! like Chuck Close paintings!! :)))
|
|
|
|
Kevin Bjorke
(K=960) - Comment Date 2/26/2004
|
Jon, these distinctions are just silly semantic jerkery. Are you saying that web page JPEGs and images on television are not photographs, since they have been reduced to little binary dots? They are not prints, but WHO THE HECK CARES? Like arguing over what day kittens become cats, it makes no difference to the critters themselves. Please describe why this distinction should make ANY difference to the working and thought processes of a functional photographer.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 2/27/2004
|
Of course not. I think the whole "digital is not the same as photograph" thing has already been done to death (see the Dr. Wood thread in this forum) and is of course not true. "Records is records" regardless of format, medium or carrier. But what I want to know is where one differentiates between photography and other graphic creations, eg., the scanner art discussed above. It isn't the same as when a cat becomes a kitten, which is not only not important to the cat, it's not important to anyone else either.
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkinson
(K=393) - Comment Date 3/4/2004
|
My working definition:
A photograph can be judged by its technique, good or bad.
The technique (composition, set-up choice of equipment) determines which of the catagories the photo belongs in:
1. Snapshot 2. Photo 3. Photograph (+pic which is something taken for the web)
Something that is art (which is obvious), can be rated neither "good" or "bad", it can only be liked, tolerated or disliked.
IMHO
Bob
|
|
|
|
Meryl Arbing
(K=321) - Comment Date 3/24/2004
|
Jon, I suppose you could ask, "If I put a photograph on a scanner and scanned it, is it (the output from the scanner) a photograph? and the answer is no. It is a scan. Is the output from a scanner an image? Yes, it is an image.
A photograph is produced by a camera. A scan is produced by a scanner. A fax is produced by a...fax. If doubt if you could show up to do a wedding shoot with a flat-bed scanner under your arm and argue that it was 'really nothing more than a camera'.
Is any image automatically 'art' just because I say it is? Not a chance! There is no 'self-definition' of art. Child pornographers have been trying to get away with that argument for years...But, judge! This isn't porno...it's a work of 'art' that I call "Six year old, handcuffs and baseball bat!!!"
Sometimes crap is crap no matter what the producer wants to call it!
|
|
|
|
Bruce Laker
(K=42) - Comment Date 5/3/2004
|
Well maybe a simpler way to look at it is to recall the entymology of 'photo-graph'. An image made with / from light. In which case a scanner is a camera with its own light source, lens and camera.
Happy days! Bruce
|
|
|
|
Evan Lukowski
(K=17) - Comment Date 5/3/2004
|
I think this is largely just splitting hairs. Scanner art, imo, is just a modern continuation of early photograms or rayograms. Last I checked, most considered those photographs, or at least a sub-field under the umbrella of photography. Maggie Taylor has done all of her work for years with a simple scanner, and she is still called a photographer.
www.maggietaylor.com has some of her work.
|
|
|
|
Bad Site
(K=979) - Comment Date 5/4/2004
|
What difference does it make what you call it? Seems like some people have too much time on their hands for their own good. Go take some scans. By the way, what is the difference between a digital camera and a scanner? DOF is the only thing I can think of off hand.
|
|
|
|
Carl Yeager
(K=378) - Comment Date 4/29/2006
|
Joh, A good question that really can only be answered by viewing the output of the artist. Yes I am a photographer first since 1971. This is not a fast process in most cases. Some of these works in my folder took 15-20 hours to do. I do call most of the pieces fine art.
This is how I explain my style. and then you and others can judge by going to my site look for the scan art folder.
Analog, digital, experimental photographic art. (Adept) This is not just an abstract, still life, digital art or altered by Ps. This is a combination of many artistic disciplines. Carl Yeager, Carlyeager.com
|
|
|
|
Carl Yeager
(K=378) - Comment Date 8/7/2007
|
Reply to Jan O'Brien (K=9779) - Comment Date 2/26/2004.
The art of scanning is for 3D art in most cases. It is not for photo reproduction. Success from the art of the scan is on what I call the finding or what others call (subjects. This along with compo selection because of limited depth of field is the key for a good scan. With out these traits yes one can just sit on a photocopier and make and ass out of themselves. Thank you Jan for your input on this art form. Carl Yeager carlyeager.com Take gallery down to the scanning folder.
|
|
|
|
Dorris Xxxx
(K=10) - Comment Date 9/23/2007
|
Holy Cow you guys.... you are really debating this issue to death. Jon, you took a picture of some objects... it really doesn't matter what equipment you used..IT IS A PHOTOGRAPH!!! Where in the word "Photograph" does it state that only one type of equipment may be used in order for the end result to be considered a "photograph"???? And I'm not even going to touch the debate that started on "what is considered ART"...
|
|
|
|
Dorris Xxxx
(K=10) - Comment Date 9/23/2007
|
Allow me to respond to "Fabio Keiner: 'your scanning was a willful joke and therefore, it does not work':(" Fabio, if I use my "film" camera or any of my digital cameras to record an image as a "willful joke" it would no longer be considered a "photograph"????? What's the difference between a taking a picture as a "willful joke" or as simply recording what I see, or even trying to create art??????? A photo is a photo is a photo... end of story.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 9/24/2007
|
My oh my... this is certainly the thread that never dies, resurrected three and a half years later to walk the earth again...! My (admittedly brilliant) comments on the difference between photographs and non-photographic representational art were partly trying to take the original thought as far as it would go and partly just me reacting to someone's annoying comment of "Duh"... Sometimes things just aren't that self evident, and even subtle distinctions are still distinct.
However, 3 1/2 years and thousands of photographs later, I think my answer to the question of what the distinction between a photograph and non-photograph is, lies with the process and equipment. A photograph is am image taken with a camera, which is a device specifically designed to capture light so as to create images, and which we all agree is a camera. While a scanner has similarities to a camera, it is ultimately a copying device (so is a camera, sometimes, but then so is a pencil). OTOH - that definition may also exclude things like photograms, which many will say definitely ARE photographs.
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
|
|
Tim Fleming
(K=5) - Comment Date 7/22/2008
|
Jon, I would have to disagree with the characterization of a scanner as a "copying device." A scanner has more similarities to a digital camera than it does to a copier. They both produce a digital file from a sensor, or an array of sensors in the case of a scanner. Also, a copy looks just like the original, in theory. But a scanner has its own unique qualities and the light source is a large part of that. It can produce some very stunning imagery.
Is it art? That is up to the viewer to decide. Is it photography? I think the definition of photography has undergone some radical changes over the last few years, don't you? The comparison to a photogram is very appropriate as the process is similar. You have to imagine the outcome, because you can't see it beforehand. So maybe it belongs in the family just like other alternative processes.
I am both a photographer and a scanner artist. I discovered the process for myself quite by accident about three years ago. You can see my work here: http://www.timfleming.com/scanner/scanner.htm
Thanks for an interesting thread!!
Regards,
Tim
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 7/22/2008
|
it is neither art (though that term is highly subjective) nor photography.
A scanner contains a linear sensor identical to a photocopier, therefore if we consider a scanner to be a camera we should also consider all photocopiers to be cameras. In fact, most modern photocopiers will double as scanners...
|
|
|
|
Jan Hoffman
(K=39467) - Comment Date 7/22/2008
|
I agree with Jeroen on his technical description. Scanners and photocopiers are essentially the same thing. What one places and aranges on the scanner can, no doubt, be an attempt at "art". Let the "world" and exhibition/contest judges decide whether the outcome is justified and valid. The results from scanner experiements can be most satisfying but I have noticed exhibition and contest rules in a number of recent photo contests that prohibit scanner work with the exception of converting film photogrpahs to digital format.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 7/23/2008
|
And so it would be here. The output are not photographs, and therefore not applicable to a photography website.
That's also why people posting digital artwork (or more frequently "artwork") here will have it removed whenever it is encountered. No distinction is made in quality or artistic value (so someone making the next Mona Lisa in a paint package will get the same treatment as someone throwing randomly coloured blobs together), it just doesn't belong here.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 8/24/2008
|
Ah, Jeroen... but if I throw randomly coloured blobs together and photograph them... then it's art :-] . I think that the only reason a scanner shouldn't be considered a camera is because we have chosen to define it that way. But based purely on characteristics and function, it is unquestionably a sort of camera. Perhaps a "camera like" device. As far as art goes - "Art" is what I say is art. The fact of deliberately arranging objects on a scanner to make an image is about as deliberately artistic an endeavour as you can get. Good art, crappy art, who can say? But definitely art.
Cheers,
Jon
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/24/2008
|
I wouldn't call that "art" either. I'd call Rembrandt art, Vermeer, even Ansel, but not some randomly coloured blobs.
I'd call those "randomly coloured blobs"
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
(K=81109) - Comment Date 8/31/2008
|
if we scale a painting from rembrandt or a photo from adams to a size large enough, we only will see 'randomly colored blobs' :))
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 9/9/2008
|
By gum, Fabio, that's true! But I think that Jeroen is trying to suggest that there's a ratings scale that can be used to differentiate between art and non-art. If that were so, we would all appreciate the same pieces, wouldn't we? Since we don't... well, I'll stick with my original definition of art - that it is what I say it is.
|
|
|
|