“数字革命”如何正在改变我们的摄影世界

The pioneer of color photography discusses how the digital revolution is changing the photographic world as we know it.

Stephen Shore is considered one of the most important figures in early color photography. His 1982 book, Uncommon Places, elevates seemingly ordinary scenes of everyday life – a highway billboard, a drive-in church chapel – and imbues them with meaning. That seminal work has inspired countless photographers and has had a profound impact on contemporary fine art photography. Today, Shore continues to pursue his vision both as an artist and a teacher. Since 1982 he has served as director of photography at Bard College. American Photo contributor Jörg Colberg recently asked Shore about how the "digital revolution" is changing the art of photography.

Jörg Colberg: As a photographer working in color, you were instrumental in establishing color photography as a widely accepted art form, and your photography has inspired large numbers of other artists. Looking back at how contemporary fine-art photography has evolved over the past decades, how has your own, more recent work been influenced by what other people have been doing?
Other Artist Q&As

Stephen Shore: I think I've been influenced recently more by new technology than by any single photographer or artist.

JC: After the 1970's color "revolution" in the fine-arts community - if we want to call it that - the introduction and spread of digital photography appears to be at least equally important. I'd be curious to learn how you view the impact of digital photography.

SS: I'm going to give you a long-winded answer. I guess I see how photographers work as influenced by, among other factors, the cost of their processes. In the 1970s, when I started using 8x10 color, it cost me more than $15 every time I took a picture (film, processing, and a contact print). Simple economy led me to only take one exposure of a subject. I knew I couldn't economize by only taking pictures that I knew would be good – that would simply lead to boring, safe images.

But, I could decide what I really wanted to photograph and how I wanted to structure the picture. This was a powerful learning experience. I began to learn what I really wanted. Digital is the opposite of 8x10. I see digital as a two-sided phenomenon. The fact that pictures are free can lead to greater spontaneity. As I watch people photograph (with film), I often see a hesitation, an inhibition, in their process. I don't see this as much with digital.

There seems to be a greater freedom and lack of restraint. This is analogous to how word processing affects writing: one can put thoughts down in writing, even tangential thoughts, with a minimum of inner censorship, knowing that the piece can be edited later. The other side of this lack of restraint is greater indiscriminancy. Here's a tautology: as one considers one's pictures less, one produces fewer truly considered pictures.

JC: For digital photography good editing would thus be even more important than for film photography. Do you find that for you as a teacher editing has become a more important topic? And do you feel that with digital photography becoming ubiquitous, skills such as editing or composing images are getting somewhat neglected?

SS: I once had a student at Bard College, where I teach, who was taking portraits. The results kept disappointing him, so each week he took more and more pictures. Still he was disappointed. Finally, I assigned him to make only one exposure the next week. The picture was excellent. His problem was that he was replacing really coming to terms with what he wanted in his pictures with quantity. If an artist doesn't work with conscious intentionality, sometimes no amount of editing helps. There are other times (and this was one of the points of my previous answer) when the lack of self-censorship that digital can engender allows for intuitive energy being communicated.

JC: It seems to me that the "digital revolution" is multi-faceted. On the one hand, we are witnessing the addition of new means to proliferate and share photography, with the Internet playing the dominant role. The popular photography site Flickr has been brought up as especially important. To me, it's not quite clear what impact Flickr really has, though, because it seems that depending on how you view it you arrive at different conclusions. For example, from the perspective of the stock-photography market Flickr appears to be quite revolutionary. However, if you're a photography "amateur" (a word that I am not very comfortable with), Flickr might "just" be another way to show your holiday photos - instead of inviting your friends for a two-hour slide show you send them the link to your Flickr site. Seen from your perspective, what does Flickr have to offer?

SS: One aspect of the "digital revolution" that I find interesting is the ubiquitousness of cameras. That, coupled with new means of transmission of images, is leading us into an interesting age. A person can email a few pictures taken in an Iraqi prison to a friend and within a day they are all over the world. We can witness the Ukraine's Orange Revolution from the multiple perspectives of the participants. When Time magazine illustrates the London Underground bombings of 7/7, they don't have to rely on photojournalists covering the aftermath – they can use cell phone pictures taken by the survivors. The means of transmission, particularly the Internet, mean that everyone now has a public voice. Just as I described digital photography as a two-sided phenomenon, so is this public voice. On one hand it bypasses the visual conventions imposed by the editors of traditional media. It also bypasses the financial constraints of traditional media. Excellent work, perhaps even the most groundbreaking work, can get an audience. On the other hand, when everyone has a public voice, we see how many people just don't have anything interesting to communicate.

JC: ... which then brings up the question of whether the digital revolution really makes things easier - or whether the pool of photography gets so large that it is actually getting harder to find the excellent work you were talking about?

SS: We may see the reintroduction of an editing/curating process: people building sites or tagging work they find interesting. And then we are back to still another duality: editors/curators both bring their insight and impose their limitations. But, people will find their way to what interests them. It's the same with blogs. Some I find fascinating. They're very smart. They provide not only greater access, but a new type of public dialog and communication. On the other end of the spectrum of what can be encountered, others are inane or self-indulgent. We find what interests or stimulates us.

JC: The second, very important aspect of digital photography is that it opens up many new ways to create photography, which previously would have been very hard to achieve, if not impossible. For example, photography can be constructed on the computer, a process that changes our perception of what photography really is and that, at the same time, might open up new avenues for artists. Or maybe not? Does digital photography offer something new, or is it just simply providing a new, somewhat more convenient (or inconvenient?) way to take photographs?

SS: There have for decades been artists who have made composited photographs (from Henry Peach Robinson to Jerry Uelsmann) and other artists who have used photographic processes as part of a print making technique (from Hannah Hoch to Robert Heinecken). Digital makes some of this easier and perhaps offers new possibilities. The success of work such as Barry Frydlender's rests partially on the seamlessness of the compositing and the believability of the image. While we all understand how a photograph is a distortion of the three-dimensional world flowing in time in front of the camera, we all also accept a certain kind of literalness of the straight photographic image.

Familiarity over time with how digital possibilities erode that literalness may alter the very believability that the success of composited images rests on. On another note, I'm particularly interested in digital Type C printing for straight color photography. It allows me to control contrast and tonality both locally and globally in a way not possible with traditional Type C printing.

JC: I was intrigued to learn that you have been producing small editions of self-published books. What is the impetus behind this?

SS: Ever since I first saw Ed Ruscha's small books in the late 1960s, I've loved artists' books. (Download Shore's "Flohmarkt" iBook PDF.) Print-on-demand technology allows me to produce books with ease. I like the basic structure of these small books: the individual images are not intended to stand alone, but are seen as a part of a complex whole. I enjoy availing myself of commonly available technology. Finally, my book project allows me to explore many different visual ideas and explore a variety of directions.

--Jörg Colberg is founder and editor of the fine-art photography blog Conscientious. He works as a research scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.


原文在这里
http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/4628/a-conversation-with-stephen-shore.html





与Stephen Shore的对话


彩色摄影的先锋探讨了数字革命如何正在改变我们的摄影世界，正如我们所看到的。

Stephen Shore被认为是早期彩色摄影中最重早的人物之一。在他1982出版的那本《不寻常之地》中把看似平淡的日常生活提升到了一个新的境界，比如在高速公路上的广告牌，汽车教堂的礼拜并使它们更具内涵。他的作品鼓舞了无数摄影师并给当代艺术摄影带来了深远的影响。现今Stephen Shore以艺术家和教师的身份执着地追寻着他的影像。自1982年以来他一直担任巴德学院的摄影指导。美国摄影撰稿人Jörg Colberg近期对Shore做了一次关于“数字革命”如何正在改变我们的摄影世界的访问。

Jörg Colberg：以一个主攻彩色摄影的摄影师，你的作品是在建立彩色摄影作为一个能被大众广泛接受的艺术形并给许多其他的艺术家带来了启发。回首过去的几十年彩色摄影是如何演变的，也包括你自己？他人已经在尝试的东西对你又产生了什么样的影响？

Stephen Shore：我觉得，比起任何一个摄影师或者艺术家新技术带给我的影响更多。

Jörg Colberg：在1970年艺术圈的彩色“革命”之后－如果我们想这样称呼它－那么至少介绍与传播数字摄影显得同样重要，关于数字摄影所带来的冲击，你是如何看待的，我很好奇。


Stephen Shore：我准备给你一个长篇大论般的回答。我或许知道摄影师的工作是如何受到的影响的－那是在其他因素中－在制作过程的成本。在1970年，当我开始使用 8x10 彩色胶片时，每张照片的花费都在 $15以上（包括胶片，冲洗，接触印像）。比较拮据的经济条件让我只对一个对象曝光一次。我知道，我不能为了节省开支而只拍摄那些会让我满意的照片，那样只会简单地带来乏味以及“安全”的照片。但是，我或许能决定什么是我真正想要拍的以及怎样去组织画面。我开始学习什么是我想要的，这是一个强有力的学习经验。数码却与 8x10正好相反。我把数码看作两种片面现象。事实上，照片是免费，那样可以导致更大的自发性。当我看人们在拍摄（使用胶片）时，我经常发现在拍摄过程中有着犹豫和牵制，但在数码中我很少看到，这似乎变得更自由同时不再受约束。与“文字处理”改变写作相类似：一个可以把想法写下来即使是离题的想法，在最细微的内部审核下，那个离题的部分都可以在后期进行编辑。另一方面，关于不受约束性它带更多来的是无差别化。有一句赘言：由于一个人较少考虑到自己的照片，其中产生较少他真正需要考虑的照片。

Jörg Colberg：对于数字摄影完善地编辑，由此将变得比胶片更为重要。你是否觉得作为一个教师编辑你已经成为一个更重要的话题吗？你觉得数字摄影变得无处不在了吗？关于编辑和审查照片的技能变得越来越被忽略了吗？

Stephen Shore：在我所任教的巴德学院，曾经有个学生执力于肖像摄影。他总是对自己的作品感到失望，于是每个星期他拍摄越来越多的照片，但依然不满意。最后，我建议他在接下来的一周只拍摄一张照片，结果是那张照片非常优秀。他的问题在于以照片的数量替换了他最终想到达到的目的。如果一个艺术家在无意识倾向下进行创作的话，有时候是无法达到辅助编辑所需要的那个量的。在缺乏“自我审查”时数码便能估算出由直觉引起的想被传达的那种力量。

Jörg Colberg：对于我来说“数字革命”是多方面的。一方面，在网络作为自愿者这一角色下，我们目睹了新增的繁衍手段以及共享化的照片。flickr 作为一个主流的照片网站,已经变得极为重要。我不是很清楚flickr会带来多大的影响力，不过， 这取决于看你怎么看待它，所以会得出不同的结论。 比如，从照片储备市场这一角度来看flickr呈现了革命性的变革。但是，如果你是一个“业余”摄影爱好者（一个我让我觉得非常不舒服的词），flickr或许“仅仅”是展示你旅行照片的另一种途径 — 而不用邀请你的朋友去看一个长达两小时的幻灯，取而代之的是发送你flickr网址的链接。那么以你的角度来看，flickr需要提供什么呢？

Stephen Shore：我发现在“数字革命”中让我感兴趣的是无处不在的照相机，再加上新的图像传送方式，它们正在引领我们进入一个新的趣味时代。一个人可以通过电子邮件的方式在一天之内把在伊拉克监狱中所拍摄的照片传播到全世界。我们可以从多角度见证乌克兰的橙色革命的参与者。当《时代杂志》为7月7日伦敦地铁炸弹事件绘制插图时，他们已不再依赖记者所传送的余殃 — 他们可以用手机拍下幸存者的照片。传播的方式尤其是网络，意味着每个人都有发言权，就如我所描述的那样，数字摄影是两种片面现象，所以这正是市民的声音。一方面它绕开了编辑和传统媒体所施加的视觉公约，同时也绕开了传统媒体的经济约束，很完美，或许只有最具开创性的事物，才能得到观众。另一方面，当每个人都有发言权的时候，让我们看看又有多少人对沟通有兴趣。

Jörg Colberg：那么然后带出的问题是，数字革命是否真的把事情变得容易—或是正在扩大的摄影圈，使你越来越难找到如你所谈及的出色的作品了？

Stephen Shore：我们或许可以看到，重新编辑/策划的过程：人们建立主页或者给自己感兴趣的东西贴上标签。然后我们又回到另一个两重性：编辑/策展人在带来了他们的洞察力的同时也强加了他们的限制性。但人们将会找到让自己感兴趣的方式，与我找到的一些有趣的blog一样，他们非常聪明，在带给我们丰富机遇同时也带来了新的公众对话方式和交流的方式。那么在这个两重性的另一端我们又能遇到到什么呢，其他人或是空然或是自我放纵—我们发现了那些能吸引我们刺激我们的东西。

Jörg Colberg：数字摄影第二个重要的方面是它开创了许多崭新的摄影创作的方式 — 而在之前是非常难于实现的，如果可能的话。比如，在电脑上对照片进行重建，这是一种可以改变摄影认知力的过程，关于摄到底是什么，同时或许开拓了一条通向艺术领域的新的道路，但或许也不是。数字摄影呈现了新的东西吗？或者说只是简单的给拍摄带来了更多的便利性吗（也许是繁复）？


Stephen Shore：几十年来一直有艺术家使用合成的方法得到照片（从 Henry Peach Robinson 到 Jerry Uelsmann），另外有些艺术家以照片处理的方式进行绘画（从 Hannah Hoch 到 Robert Heinecken）。数码使这个过程变得更简单，提供了更多的可能性。Barry Frydlender's成功的局部无缝拼贴作品的确创造了具有可信度的影像。当我们理解一张照片是如何即时扭曲在照相机之前流动的三维的世界时，我们也都接受了某种刻板的直接拍摄的影像。随时间的推移而变得熟悉，数码可能具有蚕食性，那些缺乏想象力的影像或许可以依赖成功的图像合成技术来改变它的可信度。在另一方面，我特别感兴趣的是直接由数字打印所得到的照片。它能让我局部调整照片以及对比度，从整体来看传统放大是无法达到这样的效果的。


Jörg Colberg：我很好奇地知道了你已经出版了一些小版本的个人书籍，是什么促使你这样作的呢？

Stephen Shore：自从我第一次在上世纪60年代看到 Ed Ruscha那本小型书籍后，我已经爱上了艺术家的书籍（下载 Shore的“Flohmarkt”PDF)按需求印刷技术让出版书籍变得更容易。我喜欢这些小型书籍的基本结构：那些单独的形象并不意味着是独立存在的，而是被视为一个部分，一个复杂的整体。我喜欢利用自现有的技术。最后，我的图书出版计划，使我探索了许多不同的视觉理念，并探讨了多种方向。


Jörg Colberg是 fine-art photography blog的创始人和主编，他作为一个研究学家工作于 University of Massachusetts, Amherst.