A CALAMITY IN THE WORLD OF ARTorTHE USE OF DEFECTIVE, DISTORTED PHOTOGRAPHIC SLIDEREPRODUCTIONS IN JUDGING ART WORKS©1984 Mark B. Anstendig Revised
The
use of photographic reproductions for the evaluation and judgment of large
quantities of artworks presents the art world with a problem of truly
calamitous proportions. Artists and reviewers alike are not aware that, in the
world of photography, no available focusing device is capable of achieving
exact focus.1 In photography, the depiction of tonal gradations as
well as many other extremely important picture elements can only be exact at
the point of absolute focus, i.e., only at the focal point. Photo-reproduction
is therefore an unperfected, flawed process incapable of reproducing the
essential aspects of fine visual art. Reproductions that share little more than
their bare outlines with the original artwork are being evaluated for important
grants, prizes, and long-term financial assistance, all of which have profound
effects on the artists’ careers and on the development of the modern art world.
In
the visual arts, millions of dollars of public and tax-free monies are awarded
yearly without the judges ever seeing the original artworks. The
government-funded National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and numerous
philanthropic, tax-exempt foundations award large grants to artists in the
visual arts. These grants are almost universally awarded on the basis of photographic
reproductions of the artworks in the form of 35mm slides. At the current
state-of-the-art, all photographic reproduction, but especially the 35mm
format, is so technically flawed that it is incapable of duplication of these
artworks. Picture detail is lost or distorted. Colors are changed and their
tonal gradations falsely rendered. All subtlety is obliterated. In three-dimensional
art, the impression of the relative size of the objects is falsified. But the
point of fine art is conveyed in just those qualities that are lost in the
duplicating process. The resultant slides are, therefore, artistically
different from and not at all representative of the original artwork...in a
word, they are falsifications. Since few artists can live without extra
financial help, many artists are already turning out artworks conceived only
from the point of view of whether or not they will look good as slides. Sad and
difficult as it is to say, this amounts to an ultimate degradation of art.
The
use of photographic duplication as the method of presenting artworks for
serious evaluation is based on the assumption that current photographic
technique is capable of duplicating the artworks in a faithful manner. But it
is not. All photographic reproduction processes suffer from a fatal flaw: the
focusing devices available in all cameras without exception cannot achieve
focal-point-exact focus. The achievement of focal- point-exact focus for a
desired subject plane is the true definition of focusing. Because the patent that
could achieve this accuracy was not in the hands of the large camera or optical
manufacturers and because their own cameras were inexact, this definition of
focusing has been suppressed by the photographic industry.2
Most
people think of focusing only in terms of sharpness and higher resolution of
fine detail. Those are the least interesting results of true focusing accuracy.
The tonal gradations of a subject can only be accurately depicted at the focal
point.3 This little-known fact about
focusing accuracy is of crucial importance to art reproduction. Because of the
inability of reproduction cameras to locate the focal-point, the reproduction
of color tones varies with each camera setting, making it impossible to
standardize the reproduction of color tones. The manner in which colors and
their tonal gradations will be reproduced remains a question mark that varies
with each new reproduction.
Of
great importance is that the results of focusing precision--accurate depiction of
the tonal gradations, together with greater resolution, less impression of
grain, and increased impression of depth-of-field--result in the effect called
plasticity, which is the impression of three-dimensionality on a
two-dimensional surface. Plasticity is crucial to the reproduction of all art
that has depth or texture, including oils, some water-colors, and sculpture.
Such artworks, which depend upon three-dimensionality of texture or form for
their artistic effect, are particularly disadvantaged by the use of slides. One
other effect of focal-point focusing precision is that the viewer’s gaze is
always drawn to the focal-plane in all photographs. That means that, since most
photographs do not have the focal-plane on the most important point of the picture,
the viewer’s gaze is constantly drawn away from the compositional point of
greatest interest when viewing conventionally-focused photographs. This point
has great importance in the correct rendition of three-dimensional art-works.
An additional flaw is that the relative proportions of any subject can only be
precisely depicted at the focal-plane. Even small changes in focus change the
impression of the size of the subject and cause the viewer’s gaze to be
attracted to different parts of the subject.4
The
innate problems of accurate photo-reproduction are aggravated by the use of the
small 35mm format mounted in glassless frames. The 35mm format is universally
acknowledged as inferior to larger formats for reproductions. Its small size
demands great amounts of enlargement, which magnifies the defects of inexact
focusing. Without a means of achieving perfect focus, decent, though still
flawed, reproductions are only possible with film sizes larger than 4 x 5
inches. Mounting the slides in glassless frames worsens an already bad
situation because the 35mm film cannot lie flat. It usually expands, and
thereby changes its position while it is being warmed by the heat of the
projector. Correct focus of the projected image is, therefore, undependable and
usually impossible.
It
is of particular importance to understand that the submitted 35mm slides are
not merely a flawed reproduction of the original artworks. They are different works of art. The Anstendig Institute has the original prints of a number of
focal-point- exact photographs of which 35mm side-reproductions were submitted
for evaluation to the NEA.5 The slides were
commercial duplications of those photographs made by highly recommended,
reputable photo-labs. A comparison conclusively demonstrates that the slides
change the originals in such appreciable ways that the effect of the art-work
is not conveyed at all. By no means do these slides convey the point of the
art.
These
photographs are particularly pertinent because they utilize focal-point-exact placement
of the plane of focus as the means to artistic effect, working artistically
with the resulting effects of such precision.6 Naturally,
the results of such precision are the first to be obliterated by the
non-focal-point-exact inaccuracies of the reproducing process. But
focal-point-exact focus is the artistic point of these photographs and is
demonstrated by them. Since it is the solution to the whole reproduction
problem and is itself obliterated in the presentation, these photographs
present clear, ironic proof of the faults in the presentation methods used in
evaluating visual artworks. It should be added that the experts at the NEA do
not seem to have recognized the extreme pertinence of these photographs to
their own evaluation procedures, probably because the contents of the photos
were obliterated by the required 35mm slides.7
The
National Endowment for the Arts is the leading single source of support for the
arts in the
The
NEA acknowledges the technical points in The Anstendig Institute’s papers on
focusing, which were sent to them, but claims that slides “allow all
applicants’ work to be introduced to the jurors; in a consistent and as equal
as possible manner under the circumstances”. But the NEA has not fully realized
that the artist’s work is not being presented to the jurors. Art is art, not
something similar to but different from and inferior to the artwork. The
point of an artwork is to convey a particular experience which is inherent in
that artwork. But these flawed reproductions no longer convey that experience.
Using these slides to judge art is just as futile as judging art on the basis
of verbal descriptions. More so, since a good communicator might be able to
verbally convey the magical impression that a great work of art has on the
viewer, while the slides destroy it.
Since
the NEA is now aware of the truth about focusing accuracy in relation to accurate
reproduction of artworks, we feel that they can no longer claim to be reviewing
art. What is reviewed is falsifications which are
definitely not the “art” of the artist under consideration. The reviewing
procedures are designed to accommodate the NEA’s needs for a rational reviewing procedure in the face of thousands of
applications, not the demands of art. Its review of reproductions would have
validity if the art were not falsified by the reproductions. The circumstances
are worse than using counterfeits to judge or place a value on the great
masterworks of Rembrandt, Raphael, et al, because a good painter could
conceivably copy the Rembrandt with great accuracy, but the slides cannot. If a
washing machine faded and disfigured the clothes, that machine would never be
tolerated. There is little difference between washing haute couture masterpieces with such a machine and reproducing visual art with 35mm slides.
If photo-reproduction were capable of
highly accurate reproduction of an original so that the only problem were
seeing the artwork as a projected slide instead of in the original form, the
prevalent arguments that the use of slides is fair to all would have some
validity, although the slides would still be a format for which the artworks
were not conceived. But the photo-reproduction process can never achieve the
results necessary for the purpose of true evaluation of artworks until it has a
dependable means of achieving focal-point-accuracy. Until that time,
photo-reproduction will remain flawed and unable to perform the function the
reviewing procedures demand of it. Realizing this creates a real dilemma
because the procedure of using 35mm slides is essentially invalidated. This, in
turn, could be interpreted as invalidating all awards and grants that have
resulted from those procedures.
If
available repro-cameras had the means to achieve focal- point precision, the
other factors (exposure, contrast control through developing procedures, etc.)
could be quickly worked out by each lab. The field of photo-reproduction would
then be able to achieve an accurate technique that could very closely convey
the impression of a visual artwork. It would even be possible to accurately
convey the impression of depth in such artworks as sculpture and oil paintings with
textured surfaces. The Anstendig Institute’s photo-materials prove this. But,
with the present possibilities of photo-reproduction, the artists should be
allowed to show their work in its original form, or not at all until the
reproduction process adopts a means of
focal-point-exact focusing precision.
The
use of slides has the further effect of unduly influencing the choice of
materials which an artist submits. Many extremely effective artworks simply do
not work as slides. The Anstendig Institute has found, in researching this
aspect of the problem, that the prevalent need to use
slides in order to acquire support for their work has resulted in many artists
compromising their inspiration by painting pictures specifically to look good
as slides. Many artists have emphasized that the practice of using slides is so
universal that it is virtually impossible for even the most conscientious of
them to remain true only to the demands of their inspiration without dooming
themselves to enormous material sacrifices. But there has not been persistent
protest because everyone has assumed that the problem is only a matter of some
works not showing up to best advantage in slide-reproduction, not that the
reproduction process itself is flawed.
The
Anstendig Institute is the first to recognize and make known the truth about
the photo-reproduction process. Many problems of reproductions are widely
known, such as changes in tonal contrast and slide-buckling. But it is not
understood that reproduction can only be accurate at the focal-plane, nor has
it been widely made known that precise focusing is impossible with the
focusing systems that are used. Now that the scientific facts are known, and
the NEA has not questioned or proved our technical arguments to be false, we
would expect the NEA as well as other grant-giving foundations and the artists
themselves to join us in trying to remedy the situation.
There is really no possible compromise with
35mm slides, even with the good intentions of trying to process the most applications
in the most expedient manner. Either the artwork is evaluated or it is not.
Even using the slides only to gain a first impression of the work of each
applicant, after which the originals of the most apparently interesting artists
are viewed is untenable because 1) many deserving
candidates will be passed up and, 2) first impressions are the strongest and
will usually influence and even determine how the originals themselves will be
evaluated.
Since it would be a great loss that would
create a crisis in the art world if grant-giving activities were stopped due to
the imperfections of the viewing techniques, the logical remedy is to perfect
the reproduction and presentation processes. Since a practical, easy-to-use
focusing device that can achieve absolute focal-point-exact focus exists and is
well-known by much of the industry, the situation could be quickly remedied if
this focusing device were made available by the camera industry and grant
applicants were specifically directed to insist on having their slides made
with it.8 All grant-giving institutions and artists should demand
that it be made available.
Certainly no one expected to be confronted
with hard facts proving that current photo-reproduction in the 35mm slide
format cannot accurately reproduce an original. We are sympathetic to the
plight of the grant-giving institutions in relation to this new information and
understand the dilemma that such proof creates. But The Anstendig Institute,
like those institutions, is dedicated to the uncompromised preservation and
furthering of artistic standards and is obligated to make our material and its
ramifications known to the public and to persons and organizations to whom it is pertinent. The use of slides as the basis for
visual-arts evaluations has to ultimately be seen as a disservice to art that
invalidates the whole purpose of such visual arts programs.
1 The
Anstendig Institute’s papers on focusing detail the problems of focusing,
explain the important results when absolutely precise, focal-point-exact
focusing is achieved, and explain how to prove for yourself that your camera
cannot focus.
2 Instead, the industry pushed the concept of depth-of-field focusing, which in
reality deals with hypothetical tolerances for unsharpness and does not deal with sharpness at all.
3 In
front or in back of their precise focal-point, all tonal values are irradiated,
i.e., diluted.
4 The
Anstendig Institute possesses photographs, made with a focal-point-exact
focusing system which has never been marketed, that clearly demonstrate all of
the effects of focusing accuracy described in this paper.
5 The
photographs were made using the Messraster, the only
focusing device that can achieve focal-point exact focus. This device, the
invention of the late Joseph Dahl of
6 This
use of the focal-point as the basis for photographic-artistic effect is an
essential requisite of all photography that wants to call itself art. So many
essential factors of a photographic image are dependent upon and controlled by
the location of the focal-plane that, without the precise control of the
focal-plane, photography is pure chance, not art.
7 A
few original 8x10 enlargements accompanied the slides, but the slides are
looked at first and other submitted material is only perused if the slides make
enough of an impression on the judges.
8 Our
papers describe this device in detail and explain some of its peculiar history.
Suffice it to say that, while the industry was not putting it on the market, no
less than 9 patents were applied for utilizing its principles in auto-focusing,
none of which can be as accurate or practical to use as the original in normal
picture-taking situations.
The Anstendig Institute is a non-profit, tax-exempt, research institute that was founded to investigate stress-producing vibrational influences in our lives and to pursue research in the fields of sight and sound; to provide material designed to help the public become aware of and understand stressful vibrational influences; to instruct the public in how to improve the quality of those influences in their lives; and to provide the research and explanations that are necessary for an understanding of how we see and hear.
|