Bandwagon
kcar...@stein.u.washington.edu
something about it" and I will scream. I've posted a few things to get things
started. (I'm old, I don't care if anyone loves me.) But the rest of you have
to do more than jump on the bandwagon (Pun intended) with complaints. Post
something. Anything. An idea. Surely there must be a few out there. Come on art
people.
kris carroll
Jason D Corley
always thought it was a shame.
So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
they mention? Speaking as a mathematics student, I can vouch for
M.C. Escher, and speaking as a lunatic, I can certainly argue in favor
of Andy Warhol, but who else? Which artists most accurately represent
the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
Whew! There's an open question! Yikes!
--
*******************************************************************************
"Keep an eye on the species below us...because you never know who may be next."
----Bertha's Save The Cat Committee (Garrison Keillor)
Jason D. "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley, Poet, Polymath, Scoundrel.
A replicant
>I'll jump on too. I haven't seen a lot of stuff on here, and I
>always thought it was a shame.
>
>So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
>they mention? Speaking as a mathematics student, I can vouch for
>M.C. Escher, and speaking as a lunatic, I can certainly argue in favor
>of Andy Warhol, but who else? Which artists most accurately represent
>the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
>art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
>
>Whew! There's an open question! Yikes!
I suppose if the 23rd and 24th centuries have HUMAN scholars who actually
sit around and discuss works in the history of art, when they talk about
20th century art they would note the origins of computer graphic arts and
virtual reality... but that really is a long time away...
BTW I have taken several art classes, but none of them (though one of them
was a class in modern art) have taken up the subject of M.C. Escher...
Gee.
>
>--
>*******************************************************************************
>"Keep an eye on the species below us...because you never know who may be next."
> ----Bertha's Save The Cat Committee (Garrison Keillor)
>Jason D. "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley, Poet, Polymath, Scoundrel.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's still hard for me to have a clear mind thinking on it.
But it's the truth even if it didn't happen."(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
---Erik Pohl at ep...@hubcap.clemson.edu---------------------------------------
J E H Shaw
>So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
>they mention?
Favourites: Klee, Picasso, Matisse
Possibles: Kandinsky, Rothko, Henry Moore, Ansell Adams
Outsiders_worthy_of_a_flutter: Ralph Steadman (UK cartoonist),
Andy Goldsworthy (UK sculptor/photographer)
All the above, IMHO, are very spiritual and/or disturbing.
Quite likely Mondrian & Dali will get a mention, but I don't get much
from them.
-- Ewart Shaw
--
J.E.H.Shaw, Department of Statistics, | JANET: st...@uk.ac.warwick
University of Warwick, | BITNET: strgh%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. | PHONE: +44 203 523069
yacc - the piece of code that understandeth all parsing
David Garrett
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
>they mention? Speaking as a mathematics student, I can vouch for
>M.C. Escher, and speaking as a lunatic, I can certainly argue in favor
>of Andy Warhol, but who else? Which artists most accurately represent
>the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
>art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
Well, I would think that one of the central questions surrounding art and
the process by which art is created in the 20th century would have to be
the transition from a modernist to a post-modernist outlook (even though
the ``end of post-modernism'' is being debated in the art press. what are
they going to call its successor, anyway? post-po-mo?)
In other words, we've gone in the space of less than 100 years from Monet
to Picasso to Pollock to Warhol to...Mark Kostabi, just to cite a few
well-known examples . Whether or not this is progress, I'm not going to be
the judge of. I think they're all valid in one way or another.
I should point out that while I normally tend toward the neoclassical point
of view, I do have both a print of _Guernica_ on the wall at home and a
KostabiWear T-shirt I picked up last year. So I guess I'm sitting on the
fence on the issue of modern vs. post-modern.
Dave Garrett
gar...@math.rice.edu
Dave Poindexter
Corley, cor...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists
>will they mention?
>the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
>art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
Ok, I
history course per semester while I was working on my BFA and MFA in
studio art. From that and my perspective as a working artist, I will
share my thoughts on the subject.
I will agree that scholars like to find links between the art of a period
and the rest of the reality of the time. However, I think it is important
to remember that this is always done from the context of the world that
the scholars live in and the effect of the events that led to it.
Historians of any stripe generally tend to view history as a linear
progression of events. 23rd C. art historians are going to focus on those
artists of the 20th C. which had a major impact on succeeding
generations. One case in point, Impressionist painters were not highly
regarded by their contemporaries, especially at first. Today they are
seen as the beginning of the 100+ year old Modernist collection of
movements.
So even though I think its impossible to guess what 23rd C. scholars will
say, right now I would pick Picasso and Marchelle Deuchamp as important
representatives of the early 20th C. and Robert Rauschenberg and Warhol
for most of the second half.
Dave Poindexter
poind...@scri.fsu.edu
Graphic Artist (for the rent) and Computer Artist (for the soul)
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst. @ Florida State U.
phone: (904) 644-2851; fax: 644-0098 CIS: 73670,265
*** It's laa-aug! Laa-aug! It's better than Bad, it's GOOD! ***
Jason D Corley
>
>In other words, we've gone in the space of less than 100 years from Monet
>to Picasso to Pollock to Warhol to...Mark Kostabi, just to cite a few
>well-known examples . Whether or not this is progress, I'm not going to be
>the judge of. I think they're all valid in one way or another.
>
predominant feature of art in the 20th century is the same as the
predominant feature of society itself in the 20th century-- rapid,
almost explosive change.
It can also be argued that these changes are, to a certain degree,
parallel, both tending towards a wider range of expression, freedom,
and personal gain. There are many instances of restriction and
repression on the societal end, admittedly, but comparing, say, the
Victorian tendencies of the turn of the century, to the, well, modern
tendencies of 1993, the general trend is clear. Is that enough
muddled pseudo-intellectual art/society analysis for everyone? Should
I have used the word semiotic? ;-)
--
"Seriousness of mind was a prerequisite for understanding Newtonian physics.
I am not convinced that it is not a handicap in understanding quantum theory."
------Connie Willis
Jason "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Southern Arizona Gizmonic Institute
Vance Maverick
|> In article <1993Jan14.0...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> cor...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
|> >...
|> >So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
|> >sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
|> >they mention?
|> >...
|>
|> Favourites: Klee, Picasso, Matisse
|> Possibles: Kandinsky, Rothko, Henry Moore, Ansell Adams
What do other people think of Adams? To me, he is a distinctly
second-rate photographer. In a way I think he's like Mapplethorpe: a
brilliant photographic technician who has an inflated reputation
because of the content of his pictures. Everybody likes Yosemite,
and Adams somehow became the official photographer for it. Compare
Adams to (say) Walker Evans -- well-made views of famous landmarks
vs. startlingly fresh ways of seeing space.
Vance
Cecilia Henningsson
>So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
>they mention? Speaking as a mathematics student, I can vouch for
>M.C. Escher, and speaking as a lunatic, I can certainly argue in favor
>of Andy Warhol, but who else? Which artists most accurately represent
>the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
>art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
How about some seventies socially critic realistic German painters?
There were some women inbetween there who did wonderfully burlesque
_and_ accurate pictures of for instance people bathing in the North
sea. Am I the only person who actually _likes_ these? (Sorry, I don't
recall any names presently.)
I am still an art student, studying at Lunnevads folkhoegskola
(special Nordic schoolform), and specializing in water-colours.
--Ceci, who has actually posted here before
--
=====ce...@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"I hate definitions." Benjamin Disraeli in _Vivian_Grey_
===================================================================
Hisashi Naganuma
I agree with Mr. Vance Maverick's opinion. Ansell Adams is 2nd-rate
photographer who only has excellent B&W technique.
This is my opinion
The best of 20th century photographers are:
Robert Frank and Richard Avedon
Hisashi
Jason D Corley
>
>What do other people think of Adams? To me, he is a distinctly
>second-rate photographer. In a way I think he's like Mapplethorpe: a
>brilliant photographic technician who has an inflated reputation
>because of the content of his pictures. Everybody likes Yosemite,
>and Adams somehow became the official photographer for it. Compare
>Adams to (say) Walker Evans -- well-made views of famous landmarks
>vs. startlingly fresh ways of seeing space.
Mapplethorpe ;-) Really, though, despite the subject, Ansel Adams (I
think there's only one L) was a _great_ photographer for his time,
when photography as an art form was only just getting started.
And, like the kibitzer standing behind me says "What, exactly, is there
to photography besides being a good technician, and finding a suitable
subject?"
Daniel R. Frey
Art historians will look back on this century much the same way we
look on the Renaissance. Both periods are marked by a massive shift in
society and an even more massive shift in the art being created by that
society. Unlike the history of the Renaissance though, single artists
will not be as important, instead the plethora of movements and new
concepts that came about this century will be the focus of the
discourse. Of course they'll always talk about Duchamp, Warhol and
Picasso but not the same way they will speak of Michaelangelo, et al.
The artist of the future will probably be able to trace back their
work to ideas that were began and explored during this century, much the
same way an artist of the eighteenth century relied on works created
during the Renaissance.
As for Ansel Adams and other photographers, I don't think they will
be treated so well. Their work, for better or for worse, will be seen
more as documents of social and cultural trends happening during the
time the photos were taken, and less as examples of the grand shifts of
modernism and post-modernism. There will be plenty of exceptions to
this but I think a greater majority of photographers will be segregated
away from the more crucial concepts born during this century and achieve
a lesser place in history.
As for M.C. Escher, he will then, as now, be a great source for
posters, no more, no less.
Stewart Tame
>
>So here's my question: When scholars of the 23rd and 24th centuries
>sit around and discuss ancient artwork, what 20th century artists will
>they mention? Speaking as a mathematics student, I can vouch for
>M.C. Escher, and speaking as a lunatic, I can certainly argue in favor
>of Andy Warhol, but who else? Which artists most accurately represent
>the changes across the 20th century (scholars will always like to link
>art to social trends)? What, in essence, _is_ 20th century art?
>
One of the major inventions of the 20th century is the concept of abstract
art. I think Picasso's place in art history is fairly secure. Ditto
Mattisse (sp?), probably Mondrian (anybody whose style is appropriated
for hotels, cosmetics, etc. is bound to be remembered. :-) . . . hmmm ...
I like to think that Duchamp will be remembered but he's kind of a personal
hero of mine and I'm probably biased in this regard. Probably Dali will
be remembered . . . I'm finding it easier to pick figures from the early
20th century than the later, probably because they've stood the test of
time longer. Will Rauschenberg or Stella or Pollock or Oldenberg be
remembered? Who knows . . . seems a bit early to place any bets yet . . .
Maybe we could make it a bit easier and ask ourselves which *movements*
will be remembered by any but the most dedicated art scholars in the
23rd/24th centuries?
****************************************************************************
I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
****************************************************************************
Email: st...@emunix.emich.edu
****************************************************************************
Disclaimer: Not only do my opinions represent those of Eastern Michigan
University, but also those of Dan Quayle, Richard Nixon, Frank Zappa,
Pee-wee Herman, Bart Simpson, Tipper Gore, Murphy Brown, Maggie Thatcher,
and the Easter Bunny.
Kris Carroll
> Possibles: Kandinsky, Rothko, Henry Moore, Ansell Adams
> Outsiders_worthy_of_a_flutter: Ralph Steadman (UK cartoonist),
> Andy Goldsworthy (UK sculptor/photographer)
>
Henry Moore is a great favorite of mine. Do you also know Barbara
Hepworth? Her scupture really influenced while I was in high school about
a hundred years ago.
Kris Carroll
find myself thinking, ah but some of those images sing in spite of all I
hate about good old Uncle Ancel. So there I take it back. I love certain
piece
> "What, exactly, is there
> to photography besides being a good technician, and finding a suitable
> subject?"
Dark alley, high noon, any time, puppy.
Vance Maverick
>In article <1j7439$r...@agate.berkeley.edu> mave...@mahogany.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>>
>>What do other people think of Adams? To me, he is a distinctly
>
>I'm going to defend Adams here, just because you compared him to
>Mapplethorpe ;-) Really, though, despite the subject, Ansel Adams (I
>think there's only one L) was a _great_ photographer for his time,
>when photography as an art form was only just getting started.
The problem with this claim is that it's easy to find great photographers
from Adams' time and before. Edward Weston comes to mind, but there's
Atget, Frederick Evans, August Sander (in a *very* different mode), and
on and on. I'd even take J-H Lartigue over Adams. And I already men-
tioned Walker Evans.
>And, like the kibitzer standing behind me says "What, exactly, is there
>to photography besides being a good technician, and finding a suitable
>subject?"
Quite a bit. That's a very craft-y view of photography, and all of the
people I've mentioned found something else besides well-made snapshots
with their cameras. (Though there's a snapshot connection with Atget
and Lartigue....)
Vance
Folded Pliers
Its late at night, I am tired, but I must rush to defend my favoriteovorite
photographer. ;)
Photography has always been a questionable art medium, but the trend of
not knowing what is art and record is about to explode, so lets not bother
with trying to sort it out. Let us instead say: "Look at all the cool pictures.
Let us see them and be amusused, enlightened and happy. And the guy who brought them to us, Ansel Adams, however he did it, whether by craft or art, or simple technique, is a fine fellow for doing us the favour."
I have seen many photographs, and his are a great and solid work. His work has quality and control. I would never call him second rate. I like my photos, I love his. I think my favorite is moonrise over whatever. So good.
Yes?
Shawn Tribe
While I most emphatically agree that Picasso will be seen as one of the most
important artists of the 20th century (I would go so far as to say he is the
most important of all time) I have to ask you why you picked Marcel Duchamp?
What is it that makes you choose Duchamp?
My list of the most important 20th century artist would be (in order):
Pablo Picasso (in conjuction with Georges Braque)
-> Reason: Cubism was by far the most important innovation of this century
as it changed forever the way artists looked at things.
Paul Cezanne
-> Reason: Cezanne in fact inspired cubism, by starting to change objects
into geometrical planes, cylinders etc.. he has been proclaimed
the 'father of abstract art'.
Andy Warhol
-> Reason: His development of Pop art effectively showed late 20th century
pop culture.
I would also like to give Salvador Dali an honourable mention here. There
were so many great artists during the early 20th century, and so much
going on at that time, many get overlooked. Inversely there is so little
of relevance/importance in the late 20th century that few stand out.
Kurt Thearling
>
>While I most emphatically agree that Picasso will be seen as one of the most
>important artists of the 20th century (I would go so far as to say he is the
>most important of all time) I have to ask you why you picked Marcel Duchamp?
>
>What is it that makes you choose Duchamp?
Although I wasn't the one who first mentioned Duchamp, I was thinking the
along similar lines. I personally think Duchamp is the most important
artist of this century. His influence is far reaching. From Dada and
Surrealism to Fluxus, Pop Art (e.g., Johns, Rauschenberg, ...), and music
(e.g., John Cage). He redefined what art had to be. Ordinary objects from
everyday life were assimilated into art, and in some circumstances were
themselves art.
- kurt
ps. Picasso would be second on my list.
Eugene N. Miya
>>>second-rate photographer. [...]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I was just at the Adams
Gallery in Yosemite Valley looking for a gift to an officemate who
just resigned to raise her kid.
He is one of the people responsible for DEFINING what photography
IS perceived as today. His subjects tended more to things like landscapes
(however, I have seen Adams people pictures, Adams color, and Adams
Polaroids(tm).) f/64 was an important defining stage of the art.
Classical art criticism places things like landscapes
on a "lower plane" than say portraits or people pictures. But then
many of these people (nearly had two as in-laws) also don't regard
photography as an art with a preference to painting as a true art form.
Additionally, Ansel was a great kidder, able to make fun of himself and
his position, one of the great recent conservationists (typically
never seen by the art world), a climber, and had interests in all kinds
of things like computers and astronomy. I was lucky to have the chance
to meet him a couple of times, just missed a chance of having dinner with
him and Virginia, and some day will climb the peak named in his honor
in Yosemite.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
SubGenius
>Although I wasn't the one who first mentioned Duchamp, I was thinking the
>along similar lines. I personally think Duchamp is the most important
>artist of this century. His influence is far reaching. From Dada and
>Surrealism to Fluxus, Pop Art (e.g., Johns, Rauschenberg, ...), and music
>(e.g., John Cage). He redefined what art had to be. Ordinary objects from
>everyday life were assimilated into art, and in some circumstances were
>themselves art.
>- kurt
>ps. Picasso would be second on my list.
+-------------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
..which raises some interesting questions, of course, of what constitutes
art, music, u.s.w.
I think that in some respects this falls more under the category of artist-
as-commentator (or artist-as-art-critic) rather than artist-as-creator. I
suppose this involves some completely subjective judgements of what is of
importance in art, perhaps even more subjective in the visual arts than in
(as in the case of John Cage) the other arts, along with some more objective
criterion.
That is to say, in (for example) a Rene Magritte painting of a pipe with the
caption `Ceci n'est pas une pipe' (_The Air and the Song_ being the prime
example with numerous [that ought to be in italics] other examples) we
can judge it same manner we evaluate Van Gogh's _The Langlois Bridge_
(example chosen because it happens to be on the wall), i.e., composition
u.s.w., but we should more to the point evaluate Magritte with the fact
that there is active information in the painting--Magritte is in the
persona of artist-as-commentator--which is not present in the Van Gogh.
Colloquially, the Van Gogh is pretty but stupid and the Magritte is plain
but intelligent.
And anyone who's made it past the politics of junior high understands where
the majority favour falls.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Vance Maverick
|>
|> I think that in some respects this
being praised earlier]
|> falls more under the category of artist-
|> as-commentator (or artist-as-art-critic) rather than artist-as-creator. I
|> suppose this
|> involves some completely subjective judgements of what is of
|> importance in art, perhaps even more subjective in the visual arts than in
|> (as in the case of John Cage) the other arts, along with some more objective
|> criterion.
|>
|> That is to say, in (for example) a Rene Magritte painting of a pipe with the
|> caption `Ceci n'est pas une pipe' (_The Air and the Song_ being the prime
|> example with numerous [that ought to be in italics] other examples) we
|> can judge it same manner we evaluate Van Gogh's _The Langlois Bridge_
|> (example chosen because it happens to be on the wall), i.e., composition
|> u.s.w., but we should more to the point evaluate Magritte with the fact
|> that there is active information in the painting--Magritte is in the
|> persona of artist-as-commentator--which is not present in the Van Gogh.
|> Colloquially, the Van Gogh is pretty but stupid and the Magritte is plain
|> but intelligent.
This distinction is not solid. In art, in general, doing
really is usually about doing, in addition to being doing. :)
Painting a picture of a bridge is about bridges, seeing
bridges, seeing *that* bridge, painting bridges, painting
pictures, and painting; inevitably, even with Van Gogh or
Howard Finster. We may say, to put down Magritte, that Ceci
n'est pas une pipe *fails* as doing though it may succeed as a
way of talking about doing; but it's not impossible to do
both. Duchamp's and Cage's most interesting things succeed as
both -- take _Why Not Sneeze?_ (have I got the right title?
the thing with cubes of marble) and _Inlets_, for two
non-canonical examples.
Vance
SubGenius
Vance Maverick writes...
>This distinction is not solid. In art, in general, doing
>really is usually about doing, in addition to being doing. :)
>Painting a picture of a bridge is about bridges, seeing
>bridges, seeing *that* bridge, painting bridges, painting
>pictures, and painting; inevitably, even with Van Gogh or
>Howard Finster. We may say, to put down Magritte, that Ceci
>n'est pas une pipe *fails* as doing though it may succeed as a
>way of talking about doing; but it's not impossible to do
>both. Duchamp's and Cage's most interesting things succeed as
>both -- take _Why Not Sneeze?_ (have I got the right title?
>the thing with cubes of marble) and _Inlets_, for two
>non-canonical examples.
> Vance
+--------------------------------------SubG--------------------------------+
This reads a bit like some sort of Jackson Pollock on acid (that is to say,
some sort of Jackson Pollock) theory of art.
Which is neither here nor there. My point was that a Magritte is intentionally
self-referential whereas a Van Gogh or, say, Edward Hopper, is not. Or
certainly not to the same extent, and therefore they can only glancingly be
judged by the same criteria.
A Miro, on the other hand is intentionally self-referential, but only to the
point of plagarizing other Miros, so that really doesn't count.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Stewart Tame
I think I was the person who mentioned Duchamp and, as I said, I'm biased
in this regard since Duchamp happens to be a particular favorite of mine.
However it wasn't just a whim; Duchamp managed to cover so much ground
that it would be hard to name an art movement that came *after* him that
couldn't in some way be related back to a particular work of Duchamp's.
He pushed and stretched at the definition of "Art" and managed to prove
that said definition was capable of withstanding infinite amounts of
abuse . . .
Also, if the Armory Show (hope I got the name right) is acknowledged to
have a secure place in the history of art then Duchamp, as the creator of
"Nude Descending a Staircase", can hardly help being famous (or infamous
if you prefer.)
-- Stewart "Fountain" Tame
Vance Maverick
|> >>>What do other people think of Adams? To me, he is a distinctly
|> >>>second-rate photographer. [...]
|>
|>
|> He is one of the people responsible for DEFINING what photography
|> IS perceived as today.
Well, J.C. Bach was partly responsible for defining the
possibilities of post-Baroque music, yet many people like
Haydn and Mozart better.
|> f/64 was an important defining stage of the art.
Wasn't this a group of photographers? My memory is vague.
|> Classical art criticism places things like landscapes
|> on a "lower plane" than say portraits or people pictures.
Really? Which classical criticism? Seems to me the Dutch
landscape painters, Constable, and Ce'zanne's versions of Mont
Ste. Victoire are taken very seriously indeed.
|> Additionally, Ansel was a great kidder, able to make fun of himself and
|> his position, one of the great recent conservationists (typically
|> never seen by the art world), a climber, and had interests in all kinds
|> of things like computers and astronomy. I was lucky to have the chance
|> to meet him a couple of times, just missed a chance of having dinner with
|> him and Virginia, and some day will climb the peak named in his honor
|> in Yosemite.
I was talking about his photography.
Vance
Vance Maverick
|>
|> |> Classical art criticism places things like landscapes
|> |> on a "lower plane" than say portraits or people pictures.
|>
|> Really? Which classical criticism? Seems to me the Dutch
|> landscape painters, Constable, and Ce'zanne's versions of Mont
|> Ste. Victoire are taken very seriously indeed.
Not to mention Caspar David Friedrich, who was definitely a
founding figure of the tradition which led up to the 19th-
century landscape photographers; some of these people,
especially the ones like Carleton Watkins and Timothy
O'Sullivan who went out into the American West, are obvious
antecedents for the most popular work of Adams.
Vance
Kris Carroll
several others produced work far more lasting and innovative than Adams.
He was more the darling of the amature photo guilds than the art circle,
though Bret Weston, a mere technician IMHO, was an admirer. Certain images
do stand the test of time and aestetic criterion, but Adam's focus always
seemed his technical studies - the 5 "Basic Photo Books" and his damned
zone system.
kristine carroll
Jason D Corley
What is the damned zone system? Why is it damned? Enlighten a poor,
culture-illiterate scientist...
;-)
Kris Carroll
> culture-illiterate scientist...
> ;-)
Sigh, let's see how badly I can embarass the prof who taught this to me.
Adams believed any silver image was created in the making of the negative.
Therefore, some system of measuring (hence the need for a light meter,
hand held of course) of the tonal ranges from shadow to hightlight was
needed. Conventional wisdom says expose the negative for the shadows,
develop it (convert the silver to the proper density) for the highlights.
Keep in mind that the natural tonal range of say a landscape would be
longer (more tones) than the film could record. So, with planning and a
system, the photographer controls what area of landscape fall into what
tonal range of the negative and shortens that range when deciding on
developer intensity and time. When the negative is printed dense black =
Zone 0, Zone 1 is black areas but with detail remaing, Zone 5 = mid grey,
Zone 8 is white that retains detail. The Zone steps black to white are
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. (In the world of printing and presses this scale is
reversed.) Ideally, there should be no area as black black, or white
white without any detail at all. This perfect 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 negative
contact printed renders clear area black on paper, dense areas of silver
would print whitish. Still with me? I'm lost. Also plan for a dust free,
clean neg and print. Somewhere in all of this technocrap, try to produce a
aestetically viable image. Many followers of the Zone Facists League
believe that this "pure" technique" is the only real photography. No
color, no fooling around in the darkroom, no Polaroid fun. Straight prints
of related images makes a portfolio, career. (You can change subjects
every now and then. Move from Yosemite to Big Sur for instance.) Yawn.
Students with vision avoid Zone courses at all costs. It is sufficient to
read a book containing the word Zone (available from Light Impressions,
Rochester, NY) so you "get it, then forget it." Though, as a stage to go
through, it's one of the more innocuous, I suppose.
Shawn Tribe
In article <1993Jan23.1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> st...@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame) writes:
@think.com (Kurt Thearling) writes:
>>Although I wasn't the one who first mentioned Duchamp, I was thinking the
>>along similar lines. I personally think Duchamp is the most important
>>artist of this century. His influence is far reaching. From Dada and
>>Surrealism to Fluxus, Pop Art (e.g., Johns, Rauschenberg, ...), and music
>>(e.g., John Cage). He redefined what art had to be. Ordinary objects from
>>everyday life were assimilated into art, and in some circumstances were
>>themselves art.
>I think I was the person who mentioned Duchamp and, as I said, I'm biased
>in this regard since Duchamp happens to be a particular favorite of mine.
>However it wasn't just a whim; Duchamp managed to cover so much ground
>that it would be hard to name an art movement that came *after* him that
>couldn't in some way be related back to a particular work of Duchamp's.
>He pushed and stretched at the definition of "Art" and managed to prove
>that said definition was capable of withstanding infinite amounts of
>abuse . . .
>have a secure place in the history of art then Duchamp, as the creator of
>"Nude Descending a Staircase", can hardly help being famous (or infamous
>if you prefer.)
>
> -- Stewart "Fountain" Tame
I never recieved either of these 2 replies to my question. I would ask when you
send a message you ensure it is sent all over North America rather then just
the States as I am in Canada and will not recieve it otherwise.
******************************************
**************************************************************************
*************************************************
Shawn Tribe
Kurt Thearling wrote..
>ps. Picasso would be second on my list...
WHAT?! I do of course respect your opinion, but let me try and argue this
point..
Duchamp's work existed because of Picasso.. Picasso was on of the very first
artists to start looking at things in a much different way. As I have stated
before, the invention of Cubism effected every artist from that point on.
Duchamp's work is riddled with cubist influences (as is quite evident in his
most famous piece "Nude descending a Staircase no.2". When you consider how
many people Picasso effected with his work, the monumental steps he took, I
can see no else being above him. (IMHO)
Geoff Allen
kcar...@koko.pathology.washington.edu (Kris Carroll) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.0...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>cor...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>> What is the damned zone system? Why is it damned? Enlighten a poor,
>> culture-illiterate scientist...
>> ;-)
>
>Sigh, let's see how badly I can embarass the prof who taught this to me.
>Adams believed any silver image was created in the making of the negative.
No. He sought the goal of making the print that he envisioned (which he
called pre-visualization -- having the final photograph in mind when
making the exposure). The print starts with the negative. So, one
would like to make a negative which will provide the easiest time of
making the desired print. Adams compared the negative to a musical
score and the print to the performance. (He was planning to be a
classical pianist before photography diverted his course.)
>Therefore, some system of measuring (hence the need for a light meter,
>hand held of course) of the tonal ranges from shadow to hightlight was
>needed.
You speak rather condescendingly of the idea of measuring the light
values of the photographic subject. Why? The idea is to know what the
various intensities are so one will be able to determine (and control)
how they will be recorded in the final photograph.
>Conventional wisdom says expose the negative for the shadows,
>develop it (convert the silver to the proper density) for the highlights.
This is the standard one-sentence description of the procedure, but of
course, there is more to it.
>Keep in mind that the natural tonal range of say a landscape would be
>longer (more tones) than the film could record.
Actually, black and white film is quite capable of recording most
scenes, and may in some cases even require what is called ``expansion''
because the contrast range is too low for the intended result. Color
negative film is also pretty good at recording things. It's only color
transperancy film that has problems with ordinary scenes.
>So, with planning and a
>system, the photographer controls what area of landscape fall into what
>tonal range of the negative and shortens that range when deciding on
>developer intensity and time. When the negative is printed dense black =
>Zone 0, Zone 1 is black areas but with detail remaing, Zone 5 = mid grey,
>Zone 8 is white that retains detail. The Zone steps black to white are
>0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. (In the world of printing and presses this scale is
>reversed.)
This is a pretty accurate description of the theory behind the Zone
System (though roman numerals are generally used to designate the zones,
for whatever reason).
>Ideally, there should be no area as black black, or white
>white without any detail at all.
Not necessarily. If you want a print that only shows from Zones III
through VI, then so be it. If you want a huge black area in the print,
go for it. The Zone System is merely a tool to enable the photographer
to get the results that he/she wants. No more, no less.
>This perfect 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 negative
>contact printed renders clear area black on paper, dense areas of silver
>would print whitish. Still with me? I'm lost.
There's no law that says it has to be a 4x5, 8x10 or 11x14 or that it
has to be contact printed. Most are enlarged (it's kind of tough to
carry around a 16x20 camera ;^) ).
>Also plan for a dust free, clean neg and print.
Do you *like* white splotches on your photographs (black, if printing
from a transparency)?
>Somewhere in all of this technocrap, try to produce a
>aestetically viable image. Many followers of the Zone Facists League
>believe that this "pure" technique" is the only real photography.
Well, perhaps some ``Zone Facists'' think this, but Adams merely used
the technique as a *means* to the end of producing the photographs that
he intended to produce. What's the difference between a photographer
knowing about the materials and their properties and a painter knowing
about the various effects of using oil or watercolors, or a sculptor
knowing about various materials and various ways of working them? The
goal is to produce what is in the artist's mind. Photography may be a
more tehnical/scientific pursuit than painting, but I don't see why that
invalidates it.
>No color,
Adams did color. He didn't care for it as his primary medium, but he
did color, and said the Zone System was ``invaluable'' for color
photography.
Color materials aren't as pliable to manipulation as black and white
materials, which is why many don't like them. And the full-fledged Zone
System (which includes manipulations in development) isn't as useful,
but the idea of mapping the subject to how it will be recorded on the
film is still quite useful.
>no fooling around in the darkroom,
The Zone System still leaves lots of room for fooling around in the
darkroom. One-third of Adams' ``Basic Photography Series'' is about
fooling around in the darkroom. Again, the Zone System is just a means
of getting the negative that *you* want to fool around with, rather than
leaving it to chance or hit-and-miss trials (called ``bracketing'').
>no Polaroid fun.
Adams did Polaroid, quite a bit, actually. He even did some SX-70!
Again, the idea would be: know the materials and their capabilities,
know what you want, know what material(s) to use, know how to use it to
get the result that you want.
>Straight prints
>of related images makes a portfolio, career.
Adams often maintained that none of his prints were ``straight'' or
``literal''. He used whatever manipulations and techniques were needed
to get the result he wanted.
>(You can change subjects
>every now and then. Move from Yosemite to Big Sur for instance.) Yawn.
It sounds like your beef is with landscape photography, rather than with
Ansel Adams. So be it.
>Students with vision avoid Zone courses at all costs.
Why?
>It is sufficient to
>read a book containing the word Zone (available from Light Impressions,
>Rochester, NY) so you "get it, then forget it."
I'm not sure you ``got it.'' The Zone System is a technique for getting
the results that the photographer wants to get. No more, no less. It's
merely an attempt at a practical explanation of the physics and chemistry
of photography.
So do ``students with vision'' just fire off exposures, hoping that one
will be something worthwhile? (I'm not knocking experimentation, but I
don't think it should necessarily be standard practice, either.)
Well, I hope someone finds these comments enlightening, and at least
somewhat a coherent defense of the Zone System.
Geoff ``I shoot color, so what do I know?'' Allen
p.s. I was tempted to cross-post this to rec.photo, but figured I'd be
nice and spare rec.arts.fine from an entire thread of this. If you
want to know more, go there, or to Adams' books.
--
Geoff Allen \ The main difference between me and the student
uunet!pmafire!geoff \ is that I have simply made more mistakes.
ge...@pauling.inel.gov \ --George Drennan on teaching photo workshops.
Vance Maverick
|>
|> Duchamp's work existed because of Picasso.. Picasso was on of the very first
|> artists to start looking at things in a much different way. As I have stated
|> before, the invention of Cubism effected every artist from that point on.
Right. And Cubism was totally uninfluenced by late Cezanne.
Yeah.
|> Duchamp's work is riddled with cubist influences (as is quite evident in his
|> most famous piece "Nude descending a Staircase no.2". When you consider how
|> many people Picasso effected with his work, the monumental steps he took, I
|> can see no else being above him. (IMHO)
I'll grant you an influence of Cubist technique, but the Nu
doesn't *look* Cubist. And Duchamp didn't stay with that
technique very long. Where are the antecedents in Picasso for
the _Large Glass_?
In any case, at this remove from 1911, it doesn't make much
sense to judge Picasso or Duchamp on grounds of their
influence on other painters likewise dead. We have to look;
and I think that Duchamp's best is more interesting to look at
than most Picassos.
Vance
mul...@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
From: str...@intacc.uucp (Shawn Tribe)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:07:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Matrix Artists' Network
Kurt Thearling wrote..
>ps. Picasso would be second on my list...
WHAT?! I do of course respect your opinion, but let me try and argue this
point..
Duchamp's work existed because of Picasso.. Picasso was on of the very first
artists to start looking at things in a much different way. As I have stated
before, the invention of Cubism effected every artist from that point on.
On this basis, I guess the EARLIEST artist must be the MOST important.... :-)
As an aside, I also think Picasso big win on the 20th century painting
scene. He seems to me to have done everything well.
Kris Carroll
a great painter with an ego the size of....I think I'll pass on that
simile
Shawn Tribe
I never claimed that Cubism wasn't influenced by Cezanne. But when you consider
the radical change in style cubism was compared to that which had been done
before, that is what makes it such an important innovation. All artists are
influenced by others.
As to the comment of Duchamp's best work being more interesting than Picasso's
best, that is a matter which is based completely on preference and opinion. To
claim it as a fact is completely different story however. I personally find
nothing more interesting than Picasso's analytical cubist pieces, but I do not
claim my opinion as a fact of art in the 20th century.
Vance Maverick
I've lost the thread here -- for what it's worth, I said I found
Duchamp's best work more interesting than *most* Picassos.
In any case, finding cubism to be a more radical change in
style than any other is no less a matter of personal
judgment than liking D better than P.
Vance