http://davidcampany.com/thomas-ruff-the-aesthetics-of-the-pixel/
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2009/04/review_jpegs_by_thomas_ruff/
These reviews consider the work of Thomas Ruff in his book JPEGS (2009). In this book Ruff takes archival images and enlarges them to a level at which the pixel structure of the digital image is obvious. In this way he aims to explore the nature of the photographic image in the digital era.
Company, in his review, draws an analogy between the pixels of the digital image and the grain of photographic film. He notes that “Analogue photography developed an aesthetics of grain quite early on, especially through reportage.” Of necessity such photography relied on fast film speed and associated with this was more prominent granularity of the negative. Pixilation is not the only factor distorting the digital image, a granularity can occur with fast ISO and associated reduction in resolution.
While film photography is often referred to as analogue to distinguish it from photography with electronic digital cameras, at a molecular level the film is also digital: a molecule of the photosensitive coating either reacts to the light, or it does not. I would argue that the grain of film and the pixilation and other artefacts represent the limits of the technique and they are analogous to the brush strokes of a painter. It is the role of the photographer to work with these technical limitations to create the aesthetic effect envisaged, in the same way as a painter might use prominent of less prominent brush strokes.


These two versions of the Image of Wren Nest Mill differ in the pixels forming the image, however removing the fine detail from the larger image allows the viewer to concentrate on the areas of colour and composition of the image and I would argue maintains a major factor which contributes to the appeal of the image (to me).


































