tobiasfeltus
Tobias' thoughts - Tobias on technique - Tobias' critiques

Thursday, September 3, 2009

New interview by Claudio Parantela (01 September 2009)

Find the original interview, and the rest of Claudio's blog and interviews HERE

q)Please introduce yourself.

A: Bonjour, ich heisse Tobias Feltus. Not that I speak either language, but this combination sounds better than either of the languages that I do speak.

q) Where do you live and work?

A: I live between Edinburgh and Assisi. My black & white darkroom is in Italy, and my colour work is done in the UK.

q) How would you describe your work to someone who has never seen it?

A: I generally avoid this situation by making an odd face and handing them a card. I make photographs. No, I don’t do weddings. But I guess if you are reading thus far, that you already know what my work looks like, therefore I could describe my work as a kind of instant painting, a sort of post-divisionism, implemented with a contemporary medium by using the inherent grain of photographic film.

q) How did you start in the arts? How/when did you realize you were an artist?

A: I never did. Personally I am not keen on the label because of how dire I find the art world. But I was born of two American figurative painters, Alan Feltus and Lani Irwin. Thus I grew up amongst artists and other creatives in an eclectic environment where I learned that there is nothing unusual, and the fabric of the world need not remain mysterious. Bones, insects, taxidermy, art, erotica and design are all constituents of what I have been from the very beginning. My dad gave me a Pentax ME Super when I was about 10, and I had my first darkroom then too where I played with pinhole cameras following notes given to me by Emmet Gowin... But I had been painting and sculpting as soon as I could hold the weight of my head. I never decided anything. I am simply caught up, handicapped and bound to the plight of the creative class.

q) What are your favorite art materials and why?

A: I am not really that picky, I don’t think. I am a big fan of fiber based bromide paper. I love a good fountain pen. A simple watercolour set. A block of clay... Or is it the tool that I am more dedicated to? A sharp scalpel. My collection of old dental tools. My Leica M3 or my Hasselblad 500c. I like to use things that do not cause me grief nor stress, thus my preference for simple and mechanical tools. I struggle to use matrix metering and auto-focus, in preference for a rangefinder, guestimation, and a handheld meter.

q) What/who influences you most?

A: Probably myself. I am my worse enemy; I am the thing and person who stops me from working the most. But that is not the answer you are looking for. I like to take small parts from many places, and rarely appreciate the whole of one object, person or place.

q) Describe a typical day of art making for you.

A: I am not sure if there is such a thing. My routine generally involves breakfast and correspondence or paperwork in the morning, followed by struggling or procrastinating in the afternoon. But routines and habits are best broken, so I do this as often as possible.

q) Do you have goals, specific things you want to achieve with your art or in your career as an artist?

A: I would like, one day, to be known and respected by many people whom I do not know. I would like to be one of the names listed here in someone elses interview. But the irony is that I do not want this for some selfish satisfaction or greed, but rather as a form of validation, of repeted validation of my work, as I am rarely able to judge what I do on any grounds that are not purely technical.

q) What contemporary artists or developments in art interest you?

A: The last books I looked at were of Guy Bourdin, Jan Saudek, Sarah Moon, Joel-Peter Witkin, Pierre et Gilles, a book of erotic photography from the 1850s to 1890s, and then of course yesterday’s accidental visit to the Ugolino di Prete Ilario frescoes in Orvieto (as well as the Pozzo di S. Patrizio). But as I said, I take small pieces from each. I am utterly fascinated by Terry Richardson, even though I know my work will never look like his. I am incapable. Maybe in his case it is my reaction and fascination with his work which interests me. I love the colour and magic of David Lachappelle, which is again something I am unable to achieve... And looking at my books I can see his close relationship to Saudek, Pierre et Gilles and Bourdin. I have been a long time lover of Cartier-Bresson, and more recently of Diane Arbus, finding the differences in their ways of representing life fascinating, as well as their photographs beautiful. Erwin Olaf excites me, as does Gregory Crewdson. But I am also teased by old Fellini, Buster Keaton, Wertmuller’s Love and Anarchy, Giotto’s perspective, Balthus’ space, Bernini’s marble skin and Emin’s uncensored honesty.

q) How long does it typically take you to finish a piece?

A: This is almost an unfair question. The time it takes to finish a single piece varies greatly, but so does the time inbetween shoots, and the time between the shoot and the need to finish a print for a show. So sometimes a piece may take years, even though the frame was exposed in a fraction of a second. Sometimes a shoot will last less than an hour, and sometimes a shoot will last several weeks, with trial an error, change and evolution. My general rule of thumb is that everything takes twice as long as I would expect, plus one.

q) Do you enjoy selling your pieces, or are you emotionally attached to them?

A: I love the idea of selling things, though I still struggle to not feel that receiving money is like receiving a favour. I really have never grown up. One thing, however, is that I cannot deal with limitation. If I were a painter, I would have no problem selling my work. But as a photographer, I cannot deal with the idea of limiting an edition. So at present I have been making two artist’s proofs at each printing session, and if colour, I intend to destroy the print file so that a subsequent print would be different in size and grading.

q) Is music important to you? If so, what are some things you're listening to now?

A: I go through fases. Right now I am listening to nothing. Sometimes I listen to Vivaldi, earlier today it was Tegan & Sara followed by Antony and the Johnsons. Sometimes CocoRosie, and sometimes just shuffle and skip skip skip.

q) Books?

A: Yes, I own many, though most are picture books. Being somewhat dyslexic I am a bit slow at reading, so often only read novels when I am traveling. Most recently read some Angela Carter fairy tales, A. L. Kennedy short stories, Boy Racers by Alan Bissett, and I am currently reading How to Paint a Dead Man by Sarah Hall. Sarah is a friend, and I love how she can write fiction in the way that my memory remembers things, rather than the Hollywood approach of action followed by action.

q) What theories or beliefs do you have regarding creativity or the creative process?

A: I do believe that Picasso’s “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child” is the right approach to art. So much of the art world is full of ‘ideas’ that are put out by people who haven’t the technical skill to represent them. And art-schools are not really helping, as they are moving further and further from teaching technique, giving ever more importance to the idea, yet I continue to reinforce the fact that an idea is useless if you cannot convey it. And the Visual Arts must, in primis, satisfy the need for a visual element of communication, as this is intrinsic to its name. I believe that visual art should be able to stand on its own, without a written manual, to be appreciated. I think that it is only when one is capable of perfect representation that one should be allowed to abstract. I believe that justifying one’s work should involve describing choices or emotions, and not building workarounds and excuses.

q) What do you do (or what do you enjoy doing) when you're not creating?

A: My life is a full time job: even if I am food shopping, my mind is still grinding part of the process. Again, it is part of the plague of the creative class. I do, however, spend time tinkering. I don’t know if this is a symptom of not having the money to purchase equipment in the condition that I would like to use, or whether it is a foolish disease, but I often will restore a camera, adapt a lens, or try to improve a light. Silly really, but it keeps me in trouble.

q) Do you have any projects or shows coming up that you are particularly excited about?

A: I am currently working on an album cover and a music video. I have been planning a large project in my head for a few months now, that will involve a collaboration with my girlfriend/costume designer and incorporate a level of collage, painting and re-photographing. There is also a small chance that this project may expand into becoming an Opera, collaborating with a composer. I am also part of a collective of self portrait photographers called Seven Selves, with whom we are working on scheduling several shows around the world. And I am starting work on a cross-media collaboration with Hayley Lock, who has created a series of characters that revolve around the idea of hierarchy and secrets. Her work is generally collage, and we plan to develop her images into DADAesque semi-narrative film, probably something like our HZ-Kino.

q) Do you follow contemporary art scenes? If so, how? What websites, magazines, galleries do you prefer?

A: No, I have friends, and live in a present. I tend to lean towards the past, and wish I were part of the DADA movement, or maybe an outcast of it, but regardless, living in that period between the wars.

q) Any advice for aspiring artists?

A: Well, if you are studying, the likelihood is that your tutor is wrong. If you are most comfortable drawing on the floor, then don’t use an easel. If you are most comfortable taking photographs out of focus, then quote Sugimoto’s use of “double infinity”, or Carson’s trademark bokeh-all-the-way. Remember that each year, as technology ‘improves’, and the saturation of film and photography produced hits the web, the actual ratio of good over irrelevant becomes less balanced than it was twenty, fifty or even a hundred years ago, thus it is clear that technology does not make work better. It is a tool. That is all. So given the choice between buying a mediochre dSLR or a Hasselblad 500c/m for the same price, I still would advise getting the machine that has been top of the line for the past 40 years, and not one that will be a doorstop in 4 years.

q) Where can we see more of your work online?

A: www.tobiasfeltus.com, www.feltusfecit.com, www.feltusfeltus.com, www.flickr.com/tobiasfeltus, www.sevenselves.com

Saturday, October 18, 2008

What is a C-Type today?

When we hung our first shows in 2005 I was unclear about how I should label my prints, and still today, it is unclear how contemporary colour prints should be labeled. I have read and talked, and come to my conclusions. By posting this in as many places as possible, I hope that some continuity of nomenclature may be obtained.

Going back ten years, things were simple: a black and white print was called "Silver Gelatine" or "Bromide", a colour print from negative was called a "C-Type", and a print from a transparency was called "Cibachrome", as that was the most common process for making positive-to-positive prints. Silver/Bromide were terms which described the basic chemical composition of the print, and since silver nitrate/bromide are the two chemical states of silver in the photographic process, these terms were correct. Colour film and paper is also based on silver nitrate/bromide chemical process, thus colour prints were called C-Types, meaning a Chromogenic silver bromide print. Cibachrome was a mixture of the manufacturer Ciba-Geigy and Chrome, the suffix Kodak uses to denote reversal film.

When I started fooling around in my first darkroom, these processes were all that was, and digital meant a watch that had digits on its face.

When I started to work with colour photography in 2003, however, things were already different. Now colour prints are made equally from negative or transparency, by scanning at 16bit (per channel), and printing at 8bit. The technical degradation of this is significant, as a colour transparency may hold information that is greater than 64bit, but this is what we have to live with. And most of the time you can obtain good results. I cross-process most of my work, which does not help with knowing what is right and what is wrong. The digital stage also confuses the ethics of what is acceptable wilst preserving the “real” aspect of the photograph’s origin. But this is a different topic. The fundamental issue, is that a print is made, and none of us know how to call it. I have seen many prints labeled as “Lambda Print”, which really only tells you what printer it was printed with. This would be like calling it an “Epson 2400 Print”, or going back to my darkroom, a “Laborator 138 Print”. No, that is silly. There are better solutions. Better names. And then you have many people calling their prints Giclée, which is an insult to those who have not looked it up. The name was invented in the early 1990s when digital layout for offset printing started to exist, and it was a fancy name applied to and inkjet print when the print was seen as the end product, rather than a proof. Giclée is simply a fancy word for inkjet. It means nothing more. I would not be caught dead trying to sell a print made at home on my inkjet as something special, no matter how long they claim the Chromalife 100 inks will last. A photograph should be treated in a more respectful manner than my bargain airline booking.

The process of making an image by using a lens and a chemical process to record it is an Opto-Chemical process. Thus I would assume that it would be fair to say that a digital camera produces an image by means of an Opto-Digital process. A printer like the Durst Lambda or Epsilon, which prints to RE-4 photochemical paper, thus, must be Digi-Chemical printers... An inkjet? Maybe something like Digi-Ink.

In the film industry (as in Motion Pictures), it is now widely accepted that 35mm stock goes through a Digital Intermediate (DI) process, where it is scanned, graded, edited and then printed back to film. Is this not much the same thing that we are doing when scanning a negative on a Hasselblad/Imacon scanner, and print it back to photochemical paper?

My conclusion, thus far, has been to call a colour print made from a negative or transparency, by means of a digital intermediate stage, and printed back to photochemical paper, a C-DIP, standing for Cromogenic Digital Intermediate Print. It is clean. It fits into the classic nomenclature, and it leaves little area for misinterpretation.

So what do you do if the image originates from a digital camera? A single lens reflex camera (SLR) became a dSLR when it was armed with a digital sensor, thus it would seem fit that a print from a digital source should be called a dC-Type, and if you want to specify how it was made, then add D-Chem or D-Ink as a suffix. But how much manipulation of a digital source image is allowed in its intermediate stage before it requires yet another initial to denote its pedigree? Or is that not a concern, since Playboy models have been airbrushed for decades, Victorian nudes often had genital regions blended, and I have a couple of early ‘30s 8x10” negatives of my grandmother that are so heavily manipulated by pencil and scalpel, that I wonder how much of our world has ever been truly representational.

The Blog.

I have decided, finally, to ad a Blog to my site, as there are many things that I toil with, ruminate over, conquer, resolve, eat discover and battle with, that some other people like your good self, might be interested in reading, and might even find useful. Sometimes I feel like publishing an article, a critique. Sometimes I feel like sharing a tutorial, maybe about lighting, maybe about repairing a piece of equipment... And sometimes I even feel like having a good old rant, though that kind of stream of consciousness seems fit for myspace (www.myspace.com/tobiasfeltus).

So this is the beginning. I hope you enjoy the ride.

Tobias

Powered by Blogger