Art and Craft
Wolfgang Tillmans – Freischwimmer 40
Joerg wrote an interesting piece over on Conscientious, and I feel like I should provide a slight counterpoint. Joerg makes some good points regarding the large-format, toy camera, and alternative process cults. All of those camps are watered down a bit by hobbyists who are involved because of the processes and equipment, not necessarily those bent on making great images.
However, I feel Joerg thinks art and craft are separable things–”For me, photography is an art form and not a craft…”. This is where I disagree. Art and craft, much like form and content, are just two parts of the same thing. No matter how great the image is, there is still craft in it’s output, i.e. the quality of it’s delivery. Granted, when a lot of things are being delivered via computer screens (a somewhat craft-less medium), craft is significantly diminished. In the end, though, there is no mistaking the difference between a quality print and a shitty one, and I’m sure Joerg would agree. As much as photography is about the image, it’s also about the craft. In fact, through working for a fine-art photographer, I’ve begun to realize how underestimated the craft is in some parts of the art world (notably in emerging artists + graduate students). When people are paying $$$ for your work, they expect quality, in both idea & form.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:27 am
You’re missing the point. Of course, I expect good prints. But I will not praise photos because the prints are good. That’s the main point here. Just because someone knows how to produce excellent prints doesn’t make him or her a great artist. And if a good artist produces shit prints, and if someone wants to buy those (as is currently common in the art world) then people are wasting their money – which however has nothing to do with art.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I think I understand your point Joerg, but do you really think that art and craft are separate entities in photography? You’ve made your case that you won’t praise photos because the prints are good, but I think you’d praise an image to be great even if you’ve never seen a print. If that is the case I think it speaks volumes to the effect that electronic transmission has had on our reception of images. I must, however, disagree with your final point–if a ‘good’ artist is producing shit prints, it has everything to do with art, regardless of the market.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The structure of the print is flat. And your idea of quality,craft, and greatest of a print are illusions.