Carnie: response to Hellweg’s post “disquieting pictures”

to comment on this post, click on "comments" below
to return to main page go to www.visualcultureandbioscience.org

From: Andrew Carnie
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 04:33:58 -0500 (EST)

I entirely agree with the post bellow. Digital media is just another media.What counts is what is said by the artist. The content is a most importantattribute hopefully this is blended with a certain look to make a powerfulmeaningful and visual work.

I would like to add a further couple of points on imaging technologies.

I have heard a photographic assistant say, tongue in cheek, of her boss ascientist she worked for in a lab, “his current favourite filter is the embossing filter, I wonder what it will be next month?”. The sense was thatthe scientists was slowly learning Photoshop and the next round of images he might produce might be enhanced by the next “discovery”he made in thePhotoshop filter palette.

Many books have amazingly colour images from electron microscopes. These images are made from information drawn from a complex process and is digital andwithout colour. Colour is applied to it via filters and histograms often inPhotoshop. This false colour is used to enhance a “factor” in thephotograph that the scientist wants to exemplify.

Further I have found that some images in science imaging competitions can becomposites of several images put together with no disclosure of this fact. They are beautiful but not true full.

I always think there should be better descriptions of science photographicimages in terms of technical production. Another point might be that “images” are often not what science or thescientists is looking for, they act merely as guidance and evidence for what is happening. Pictures and images are not the final product it is an understanding that matters for them. In scientific papers they are often secondary insignificance. In Richard Wingate’s work, the QuickTime movies of neuronesgrowing in the chick brain he makes only give clues to the process. It is theprocess he is interested in, the switching on and off of genes that make theproteins that guide the neurones. They are spectacular sequences and I use them as an artist because they give a sense of the changing brain. The fact thatthese cascading flows of neurones all move into their brain “location” inthe chick brain in some 22 days and that on hatching the chick can see and walk almost immediately is incredible.

Andrew Carnie

[Max Aguilera-Hellweg previously wrote:]No 3. I read the historian, Michael Sappol’s post on no3, with greatinterest, especially because of the perspective of someone in his work. Anddespite the great things it has done for medicine, science, and the artistsusing it, i.e. Digital et al, digital is just a medium like any other, it doesnot define art, nor shall or will it always be its currency. Artists will work in whatever medium they see fit. Though I love that I have a scanner, and I love and am becoming more proficient with Photoshop, and there are no morecolour labs in Boston where I live, and It has become virtually impossible totravel (i.e.. Fly) with film anymore because of tsa and x-ray, I, myself, willhold out and shoot film as long as I can. Please don’t show me this post this time next year and make me eat my words.

to comment on this post, click on "comments" below
to return to main page go to www.visualcultureandbioscience.org