HOME | DD

JaredPLNormand In reply to Markus43 [2009-07-10 16:58:11 +0000 UTC]

Abstract and intermedia critic Peter Frank said that was his least favorite of my series. Said it was too easy, the others were more challenging and interesting. However, everyone else seems to love it so I use it as my postcard image to catch people's attention, which it does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Markus43 In reply to JaredPLNormand [2009-07-10 17:51:09 +0000 UTC]

easy...is a choice, the question (for me)is whether or not it strengthens the work holistically...of course, my opinion is of little value
by the way...your stuff works well with "Bodies" in the background [link] adagio for strings as well (Barber)[link]
speaks well for the art
well done

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaredPLNormand In reply to Markus43 [2009-07-11 03:34:28 +0000 UTC]

I've consulted a friend of mine named John Toepfer, aka Tofuik, for some or his mixes as part of a multi-media joint show. He has a raw and untrained talent in synthetic music and mixers. [link]

I've been wondering about how I list my photographs in galleries. Should I list the medium as "digital pigment print," which is the media for the print and is standard for discerning different photographic processes, or "photography." Many people don't realize that they are photographs so I can see the need for listing that. However, I see photography as a practice, not a medium. It would be like listing a wood, ceramic, and steel sculpture as "sculpture" instead of "wood, ceramic, and steel." A medium would distinguish a silver-gelatin print from a digital pigment print or a Van Dyke Brown from a platinum print. I realized that last night as many people saw "digital pigment print" listed next to Abstraction #85 and thought it was made digitally with brushes and whatnot. I can't say it's film because I altered and printed it digitally and I can't say it's digital because I shot it with film. What do you think? Should I save specifying media for objective work that is clearly photography and list photography for the unknown or entirely one way for both?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Markus43 In reply to JaredPLNormand [2009-07-12 14:28:12 +0000 UTC]

Nice problem to have Jared.
As you may see, I am really not that qualified to answer this...but am always willing to put in my two cents (for what I do know).
My cover page states photography as a medium of choice...made in its broadest of relative terms.
Your are correct it is a practice...not the actual substrate used to present the work.
On-line definition states - In the arts, media (plural of medium) are the materials and techniques used by an artist to produce a work.
My limited experience has noted that 1. Each work will have a title (even if "Untitled") and 2. The medium to which the work was applied to for presentation...The curator typically includes bio and technique information separately as these elements are crucial to the viewer's overal experience.
Over time, I have come to agree that the explanation of processes and technique ARE imperative, especially to other artists, sometimes, only to other artists.
In the end...for me...photography is photography whether one-shot or manipulated layers--cut and paste in PS or the darkroom...as long as all the created elements are made through any form of photography.
The Museum of Photographic Arts shows many photographic works that are acheived without the use of a camera...the category is Photography...and the explanation of processes is listed separately. If you are starting with film and finishing with digital, I would want to know this.
Actually, your abstracts bring me in very nicely, and at some point of the viewing...I try to disect the process. My conclusion has been that at some point, elements have been added digitally or in a darkroom. Always, my internal response has been "well done, not sure how he did that...but it is very cool". The artist deserves respect for the vision and effort afforded to the work...
Misha Gordon is a favorite of mine, his works created by hand the old fashioned way. He has railed some concerning the digital age. This is of course only his opinion. Digital has created a photographic evolution revolution. Like all revolutions the final say will be as mixed as the number of people who have an opinion...anyway I digress again.
For me...it's photography

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaredPLNormand In reply to Markus43 [2009-07-14 03:31:57 +0000 UTC]

Most art shows I've been in do not allow the process or theory to be posted with the work. One allowed us to provide an artist statement for folder on the desk of the gallery but I doubt anyone visited the folder for explanations. Perhaps it's a judgment call based on where it will be viewed. I should have listed "Abstraction #85" as "photography" in Art Melt's gallery. If it had been "Abstraction #17", "paper negative" would have been best. Then if it were "Churchill's II: Still Life with Mirror", I would have classically listed "silver-gelatin print" because it's obviously a photograph but all the old school shooters would have been glad to see someone so young keeping their preferred technique alive. lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JaredPLNormand In reply to Silvarith [2009-07-06 13:49:54 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

But I have one question: you favored all my newest pieces except Abstraction #80; why not #80?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Silvarith In reply to JaredPLNormand [2009-07-06 13:53:47 +0000 UTC]

well... it seemed the most mundaine, but come to think of it, if i like the series, i like the series completely, so i keep nr. 80 as well!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaredPLNormand In reply to Silvarith [2009-07-06 15:59:48 +0000 UTC]

You don't have to, I was just wondering about your preference. Everyone has their favorite and, to my liking, they are not always the same. So I like asking why when possible. Your case just seemed most curious because it was all but one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JaredPLNormand In reply to loojeen [2009-04-10 22:33:23 +0000 UTC]

Thank you very much.
I do have a question about your work though: How do you get the textures you use?
My teacher advised me to try manipulating my recent abstractions (especially this one) to add some texture or tone to the white field in the inverted area. While I'm not too keen on adding objective materials in my nonobjective work, it's worth trying.
What's your secret?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0