The Northwest Files

Can You Produce Art Using Technology?

Recently I stumbled upon a discussion of whether digital photography, with all of its complex, powerful cameras and its Photoshop manipulation, could be considered to be art.

My immediate response was, of course it can! But upon reflection, I think a more measured response might be in order.

I started in photography as a kid with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, which used 127 roll film. I still have that little camera. I really learned the craft of photography in journalism school using a Speed Graphic, which used 4 x 5 sheet film, and moved onto rangefinder and SLR cameras that used 36-mm roll film. I spent many hours in the darkroom developing that film, then making prints from the few images that were acceptable. None of that was easy or intuitive.

These days, I shoot digital cameras. They are far more complex, and far more powerful and flexible, than any film camera ever was. They are much more difficult to use, if by “use,” we mean employing all their features. I pretty much try to do that, but I still come home with lots of images that are not worth printing.

My darkroom now resides in my computer. It is far more complex, more powerful and flexible, than any darkroom in which I ever fooled around. Though I edit my images like crazy, discarding most of them, I still manage to waste paper and ink as I attempt art. In making that attempt, I print my images on 8.5 x 11 sheets of photo paper. I frame a few and store many others in plastic sleeves in large three-ring binders.

So I think the question has several answers. One that occurs to me is yes, digital photography is art. Or at least it can be. Maybe.

But another question is this one: What is art? I’m not sure I know.

I do know that at least a few of the images I’ve made with roll and sheet film rise to the level of art, at least as I define it. All I ever try to do is produce an honest image, one that reflects not just technical competence, but also a certain beauty, and which evokes an emotional response.

I have some level of confidence that a few of the digital images I’ve made rise to the level of art. A few. Most don’t. Blame it on a crushing lack of talent.

The old saying, however, is that “Art lies in the eye of the beholder.” So, my photos may not rise to the level of art at all. I don’t much care, as long as they satisfy me.

I took a wildlife photo workshop a couple of years ago. We participants got lots of fine, advanced instruction from our teachers.

What we learned caused one participant to observe, “I used to know a lot about photography. Now I realize I don’t know anything about photography.”

That’s pretty much where I am. I don’t know much about art, either. But at least I know what I like. I think that probably that is the bottom line.

So is digital photography art? Maybe. If you think it is, it just might be.

-JFT

"Monuments Men"

We saw "Monuments Men" today. Liked it a whole lot. So will other students of history, art and the war years, as well as will anyone who just likes a good movie. It's a simplified version of what really happened, naturally, basically the story of eight guys who try to find and return art stolen by the Germans during the war. In reality, the Monuments company, as it was called, comprised a whole bunch of people. For the whole story, check out "The Rape of Europa," by historian Lynn H. Nicholas. Great read. You can get it from Amazon.

I suspect that testosterone-fueled lunkheads expecting a "war movie" may disappointed in this film, but Laura and I both thought it was a very entertaining deal.

For what it's worth, when they weren't murdering people and invading neighboring countries, the Kraut bastards were also stealing the great wine collections. For more on this, check out "Wine & War," by Donald and Petie Kladstrup. Interesting stuff; also available at Amazon. And no, I have no financial interest in that company, though for all the money I've spent there I should have.

-JFT

An Old Friend

I feel as though I’ve rediscovered an old friend, and I’m thrilled about it.

The “old friend” is Masterpiece Mysteries on PBS.

I don’t know why we stopped watching it, but somewhere back in time, I guess somewhere about the time that the last “Inspector Morse” was aired, we did.

For sure people’s tastes and viewing habits change. But what Laura and I both have found is that we’ve missed this show. We’re both thrilled to find that there’s a whole new crop of shows.

Let’s see, there’s “MI5,” a very well-done and very fast-paced spy drama shot in London.

There’s “Case Histories,” set in gorgeous Edinbrough, about a former cop who is chasing not only old cases, but also his own ghosts.

There’s “Foyle’s War,” which I’ve not seen yet, but which is getting great reviews. I’m recording that on our DVR.

There’s Doc Martin, which also is getting great reviews, which again we’ve not yet seen but have our DVR set up to record.

There’s “Zen,” which purports to follow the late Michael Dibden’s excellent Aurelio Zen novels, but doesn’t. I’m a fan of the novels, but don’t much care for these adaptations as they don’t seem to follow the books at all closely, and the actor chosen to play Zen is nothing like the books describe him – not in appearance and not in manner. Ah, well. At least it’s shot in Italy, so the scenery and cityscapes are beautiful. So is Zen’s girlfriend.

And of course there’s “Inspector Lewis,” which is the sequel series to “Inspector Morse,” staring the same man who played Lewis, as Morse’s sergeant, now bumped up to inspector status. Really excellent.

All in all, these BBC fares are reason to watch TV again. We both really look forward to them. We’re a little surprised at how much more interesting these shows are than the crap found on domestic TV. But we’re just happy someone is showing these British gems and we’re happy to have rediscovered our old friend, Masterpiece Mysteries.

-JFT

I CAN SEE! I CAN SEE: TV and the Rule of Unintended Consequences

It’s all Aragon’s fault. As recounted elsewhere, Laura and I ventured north over the holidays to visit my son Jonathan and his family, and also to spend some time with our pals Paul and Ginger Aragon.

We had a nice visit with the kids, and, as usual, we greatly enjoyed our visit with Paul and Ginger. And, also as usual, we learned something from them.

Like us, they get their TV signal from a satellite. But unlike us, their satellite box contains a DVR. That means it’s one of those TiVo-like thingies.

So while the girls worked on their pastel technique, Paul and I rejoiced over the collection of Australian V-8 Supercar races he’d recorded on his DVR. And during that time, I figured out that I needed one of these things.

I needed one because unlike the dreaded VCR, which so many of us have reluctantly relied upon for so many years, this thing is easy to program.

Actually, it’s even better than that. You program it once, just once, and it captures all the broadcasts under the title you’ve selected. For instance, if you’re a stone race fan like Paul and I are, you can tell it to record every Australian V-8 Super Car race, or every German Touring Car (DTM) race, or every Formula 1 race, and it’ll do it. (I suppose it would also record all the NASCAR “races,” but for the life of me, I don’t know why you’d ask it to do that….)

Now, I’ve wasted lots of energy and effort on trying to capture each and every one of the F1 races each year. Usually I get ‘em, but sometimes I don’t. When I don’t, I’m seriously bummed – usually when I miss a race, it’s a big one with historical significance – the Belgian Grand Prix, maybe, or the Monaco Grand Prix. So I did a bit of research, found that conversion to DVR box (that means Digital Video Recorder) would carry a cost penalty of just six bucks a month. OK, we can afford that. There was a $99 cost involved, but DishNetwork was offering a 100-buck rebate.

So last Saturday, the satellite guy – a high-tech version of the cable guy, I ‘spose – installed a DVR for us.

This thing is bitchin’, not just because I’ve now got the thing preloaded to record every decent roadracing broadcast all year long, but also because there’s a surprising unintended consequence.

The DVR isn’t just a DVR. What it also is, is an HD/DVR.

This is good, because when we bought our current TV about four years ago, we did so because it has a nice, wide screen, a great picture and very high quality. We did not buy it because it happened to be HD-capable, which it is. At the time, there was so little of interest on the HD channels that there was no way in Hell we’d spend the money to add them to our satellite subscription service. In fact, we’ve never even thought about it.

There’s still no way we’d spend the money to add them, but what we’ve learned in the last few days is that the networks, at least, offer HD as part of their regular programming. That means news, my life's blood, will come in HD.

How different is the HD picture quality? Depends. At its best, it is hugely better than the worst non-high-def picture. It’s like looking at a perfectly exposed, tack-sharp enlargement of an image shot on Kodachrome. At its worst – and there are variations in HD picture quality - it’s only slightly better than the best non-high-def picture. But generally, across the board? I’d call it a significant improvement.

So here’s the deal: The Super Bowl is going to be broadcast in HD, so is the Daytona 500, two factoids that gladden my heart. And all the local news shows are in HD. In fact, the DVR is set up so that when you push the button labeled “Guide,” which shows you what’s available and when, it’ll either show you everything, or just the programming that’s in HD. I had no idea there was so much:  A&E, the History Channel, Discovery, the Foot Network and much more, all the good stuff. Some movies, even.

In 1992 Bruce Springsteen recorded a song called, “57 Channels and Nothin’ On.” I’m not suggesting that this new box, this new technology, challenges that statement of fact. What’s clear, though, is that when something decent does come around, it now looks really good.

I’m pretty sure that if there’s a way to screw up when trying to record the Formula 1 races, I’ll find it. But I suspect that screwing up will be much more difficult with the DVR than it was with the VCR. At least I hope so.

-JFT