4art.com

Creative Global Network for the Visual Arts

Some questions I've been asking myself lately ...

Meaning doesn’t have to depend on emerging from process – but I find I like the process to facilitate, underscore or otherwise impact meaning. Has anyone not played with Photoshop . . . multiplied an image or piece of an image over and over into a pattern or faceted constellation? Pumped up saturation until highlights and shadows are a day-glo facsimile of original image? Joined two images to make one image or dyptich? There’s a lot of this now. Is it still possible for the images created this way to take on real meaning from the process – no longer new enough to be original or even particularly out of the ordinary? If one goes for the same result as an image, sans photoshop, does meaning change with the labor and skill involved?

Views: 18

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of 4art.com to add comments!

Join 4art.com

Comment by John Ladd on October 21, 2008 at 3:37
I think it's great you recognize the validity of the digital process. yes working digitally is transformative , not only of the image, but the quantuum realities of the creator and viewer. Photography is essentially collaborative and the digital darkroom creates exponential collaboration and limitless possibilities. It's easy to go too far and lose the essence of an image. Knowing when to say when is probably the hardest part of the puzzle. I like your work, and I look forward to seeing your process evolve. It takes you down that path too...
Comment by Nelson Abdullah on August 30, 2008 at 21:21
I think I understand what you mean because I have used Corel Draw Graphics Suite and Photoshop for over 10 years. You have taken the photo manipulation process much further than I ever did. I must be more conventional than you and less daring as well. Your explosion of shapes and colors is quite appealing. Nice work.

Members

My links

Groups

© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service