The Psychological Landscape by Rita Bernstein

The Psychological Landscape by Rita Bernstein

From The Psychological Landscape by Rita Bernstein
From LensWork Extended #95
© 2011 Rita Bernstein. All rights reserved.
Reproduced with the permission of the photographer.

Commentary
Now that we are all so entrenched in the digital age, we are losing touch with one of the most magical parts of photography — the physical characteristics of a print. This is precisely why I think it's so important that we photographers do our part to preserve the appreciation of physical prints. I see nothing inconsistent in embracing digital imaging and digital image delivery while still holding dear the physical qualities of physical prints. This work by Rita Bernstein is a case in point.

I first saw this work at a photo review event and was powerfully moved by both the imagery and the physicality of her printmaking. The rough edges of the paper, crinkled surface, curled edges, and generalized distress added a powerful emotional content to the delicate tones in the images. When we discussed publishing her work, I expressed my concern in losing those qualities when her images were translated onto the digitally pristine screen in LensWork Extended. To simply reproduce her original digital files would've missed such an important part of her work. Even scanning the original prints created reproduction images that were too flawless. The solution we found was to photograph her original prints, complete with their distress marks and even the sheen of reflection off the baryta surface. This also had the advantage of preserving not just a tactile feel but also her original tonalities and split toning.

There is, however, a subtle trap that is an incredible temptation these days. I see lots of work that uses extraordinary hand processes and various kinds of physical distress in order to make prints that scream, "I am not digital!" The problem with so many of these is that the technique used to make the physical print has nothing to do with the content, either emotionally or intellectually. As has always been the case in photography, technical grandstanding never improves the artwork in spite of the fact that the photographer may beam with pride at their technical accomplishment. No one has ever said it better than the great technical master himself, Ansel Adams, when he quipped, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

The pendulum has swung in the opposite direction in this new century where photographers go out of their way to reduce the quality of their prints through various physical or digital techniques, but if doing so doesn't enhance the message in the artwork, it doesn't improve the artwork. Technique and content must harmonize to create something really special.

Bernstein's portfolio — aptly titled The Psychological Landscape — offers us a look at fragility and the delicate state of mind so easily trampled upon, as are her physical prints. It's a perfect match between technique and content — and a testament to Bernstein's artistic sensitivity.

The portfolio can be seen in its entirety in our back issues — print (while still available) and our PDFs for computer, iPad, Android, and other devices. Plus, bonus audio commentary about this image is available to members of LensWork Online.

Discussion
Add your comments and observations to the discussion by using the "Comments" link at the bottom of this post.

Comments

[Cemal Ekin]

How true! The print is the ultimate expression of a photograph. There is something different about looking at a print. Of course digital presentation has its place, but many photographers miss the joy of seeing their work printed.

The other issue, distressing the print or using other techniques to add different qualities to the print is not much different from "digital manipulation". The question, to me, always is "is the technique supporting the vision or blowing its own horn?" The latter generally fails as the technique screams over the vision. A good blend of vision and technique creates results that "look effortlessly done" no matter how much work might have gone into the photograph. This has been my guiding principle and have been trying to pass it on to as many photographers I can.

Your points are spot on.

[Matthew Vogt]

Wonderful post and sums up some thoughts I've been ruminating on for a while. Being a user of social media the "instagram" effect has thoroughly become the choice for sharing pictures. Lo-Fi seems to be the big thing now and its incredible to think that documentary photogs are taking nothing other than an iphone into war zones to take pictures:

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/05/20/the-war-in-libya-photographs-by-michael-christopher-brown/#4

I do agree however as saturation of this type of photography reaches its zenith it takes on the feeling of being more so about the process than it does about what the image says.

Great post!

[Henkki Zakkinen]

What a cool piece of spam, this last comment. Took part of the text by Cemal Ekin and twisted it around a bit - probably translated to Russian and back ;). Still easily discernible as a fake. So, do not click on the "cheap Hockey Jerseys" link, folks. And Brooks, maybe you want to delet that comment :)

[Henkki Zakkinen]

And now to the photo itself: lovely, lovely, lovely! And a very wise decision to photograph it. Very impressive effect. And absolutely in place here, the "wounded" print adds "vulnerable" to the impression the photo of the woman's back is giving. Strongly. Wonder whether it would be there if I had the same image in front of me as a pristine print or a digital copy. Kind of doubt it. So it works, here at least. Probably works very often, but if the effect of "aged-and-worn" comes into play to often, from pre-canned effects collections it might wear out quickly. The fact that we can see that it is really a print (can we?) saves this one. If I saw a fully digital production that looked like this, I'd pull my hat before the artist as well.

I just wrote what I think about pre-canned filtes. But is that right? Is an effect worse just because it is achieved more easily? If we had a machine that could paint like Rembrandt or Picasso, would it produce as valuable paintings? Isn't the result what counts? Yes and no. The copies might be nice to look at, but they still would be copies, lacking the creativity of the original artistic work. But what if the audience couldn't see it? What if I didn't know? Difficult one, I cannot say, honestly. Maybe time plays a role. The inventor is the master, the copyists may be good, but they invent nothing new. I am torn. I guess, I'l have to try and be as non-judgemental as possible. If something impresses me, however it was created, I'll let it impress me. And if I later find it was done in Snapspeed or a similar app, I'll allow some disappointment, but will try to remember the initial moment.

[here]

This is precisely why I think it's so important that we photographers do our part to preserve the appreciation of physical prints.