The Pencil of Nature by H. Fox Talbot
Research point: Read the introductory sections. Do you see photography as mechanical or creative? Can any process be both? Make notes in your learning log.
Talbot instantly refers to photography as ‘ the art of Photogenic Drawing’ without the use of a pencil. This already gives the impression that talbot believes photography is an art form, perhaps in a modern ‘convenience’ kind of way.
However, it goes on to explain the ‘plates’ are obtained by the ‘mere action’ of capturing light on paper, so in comparing photography to actual drawing it seems the former is downplayed to be less of a skill in its process.
Saying that photos are ‘impressed by nature’s hand’ further removes the skill of the photographer, to being perhaps just more of an ‘operator’ of the equipment that uses nature’s qualities to create images. That is technically true, I think photography nowadays has moved so far that it seems more and more removed from the original process of harnessing nature in that way.
Talbot still describes photography as an Art, particularly one of ‘great singularity’, it's not a part of ‘normal’ art practice at that time but a completely separate form from all types of art.
Talbot explains that photography is still so new, and has no doubt that it will continue to evolve and develop with ‘rapid progress’. Perhaps from his point of view, the development was processing so rapidly that he could assume it would continue.
In his ‘brief historic sketch of the invention of the art’ talbot still refers to photos as ‘sketches’ with a camera. There isn't really any words for ‘photo’, or ‘photography’, only the word ‘camera’. Talbot believed that the ‘instrument’s’ use required a knowledge of drawing, which is probably why he still describes it as an Art.
This led on to Talbot using a Camera Obscura as a kind of ‘projector’, relaying the image he intended to capture and tracing over it. This he found time consuming and frustrating when something disrupted the paper and affected the accuracy.
Talbot explains that he could never really capture the ‘inimitable beauty’ of nature, and had a ‘souvenir’ at best, of the scene. Talbot wanted to find a more permanent way of capturing the view. Though he does state that the image would be ‘divested of the ideas that accompany it’. In his opinion, when we see the picture we don't see the thought behind it. Maybe that was the case at the time as it was more of a way of recording images, but as its progressed, photography has been able to express ideas, which could be what makes it a form of art.
He explains that the images are measures of dark and light, highlights and shadows, impressed upon paper from the levels of light that define the actual scene. It's an interesting way to decipher photography.
By explaining the chemical process of silver nitrate, Talbot is explaining how he came to take his ideas further, and use this understanding of light and dark to create the images. He describes his experimentation with salt, silver chloride and silver nitrate and the way it reacts to light. It really strips back to the primitive origins of photography.
It actually describes a process many of us are familiar with, I recall making images like this when I was in school, with photochromic paper, leaves, a sheet of glass and sunlight.
There is a process of experimentation that combines all of Talbot’s ideas, with advice from sir H. Davy, and explains the thought process that evolved to utilise chemicals that were light sensitive.
These experiments continued for at least 5 years, including the experimentation of developing colours. He was frustrated when he was beaten to the mark in the scientific community when ‘M. Daguerre’ announced success, ‘of the photographic process which he has called the Daguerreotype’. Although the methods were kept secretive for many months. He then explains that this process has in fact been named photography.
However, it was later revealed that his competition had not yet worked out how to ‘fix’ the images to stop them developing further. So Talbot almost expresses that they had not truly discovered the art of photography, as he had done. Their practice had been abandoned, but he remains that the birth of photography was in the year 1839.
It summarises that both processes were ‘facsimiles’ of one another, but there were issues that were still proving unresolved including the light itself. They were dependent on sunlight, which is unreliable at best in the UK climate. There were also issues in regards to sizing of the paper - as in the preparation of the paper used. But with all these issues aside, the photos are shared with the ‘gentle reader’.
I think perhaps Talbot referred to the art of photography as the ‘pencil of nature’ because of the initial process that sparked the development of the process.
New terminology:
Epitomised be a perfect example of.: "the company epitomized the problems faced by British industry".give a summary of (a written work).: "for the benefit of our readers, we will epitomize the pamphlet".
Conjecture an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.: "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied" "a matter for conjecture".
Laudable : (of an action, idea, or aim) deserving praise and commendation.: "laudable though the aim might be, the results have been criticized".
Paucity: he presence of something in only small or insufficient quantities or amounts.: "a paucity of information".
Inimitable so good or unusual as to be impossible to copy; unique.: "they took the charts by storm with their inimitable style".
Divested deprive someone of (power, rights, or possessions).: "men are unlikely to be divested of power without a struggle".
Comments
Post a Comment