"Authentic" vs. Technologically Manipulated Art Work

I agree with Jeremy Seimens (see below for clip) the whole thing about
"authentic" art is really absurd: authentic according to who? it can only
be that individual or group of individuals. If a person feels more free in
the "digital lightroom" or using older techniques then both are fine so
long as they are happy with their results and enjoy themselves. I also
agree there is a lot going for digital techniques: lower
environmental/health toxicity, light work environment, ease of manipulation
etc...

The reason I write is that I think this also bears on who the viewer of
your work is and why you do it. Speaking for myself I am a hobbyist,
images I generate pretty much don't go much further that my family and
friends. I'm sure that there are many on this list who are the same.
Other photographers seek critical adulation. Others are purely comercial.
I'm sure that across all these groups and between them there are both
photographic purists, digital embracers and some inbetween both camps (me
included). But I suspect that as Jeff Dilcher alluded to yesterday some of
the more established and powerful members of the community (those who have
acheived critical success) use their weight to denigrate digital work as
they (perhaps) feel threatened by it. This is simply through ignorance, as
having struggled and many times lost the battle with trying to get (for
example) good colour constancy from print of negative scan to a computer
screen and then from that screen to a printer I know that the digital
lightroom is no less skilled a place than the photographic darkroom.

This list is truly fascinating as it exists in an electronic [fairly] high
technological space, yet it is about the oldest and simplest method of
image capture (far simpler even than the eyes that present the image to our
minds). This probably means that I am preaching to the converted when I say
that in my opinion a digital method is as authentic as a chemical method
for producing images. What matters is the image and the satisfaction of
the image maker and not the method used to make it.

Tom Hawkins

__________________________________________
CLIP:
Everyone's got their preferences (I just deleted the
last half of this email in which I quite concisely
explained my preferences for black and white prints
representing an actual event in time and space over
computer-manipulated images on a screen). My point
is: make images that appeal to you. Chances are,
there will be other people out there who appreciate
them as well. As for those people who don't
appreciate the way you make your images, well, they
obviously don't value the same things as you. So
what.

________________________________________

Tom Hawkins
thomas.hawkins@ucl.ac.uk
Phone: 020 7679 4437
Fax: 020 7679 7349
Received on Thu Jun 28 06:13:33 2001