Bastard: Resembling a Known Kind or Species But Not Truly Such
Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 13:31 First things first, in that order: Happy 2013 (New Year)!
Recently, there's been a flurry of passionate responses to people making Facebook pages that encourage and support the "bastardization" of Wet Collodion photography. I've received my share of emails asking me what I think of this "movement". This is my response.
However you feel about tradition, heritage or nostalgia, people will constantly push the envelope to make something new and leave the old behind. Most people think that I’m in the "keep it pure" camp. I’m not. I never have been. I'm all about people having reason and purpose for the tools, processes, or methodology they use to make photographs. In other words, why are you using collodion, why are you using a certain format, a certain aesthetic, etcetra, etcetra. It’s amazing what I hear and read about myself, I never knew about most of it (grin). It's true I have great respect for the processes that I work in, however, I do utilize (and will continue to do so) the wonderful technology of the 21st Century. Too many times, I’m judged as one of the "purists" when I'm only asking for honesty - be clear and specific about what the image is - full disclosure - and WHY the photographer made the choices they did. The viewer can make up his or her own mind when it comes to respecting the work and/or the process, or not.
Studio Q - Denver, Colorado - photo by Mark Tucker (www.marktucker.com)I'm not hung up on people making images from their TV or computer monitor or from film positives/negatives or from anything else. Again, my only issue with any of it has been calling it what it is – that's all. The whole argument kind of reminds me of what I heard the American Civil War re-enactors talking about all of the time. It never seemed to be about the imagery, or the subject matter, but about things like when plywood was invented and if their clothes were "period" or not, all of the stuff that really meant nothing to me. However, in the context of what they do, I can understand their concern. That’s what this is about – CONTEXT – nothing else.
Let me give you an example: If I have an image shot on Tri-X film, 35mm, and I create a large digital negative from that and then make a Salt print from it, what is it? Or should I say, how should you describe it? Does it matter that it's from a 35mm image or, moreover, that it's a copy of a copy and now exists as a Salt print? Does this stuff matter? And if it matters, why does it matter? Aren’t we all simply trying to make images that best describe our desire to express, question, challenge or confront something in our lives? I think that's what we should be talking about, don't you?
So it begs another question; if we are making images that are moving, interesting, challenging, etc. why do we care how it was made (or the process)? I’ve been involved in photography for almost three decades. I've had shows that were film based and no one ever asked me if the images were 35mm, shot with a Nikon or if they were Tri-X or HP5 or anything else. Why are we having these arguments now? Why do they matter? Have you ever wondered what kind of typewriter Ernest Hemingway used? I don’t think anyone has – and even if you had that typewriter, I don’t think "The Old Man and the Sea" would pour out of you because you owned it.
I think this will pass, or mellow with time. Everything does. It will be interesting to see where all of this goes. Will we ever make images that transcend the process? Will we ever stop obessing about the technical and gear? I know this "bastard" community is trying to establish some basis for the "anti-purist" and trying to give levity to what some see as a stiff, conforming group of people in these processes (and there are some very hardcore purists). I get it. However, too much levity is annoying and dangerous, too. There's a balance. This is a very political and ego driven niche. There are "camps" and factions breaking off of the mainstream all of the time for all kinds of reasons. I did it, too. In 2003, I was told by the (American) Civil War reenactors that it was a waste of time to start my collodion forum board (www.collodion.com). I was encouraging artists that wanted to work in the process for creative reasons, not commercial or reenactment reasons, to join and share knowledge and work. They told me it would fail. I went ahead and did it anyway. And look at it today!
I know I’m painting with a very broad brush here (no pun), but I think it would be healthy for the community to stop, take a breath, and have a chat about why both sides feel that this is a topic worth discussing or creating Facebook pages for – what do you think?
bastard, controversy, copies, digital, wet collodion in Art & Theory 
