Brooks,
First of all, I would like you to know how much I enjoy your Editor's Comments, including your most recent, Paper as Medium [LensWork #87]. Having said that, there is one point that I feel that is important that you did not touch on: The print is the only way that a photographer can show their image in exactly the way that he or she wants it to be seen. With the computer monitor there is always the issue of the calibration and even then how would one be assured that they are seeing the image just as the photographer wanted. Even with the quality of the reproductions found in LensWork or in the four tone process used by Little, Brown and Company for Ansel Adams' book, there is still nothing like looking at a print to see the depth and breadth of the photographer's vision. I know that looking at a print there is no compromise between what the photographer meant for you to see and how it is being presented. I am interested in your thoughts.
— Rick
I agree with everything you've said. However, way off in the corner of my peripheral vision there is a fly heading straight for the ointment.
More and more photographers are starting to rethink this idea of "the original." What is it? In the days of the darkroom, the original was indisputably the print made by the hand of the artist. Sort of. I never did feel entirely comfortable with the fact that famous photographers like Ansel Adams had assistants who did so much of the work for them. When Don Worth or Ted Orland or John Sexton (et al) did all that work for Ansel in helping him with his printing, at what point exactly does it become their work rather than Ansel's? If Ansel focuses the enlarger is it still his work? If Ansel does the dodging and burning motions, then is it still his work? Does he need to soup the print in the developer for it to still be his work? Is it still his if someone else ran it though the fixer, did the mounting, spotted the image? If an assistant does it all and Ansel only signs it, is it an original Ansel Adams because he approved it as matching his creative vision? What about photographers who do not do their own printing at all, e.g., Duane Michals? What precisely is the darkroom photographer required to do for it to be an original? Fuzz abounds.
Back to my comments on "the original." There are many photographers today for whom the book is the only physical form of their work. There are no prints. The book is "the original." There are photographers working in multimedia for which the PDF or the Flash presentation is the original. There are photographers whose work is an interactive installation piece. What is "the original" for their work?
For most people, the line between original work and not original work lies somewhere between the artist's vision and the physical artifact created to make that vision manifest. Somewhere, but precisely where can be difficult to nail down.
In my case, I do extensive creative work on my digital files, but I have an assistant do the printing. I consider my digital files as "the originals" (where the creative work happens) and the prints as reproductions. The prints never look precisely like my originals nor precisely like the vision in my head.
And this doesn't address at all the conditions under which the so-called original is seen. Paul Strand looked at is work under a very strong light — a bare incandescent bulb just inches away from the print — which is not at all how we today look at his prints in the museum exhibition. Under what lighting conditions does the photographer intend their work to be seen? From what distance? With whose eyes? (We all see color slightly differently, for example.)
So, when you touch on the idea that the original is the only way a photographer can show their work exactly as they intended it to be seen, we can quickly find ourselves peering through a glass darkly. An argument could be convincingly mounted that the only people who ever see work exactly as the art maker wishes are the art makers themselves. The rest of us always see some form of compromise. The only question is how much is the compromise and how much are we then missing?
