PhotoIcon Editors Letter feed http://www.photoicon.com Tue, 22 May 2012 11:05:14 -0600 PHOTOICON Feed Generator http://www.photoicon.com/templates/images/logo.png http://www.photoicon.com Feed provided by photoicon.com All rights reserved. Copyright©2012 Photoicon. regulars http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/10/ This issue of PHOTOICON was conceived as a way of answering some tantalising questions: What makes Mexico so appealing to the lenses? Why is it that many of the world’s most renowned photographers have chosen Mexico as a subject?

In our previous issue, Made in Scandinavia, we came into contact with a world where photography is mostly a consequence of the profound study of a concept together with the techniques that translate it into images. In contrast, this issue is dedicated to radically different photographic languages. Rather than a collective artistic effort, we will look at the multiple expressions of photography in a country where extreme contrasts are the rule.

To get a better understanding of the general composition of this issue, it’s worth mentioning that Mexico is going through very complicated times, marked by the violence of drug wars and the extreme poverty in which a large part of the population lives. Paradoxically, some of the world’s wealthiest individuals have made fortunes out of this same society.

In spite of all this, such a context seems to be a source of inspiration: Mexican photography is worthy of the international recognition, but it also plays, in its more conventional form, a central role in everyday life.

Today, it’s extremely difficult to talk about Mexican photography in general, but it’s even more difficult to describe it in detail. This medium forms part of an infinite number of ways of life, each with their corresponding forms of expression, which cannot be easily catalogued and which, like the worst type of virus, are continually mutating.

Just like the inhabitants of this multitudinous country, photography is constantly adopting different personalities and moods, sometimes suggestive, incomprehensible and sometimes simply bipolar.

The line between fiction and reality is a fine and tortuous one. To see this, one only has to compare the portraits of quinceañeras – sweet sixteen-like 15-year olds – in palaces that they will probably never visit, with the princesses photographed by Daniela Rosell in her Rich and Famous series in palaces they will probably never leave.

It’s precisely this fine, sinuous line between reality and fiction that seems to have always existed in Mexico and is more defined every day, which we trace in this issue through the sincere images of local photographers and the surprised and curious views of foreign photographers.
]]> Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:04:53 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/10/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/9/ This issue of PHOTOICON is the second in our history that is primarily dedicated to a single subject. Made in Scandinavia is a highly subjective look at the revolution in contemporary Nordic photography – a movement that is currently producing some of the most vital and exciting artists working in the international arena.

THE PIONEERING and adventurous nature of the inhabitants of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway needs no introduction, however, along with their admirable abilities to integrate into the wider world, they are credited with the cultural virtues of ‘coolness, control and psychic remoteness’. Paradoxically, the Nordic tribes are also assumed to enjoy psychological anguish as a national trait by their European neighbours. Certainly all the photographers in this brief survey are fiercely proud of their roots and heritage and cite it as a driving force in their attitude to working methods and image-making.

Publisher and founder of PHOTOICON, the Norwegian photographer Petter Hegre, epitomises the enterprise and adventurous outlook of Scandinavian photographers himself – leaving his home in Stavanger to study in the USA and then spend time as assistant to the legendary Richard Avedon - before forging an independent career that takes him all over the planet to shoot in enviably exotic locations. The driving force behind this special issue subject, Made in Scandinavia, Hegre himself embodies the heady mix of Scandinavian charm and tenacity that has driven Photoicon magazine to the forefront of international photography publishing in less than two years.

What does emerge from our highly selective snapshot of Scandinavian artists is evidence of a pattern now common across the globe. Whilst the older generation of photographers are working primarily within the intellectual and technical considerations established in the mid-20th century – and represented in the work of Walker Evans, Robert Frank and Henri Cartier-Bresson – the new breed of photographer is concerned with the manipulation of the image and virtuosity with the digital processes. Young photographers see the fusion of fine art and photography (this is not to say that photography has not already been established as a fine art medium) as complete and that digital interventions are as valid in the image-making process as any other in the printmaker’s lexicon.

Current trends have leapfrogged the initial response to post-production technologies which were initially directed at ironing out imperfections in the original shot. Now, the onus is on fabricating the image from the start, where one or more photographs are merely ingredients in a whole theatre of activity to create the final statement.

Clearly this has provoked an energetic debate as to the nature of the photographic image and the integrity of the photograph as a work of art. The digital revolution (or evolution might be more apposite) has developed with such speed that the schism between the old guard and the new appears more pronounced than in actuality. What is certain is that throughout the history of photography its practitioners were invariably enthusiastic for all and any advances in optical technology, which were immediately embraced with gusto. And recent reinvestigations into the art of painting (not least by David Hockney(1) in his excellent treatise on the use of the camera obscura by Caravaggio et al.) ably demonstrate that – given half a chance – Michelangelo would have been papering the Sistine Chapel ceiling with C-Prints and making one hell of a saving on scaffold hire.


1) Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, David Hockney, Thames and Hudson, 2001
]]> Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:12:18 -0700 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/9/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/8/ It has always been tradition for history to be viewed as a linear, evolving series of events, one following from the other on some imaginary timeline. In Art, critics inter-weave events and influences to give a seamless, intellectual evolution extending back 15,000 years to the caves of Lascaux and beyond. On this journey, certain milestones are acknowledged - for example the first use of perspective by Giotto, then Brunellesco, Donatello and Masaccio or the advent of oil painting - in the modern sense - by Jan van Eyck in the 16th century.

THE SAME EXCERCISE might be used for the photographic art. Whilst noting all manner of optical devices, for example the Ibn al-Haytham invention of the camera obscura and pinhole camera, and Albertus Magnus' discovery of silver nitrate; the crucial stop on this journey was clearly the first fixed image. The Frenchman, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, initially combined the camera obscura with photosensitive paper and then, in 1826, Niépce created a permanent image. However, unlike painting and sculpture, the very art of photography experienced a major technical schism in 1991 - with the Kodak DCS-100 (the first digital SLR, a modified Nikon F3), and the landmark software, Adobe Photoshop (first released in 1990).

Thus, after almost 170 years of often amazing developments in photography, perhaps the greatest of them all split the camera art in two. And it is getting clearer by the day that - although the end result might seem the same in abstract terms - the process by which it is achieved derives from two entirely different sensibilities.

Just like the mobile phone, inexpensive digital cameras are truly a mass market medium rapidly approaching the universal disposability of the ubiquitous Biro. And alongside this instant, erasable format there is a perceptible, parallel attitude to the image it creates - disposable, deleteable, dismissible - detritus in a society where the global language is the image. Whole generations are growing up knowing no other formats, and to whom the wet print process is as antiquated as the steam locomotive. So much so, that the intellectual process involved in creating a film-based image (and all the ‘mathematical’ decisions that must combine with the photographer’s experience) is relatively absent in the taking of a digital shot - which has its own parameters to consider. One is no better than the other - they are two entirely different aktions.

The digital revolution has created a ‘new photography’ where the manipulation of the image is a forgone conclusion and an integral part of the creative process. Photographers have always been able to control the final ‘look’ of an image in the darkroom. Indeed, Frank Hurley, the Australian cameraman on Shackleton’s famous Antarctic expedition (1914) and later official War Artist, faked so many of his Western Front pictures that any ‘photoshopper’ would have been proud of him. It caused a scandal at the time, but Hurley was responding in part to the limitations of the equipment available. But the digital impact has had interesting repercussions even on the generation it caters for. Many young camera artists are using basic, manual devices to create images: the bright plastic Holga, or the revived Polaroid process. Perhaps their response is to the global glut of mediocre images washing around cyberspace and on homepages everywhere?

Meanwhile the old hands claim, as ever, to be loyal to film, the acid bath and the darkroom experience. Perhaps their biggest dilemma is not digital vs. film after all - but simply where to find the ever diminishing supplies of stock and professional papers!


]]> Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:09:24 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/8/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/7/ This is the first issue of PHOTOICON that has adopted a theme for the main body of its features: The Photograph in Rock'n'Roll. And within hours we were regretting this brilliant idea. From day one the concept expanded like nuclear fission. It could never be a definitive study, indeed it was never intended as such, but the editors found themselves faced with an ever expanding horizon of possibilities.

FROM THE BEGINNING we were clear that the aim was to address 'the Photograph in Rock'n'Roll' - as opposed to Rock'n'Roll photography. What's the difference? This was the most obvious question asked by our collaborators and actually the most difficult to answer. It is the difference between the images made by Robert Capa or Don McCullin - and the myriad of personal snaps taken by ordinary soldiers experiencing the same conflicts. It is the difference between the words of Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen or Eric Maria Remarque - and the countless diaries and memoirs by their compatriots on the Western Front. Amidst the very many pedestrian images associated with the cult of Rock’n’Roll and the social revolution it inspired, are those destined to be of permanent historical importance and others that will have a lasting resonance because of the subjects they document. Even now - almost 50 years exactly since the genre was born - the analytics of time have given a new impetus to events that - for many people - seem to have happened only last year.

As the soon-to-be infamous 1960s were born, it is often forgotten that embryonic rock’n’rollers were not the cool cats on the block. It was the jazz musicians who lived the life coveted by those who would soon become bastions of the counter culture. Whilst Elvis enjoyed a famously clean cut personal lifestyle at home with Mom, it was the modern jazz musicians who were the source of admiration and envy. Predominantly black, with some notable exceptions (Chet Baker et al) it was a life of all night cellar clubs, hashish and heroin, sex, jive talk and cool, cool sounds. Liverpool’s famous Cavern Club was actually a jazz venue until (as reported by Gerry Marsden) the owners saw the profit in the ‘Mersey Sound’ - following a sell out Gerry and the Pacemakers gig. It changed its image overnight - luckily for the Beatles.

But PHOTOICON is a journal of images not words. And if there were to be any, we were certain they should be those of the artists involved. This ‘in their own words’ concept unfortunately forced some notable exceptions that really should have been here. Mick Rock: generously willing to participate but permanently in transit around the world; Anton Corjbin: immersed in a new film and without seconds to spare. But those that did collaborate with our tight deadlines went to great lengths to recall the moments, the philosophy and the technical aspects of creating the images that they themselves selected for inclusion in this issue.

In 1958, the press photographer really was as depicted in the movies - trench coat, trilby hat, departmental cameras that had not changed much since the Eramox of the 1930s and where the 4x5 film format was commonplace. When doyen British photographer, Terry O’Neill joined the Daily Sketch he remembers buying his own camera (a Canon) probably to avoid being issued with a bulky Graflex Crown Graphic. Press photographers are the same the world over. This cynical, resolute army of old snappers were the first to encounter the heroes of the burgeoning R&B culture - soon to be the anti-heroes of Rock’n’Roll and the embryonic Counter Culture. And on the whole they approached this new breed of ‘teenager’ with a jaundiced eye. Those that did make the transition did it with panache and flair. The great images of Harry Hammond and Harry Goodwin, the artistry of Michael Ward - it is nearly impossible today to imagine the cultural gap that they bridged with the ease of the true artist.

When the camera was first focussed on the emerging stars of rock culture it was to record a scene that transmuted at lightening speed. In the early days, some got a guitar and learned the basic three chords (that many?) whilst others got hold of a camera and started snapping. Musicians were totally accessible and welcomed any sort of publicity whilst photographers grew up with and alongside the future rock stars they were documenting. And as the counter culture gathered pace (and power) it duly launched its own means of presenting these images to the world. As David Litchfield notes in his provocative essay, the counter culture invented the genre of rock photography - and turned it into an artform that has discernible parallels to modern war photography, especially that of Vietnam.

The days when Mick Jagger would pose under the hair drier for Terry O’Neill soon passed. To get to the heroes of the Swingin’ Sixties and beyond it required a fearsome tenacity to bypass managers, PRs, body guards and shark infested moats around country mansions. Even trusted faces couldn’t rely on an Access All Areas pass in the drug fuelled paranoia of Rock’n’Roll excess. Which makes the many revealing images here all the more remarkable an achievement. For those already within these hallowed halls and with a camera in their hands - the results are of a private world prohibited to the common man. Linda McCartney and Patti Boyd (formerly Mrs George Harrison and Mrs Eric Clapton) both enjoyed access to the highest echelons of the rock business only dreamed of by other photographers; whilst Andy Summers - a rock star and a professional standard lensman - captured the roller-coaster craziness of rock celebrity from the actual driving seat.

For a brief time, British music and British musicians dominated the world stage quite literally. In the USA, facing its own demons in the form of Vietnam and racial insecurity, the underground and alternative lifestyle was much more than an extension of Jack Kerouac’s anthem for a lost generation, it was a means to subvert and reclaim the American Dream in an echo of the revolutionary war 200 years before. The Hippie movement and back-to-the-land ideology peaked at the Woodstock Festival, brilliantly documented by a young Elliott Landy - and plumbed the depths at Altamont, witnessed by ace Rolling Stone lensman, Robert Altman. PHOTOICON has been privileged to collaborate with all these individuals for our Summer Issue. They have been most generous with their work and their words and have collectively demonstrated the veracity and value of the photograph in Rock’n’Roll. Fifty years later, this artform has come full circle. Cutting edge contemporary bands and their photographers interact in a way that would be only too familiar to Michael Ward or Elliott Landy - and the arrogance of ‘stadium rock’ has given way to global internet accessibility and a culture where, decidedly, the Image Is All.
]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:07:43 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/7/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/6/ There will be two sorts of eyeballs reading this. One set will have seen the magazine before and decided to try it again. For this we thank and welcome you back. The other will be those meeting the magazine and its makers for the first time. We hope you agree that whatever else it is, Photoicon is a high quality product.

Producing a magazine to this standard comes at a price - and it's not cheap. Most publications that hit the high street outlets (WHSmiths for example) are products of large, established
companies - prestige beehives where a whole stable of titles are knocked out once a month on the dot. They share production facilities, advertising teams, dominate a distributor - that is, if they don't own one outright - and command the most prominent positions on the newsagents rack. And up until recently were very
profitable operations.

If trade analysts are to believed, and recent ABC* figures accurate, there has been a growing shift in magazine buying habits. The 'lads mags' and general women’s interest titles are haemorrhaging readers. Men's 'style' magazines have polarised up or down with some surprising casualties. The one sector on the rise is the specialist interest magazine. As you might imagine, we at Photoicon hope this includes us!

Photoicon has a clear vision of what it hopes to achieve. We wanted to explore the fusion between art and photography; to revisit the great masters (both historic and modern) of the art, and to introduce young and original talents to a wider audience. Right from the first issue we wanted to avoid creating a formula magazine, following a standard look and adopting the usual gimmicks found in the corporate glossies. We particularly wanted to offer a platform for anyone seriously interested in the photographic art. The Photoicon website (if you haven’t looked recently, scope out www.photoicon.com) has attracted some outstanding reader’s contributions to the image galleries. We’ve had two winners already for the Award For Excellence, both of whom won a classy new Olympus SP-55OUZ. We, in turn, have been grateful for the help and support of many at the top end of the global photographic business.

If you enjoy the magazine and support its aims, might we cordially invite you to subscribe and help us streamline our overheads. We pay all the postage and you get the magazine mailed directly from the end of the press - days ahead of UK newsagents (and sometimes weeks ahead if you live outside Britain). You can take advantage of back issue offers to create a complete set if you are interested (see page 6).

As this edition went to press, Sony launched the inaugural World Photography Awards in Cannes. A prime example of how photography is being revised as a major art form of our time. The SWPA is designed to be a truly international event, loosely modelled on the Hollywood ‘Oscars’, and Sony are determined that it will match the LA movie beano for pizzazz and high profiling of the award winners. There will be plenty of press coverage meantime, but the next issue of Photoicon will have an offbeat, insider report from our own man in the shades and deconstructed linen suit.


*ABC Audit Bureau of Circulations
]]> Tue, 20 May 2008 06:05:56 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/6/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/5/ THERE IS NO denying it - the world of photography is in a state of flux. There can be few artistic disciplines that have had such a dramatic response to the silicone chip revolution as creative photography. Those schooled in the traditional skills of the darkroom have fought a valiant rear-guard action, but the ingenuity of the digital manufacturers has seemingly anticipated every possible operational requirement - and there is always the ubiquitous plug-in to fill any gaps. Like the look of 1950s Kodachrome? Or a 35mm film grain? Alien Skin’s Exposure plug-in for the Photoshop platform can grant your wish in a nanosecond.

Virtually every tutorial on the art tells would be photographers that the ‘creativity’ is within the photographer and not the equipment. And it is true; a camera is no more than a tool. But of course, a chisel in the hands of Michelangelo is a different prospect to those of a regular stonemason - and different again to some DIY enthusiast with a garden ornament to make. Whenever a range of essential skills changes radically - and virtually overnight - there are the inevitable casualties. Darkroom skills have become computer skills. Knowledge of printing papers and chemical effects has become cognisance of computer software and digital printing options.

Specialist magazines (this one included) avidly report the great names of the art - that is, photographers worthy of respect - who assert they are going ‘back’ to film. The word ‘authenticity’ appears frequently in this context. But what is never really elucidated is why? If Robert Capa had been holding a waterproof DSLR on Omaha beach instead of a Contax, he could have shot off many more images - and the London lab boy would not have had the chance to meltdown 106 frames leaving only eight distorted images to witness to the photographer’s unbelievably courage on D-Day. And you can bet your last dollar that any field photographer worth his or her salt - from 1870 to 1970 - would have jumped at the chance to streamline their operation to the modern digital minimum.

So the pressure is on the serious photographer. More images - more image makers. And there are some interesting trends to be observed. Painters are becoming photographers (insofar as there is an overwhelming amount of photo-based imagery on gallery walls); photographers are becoming film makers (Larry Clark is a prime example); and film makers - well, they appear to be taking up painting! (Ok, let’s not include Sylvester Stallone).

Photoicon is proud to announce a new collaboration - with leading manufacturer OLYMPUS. The team at Olympus have always been dedicated to promoting personal creativity through the photographic art. In the UK, there have been some visionary initiatives from Mark Thackara to involve young people in self expression by using contemporary camera technology. This Spring, we will announce an issue by issue OPEN FORUM where anyone can freely upload their personal images to PHOTOICON ON-LINE to be judged by an eminent Olympus panel. There will be a fantastic prize from the latest Olympus range awarded for the most innovative and dynamic individual submission during the previous two months. Meanwhile, to get the ball rolling, take the Olympus challenge (see inside front cover). Create an image that interprets the real world of cutting edge, indestructible camera use - get it checked out by the top pros at Olympus and maybe win a great new camera from Olympus UK.
]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:03:36 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/5/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/4/ THE INVENTION OF photography - and how it affected the art of painting - has been much discussed over the intervening decades. The fact that it did not mean the end of painting - as predicted by many - is self apparent, but it did have a major impact in one singular way. The ability of photography to capture an exact likeness, of both a human face and a landscape, relieved the painter of a duty he (and with rare exceptions she) had performed for over 500 years.

Although it peaked in the18th century, for obvious reasons, the necessity of accurately portraying the features and property of a wealthy individual became increasingly important in matters of inheritance, estate and descent. With the advent of photography, painters were psychologically released to pursue other lines of enquiry and it can be no coincidence that the great movements in experimental painting - such as impressionism, pointillism and abstraction - occurred within fifty years of photography being established as a reportage medium.

Today, photography has had its own seismic shift with the development of the digital camera process. The SLR film camera, with the many possibilities open to the photographer as regards paper stock and processing techniques, seems to have become redundant almost overnight. Not surprisingly, just as it is impossible to find a stockist of Letraset instant type (at one time no graphic studio on earth was without a cabinet full of the stuff) it is getting increasingly difficult to source photographic paper options. And it takes a courageous photographer, pro or semi-pro, who can ignore the digital revolution completely. But the digital process has, in its turn, released the photographer from the darkroom to pursue their own - other - lines of enquiry. The first result being the buzz of the moment - the manipulated image.

Although the DSLR makers have introduced a mind-boggling array of custom override options to their products, it is still a simple matter to open the box, set the camera on ‘automatic’ and get a result. And once that result, good or bad, is transferred to the computer, then an equally mind-boggling range of options are available to ‘re-shoot’ the image to create virtually any result desired. This has introduced a whole debate in the profession - not least from the great names of photography who were - of course - schooled in the pre-digital age. Whereas great men of the lens like Bailey, Snowdon and Elliott Erwitt often refer to their works as ‘snaps’ it is clearly with a more than a little irony, for they are skilled in the matters of shutter speed, F-stops and lenses. Skills that have to be learned to such a degree that they become second nature. In the cameras of the 21st century, these skills are available at the push of the button marked ’beginner’ (or was it ’idiot’?) and the results are impressive, there is no denying it.

The supporters of the integrity of film are fighting an admirable rear-guard action. But just as the art of portrait painting is now a sideshow to the main event, the cutting edge of photography is in the hands of a new, much expanded, breed of artists not afraid to experiment with the medium from a totally contemporary perspective. A position where image is [definitely] all…
]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:12:49 -0700 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/4/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/3/ What is your vision of the successful photographer? Is it a busy, well equipped studio with good looking assistants rushing around ready to hand the ‘master’ a full loaded camera and adjust the lighting? Is it the David Hemmings character in Antonioni’s 1966 movie, Blow-up - the moody, trendy, solitary genius much in demand by girls (or boys) and oily agents with fabulous book deals?

Obviously these types do exist, rumour has it Hemmings modeled his singular performance on David Bailey, and anyone attending a Richard Avedon shoot would recognise the bevy of keen assistants trying to attract the chief’s eye. But one thing is for sure: no one is born at the top of the profession, they have to climb up on their own by a mix of raw talent, skill, luck and tenacity, because at the end of the day - only one eye can look through the lens and make that crucial decision to press the shutter.

Or, until recently, that was how it worked. The route to the top was pretty well defined and understood. Of late, however, the boundaries have blurred and the interaction of photography with the fine art world has introduced some interesting possibilities. Initially it looked like a win-win situation for photographers. Galleries previously blind to the fine art of the photographic image are now wide open, indeed, proactively looking, to find photographers to exhibit. The prices for images, both at auction and privately, are increasing exponentially. Lensmen cast into the dustbin of history are being reassessed by fresh eyes and their work revalued to take a deserved place in the grand scheme of things. What could be better?

But this coin has two sides. Artists, previously devoted to painting, have not been slow to see the potential of this new dynamic. The amount of art currently being produced with a photographic content is overwhelming and the photographer and the painter now meet at a crossroads called the manipulated image. The omnipresence of computers in all aspects of modern life probably made this inevitable, but interesting questions arise if all praised images are to be the result of post-production in Photoshop. Users of digital software know that virtually any effect can be produced and a single image changed beyond recognition. Just as in the old days, photographic retouchers were highly paid artisans, it might well come to pass that a new breed of image doctors (those who bother to read the whole of the Operators Handbook) emerge to become as sought after as individual movie directors - or the photographers themselves. And no matter how many various effects are available, a certain uniformity of image is sure to creep in - and some would say there is evidence of this already.

The digital revolution has introduced us to millions of mediocre (and worse) images, all being produced on a daily basis. And the serious photographer is certainly being battered by this tsunami of inconsequential detritus. Perhaps a clue to the future lies with Magnum photographer, Richard Kalvar, whose latest book of street shots boldly declares: ‘no cropping; no staged shots; no image manipulation’. Perhaps the photographs that will be most valued by future generations will follow these basic precepts and what you get will be exactly what is said on the tin...!
]]> Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:10:29 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/3/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/2/ THE RESEARCH group InfoTrends announced that they estimated world wide camera sales to have reached 53 million units in 2004 with a predicted growth of 15% per year thereafter. According to the arcane way these people work, this indicates 82 million cameras will be sold by 2008 and the bulk of them are more than likely to be digital.

The digital revolution has arrived like a tsunami and working with film seems - almost overnight - as old hat as using Letraset or making PMTs on a Agfa Repromaster process camera. Of course, we all know the pleasures of film and the incidental qualities of the ‘grain’. But the chemical free, instantaneous qualities and complete control of the digitally produced image, is hard to deny. The big question is more likely to be what happens when everyone on the planet has a palm sized digital camera in their pocket? What value has the camera image then?

Cynics will say that we have had a taste of this nightmare scenario with camera phones. Petty crime and anti-social behaviour conjured up in order that it can be captured on a cellphone and networked far and wide. But ever since the camera was invented there have been ‘snaps’ made for no other purpose than that of amusing the camera operator. Whilst historical perspective and antiquity might have imbued some these naïve efforts with a certain nostalgic fascination, they are hardly major contributions to the ’art’ of photography. The fact that Daler Rowney have sold millions of boxed painting sets since 1783, when George Rowney started the business, does not mean they have produced millions of artists. A glut of cameras and images washing around the world will not radically alter the intellectual process by which a single image is deemed to be great, or another, mediocre to worse.

This issue of PHOTOICON addresses those who are dedicated to the fine art of the image. It also reinforces the intrinsic humanity of the photographic art. On one hand, Chris Wroblewski documents the disappeared street ‘smudgers’, gamely carrying on with a box of chemical tricks in the face of annihilation by the Polaroid instant camera. The Polaroid, itself consigned to dustbin of technology by the digital SLR, is currently being revived as a fashion item by the Polanoir Gallery in Vienna. On the other hand, Jan Saudek, idiosyncratic and still illusive at 72, whose randomly dated, manipulated images are now sought after in the world’s auction houses. And Natalie Dybisz, who launched herself on her own terms onto the internet - and is drawing huge audiences for her highly original take on life as a ‘young woman with ideas’ through her alter ego: Miss Aniela.

It is the photographer who takes the photograph and not the camera. No matter what the sophistication of the instrument, what the possibilities of manipulation, it is the artist’s eye that directs the final image. And in photography - the image is all. Enjoy…
]]> Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:06:38 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/2/ http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/1/ UPON SEEING his first Daguerreotype, the celebrated French history painter, Paul Delaroche, is quoted as declaring that: ‘from today, painting is dead!’ Whilst it is debatable whether he actually said anything of the sort, it is certain that he was an immediate advocate for the new magic medium: ‘Daguerre's process completely satisfies all the demands of art, carrying essential principles of art to such perfection that it must become a subject of observation and study even to the most accomplished painters’.

Although from the very beginning artists used photography as both an aid and a means of expression, the last twenty years have seen an unprecedented explosion of the fusion between art and photography. Galleries across the world are seeing painting, in the traditional sense, being superseded by the ‘manipulated image’ – photobased work remodeled in numerous and ingenious ways. Lighting, in-camera techniques and darkroom magic, skills traditionally the province of the photographer, can now be duplicated with ease by Adobe Photoshop – so much so that the software’s launch in 1990 is regarded by Laura Noble, in her book on collecting photographs, as a key development in the history of photography.

Far from provoking internecine warfare, this merging of the two disciplines has proved a win-win situation. Former painters have grasped the potential of the digital image with enthusiasm, whilst photographers have enjoyed a new found respect for their work – and space on the walls of frontline galleries, previously unavailable. Contemporary photographers have seen their work reassessed and re-valued upwards by the mainstream arts culture, with auction prices to match and the kudos previously afforded the fortunate few, such as Mapplethorpe and Cartier-Bresson. The specialist market has always regarded – quite rightly – creative photography as a fine art, today this designation is accepted without demur across the broad spectrum of the media. It has given a momentum to photographers not seen since the advent of the illustrated magazine and revitalised a stagnant art world somewhat devoid of spark and originality.

And so here is Photoicon – a magazine that will report, review and reflect the essential art of our time. We will develop and expand Photoicon’s experimental origins into a magazine of rare and exclusive interviews, with previously unseen archive material. Regular features will incorporate profiles and dialogues with the new breed of image makers – yet still salute the masters of the great photographic tradition. Readers are cordially invited to visit Photoicon On-Line magazine at HYPERLINK "http://www.photoicon.com" www.photoicon.com and to check out the vast amount of visuals and text available in our archives – some sections will require your subscriber’s access code.
Enjoy…
]]> Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:03:13 -0600 http://www.photoicon.com/editors_letter/1/