Adams: The shame of Popular Landscapes, regarding a recent critique.
annqlee
Please indulge me again with another therapy session. If anyone feels it is
out of
line, please let me know and I will stop immediately.
I had a little critique in Intermediate Photo. A series of personal
portraits of my parents which went
by without much debate.
However, included is a sample mural print that the prof want us to do for
experience. Nothing new
to me, so I decided to print one of the tunnel view, yosemite clearing storm
photograph. A 40x50
print from 8x10. The first comment is indicative of the views of my
University. "This photograph is a
copy rip off of Ansel Adams." In a somewhat soft and polite tone. "its
beautiful but a copy". Of which I replied..
"Should I not take the photograph because the scene was #taken#? Would you
take the photograph if you had
a camera?". The student replied "No, it has already been done, and I can buy
a copy of Adams print". And I replied,
"Adams print is his relationship to the photograph, mine is my relation to
what I felt. Those are first and foremost
my vacations pictures, nothing more and definitely nothing less."
Anyways, a lenghty debate insued. I have been thinking about this issue in
recent pasts. I have been derailed and actually
contemplate about doing a series to please the Institution with the sole
purpose to show my work to others without the
care to keep it for myself. I have always believed in capturing images that
I can enjoy solely, a communication between it
and myself, and without showing them to anyone.
Lately, I have not been following this route. It has come to a point when I
am actually shallow and try to hide when I develop
my landscape negatives like it is some kind of obscene pornography. I am
sure the Institution would like the obscene pornography
better. I think I am getting institutionalize, where glorification of modern
art breads more modern art.
Compounded was a presentation some 30 minutes later by a prospective
tenure-track professor. Literally, on many occassions he
abandoned projects because they are being pursued by others. What is this
rat race? During the presentation people are giving a
little of ego-academic sprinkling of comments just to be heard in the
presentation. At most lip-service. With so many um's and uh's,
I wonder how define is the presenter points..is he making it up? It is just
like in the research science community. When I was giving a small
talk at Caltech for a conference, I was thinking...oh here we go with the
ego-academic sprinkling.
I went to their library and read on photography and felt better. Newhall's
account of what Steichen and Evans said were uplifting.
Steichen in his old age said he could care less about photography as an art,
it is a communication between man to man and onto himself.
Evans repeatedly told the students of the Univerisity of Michigan not to get
institutionalized by the University. This was the first presentation
in the arts that I went, and maybe it is non-representative, but sure is
depressing. I think I should not take anymore art classes, I think the
classes are getting in the way of my education. Am I too much of a novice to
do such a move?
Ann
Paul Stimac
their existance. No one can define it, let alone quantify it . It's an ill of
capitolism thing that they use to convince people that they must learn from
them in order to make and appreciate what THEY call art, of couse while they
take your money. In there opinon (yes I'm speaking for them), art can't happen
without some kind of funding or grant money. Look at their reaction when NEA
funding gets cut.
The art rate race is arrogance. If it floats your boat, carry your camera
around and shoot every single shot Ansel Adams shot and don't think twice about
it. Your look on it will be different. No matter what you do, there will be
people who like it and those who don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting to
do something total unique or NOT. There where LF photographyers before Adams
and he was not the first person to take a photographs of Yosemite - does that
make his photo's meaningless? Was the renaissance worthless because they
copied the Greeks. It's a good thing that Michaelangelo did follow that
ideaology. All sculptors at that time were almost required to do a "David", a
"Pieta " - he didn't originate those ideas, he put his own twist on a standart
subject matter. About the tenure track professor's presentation, if you looked
hard enough, you'd find someone else who's done something similar. Hell, even
Picasso copied stuff. Duane Michaels, in one of his books, has a great
essay/poem about this. I don't have it around but it's says something to the
effect of that nothing has been done until YOU do it. If I find it, I'll post
it for you.
You know all this, you just want someone on your side - I'm on your side.
My opinion about the classes. Don't stop taking them, if they interest you -
just be fully aware of the sources.
Hope this helped,
Paul
John Hicks
>. I think I should not take anymore art classes, I think the
>classes are getting in the way of my education. Am I too much of a novice to
>do such a move?
You're obviously _not_ too much of a novice. You're thinking;
they're gassing.
I'd suggest continuing doing what you want to do (as long as it'll
satisfy class/grading requirements) and yank their chains.
---
John Hicks
Peter De Smidt
I happen to be an academic, although in philosophy and not in art.
Academics tend to favor originality above the other virtues, mainly because
this is a way to receive tenure and get published (which is generally
required to get tenure). This tends to skew our values. Very often, let's
face it, original things are crap. If it is such a good thing, something
similar has probably been done before. For example, try and come up with an
original interpretation of Plato that isn't crap. Personally, I'd rather
have an accurate interpretation than an original one, but that view will
certainly not further my career. Consider Mozart: he didn't come up with
many of the muscial forms which he used. What he did was use them better
than anyone else had. I tell my students to stick to their guns. Don't get
intimidated by someone who can use bigger words than you. Still, consider
what the academics say. Sometimes you'll find that you agree with their
comments. If you don't, don't worry about it.
Peter
Jess4203
I am not an artist or an art major. However, I did make a trek through
graduate school 30 years ago and it nearly killed me. I think what you are
experiencing is similar to what I went through. I was a young man, and I took
to heart what people were saying, when much of it was just ritual shaming,
dominance, and one-ups-man-ship. My classmates who were older and had a source
of self-esteem outside of the classroom (they were married, had had a job in
the field before coming to school, etc.) fared much better. When they got
critiqued and criticized, they didn't necessarily take it all to heart. If you
don't have a "cuddle group" of people who share their work outside the academic
forum, maybe you should look for one. Such a group will be more supportive and
interested in you, and if they do criticize, they will do it in a considerate
and honest way. Such a group could help you maintain your sanity through the
academic journey.
All that said, I would have to point out that looking at art in the Western
World does presume a certain amount of literacy regarding what has gone before.
Photos of clouds, to a Tasadi tribesman, are pictures of clouds. To a
photography student, they are a copy of Steiglitz's equivalents. A photo of
Half Dome, to the tribesman is just a pretty picture of Half Dome. To you and
me, it inevitably conjures up echoes of Adams. Can't escape the culture in the
culture. You may be able to appreciate the photo for its pure significance to
you, but you can't expect others to do so. They are bound to think you are
copying Adams or commenting on Adams or parodying Adams or something. They
can't help it, they are looking at your work through the lens of a tradition,
and you have to be aware of this level of meaning.
To take it to another arena, suppose my little nephew has never heard Frank
Sinatra, but sings just like him. He is going to get the same reaction you
got. He is just going to have to get more culturally literate. It's
inevitable. By the same token, if you write a piece of music which uses motifs
from the "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" by Bach, everyone is gong to call it a
copy of that. They can't help it. That's the cultural lens through which they
look.
I have a friend who takes pictures that you have to be an art history major to
"get." He takes pictures that are mock ups of classic Impressionist paintings,
with a twist. He is commenting on the paintings. People think it is
brilliant. So you can make this cultural history thing work for you, too.
HTH,
Roy
Richard Knoppow
>Hi All,
>
>Please indulge me again with another therapy session. If anyone feels it is
>out of
>line, please let me know and I will stop immediately.
>
>I had a little critique in Intermediate Photo. A series of personal
>portraits of my parents which went
>by without much debate.
>However, included is a sample mural print that the prof want us to do for
>experience. Nothing new
>to me, so I decided to print one of the tunnel view, yosemite clearing storm
>photograph. A 40x50
>print from 8x10. The first comment is indicative of the views of my
>University. "This photograph is a
>copy rip off of Ansel Adams." In a somewhat soft and polite tone. "its
>beautiful but a copy". Of which I replied..
>"Should I not take the photograph because the scene was #taken#? Would you
>take the photograph if you had
>a camera?". The student replied "No, it has already been done, and I can buy
>a copy of Adams print".
And Adams shouldn't have photographed Mesa Verde because T. H.
O'Sullivan had done it sixy years before, and no one should do
anything anyone has ever done before. Yipes, what jerks there are in
the world.
Acually, I think you should have told him you were copying Ray
Atkeson. He wouldn't have known who that is (I think he is still alive
so you would have been one-up.
There is no original art. There is no derivitive art. There is only
art, and damned little of that.
I've seen your stuff, you have nothing to appologize for.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
GBreault
> I think I should not take anymore art classes, I think the
>classes are getting in the way of my education. Am I too much of a novice to
>do such a move?
Hi Ann,
Congratulations! You've reached that point in your educational development
where you realize your teachers are yahoos. Take a moment to bask in it, then
plan to deal with it. Perform the assignments they distribute with the same
high level of proficiency and technical quality that you would use on your own
personal assignments. To me, this is what any professional has to do to
survive.
In the commercial world, your customers/clients/employers will take on the roll
of your educators, dishing out assignments that may not make a lot of sense,
but rewarding it when they get it. Not only in photography, but in just about
field. To a starving artist type, this is selling out. To a capitalistic
meateater, this is survival.
The way I look at it, this professional prostitution is what allows me to
finance my personal photography.
Good Luck
Jerry Breault
Peter Wright
professors are demanding that you complete the latter. The work you love to do,
and do well judging from your home page, are internal assignments. Do the
assignments because others insist on them. Do your own work because you are
driven to express yourself.
I have found in my travels that I learned a lot more from being in contact with
people who I admired and whose work I appreciated than I ever did in school. I
associate more with painters and sculptors these days than photographers.
Artists in other media will bring a whole new enthusiasm and frame of reference
to your work. They don't get tied down in arcane details such as tools and
chemistry. They view the print as an object on its own right, a completed work.
Cheers,
Peter
--
In the end;
We will only conserve what we love;
We will love only what we understand;
We will understand only what we are taught.
-Senegal Proverb
Peter Lawrence Wright pwr...@cyberus.ca
Post Office Box 3, Voice: (613)720-2921
Carleton Place, Ontario Facsimile: (613)253-4911
K7C 3P3 http://www.cyberus.ca/~pwright
Robert E. Smith
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please indulge me again with another therapy session. If anyone feels it is
> out of
> line, please let me know and I will stop immediately.
Ann:
Critics are to artists as pigeons are to statues. Don't let the
pigeons get you down. Recently two images were selected in a judged art
show here. Both were landscapes of/at the Chesapeake Bay and bridge - a
most trite subject. I havn't a clue why they made it. My only
"original" still life of "Rose and Crystal" did not make it. I will
submitt it in an upcoming show and I'll bet it makes it is accepted.
Truly, dr bob.
TimePixDC
>University. "This photograph is a
>copy rip off of Ansel Adams." In a somewhat soft and polite tone. "its
>beautiful but a copy". Of which I replied..
>"Should I not take the photograph because the scene was #taken#? Would you
>take the photograph if you had
>a camera?". The student replied "No, it has already been done, and I can
>buy
>a copy of Adams print".
The guy probably CAN'T buy an Adams print unless he's independently wealthy.
But what you might consider doing is re-doing some of Ansel's famous images....
With a pair of giant clown shoes included in the frame. Then ask the little
bugger if that makes him feel better.
Art Reitsch
The comments you received in class remind me of what a workshop leader said about
photo clubs: they'll take you up to mediocrity and freeze you there. Mediocrity
means medium or of ordinary quality. If you're a beginner, that's good -- you'll
rise to medium faster through class assignments and lectures than reading and
trying on your own. Once you reach that midway point you have the skills and
technical ability to answer your inner voice and do the work you want. So maybe
you have had enough art classes unless you think there might be some technical
abilities you can still pick up. As for any furrther critiques: ignore them, as
the other posters have advised.
Art
Jeff Green
> The guy probably CAN'T buy an Adams print unless he's independently wealthy.
> But what you might consider doing is re-doing some of Ansel's famous
images....
> With a pair of giant clown shoes included in the frame. Then ask the little
> bugger if that makes him feel better.
Actually, you can buy Adams prints for not too much $$$. They are printed
from his negs buy his assistant. Ok, they weren't printed BY him, but a
print right from his negs? I have one in my living room and love it.
I second the 'clown shoes' idea. Although to follow through with modern
art and to make sure you get a grant from the NEA you will need to shoot
the image exactly as Adams did and then pee on it or some other original
process. Then again, if you peed on it they would say that people have
peed before so that's not original.
Art school is full of people listening to themselves talk. Use the time
for self-exploration, and gleaning useful info where you find it. In
design school we would put stuff up for crits and they would say things
like "I like this, but what if you had moved this over just a bit . . .?".
We'd come back the next day and put them up again. They would go " OOOOH I
like that MUCH better!"
Of course I hadn't done a damn thing to it. Phhtthhpptt. Idiots.
jg
ArtKramr
>From: "annqlee" ann...@msn.com
>Date: 3/1/01 8:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <97mqhk$brv$1...@news.service.uci.edu>
Ann,
Go off into a corner, lick your wounds and come out fighting. You are in a
class that values originality above all. And that is all to the good. If they
all smiled and nodded at your photo and said nothing , they would be worthless
and you would have missed an important lesson, images that say nothing about
you aren't worth much. Go back, think about your own personal photographic
voice, listen to your own inner creative urgings and shoot Ann, not Ansel. It
is a creul world, and nobody ever said it was going to be easy, but hang in and
respond to the challenge. It is all in your own best interest to do so.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Don Wallace
to that, at least to some extent. A critic who reviewed Brahms' first
symphony
commented derogatorily that it sounded a lot like Beethoven to which
Brahms replied "Any fool can see that".
Do what you do and don't get too upset with critics. As one of my old
music teachers used to say "Go anywhere in Europe. Any city, town,
village. Find me a statue of a critic."
Having said all that, I find that a lot of LF photographers are caught up
in a bit of an Adams cult. I am not saying that your photorgraph was
doing this but is something for everyone to consider.
Don Wallace
"annqlee" <ann...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:97mqhk$brv$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
ArtKramr
>critique.
>From: "Don Wallace" don.w...@nlc-bnc.nospam.ca
>Date: 3/2/01 7:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3a9fc...@webserv.nlc-bnc.ca>
>
>
>Having said all that, I find that a lot of LF photographers are caught up
>in a bit of an Adams cult. I am not saying that your photorgraph was
>doing this but is something for everyone to consider.
>
>Don Wallace
Yup.
Michael C. Daily
1 If you can read this, you probably need to thank an academic. I am
also one, although mow I am teaching German and English. I have taught
photography and hope to do so again. Not all opinions are crap--whether
of academics or others. consider the source and the support of the
information. test it just as you were taught to test the information in
any other area. Look at what others have to say, what the experts have
to say, what your heart has to say, and then make up your own mind.
Noone makes you think anything--you make the decision to do whatever you
do or don't do. Ultimately in art it seems that 20/20 hindsight is what
makes viable art. If it withstands the tests of time, critics who "don't
know art, but know what they like" (and to evaluate this statement about
"don't know..." substitute any other discipline like medicine or
basketball and see what the result is), and public taste (oxymoron?),
then it may have a life of its own. Ansel Adams work has done that. It
stands on its own merits. It speaks to some and others are blind to the
message, but that is more a fault of the viewer than the work. In the
final analysis, you have to trust yourself. You would be foolish to
ignore the comments of others, but you, not they, must determine the
worth of what they say. To disparage the comments of another is
demeaning to you, not them, but to accept those comments without
thinking is just as foolish. Eash is entitled to his/her ridiculous
opinion--yours is the only one which will continue to support your
growth as an artist, person, and member of humanity.
Michael
Howard Lester
professionally, you are in the right place. Considering you're getting
college credit for these classes, that's something right there. :)
More seriously, just because at times you are being criticized by
yahoos who don't know anything, and possibly not even as much as you
do, doesn't mean they don't have something of value for you. Even if
they chew you up and spit you out, there are lessons to be learned.
Although I wouldn't expect you to be conscious of just what they are
at the time, you will someday find that you benefited from them.
Philisophically speaking, I believe there's a reason for everything.
Then again, maybe all this criticism is a reason for you to get the
hell out of art classes. :)
I found it useful to "copy" the style of St. Ansel, but after a while,
THROUGH that study of Adams and others like him who I admired, I
discovered my own style, and that's what people seem to love. OK, some
people.....
Howard Lester
Tucson
Michael C. Daily
not the same just as not all photographers are the same. If your photo
is similar to one of Ansel's, put it up on the wall and see how it
looks. can it stand up to a direct comparison? Also remember that of his
work, you are seeing the best of it. While I was at IU-Bloomington in
the MFA program, Henry Smith, head of the programs taught several summer
workshops with Adams. At one point he asked Adams if he were to be able
to do it all ovver again, would he do the same thing? Adams replied "no"
as he explained that noone wants to see any of his new work, all they
want is landscapes... We were also fortunate to have a large collection
of original Edward Weston prints, but not the famous ones. There were
lots of mediocre images and not so great prints--even the masters make
mistakes and have off days. They just keep working, and some of them are
not discovered to BE masters until they are dead. If you crave fortune,
do something else. Do whatever you have to do to support the habit and
you can be an artist. This advice and some change will buy a cup of
coffee in a soup kitchen...
Michael
annqlee
I am a fighter, but there is no fight with others to be fought here. It is a
fight
within myself.
However Arthur, why does my photo shoot Ansel? I think it's God's creation
of the valley?
It was my experience, or at least I "felt" that way. It is a complex
statement, but can I
not say "Adams happen to take a similar photograph." Or do you think I have
been
to influenced by him to know the difference?
I believe that responding to the challenge is a motivation derived from
others. Very little
difference between that and pleasing them. When it is my time (and it had
occurred many
times in the past), I shall create what I wanted. If it happens to be
original then so be it,
if it was done by someone else it is still not the "originator's" property.
annqlee
Thank you for your responses. Just to clear some points, the critique
was by another nice lady not the professor. I am not enrolled in the class,
I am auditing but I work the hardest :). The critique by no means hurt my
feelings,
it was very casual and friendly. One of the greatest disclaimers in any
begginner is
that feelings change and ideas/philosophies are flopping madly. It might be
the case
here but I have a pretty strong conviction about academic art( which by no
means is
encompassing.)
The Adams comment was really just a surface reaction in a more fundamental
point.
I hope I have enough strength to make and take photographs for myself and
the
idea that no one will ever see them will be fine to me.
It was very interesting the feeling I had when I presented the
photographs of my parents. In the class forum, it seems I was so devoid of
emotions when talking about the photographs...as if I was in an academic
mode. Whereas
if I view them by myself in my space, those photographs can hit me very
deep.
There is very little that anyone can say or critique that is not trivial to
what those photographs mean to
me. In the end it is those photographs where I need not show to anyone is
what matters
to me and that is what I have learned. I can proudly say, even through two
classes I have managed
to take photographs that I plan to keep (I guess that is the luxury of not
having to be graded, you will
be amazed at how many photographs end up in the trash immediately after a
critique).
Regards,
Ann
Kerry L. Thalmann
> Acually, I think you should have told him you were copying Ray
> Atkeson. He wouldn't have known who that is (I think he is still alive
> so you would have been one-up.
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, the late Ray Atkeson is no longer with us. He passed
away in 1990, shortly after I moved to Oregon and took up large format
landscape photography. For those who don't know who Ray Atkeson was, he
was Oregon's first Photographer Laureate. Although his black and white
work has become increasingly popular since his death, during life he was
mostly known for his large format color landscape work. He started
shooting with large format Kodachrome back in the late 1930s through the
1940s (yeah, Kodachrome was available in sheet film back then).
Unfortunately, during the 1950s and 1960s (probably his most productive
decades) he shot all his work on Ektachrome (which did not have very
good archival stability back then). Much of that work has been lost to
fading of the originals. His first coffee table book "Oregon"
(published in 1968 by Graphic Arts Center Publishing) was a huge
success. He had several more coffee table books published during his
lifetime and even a couple more since his death. His images are still
actively marketed (both prints and stock sales), by his step-son Rick
Schafer (also an accomplished photographer). Their web site is at:
http://www.stockoptionphotos.com/home.html
There's also a few of Ray Atkeson's images online at:
http://www.secondnaturecd.com/ambeautbyray.html
and for a more detailed bio:
ttp://www.norwester.com/ray.html
I did find Richard's comment a bit ironic (in a sad sort of way). Ray
Atkeson was a contemporary of Ansel Adams and had a very productive
career. He was quite well known in the publishing circles and among
other photographers of his day. He is immortalized here in Oregon with
a trail, boat ramp and scenic view point named in his honor. Like
Adams, he was a pioneer. At the same time Adams was refining the zone
system, Atkeson was experimenting (quite successfully) with the new
color materials. Still, as Richard pointed out, he is no where near as
well know or appreciated (or in some circles vilified - that one I'll
never understand) as Adams. Some have said Ray Atkeson's work was "too
commercial". True, he worked for a commercial studio (Camera Art in
Portland) for many years, but Adams also relied heavily on commercial
work as a source of income. I do think it's a shame that more young
photographers aren't familiar with Ray Atkeson, but perhaps then
photographic instructors would turn up their noses at all the beautiful
color landscapes of their students as "derivative of Atkeson".
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
large format equipment reviews and recommendations
Mark Westling
film Kodachrome images. The introduction to the book notes and AA "made
more than 3,000 color transparencies" during his career, and had an
exhibition entitled "Color Photography" in NYC in 1950.
This book (Little Brown & Company; ISBN: 0821219804) is still available
through Amazon.com...
Regards,
Mark
"Kerry L. Thalmann" <large...@thalmann.com> wrote in message
news:3AA00FFC...@thalmann.com...
Jess4203
I want to critique this thread. I responded yesterday and then came back and
read the rest of the responses today. I think it's one of the best threads
I've seen here. Supportive, sensible, contemplative, philosophical without
being precious, practical, inspirational. It's hard to believe this thread
occurs on the same message board with some of the insane, puerile and
destructive carping we sometimes see. I hope we can have more discussions like
this. Thanks, Ann, for starting it! I didn't know you had a website. I'll be
off to look at your work!
Regards to all,
Roy
Heavysteam
Mark Rabiner
>
> The true secret of success is to persevere beyond the point where others quit.
Outlast them!!!
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
Q.G. de Bakker
> The true secret of success is to persevere beyond the point where others
quit.
True.
But also consider what "success" might be.
Do you want to communicate with others, be part of the universal exchange of
views and viewpoints, or are you quite happy talking to yourself?
If you want your work, your art to be an expression of your view of this
world, be sure that it is telling something others will want to hear, and
not repeat something they have all heard before, however valid and valuable
it in itself might be.
Of course repetition plays a very important part in culture, stressing the
importance of achievements of the past, lest we forget. But culture will get
stale very quickly if it gets stuck repeating things only. In western
culture at least, there is an insatiable demand for new ways to explain the
world, new ways to make the world more palatable. We must have a sense of
progress or are deemed doomed.
These two are incompatible, yet are linked. It's like climbing a steep
mountain face: once you have found a firm grip it is vital for survival to
hang on to it, but sooner or later you must release it to go on.
So you will always find lots of people admiring the works of, say, Adams,
but very few of them would want to see this work done all over again. Most
would not want to see their own work done over again, and, yes, would rather
confine it to the bin and forget all about it.
The thrill in being creative is just that, being creative: finding new ways
to tackle something, new ways of expressing yourself. Even telling the same
old story, as long as there is a new twist that can be added.
That's why very many, creative, academians do not want to continue their own
work once they know someone else has taken the same road. There's no fun in
it anymore.
Think about it, would you really praise anyone claiming he or she has just
yesterday invented, say, the internal combustion engine? Would it be the
great invention it was over a hundred years ago? A great achievement, true,
but not very remarkable, not today, except for its redundancy.
Heavysteam
others, be part of the universal exchange of views and viewpoints, or are you
quite happy talking to yourself?>>
Each individual needs to determine what success means. Personal satisfaction
derived from meeting challenges and goals, commercial recognition and success,
approval of peers-- all are different types of success.
When it comes to commercial success, there are many folks who seem to be taking
the same photos over and over-- slot canyons, Monument Valley, Moro Lake,
weddings, portraits, etc. that are very successful commercial artists.
Regardless of their artistic merits, the marketplace seems to respond and more
prominent names like Muench probably make more money in a year than Ansel Adams
did in his lifetime.
Personally, it is my goal to bring all my skills to bear on a project, to
discover and define the real essence of the project and express that essence as
strongly as possible, and to do it all in a way that is professional,
responsible, and respectful to the subject.
The commercial "success" is secondary since I have more than enough work to
fill my time, but I do want to avoid falling into the trap that I see so many
commercial photographers in-- endless repetition of the same basic group of
shots over and over.
I'm thankful that most of my work is for my corporate employer, and it covers
such a wide range of activity that it literally never gets boring... one day
it is shooting portraits of individuals working in the warehouse for a safety
program and the next day it is shooting aerials for a road test site. Do I
consider myself successful? Since my clients are very pleased with my work, I
would have to say yes. But I'm always trying to learn something new-- or
to discover a new viewpoint or perspective that is interesting and stimulating
to the viewer--- so I try to be as critical as possible towards my own work.
Robert E. Smith
>
> The true secret of success is to persevere beyond the point where others quit.
Right! What’s wrong with a little plagiarism as long as we consider it
“research”? :-) e. g. Beethoven. Listen closely and you will hear
Mozart, Bach, Handle, .... Even though the public in those days were
not as aware of the music of the old masters as we in modern times
through our saturation of audio-visual media, I’m sure he was criticize
by his peers at the time for “plowing old ground” but persistence paid
off, didn’t it? dr bob.
pierc...@btinternet.com
>Hi all:
>
>I want to critique this thread.
snip
Roy, would you like to conjugate this verb 'critique' for the rest of
us who only speak English?
Q.G. de Bakker
Beethoven in particular, but the others you mention as well are appreciated
because of the new things they added to the existing. There is no escaping
tradition, so yes, you will always be able to hear echos of the old in the
new. There is no piont lingering on that. Just focus on the innovations they
brought.
Let's take Haydn for example: you don't even have to listen close to hear
Mozart. And badly done too. Bad show.
Now consider a photograph that resembles a Adams photograph that much that
anyone seeing it immediately thinks "Adams".
As a piece of research, it is o.k., but should be kept private. As a new
piece of art it is just as interesting as Haydn's rehashings of Mozart.
ArtKramr
>Popular Landscapes, regarding a recent criti
>Date: 3/2/01 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <yxUn6.8614$7Y1.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>The 1993 book "Ansel Adams In Color" includes a number of 4x5 and 5x7 sheet
>film Kodachrome images. The introduction to the book notes and AA "made
>more than 3,000 color transparencies" during his career, and had an
>exhibition entitled "Color Photography" in NYC in 1950.
>
>This book (Little Brown & Company; ISBN: 0821219804) is still available
>through Amazon.com...
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
I saw that 1950 show. It was quite disapointing.
Silver Image
expression - do the concerns for freshness or novelty apply to both?
For the same reasons? In my opinion this quest to be
different/original often produces some of the most forgettable work
I've ever endured looking at; you can feel the pathetic strain of
trying to be original even as the weight of its mediocrity impales
you. OTOH, I too might snicker at a knock-off of Pepper #30. Such
direct imitation (except for trying to master a technique) should be
discouraged. Since nature presents us with infinite variety, I see
nothing wrong with pursuing and enjoying landscape photography, say,
as long as one is responding honestly to what one sees. This is
obviously equally true for city-scapes, portraits, etc. Just because
Saints Ansel and Edward worked in this genre doesn't mean we
shouldn't. Unfortunately, there are those that lump genre and style
together and are dismissive of genuine explorations in the genre. Some
even value originality to the point where they praise just that as an
achievement, oblivious to the fact that the result is bland,
gimmicky, trite...
Mark Westling
Thanks,
Mark
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010303084811...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
John Hicks
>I saw that 1950 show. It was quite disapointing.
Ansel mentioned somewhere in the book that he felt he never quite
came to grips with color photography.
My impression of the photos in the book was that they were standard
Adams fare that just happened to be in color and didn't have any
impact; they were sort of just snapshots.
---
John Hicks
Miguel Ferreira
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Robert E. Smith wrote:> The true secret of success is to persevere beyond the point where others
quit.Right! What's wrong with a little plagiarism as long as we consider it
"research"? :-) e. g. Beethoven. Listen closely and you will hear
Mozart, Bach, Handle, .... Even though the public in those days were
not as aware of the music of the old masters as we in modern times
through our saturation of audio-visual media, I'm sure he was criticize
by his peers at the time for "plowing old ground" but persistence paid
off, didn't it? dr bob.Beethoven in particular, but the others you mention as well are appreciated
because of the new things they added to the existing. There is no escaping
tradition, so yes, you will always be able to hear echos of the old in the
new. There is no piont lingering on that. Just focus on the innovations they
brought.
I totally agree with you on this point. Beethoven's "research" was Mozart's
symphonies and string quartets.
The same way Bach listened to a lot of Buxtehude and Mozart to Haendel.
Let's take Haydn for example: you don't even have to listen close to hear
Mozart. And badly done too. Bad show.
I don't agree with this one. Haydn was a source of inspiration for Mozart.
He was what Bach was to everybody until now and what Haendel was to...
Mozart as well.
Just listen to Haydn's latest symphonies and to Mozart's early ones.
After that listen to Mozart's latests symphonies and to Beethoven's 1st
and 2nd.
Now consider a photograph that resembles a Adams photograph that much that
anyone seeing it immediately thinks "Adams".
As a piece of research, it is o.k., but should be kept private. As a new
piece of art it is just as interesting as Haydn's rehashings of Mozart.
Inspiration isn't much without refining technique and knowledge. In order
to break the rules you have to learn them first. That is why it is so important
so "study" the masters, even if it takes a while and having a lot of people
calling you a "XYZ" clone. It is an important step, especially if you know
where you want to go.
--
Miguel Ferreira
MAC SOS
Genève - Suisse
T. 079 / 433.04.03
F. 022 / 820.33.24
e-mail: ferr...@mac-sos.ch
MAC SOS - http://www.mac-sos.ch
JMF Photo - http://www.mac-sos.ch/photo
Miguel Ferreira
I would like to quote Mr. William Markiewicz first:
"Nature never repeats itself. The one who portrays nature is the only one who has a chance at originality."
This said, let's not forget that Mr. Adams and Mr. Weston did not create
the scenes they portrayed.
Nature did. Where are the rules saying that nobody is supposed to photograph
them again?
Reminds me of a photograph of the Eifeel Tower by James Carter.
A lot of people did it before and a lot of people will do it again.
It does not take any credit away from his beautiful picture.
ArtKramr
>Popular Landscapes, regarding a recent criti
>From: "Mark Westling" mwes...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <%79o6.10552$7Y1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
His color vision just was not as well developed and acute as his B&W vision.
The images were bland and lacked the impact of his B&W work. I guess the best
way to describe his color work is to say it was uninspired and boring.
ArtKramr
>Popular Landscapes, regarding a recent criti
>Date: 3/3/01 8:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3aa1204...@fl.news.verio.net>
Exactly. Everyones expectations were high which made the show all the more
Msherck
the parasite is the real controversy.
Ignore them: the only way you're ever going to find satisfaction is to make
the pictures your soul commands you to make. Think back to the photographers
the academic/art world reveres today: Steiglitz, Strand, Weston, Adams,
Cunningham, etc. ALL of them were rebels against the academic/art standards of
their time. If they had listened to the 'experts' we'd be culturally poor as
churchmice right now. Their critiques of your photographs are more revealing
to me of their own inadequacy than of yours.
Good luck, and buy a pair of earplugs for your next critique session: that's
probably the best investment you'll be able to make, in my opinion!
mjs
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Francis A. Miniter
Hartford's art museum. It was entitled "The Impressionists at
Argenteuil". I think it is going around the country now. Anyway, 120
years ago or so, Argenteuil on the Seine River was a bit of an artist's
colony. Monet and other famous artists all made paintings of the
footpath by the river, of Madame Monet, of Monet's flower garden. The
exhibit hangs the different interpretations of these scenes side by side
for comparison. How different they are.
Unless you were to have set up your tripod next to Adams when he shot
Yosemite, you could no more copy Adams than the Argenteuil
impressionists could copy each other. Art, whether photography or
painting, is a matter of selection, and this is true whether it is
landscape photography or fashion photography. That selection
encompasses multiple elements. In landscape work, there is the
objective, the position from which to view the objective, the camera to
use, the lens to use and the consequent inclusion or exclusion involved
in the selection and perspective associated with the lens, the depth of
field applied, the camera movements (if a bellows is involved), the time
of year, the time of day, the weather, the colors in the objective, the
filters applied to them. Then there is the film used, the developer
selected, the paper used, the degree of contrast, the size of the final
image, the paper developer, toners. I am sure there are many more
elements in the selection, but these come to mind in a matter of
minutes.
Ask your fellow student whether, when all of these elements of selection
are involved in a photograph, does he or she still want to consider it a
copy. Your work is your own, Ann. Don't feel guilty that you chose the
same objective as Adams.
Francis A. Miniter
annqlee wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
Troy Majors
exactly what I was wanting to say. A wise old man gave me
this advice years ago: "Don't worry about whether it's like
somebody else or not. If you do it, it'll be different, by
definition."
Troy
Robert E. Smith
>
> A few months ago I went to an art exhibit at the Wadsworth Atheneum,
> Hartford's art museum. It was entitled "The Impressionists at
> Argenteuil". I think it is going around the country now. Anyway, 120
> years ago or so, Argenteuil on the Seine River was a bit of an artist's
> colony. Monet and other famous artists all made paintings of the
> footpath by the river, of Madame Monet, of Monet's flower garden. The
> exhibit hangs the different interpretations of these scenes side by side
> for comparison. How different they are.
I gotta jump in here with another “story”. When attending a
parochial high school, my daughter (the artist) was in a class
_assigned_ to prepare a parody on Grant Wood’s famous “American Gothic”.
No other guidance was offered and the students really exercised
their originality. My daughter’s painting showed the old man, with
spectacles, and wife - _nude_ (brightly colored fall leaves
strategically placed), enwrapped by a purple snake and an apple in her
hand. She won first place, which is a wonder considering that the
judges were nuns.
Originality does not consist of abandoning all previous art and
conventions (sic. Dali).
Truly, dr bob.
Mark Westling
Here's another take on this in an article by Fred Picker from about 10 years
ago. I think it's excellent advice for us to learn to listen to our "inner
voice"...
Best regards,
Mark
=====
C R I T I Q
U E
By Fred Picker
During a recent visit with Fred Picker we spoke about the delicate
relationship between teach-ers and aspiring photographers. Fred mentioned a
letter he had received from a summer student who lamented the short time
they had been able to spend together (there were 77 students). He also
requested a visit to show new work in one year. Fred sent us a copy of his
reply, and we thought it very much to the point and of potential benefit to
our readers. So, with Fred's permission, we are reproducing it as this
month's Critique.
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I am complimented that you wrote it
and feel that I can be of help. I was just thinking about the fact that we
had little chance to chat, but unfortunately I don't have much time for
private conversations with each of my workshop participants. So since, like
everyone, we spent time in the darkroom together and you got a critique, you
are probably ahead (if spending time with me puts you ahead) of most folks.
That's the logistics of a workshop, and the best we can do.
Regarding shows, I've quit doing it because it is very time-consuming, and
at times infuriating because most people have no idea what you are up to
anyway. Going to an opening of your own work is particularly awful: "What
lens? Paper? Camera?" is all 90% of them want to know.
My message: you do it for yourself. Show if you like; but for me it is no
more than a waste of time and energy. Nor do I care what others think. What
do they know? My biggest-selling print is a flashy nothing, compared to a
hundred others.
Working in a vacuum is not a bad thing. I moved back to Vermont because all
the artspeak around New York and the influences were getting to me. All I
wanted was to go out there and see what would happen if I simply shut up and
listened and recorded without caring whether anyone liked, hated or cared
about what I was doing. Just for me. And failed attempts, by the hundred,
could go into the trash. It was wonderful. I worked that way for three years
and showed work to no one.
Then I went to Iceland for my Iceland portfolio. I had two months to make 16
pictures. Heaven. I spent three days sitting in a VW Beetle in the rain on a
clifftop opposite Eskifjordur, reading paperbacks and eating peanut butter
sandwiches, with the camera set up and focused, protected by a garbage bag.
Finally the sun came out (and in and out), and I made about eight negatives
with cloud shadows jumping all over an incredible cliff. I had about three
minutes, and then it started to rain again. One neg was good; one was
spectacular. Luck.
When I came back, I brought 16 prints to Paul Strand. He looked a long time
and said, "Exquisite." From that moment, nothing said about me or my work
(there has been plenty) has meant anything. I felt as though I had been
knighted. I couldn't really believe it. Was that good for me? Would it
influence me to stay with a good thing, to stop taking chances, to repeat
myself? All I know for sure is that, good or bad, it certainly had an
influence. Encouragement was not needed; I have always photographed because
I have no choice. I don't know.
So where for you? Perhaps you have gathered from and between the lines what
I am trying to say - that a little comment goes a long way and can be
dangerous; it can surely mess you up. Here's why: Suppose the viewer (me)
doesn't like you. That will influence the commentary. Suppose he likes you a
lot (as I like you) - same thing. Suppose he thinks you should be
encouraged? Suppose he is competitive or jealous?
There are sinister forces at play! But there is another, and I think,
greater danger. If I were to agree to see your work next year, there is no
way you would be free; you would photograph with me in mind. , No matter how
subtle the knowledge, how tiny the effect, it would be there and it would
affect your work. And what you (or anyone) needs, to do serious work, is to
be free of influence. Suppose I said, "So-so. Cliched. Derivative"? You
might quit, get sore, keep doing what you were doing in opposition, change
radically, or who knows what?
Suppose I said, 'Exquisite." You might have a tendency to repeat yourself,
to not grow as you might with a little prodding. How much prodding would be
right for you, if, indeed, any? I don't know.
So let's try this: assume I won't be looking at your work, and maybe I
won't. (Would it be lair to hundreds of others, including hundreds of
multi-workshop attendees who would like to come by for a critique? Go out
and do it for yourself. Don't waste time. Forget about prints; that's the
dumb, easy part. Develop negatives and proof them, to see how you're doing
and if there's anything worth going back to for another whack. Don't make
one print until November. (Making new pictures worth looking at is the
problem, not endlessly printing also-rans.) Then do what I do; go into the
darkroom in November, clear the cobwebs off your enlarger, and print the
five or, at most ten, good ones of the last 12 months.
Try me at this time next year and we'll talk about it. In the mean time,
keep working-it's the only thing that counts.
Fred Picker is the author of The Zone VI Workshop, The Fine Print, Rapa Nui
(Easter Island), The Iceland Portfolio, and Fred Picker (a monograph). He
publishes a newsletter, directs workshops and is President of Zone VI
Studios, Newfane, VT 05345
=====
Frank Calidonna
art/photography world is that "commercial" work is somehow lesser work or
non-artistic by definition. When I am called on this by one of my students I
always suggest that they but a plane ticket, fly to Rome ,Italy, take a cab
to the Vatican, go into the Sistine Chapel and look at the ceiling. That is
commercial art. In fact almost 100% of Renaissance art is commercial. No
money, no paint. Simple. We are all paying for Van Gogh's stupid business
sense.
Some of our most talented and artistic photographers are/were working
photographers. In point of fact if you are really good at something someone
will probably pay you to do it. The fact that some aspire to be Artists
(with a capital A) who do not do it for a living does not mean that those
who do are not Artists or cannot produce Art. Do realize that academia and
the modern art world are the first refuges for the highly untalented. Not
always, but often.
Ann, part of your problem is that you are taking a class in which I imagine
you would like to pass with a decent grade. You can either forget your own
ideas and turn in work which suits the prof or you can turn in your work and
defend it. I do not know your prof - he may be an idiot (many professors
come under this category) or he may have a point. You as a student at
college or graduate level also have a responsibility to defend what you do.
What does your interpretation of the landscape you photographed mean to you?
The professor says it has been done before therefore cannot be done again.
Is he right? If not why not? What does your picture mean to you? Why are you
photographing that subject? Think about it. Defend you work in clear
English. If you are unable to do so then maybe the prof has a point.
As far as I, a teacher of photography, am concerned every student must
follow their own path, BUT must know why they are doing what they are doing.
I really think your skill with language is as important as your skill with a
camera. Read all of these posts. There are some very cogent points being
made for you. Ultimately you must know why you are picking a particular
subject, point of view, etc. and you have to defend that. Your prof is like
any other. He does not have all the answers, but if you can reasonably make
a case for your work he should accept that. And your work at this point
maybe just transitional. It might not be real Art, just something you have
to do at this point in your life. If so say so. Maybe your prof can help you
along the path. An art prof ( and the people on this ng) can only offer
guidance, never real answers, but defending your work will give you some
answers.
So continue your work your own way, respond to your professors with
thoughtful reason, try to see their side, learn what you can from them and
grow, or reject their ideas with CLEAR ideas of your own. If your prof says
it is his way and no other then you are dealing with a fool. Now you have to
decide whether you need to turn in the right work for the grade or go your
own way. But give to prof a chance. HE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITYOF DEFENDING
HIS POINT OF VIEW TO YOU. Listen to what he says. Think about it and accept
or argue. That is what college is supposed to be all about. (I know, I am a
dreamer.)
Frank Rome, NY
C. W. Dean
>
> One of the sadder or more infuriating things propounded by the academic
> art/photography world is that "commercial" work is somehow lesser work or
> non-artistic by definition. When I am called on this by one of my students I
> always suggest that they but a plane ticket, fly to Rome ,Italy, take a cab
> to the Vatican, go into the Sistine Chapel and look at the ceiling. That is
> commercial art. In fact almost 100% of Renaissance art is commercial. No
> money, no paint. Simple. We are all paying for Van Gogh's stupid business
> sense.
>
> Some of our most talented and artistic photographers are/were working
Well said. Further, most of our very best photographers are never
known, recognized, or appreciated
outside the relatively small communities in which they live and sell
their work.
--
Best regards & Good Photography!
C. W. Dean
Practicing Professional Photography since 1972
Photography Samples: http://www.erols.com/cwdean/home.htm
Kerry L. Thalmann
> His color vision just was not as well developed and acute as his B&W vision.
> The images were bland and lacked the impact of his B&W work. I guess the best
> way to describe his color work is to say it was uninspired and boring.
Hi Mark and Art,
Geez guys, I changed the subject line in the hope to generate a little
discussion about a landscape photographer other than St. Ansel. And
here we are, just one or two posts later full circle and back to the man
in no time. BTW, I have nothing against Ansel Adams, love his black and
white landscape work, own many of his books, think he was a great
teacher and a great conservationist. That said, I do think it would be
worthwhile to talk about some other landscape photographers once in a
while.
WRT to Adams color work, I have seen the book Mark mentioned, but unlike
Art, I did not attend the show (wasn't born yet). Based on what I saw
in the book, I generally agree with Art's assessment. 3,000 sheets of
color is not a lot of work for someone who dedicated their entire adult
life to photography. I suspect the reason Adams didn't shoot more in
color is he never mastered the materials or felt as comfortable with
them as he did with black and white. Granted, the color materials were
a bit primitive at that time, but that didn't stop others like Ray
Atkeson from producing worthwhile color landscapes. The images in Adams
color book were compositionally adequate, and the subject matter was
generally spectacular, but I got the feeling he never learned to use
color to evoke emotion the same way he did black and white. It seemed
like lacking the ability to manipulate the contrast range the way he did
in black and white, he merely made images of a documentary, rather than
expressive, nature.
In addition to Ray Atkeson, another contemporary of Adams who did a
better job creating expressive color images was the late Eliot Porter
(who passed away just a few months after Ray Atkeson). Among living
color landscape photographers, I enjoy the work of Pat O'Hara,
Christopher Burkett, Jack Dykinga and David Muench. And although his
field practices have recently landed him in a heap of trouble
(deservedly so), Michael Fatali has also produced some wonderful color
landscape images. In terms of expressive color landscape photography, I
prefer the work of all these photographers (and several more) to the
limited amount of color work I've seen by Ansel Adams.
annqlee
The question is if you can only speak to yourself will you still speak.
Will you still photograph if no one sees your work, how much of my
motivation is
upon the pleasing of the academics.
But to the main point, the fundamental argument is
that if you see a scene like the clearing storms of Adams on your vacation
time, do you
try to capture the photo? Please bear in mind that Adams had scene a capture
a similar
scene. Am I so saturated with images and being original/academic that I
treat nature and the beauty of photography no more than a tool to get some
sprinkling of
psuedo-passionate remark on the originality of my work. It is not about the
image, not
even about originality, it is not about Adams, it is a personal relationship
that you are
having. That is how I see it, that is not how some of my classmates sees it.
It is intimate
to me, an Adams reprint to them.
I am a scientific person (probably like yourself), many parts of science is
nothing more
than a business in academia. I have lost passion for the science and have
turned into
a publishing machine. Not studying what I like but studying what people like
to publish.
In my earlier sciences, I would like to think I am exploring the physical
universe or abstract laws
of mathematics. Even though they were studied by the greats before. Now I am
publishing
new and original work with "valuable" applications. It is not sufficient. I
have turned to hate the institution
with no one to blame except myself.
Once you play that publishing game, you will have to compromise.
I have "no choice", that is my living.
Art is a little different than science, so I thought. It is used to explore
oneself, it is very intimate
in my use. Much more so than science. If I am to be damned in it like in the
sciences, I am prepared to
be in an asylum and speak to myself.
At least those words are what I think are true. At least those are important
words that I speak.
I can tell people psuedo-truth and whisper what they want to hear,
and in turn they will give some lip-service. But fortunately there are
forums that differ from academic art,
I just have to seek it.
I don't mind creative work, it comes when the situation
demands it. And I have used in on numerous occassion. I just don't want to
force it for other's sake, not for
their lip-services. It really isn't worth it.
Ann
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:97pjmi$j0c$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
Mark Rabiner
>
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > His color vision just was not as well developed and acute as his B&W vision.
> > The images were bland and lacked the impact of his B&W work. I guess the best
> > way to describe his color work is to say it was uninspired and boring.
>
> Hi Mark and Art,
>
> Geez guys, I changed the subject line in the hope to generate a little
> discussion about a landscape photographer other than St. Ansel. And
> here we are, just one or two posts later full circle and back to the man
What's with the "St." Ansel?
Not a passive aggressive insult I'm sure!
;)
By the way You're website didn't work yesterday and it doesn't work today.
Should you check your connections or get a new server?
Nothing clicks and if the do it's a big hang.
Would love to see what's hiding somewhere!
mark rabiner
Ansel deserves better.
el...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca
Elvis
Kerry L. Thalmann <large...@thalmann.com> wrote:
> Geez guys, I changed the subject line in the hope to generate a little
> discussion about a landscape photographer other than St. Ansel. And
> here we are, just one or two posts later full circle and back to the man
> in no time. BTW, I have nothing against Ansel Adams, love his black and
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Chow el...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca "If you don't ask questions, it could
ec...@rockyview.ab.ca mean you are afraid to learn ......"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q.G. de Bakker
> The question is if you can only speak to yourself will you still speak.
> Will you still photograph if no one sees your work, how much of my
> motivation is
> upon the pleasing of the academics.
That's it indeed: do you want your photographs to communicate? If so, the
reception they will get is very important, even more so perhaps than your
own feelings towards your photographs. Communication is a two-way process.
It involves some adaptation on your part as well: it is your task not only
to find a way to express your feelings and intentions, but to do it in a way
that will allow your message to come across. Context, history, vocabulary,
tradition all are limiting factors, factors that should be considered as
well as your own desire to express yourself. You're entering into a long
going discourse, and participants will try to place you and your
contribution according to what has been said before. It is your task to
show, convince people that you can contribute something worthwhile, that you
have something new to say.
This of course does not mean you should adapt your photography to please the
expectations of others. Not at all. But it does mean that you should indeed
take note of the reactions your photographs receive, and carefully consider
what they are saying, and, perhaps most important, why you get these
reactions.
> But to the main point, the fundamental argument is
> that if you see a scene like the clearing storms of Adams on your vacation
> time, do you
> try to capture the photo? Please bear in mind that Adams had scene a
capture
> a similar
> scene. Am I so saturated with images and being original/academic that I
> treat nature and the beauty of photography no more than a tool to get some
> sprinkling of
> psuedo-passionate remark on the originality of my work. It is not about
the
> image, not
> even about originality, it is not about Adams, it is a personal
relationship
> that you are
> having. That is how I see it, that is not how some of my classmates sees i
t.
> It is intimate
> to me, an Adams reprint to them.
Might it be the vocabulary, not the subject matter, the way you express
you're personal relationship, not the (content of the) actual relationship
itself, that is causing all this? I.e. does it *look* like an Adams photo as
well?
But again, bear in mind that when you're entering a conversation, people
will expect some degree of originality, both in what you say and the way you
say it.
When presented with a beautiful scene, of course one would want to capture
it, its fascination, on film. And it still will be fascinating and beautiful
even when it is not 'original', new, fresh anymore. There is no 'sell
by'-date on beauty.
But, like in any other art form, though the subject matter, the fascination,
might remain the same, it is finding new, surprising even, ways of
expressing the same old sentiments that will determine people's
appreciation. The old masters will still be appreciated just because they
express the same intimacy, the same sentiments towards their subjects we
feel today, but we do not need, say, the Mona Lisa to be redone, it's
already there. We would appreciate a new approach, a new Mona Lisa.
It is this tension, our continuing fascination with the same old subjects,
our need to be reminded of the same old basic truths, to have the same
sentiments reconfirmed, but in a new way, a way surprising enough to get us
excited again, that is fueling the discourse. It appears that to some, you
have managed to adress the right subject, but have failed to give them the
desired new perspective.
> I am a scientific person (probably like yourself), many parts of science
is
> nothing more
> than a business in academia. I have lost passion for the science and have
> turned into
> a publishing machine. Not studying what I like but studying what people
like
> to publish.
> In my earlier sciences, I would like to think I am exploring the physical
> universe or abstract laws
> of mathematics. Even though they were studied by the greats before. Now I
am
> publishing
> new and original work with "valuable" applications. It is not sufficient.
I
> have turned to hate the institution
> with no one to blame except myself.
> Once you play that publishing game, you will have to compromise.
> I have "no choice", that is my living.
That's the way you should see academia: a school, teaching basic stuff to
novices, and providing sustenance to the rest. Creativity (in any field) is
a bonus, depending on personal qualities, in spite of academia's demands.
It's an industry, like all the others, setting the same demands and
restrictions on creativity.
> Art is a little different than science, so I thought. It is used to
explore
> oneself, it is very intimate
> in my use. Much more so than science. If I am to be damned in it like in
the
> sciences, I am prepared to
> be in an asylum and speak to myself.
> At least those words are what I think are true. At least those are
important
> words that I speak.
> I can tell people psuedo-truth and whisper what they want to hear,
> and in turn they will give some lip-service. But fortunately there are
> forums that differ from academic art,
> I just have to seek it.
Art has two sides: the personal and the public. You're exploring and
discovering the subjects on your own, but do express them and your relation
to them to others. The former perhaps is a matter of speaking to yourself,
and you can take all the freedom you want to hold every conceivable truth,
but it must result in the latter, a public expression, exposing yourself to
the scrutiny of others.
Make sure that your statement is strong enough to withstand all honest
criticism. And be prepared to dismiss a lot of it: there is plenty room for
differing viewpoints after all.
Do "give lip-service", do tell what you think people will, genuinly, want to
hear. But only because you think it is something people will need to hear,
stay away from pseudo-truths.
Remember 'people' includes you. We're not all that different. So what they
want to hear and what you want to tell might not be that different after
all.
And as for academia, it's something you will want to leave behind you and
forget once you find there is nothing left it can offer to you.
> I don't mind creative work, it comes when the situation
> demands it. And I have used in on numerous occassion. I just don't want to
> force it for other's sake, not for
> their lip-services. It really isn't worth it.
But make sure you don't indeed end up speaking to yourself, just because
someone tells you one of your photos is an Adams look-a-like.
Tom Ferguson
Back more years than I want to admit I won a local (Burbank, CA) photo show.
The local newspaper interviewed me and printed a photo of me standing in
front on my work. All very exciting!
During the interview I was asked how much I liked Ansel (probably the only
photographer the reporter knew). I replied that "He might make my top 10,
but these are my favorites", then went on to discuss some of my favorites.
My favorites: Brett Weston, Mapplethorpe, and Paul Caponigro come to mind.
Perhaps you've guessed the outcome: article comes out with "Award winning
photographer dislikes Ansel Adams". No mention of my favorites.
But then, my second newspaper interview (for a show in Chicago) misquoted me
as saying "I do so many of my photographs in platinum because it is
cheaper".
No, I'm not kidding!
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
> From: <el...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca>
> Subject: Re: Ray Atkeson / Kodachrome / Ansel (was - Adams: The shame of
> Popular Landscapes, regarding a recent criti
>
Fujinon
> That's it indeed: do you want your photographs to communicate? If so, the
> reception they will get is very important, even more so perhaps than your
> own feelings towards your photographs.
Well, I'm not so sure about this. Who you want to communicate with is a
fundamental question. Art critics, professors, other photographers, regular
people...? Personally, I think that we ought to try to communicate with
people as people, as opposed to as art critics... We should speak to our
common humanity. Now there seems to me to be two choices. First, you can
do whatever interests/pleases you, or you can try to please others.
Personally, I expect that investigating your own interests or vision is
*usually* the best way. Since no doubt others share your interests, you'll
end up pleasing them too. If you start out trying to follow someone else's
idea of what you should be doing, then I expect that you'll probably end up
being disconnected from your work, which, I expect, often leads to the
failure to communicate effectively with your audience.
Peter
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> "Kerry L. Thalmann" wrote:
> > Geez guys, I changed the subject line in the hope to generate a little
> > discussion about a landscape photographer other than St. Ansel. And
> > here we are, just one or two posts later full circle and back to the man
> ><Snip>
>
> What's with the "St." Ansel?
> Not a passive aggressive insult I'm sure!
> ;)
No, not at all. You conveniently snipped my very next sentence where I
said:
"BTW, I have nothing against Ansel Adams, love his black and white
landscape work, own many of his books, think he was a great teacher and
a great conservationist."
The St. Ansel reference is one I've seen commonly used here and
elsewhere. I was not trying to insult Ansel Adams. He was a great
photographer and a great teacher. But, he wasn't the only one. I was
just trying to stimulate a little conversation about some other large
format landscape photographers. And based on the fact that were back to
discussing Adams and nobody else, you see how difficult that can be.
> By the way You're website didn't work yesterday and it doesn't work today.
> Should you check your connections or get a new server?
> Nothing clicks and if the do it's a big hang.
> Would love to see what's hiding somewhere!
I have more than one web site. I assume you're referring to:
http://largeformat.homepage.com
and not:
These run on different servers. The latter runs on a server that I pay
for web hosting (so it better be up and running), the former on a free
web server.
largeformat.homepage.com was/is a "labor of love" and since I don't make
any money off of it, I don't plan to ever pay for disk space or
bandwidth to host it. The whole intent was to make it totally free -
free information running on a free server. I shouldn't have to pay to
give away useful information that I receive absolutely no compensation
for in return. Until now, other than a brief period around the first of
the year, the free homepage.com service has been both fast and
reliable. And unlike most free web hosting services, free of those
annoying pop-up windows (with just an easily ignored banner at the top
of the page). Based on the fact that it was free, I was happy with the
service. Unfortunately, I just received email from them at the end of
last week that they are discontinuing their free web hosting service. I
will either have to pay them for web hosting (something I do not intend
to do for my largeformat homepage), or move my web site elsewhere. In
the email, they said the free service would terminate on 3/31/01. So, I
thought I had time to act. Perhaps not. Looks like they may have
decided to pull the plug earlier than anticipated.
In any case (and I should probably ask this elsewhere - or at least
change the subject line), I am now looking for recommendations for free
web hosting services. I need a new home for my largeformat.homepage.com
or it will go away. I'd really prefer a free hosting service. I do not
intend to pay for disk space or bandwidth, nor do I expect anyone else
to. I'd prefer a free service that doesn't bombard the viewer with
pop-ups. Of course, it would also be nice if it was reasonably fast,
reliable and had a decent amount of disk space. If anyone knows of such
a free service, please let me know.
In the meantime, unless homepage.com gets up and running again,
largeformat.homepage.com is officially homeless.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > That's it indeed: do you want your photographs to communicate? If so,
the
> > reception they will get is very important, even more so perhaps than
your
> > own feelings towards your photographs.
>
> Well, I'm not so sure about this. Who you want to communicate with is a
> fundamental question. Art critics, professors, other photographers,
regular
> people...? Personally, I think that we ought to try to communicate with
> people as people, as opposed to as art critics... We should speak to our
> common humanity.
Indeed. But once you make one of your photos public, there is no controlling
who sees it. And why would you exclude some groups anyway? When you speak up
in public, you must expect reactions, without having control over what they
will be or who they are coming from.
Since the chosen way of expression is by photograph, you should/could know
you are entering into a discourse held by an certain group of people, having
a certain history, tradition etc, and thus having some expectations as to
what a contribution should/could be like.
> Now there seems to me to be two choices. First, you can
> do whatever interests/pleases you, or you can try to please others.
They are not exclusive, you can do both.
> Personally, I expect that investigating your own interests or vision is
> *usually* the best way. Since no doubt others share your interests,
you'll
> end up pleasing them too.
Ah!
> If you start out trying to follow someone else's
> idea of what you should be doing, then I expect that you'll probably end
up
> being disconnected from your work, which, I expect, often leads to the
> failure to communicate effectively with your audience.
Not necessarily. It works two ways. If doing what you like might interest
other people as well, because they too share the same interests, likes and
dislikes, you may find that engaging in what other people find interesting
will indeed be very interesting to you too.
Not only that, it may help developing your personal view and help you put
your own work into context (unless you think you're a complete and utter
"original" ;-)), resulting in more pleasure and (even) better work.
Joshua_Putnam
Fujinon <pdes...@fdldotnet.com> wrote:
>Well, I'm not so sure about this. Who you want to communicate with is a
>fundamental question. Art critics, professors, other photographers, regular
>people...? Personally, I think that we ought to try to communicate with
>people as people, as opposed to as art critics... We should speak to our
>common humanity.
Taking this outside the photography business for a moment,
consider the plight of critics confronted with the
overwhelming success of Thomas Kincaide. They've spent so
much time championing originality above all else, including
beauty, that many are seriously, personally offended to
find that conventionally-beautiful art with only the
tiniest shred of originality actually appeals far more to
the average person than cut-up pigs floating in
formaldehyde.
Do you want to join a self-congratulatory circle of
academic critics, or do you want to create art that speaks
to ordinary people?
Can you name a truly great artist whose voice was shaped to
please critics?
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Mark Rabiner
> elsewhere. I was not trying to insult Ansel Adams. He was a great
> photographer and a great teacher. But, he wasn't the only one. I was
> just trying to stimulate a little conversation about some other large
> format landscape photographers. And based on the fact that were back to
> discussing Adams and nobody else, you see how difficult that can be.
It's not used by people who respect him. It's a cheap slight.
There was no one LESS pretentious than Ansel Adams.
One can not (somehow) find the zone system useful for them...
Or be a big fan of his subject matter, or his prints.
So just say so.
He NEVER took himself too seriously.
I know someone who rang his doorbell and learned how to roll film on a steel
reel on his doorstep.
Say
the OVERRATED Ansel
but "St." Ansel is a cheap and undeserved shot.
Classic passive aggressive
SMILEY FACE!!!!!!!
By the way Ansel said PLENTY that i don't see eye to eye with.
Do not claim the St. comes from blind worshippers.
It comes off as a cut to the man and what he is...
Not for the supposed blind worshippers.
Where are the zone system zombies?
Yes it's always bad to have some clue as to what you're doing.
Ansel influence cannot be underestimated. His prints real hard to deny.
He deserves more than cheap shots.
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
Mike McDonald
Mark Rabiner <ma...@rabiner.cncoffice.com> writes:
>><Snip>
>> The St. Ansel reference is one I've seen commonly used here and
>> elsewhere. I was not trying to insult Ansel Adams. He was a great
>> photographer and a great teacher. But, he wasn't the only one. I was
>> just trying to stimulate a little conversation about some other large
>> format landscape photographers. And based on the fact that were back to
>> discussing Adams and nobody else, you see how difficult that can be.
>>><Snip>
>
> It's not used by people who respect him. It's a cheap slight.
The term "St Ansel" isn't a slight aimed at Ansel. It's aimed at the
religous zealots who take everything attributed to him as the closest thing to
the word of God in the last two thousand years. It's a spoof on their
adoration than an insult directed at him. At least in my use.
If I ever get a "vanity" plate for my truck, I'm going to get "St Ansel". I
figure other large format photographers will understand it, and non
photographers wont understand that it means my trunk is loaded with camera
equipement.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> It's not used by people who respect him. It's a cheap slight.
> There was no one LESS pretentious than Ansel Adams.
> One can not (somehow) find the zone system useful for them...
> Or be a big fan of his subject matter, or his prints.
> So just say so.
Mark,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that I don't respect
him or that I am not a fan of his work. I do and I am PERIOD. I have
said so in every single post I've made in this thread (and hundreds more
in the past). Still, you obviously take offense to the St. Ansel
reference. It is NOT aimed at Adams, but those who follow his teachings
blindly like they are religous dogma. Adams did not follow the dogmatic
teachings of his day. He experimented and developed a better way to get
the results he desired. Anyone who follows his teachings blindly is
taking exactly the opposite approach to developing their photographic
vision. Does that mean I think his teachings are usless. HECK NO.
They are a GREAT starting point and I highly recommend them. Still,
films, paper, developers, etc. change as do individual tastes. There
are all sorts of new options avilable today that simply did not exist
during Adams lifetime. To think that his way is the only way is less
true now more than ever. There is still value in experimentation.
Adams did it, and so should anyone else who takes their photography
seriously (and I don't mean JUST personal film speed and development
times).
> He NEVER took himself too seriously.
If that's true, he'd probably get a nice chuckle out of the St. Ansel
reference. Perhaps some of his followers could learn by his example in
this regard as well.
> Say
> the OVERRATED Ansel
No, I won't. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I do NOT
consider him over rated. He is one of the all time great landscape
photographers (arguably THE greatest).
> but "St." Ansel is a cheap and undeserved shot.
In your opinion. As I stated above and in my previous post, the
reference was NOT meant as an insult to Adams.
> Classic passive aggressive
As opposed to just plain aggressive...
> SMILEY FACE!!!!!!!
I apologize if you found the St. Ansel reference offensive. I'll
refrain from using it in the future. All I wanted to do was stimulate
the discussion about some other large format landscape photographers.
Adams was great, but there ARE others. You seem to be looking for an
argument here. I have none to offer. Adams was great, I admire his
work and his teachings, but I also admire the work and techings of
others. For that I offer no apology.
Howard Lester
Last weekend I saw a University of Arizona vanity plate:
F64
We know that very few will have any idea what THAT means.
Howard Lester
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:49:12 GMT, mik...@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald)
wrote:
Tom Ferguson
name is associated with. "St. Ansel" is easily seen as a reference to his
"zealotic followers", not to his worthy work and life. If you can't see
this: it's your problem, not ours or Ansel's. Get a life, get out your
camera.
Why in the photography community, is such greatness as Paul Strand not given
equal weight? Why is Mapplethorpe still a "snicker" rather than a nod at
classic still life work? Why is the work of current artists like Brad Cole
ignored. Very sad.
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
> From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" <large...@thalmann.com>
> Subject: Re: Ray Atkeson / Kodachrome / Ansel
>
Mark Rabiner
It's MORE a spoof on their adoration than an insult directed at him. At least in
my use.
You took out the MORE but left in the "than."
Are these Zealots on this list? Can one be named?
I don't think so. Where every they are they are not here and I've never met one.
It's a slight on Ansel.
And a chickenshit one as well.
Put
Ansel Smansel
on your plate.
AA AAA
Ansel Not
No Zone
at least be honest
Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon
USA
Mark Rabiner
>
><Snip> It is NOT aimed at Adams, but those who follow his teachings
> blindly like they are religous dogma. Adams did not follow the dogmatic
> teachings of his day. He experimented and developed a better way to get
> the results he desired. Anyone who follows his teachings blindly is
> taking exactly the opposite approach to developing their photographic
Two points then i drop it!
1. When did this cult start after he died?
a cult is composed of followers and a leader. Darn hard to have one without the other.
2. Would you call him that to his face?
3. A man with a great sense of humor but who would NOT put himself on a pedestal...
This off handed supposedly innocuous reference to him as "St. Ansel" would grate fast.
He might laugh the first time.
After that i suspect he would wince.
mark rabiner
Brian Ellis
that Ansel Adams was much more than an outstanding photographer. There was
very little of significance that went on in the serious photography
community from roughly the thirties into the seventies that he didn't have
a hand in, ranging from the establishment of Aperture magazine, the
establishment of the photography department at MOMA, development of the
zone system (along with Fred Archer, as Ansel always graciously pointed
out), the use of workshops as teaching tools, Group F 64, the Sierra Club,
his instruction books, and probably other things that don't immediately
come to mind. None of this means he should be worshipped but I think it is
at least part of the reason that people like Strand and Maplethorpe and
others aren't heard about quite so much in some circles.
"Tom Ferguson" <tomf...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:B6C959E8.4EDCC%tomf...@pipeline.com...
annqlee
>If so, the
> reception they will get is very important, even more so perhaps than your
> own feelings towards your photographs.
I guess we just have different views. I don't pretend to know your exposure
to modern academic art, but if you have a chance you should see it. It is
blazingly new
and might be to your satisfaction. The reception to those photographs are
not even
clear themselves! They will congratulate and then dismantle after (as I have
witnessed),
it is a business, politics. Who shall eat with the presenter and where they
will eat is also
an interesting problem.
> This of course does not mean you should adapt your photography to please
the
> expectations of others. Not at all. But it does mean that you should
indeed
> take note of the reactions your photographs receive, and carefully
consider
> what they are saying, and, perhaps most important, why you get these
> reactions.
I consider what my fellow classmates say more than they probably consider
themselves.
And that is why this thread exists. It wasn't a deep analysis, a single
polite statement from
the viewer.
> When presented with a beautiful scene, of course one would want to capture
> it, its fascination, on film. And it still will be fascinating and
beautiful
> even when it is not 'original', new, fresh anymore. There is no 'sell
> by'-date on beauty.
I disagree, you will be amazed how well the University has taken against
this proposition. The commenter
said she will not take the photo but buy it from the Gift Store...because
her shot will not be original.
> It appears that to some, you
> have managed to adress the right subject, but have failed to give them the
> desired new perspective.
I have failed at nothing (not in a defensive mode).
> That's the way you should see academia: a school, teaching basic stuff to
> novices, and providing sustenance to the rest. Creativity (in any field)
is
> a bonus, depending on personal qualities, in spite of academia's demands.
> It's an industry, like all the others, setting the same demands and
> restrictions on creativity.
I am afraid that is too calculative for me, I hope I will not be involved in
the industry.
Such is my dissatisfaction especially with the presentation of the
perspective professorship.
> Do "give lip-service", do tell what you think people will, genuinly, want
to
> hear. But only because you think it is something people will need to hear,
> stay away from pseudo-truths.
> Remember 'people' includes you. We're not all that different. So what they
> want to hear and what you want to tell might not be that different after
> all.
You would of loved the academic-position presentation, it was amazingly
"lipped-serviced".
> But make sure you don't indeed end up speaking to yourself, just because
> someone tells you one of your photos is an Adams look-a-like.
I don't mind speaking to myself, I believe it is an exercise that is not
easy to do. I don't know if I
can do it. In the end I don't mind people telling me if it looks like Adams.
I mind if I don't shoot "like" that anymore
because they said so. That seems to be what you are implying. That is an
assumption. I basically pointed out
points where we disagree, for the sake of brevity I did not point out the
points where we do agree.
Ann
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:9804e5$ron$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> annqlee wrote:
>
> > The question is if you can only speak to yourself will you still speak.
> > Will you still photograph if no one sees your work, how much of my
> > motivation is
> > upon the pleasing of the academics.
>
> That's it indeed: do you want your photographs to communicate? If so, the
> reception they will get is very important, even more so perhaps than your
> own feelings towards your photographs. Communication is a two-way process.
> It involves some adaptation on your part as well: it is your task not only
> to find a way to express your feelings and intentions, but to do it in a
way
<SNIP>
Kerry L. Thalmann
> Two points then i drop it!
Great (even though you've already exceeded your self-imposed limit by
50%).
> 1. When did this cult start after he died?
> a cult is composed of followers and a leader. Darn hard to have one without the other.
I never claimed any sort of organized cult movement. You really are
putting words in my mouth. In fact (not that it has anything to do with
photography), but there are LOTS of cults out there with deceased
leaders. Often the death of such leaders elevates them to martyr status
and the cult grows even bigger in death than in life (see: Presley,
Elvis - to name just one).
> 2. Would you call him that to his face?
Possibly, depends on the context of the discussion and how well I knew
him personally. Given the circumstances, this is all moot and rather
ridiculous. Given the uproar that my one comment has apparently
created, I'd certainly ask him how he felt about it.
> 3. A man with a great sense of humor but who would NOT put himself on a pedestal...
> This off handed supposedly innocuous reference to him as "St. Ansel" would grate > fast.
> He might laugh the first time.
> After that i suspect he would wince.
Fine, I used the reference ONCE, apologized and have stated repeatedly
in every response I've made in this thread that he was a great
photographer, a great teacher, I enjoy his work and respect his
commitment to furthering both photography as an art form and the
preservation of the natural world. I don't know what more you
want/expect, but that's it from me on this topic.
Michael McGuire
: Hi All,
: Please indulge me again with another therapy session. If anyone feels it is
: out of
: line, please let me know and I will stop immediately.
: I had a little critique in Intermediate Photo.....
: Ann
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Those who can, create. Those who can't curate.
Hang in there.
Mike
--
Michael McGuire Hewlett Packard Laboratories
email:xmcg...@xhpl.xhp.com P.0. Box 10490 (1501 Page Mill Rd.)
(remove x's from email if not Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971
a spammer)
Phone: (650)-857-5491
************BE SURE TO DOUBLE CLUTCH WHEN YOU PARADIGM SHIFT.**********
TUNETRADER
>Why in the photography community, is such greatness as Paul Strand not given
>equal weight? Why is
right on. adams was the consumate
craftsman, and a great apologist for
the fine art of photography; but others,
for me, strand, haas, cartier-bresson,
to name only three, produced images
far more remarkable...expressing not
only great craftsmanship, but a gift of
sight, a visual genius, so powerful it
renders adam's or anyone else's
apologies moot...
Q.G. de Bakker
> I guess we just have different views. I don't pretend to know your
exposure
> to modern academic art, but if you have a chance you should see it. It is
> blazingly new
> and might be to your satisfaction. The reception to those photographs are
> not even
> clear themselves! They will congratulate and then dismantle after (as I
have
> witnessed),
> it is a business, politics. Who shall eat with the presenter and where
they
> will eat is also
> an interesting problem.
Yes, i know, there is a lot of 'hype' afoot. So?
Why do you show you're pictures to anyone else but you, if not to get
response? You make a statement, and must wait and see what others will make
of it. If you don't think the reception they get is valuable, you should not
show them.
So if you don't think the people you are showing your work to are capable of
a valid response, only hype, show it to someone else, find the right forum.
If that means turning your back on academia, so what?
But everywhere you go, there wil always be an unpleasant, socio-political
fringe. Art pour l'art? Forget about it.
But why do you think i find being "blazingly new" a quality that all by
itself can give satisfaction?
> I consider what my fellow classmates say more than they probably consider
> themselves.
> And that is why this thread exists. It wasn't a deep analysis, a single
> polite statement from
> the viewer.
Hmm... In how far will it matter whether or not the response you got was a
result of a deep analysis or not? And how do you know that you consider what
your classmates say more than they do themselves? Would you tell them you
think so?
People (should) only respond in as far as they understand the lingo and
therefore are able to understand the message. And people will understand (if
at all) any message only by putting it in context, the context of the
discourse. Echoes of Ansel Adams' work apparently still resound (his name
wouldn't pop up if they didn't), and are therefore part of this context. We
would all (perhaps?) love to be able to create a body of work like Ansel
Adams', but the thing is we can't do it anymore without reminding people of
Adams. That's just the state of affairs.
It's like how we would all love to make a witty remark sometimes, but we
simply can't when someone has just beaten us to it. It would look silly to
try anyway while people are still laughing about its "original".
Frustrating? Especially when you know you thought of it all by yourself?
Yes. But that's the way it is. Even complaining about it doesn't make it any
different.
It doesn't make your "original" less, though. Not in itself, only as a
contribution to the discourse.
And i do think this is a good thing, not just for originality's sake, but it
puts creativity under pressure, for quality's sake. If anyone would want to
cover the same ground someone else already covered, she or he must show that
it needed to, because it wasn't done properly the first time. If anyone
would want to do, say, "Moon over Half Dome" (or whatever it's called)
again, he or she should make pretty sure to do it "better". Who says it
can't be done?
And "better" equals "different", but "different" does not necessarily mean
"better". So originality is wanted, needed even, yes, but not for its own
sake, not without content, but as a result of demanding quality.
> > When presented with a beautiful scene, of course one would want to
capture
> > it, its fascination, on film. And it still will be fascinating and
> beautiful
> > even when it is not 'original', new, fresh anymore. There is no 'sell
> > by'-date on beauty.
>
> I disagree, you will be amazed how well the University has taken against
> this proposition. The commenter
> said she will not take the photo but buy it from the Gift Store...because
> her shot will not be original.
But she still thought it beautiful? Just as we still think Adams' "original"
still is beautiful? Etc.
If your university thinks different, perhaps it's time to move on.
> > It appears that to some, you
> > have managed to adress the right subject, but have failed to give them
the
> > desired new perspective.
>
> I have failed at nothing (not in a defensive mode).
Not to you, but apparently to someone expecting something else. Obviously.
Again, do you care at all about what others think? If not, don't show your
pictures. And don't look at someone else's pictures too. Do something else.
But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
> I am afraid that is too calculative for me, I hope I will not be involved
in
> the industry.
> Such is my dissatisfaction especially with the presentation of the
> perspective professorship.
I did mention personal qualities? There even still may be good professors,
perhaps you need to look elsewhere. And you know how you would like to do
things, you know what kind of professor you would (want to) make. I hope.
But i remember academia as a place needing more security than the national
bank, and still offices were broken into, desks raided, notes stolen, etc.
Not by some run of the mill criminal searching for something he could sell.
No. All to satisfy the ambition of the (typical?) academic, wanting to beat
the rest to it, and, glory of all glories, top the publication and quote
lists. Much like in the many echelons in the corporate world. And then those
poor students, their professors stealing credit for their work...Ah well,
you get the picture, i don't hold academia in very high esteem. ;-)
> > Do "give lip-service", do tell what you think people will, genuinly,
want
> to
> > hear. But only because you think it is something people will need to
hear,
> > stay away from pseudo-truths.
> > Remember 'people' includes you. We're not all that different. So what
they
> > want to hear and what you want to tell might not be that different after
> > all.
>
> You would of loved the academic-position presentation, it was amazingly
> "lipped-serviced".
It was? But would i have liked it...?
You did get my point? Art is not 'quod libet'. It is about what we all,
collectively, are concerned with. This common ground is what makes art
succesful, what enables art to work in the first place. Creativity in art is
not about free expression, it is finding (new) ways of restating the very
few basic truths about what it means to be alive, what it is to be human,
living in the world we live in. It is reconfirming the achievements in our
attempts to deal with this all so far, and expressing our believe that we
can (or can not) go on and come up winners.
Adressing this, adding to what has been said already, restating what was
said before in a "better" way, is what is expected. You know what fascinates
other people, what other people will want to hear and see, and what things
they hate to be reminded of but is fascinating all the same, simply because
you're one of them. So do go and "give lip-service"... you'll be true to
yourself.
> I don't mind speaking to myself, I believe it is an exercise that is not
> easy to do. I don't know if I
> can do it.
It's easy enough. It's what a whole lot of people do anyhow. Just stop
listening to what others have to say, and you'll find your speaking to
yourself in no time at all.
> In the end I don't mind people telling me if it looks like Adams.
> I mind if I don't shoot "like" that anymore
> because they said so. That seems to be what you are implying. That is an
> assumption.
I'm not sure i follow you here.
My point is that someone telling you (rightly or wrongly) that your
statement was made before should not be reason to redraw from the discourse.
But taking part in the discourse does indeed put demands on your
contribution.
It's of course up to you how to deal with that, but don't think you have no
say in it, as if you're just a victim unable to control what way the
discourse will go.
So is your photo really an Adams look-alike? Is it really a rehashing of
what was all seen and said before? If you had forgotten all about it being
your photo, would you perhaps see and say the same?
Roy Harrington
Gee, Mark, I think you're reading way too much into the "St. Ansel"
reference. Ansel, himself, had a great sense of humor. Have you ever
seen the poster of Ansel dressed up like Moses with a stone tablet and
the ten zones on it? Its hilarious! I think the last time I saw it
was at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite. I don't know if this was
made as
reference to "St Ansel" but it was certainly done as a farce by Ansel
and his assistants/friends. I've known several assistants and friends
of Ansel, and beyond his more obvious greatness as a photographer and
teacher, the most common thread of all their anecdotes is Ansel's
sense of humor, his accessability and his unassuming style.
Roy
--
Roy Harrington
r...@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com
Mark Rabiner
> Gee, Mark, I think you're reading way too much into the "St. Ansel"
> reference. Ansel, himself, had a great sense of humor. Have you ever
> seen the poster of Ansel dressed up like Moses with a stone tablet and
> the ten zones on it? Its hilarious! I think the last time I saw it
> was at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite. I don't know if this was
> made as
> reference to "St Ansel" but it was certainly done as a farce by Ansel
> and his assistants/friends. I've known several assistants and friends
> of Ansel, and beyond his more obvious greatness as a photographer and
> teacher, the most common thread of all their anecdotes is Ansel's
> sense of humor, his accessability and his unassuming style.
>
> Roy
>
> --
> Roy Harrington
I'm familiar with the shot of Ansel be-Knighting Imogen Cunningham! (into the 64
club i'd assume)
You are saying the term (St. Ansel) is benign to whimsically humorous and would
fit Ansels own sense of humour perhaps.
And that i am making an unnecessarily big deal out of its tireless use on these Newsgroups.
I'm am saying that it is an unnecessary to inappropriate slight.
As you know several assistants and friends of Ansel i could assume you are not
highly critical or antagonistic toward him. You use the term "St. Ansel" often
then?
And you would repeat it often to his face?
If so i stand corrected at least in your case.
I still feel the "St. Ansel" is slightly funny the first time you hear it and
even has some meaning.
But to hear it repeated so often it is not funny and just comes across as
mindlessly immature.
The only cure for such immaturity is for these people to be sent out to redefine photography;
instead taking cheap immature shots at those who have previously done so.
Lets call a spade a spade.
Christopher A. Cline
> 0]>
> : Hi All,
>
> : Please indulge me again with another therapy session. If anyone feels it is
> : out of
> : line, please let me know and I will stop immediately.
>
> : I had a little critique in Intermediate Photo.....
>
> : Ann
>
> Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
> Those who can, create. Those who can't curate.
> Hang in there.
>
> Mike
Are you trying to tell us that Ansel Adams, who taught a great many
photographers through his workshops, couldn't do photography? Are you saying
that Don Kirby, Ray McSavaney, Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, and many others who
teach through their workshops can't do photography?
Are you saying that Richard Feynman, who was an excellent teacher, couldn't do
physics even though he won the Nobel Prize in physics for his contributions to
Quantum Electrodynamics?
Are you telling me that I can't do physics because I happened to choose to teach
physics, even though I spent many years of advanced study culminating in a
Ph.D., even though I continue to study and research many diverse fields of
physics?
I don't mean to come down on Mike, but many people's first response to Ann's
query seems to be an anti-intellectual and anti-academic stance. This concerns
me, particularly after what happened in Kansas a year ago. Sure, there are
professors that spew forth just to bolster their egos, but you will find that in
every profession and walk of life. Most professors worked very hard to gain the
knowledge and expertise they have, and continue to work hard at acquiring and
producing new knowledge. We are trained to recognize and eliminate as best as
possible the human bias that accompanies all search for knowledge. We choose to
teach because we love what we do (physics, in my case) and we want to share that
excitement with others. In my job, if a person can't do what they are trying to
teach, they won't last very long as a teacher. Not only do you have to know how
to do, but how to teach others how to do.
Christopher A. Cline, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Physics
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
http://people.wcslc.edu/faculty/c-cline/
Kerry L. Thalmann
Not sure what caused the hick-up earlier today, but as of 10:30pm PST
05-MAR-2001, it seems to be working fine again.
However, as I mentioned below, unless I find a new FREE home for it by
31-MAR-2001, it WILL go away permanently. So, my solicitation for
recommendations for free web hosting services remains. I'll check out a
few on my own, but if anyone is using a free web hosting service that
they like, please let me know. Other than this recent hick-up and some
SLOW response times back around the first of the year, the homepage.com
service has been great (for a free hosting service). Unfortunately, the
plug is being pulled at the end of the month. So,
largeformat.homepage.com needs a new home. All advice welcome and
appreciated.
Thanks,
Kerry
Luc Novovitch
> I still feel the "St. Ansel" is slightly funny the first time you hear it and
> even has some meaning.
> But to hear it repeated so often it is not funny and just comes across as
> mindlessly immature.
Mark,
You certainly have some good points, but I really think that when people
use the term, they are actually not having Ansel Adams as a target, but
rather the people who make him somewhat of an idol, if I may say so. The
ones jumping to the ceiling at the slightest hint of derogative terms
regarding his pictures, or worse, regarding his personality. The ones who
can't imagine than the hero was not a perfect person, but just very gifted
and skilled human being. The photographic monkeys walking on the steps of
the great man every single vacation they can get to try to mimic his
pictures and results. The one would would like to be photographers, but
have a 'day job', etc... etc...
As for cult, when it comes to popular culture, you do not necessary need a
leader, dead or alive, to begin with, but you do need people looking up
for one to imitate and revere.
And also, to put things in perspective, Ansel Adams is not too much of a
cult , hero, or legend as soon as you leave the photographic community of
the US of A. Trust me, there are millions of people practicing
photography out there without a clue about the guy and his work, living
and photographing happily. Now... they may have their own saints...
(someone said Leonard Misonne? Ortiz Echague? Josef Sudek?...)
/ln
---
mailto:l...@overland.net
http://www.sotolgallery.com
Robert E. Smith
One of my favorite images of Ansel Adams was one printed in a biography
showing Ansel arrayed in a white robe holding a large tablet in each
hand on which was written, "Zone I, Zone II...Zone X". More than
anything else I have read, that image seemed to reflect the humor of the
man. I do not believe he would mind the tongue-in-cheek references to
sainthood seen in many (maybe not all) postings.
Truly, dr bob.
Roy Harrington
Mark, I think we're pretty close on our feelings about the St Ansel term.
To me its basically a worn out joke and its not worth repeating ad infinitum.
But I disagree that it's meant as a disparaging remark against Ansel.
Kerry used the term and your response seemed to indicate that Kerry was
trying to slight Adams which I don't think is at all true.
Just to set the record straight, I do like Ansel Adams work. I highly
respect his contributions to photography. He has made a significant
effect on my own photography. Heck, look at my website -- I'm not
trying to copy Ansel's work, but the influence is probably obvious.
But I wouldn't put him up on a pedestal to worship -- he was a great
man who contributed a huge amount to photographic art. I only
regret that I didn't get to meet him personally.
Paul Stimac
observation about Adams fame.
Really Adams is thee ONLY famous photographer outside of photography circles. If
Family Fued surveyed 100 people and asked "Name a famous photographer" there
would be 100 pts for Ansel Adams. Well maybe 99 Adams, a 1 for Anne Geddes -
most house wifes know her name. The reality is that most people in the general
public don't even know who Edward Weston is. Adams is and will probably be, the
only really famous photographer. He's so famous that when buying a large format
camera, people will say that you are trying to be like Adams, even without
seeing your photos.
Ann suffered a negative situation (no pun intended) from Adams fame. Take any
picture in Yosemite and that will happen. In a camera store, I was overhearing
people commenting while looking at John Sextons book on trees, saying how much
some photos looked like Adams work.
Paul
Michael C. Daily
Michael
eMeL
circles.
In the United States... But more Americans may know Matthew Brady, though,
because his Civil War pictures are actually identified and discussed at
school.
Europeans do know Nadar, HCB, Capa, Lord Snowdon, Muybridge (just mention
the moving horse...), Cameron, etc., but not necessarily Adams (which
doesn't diminish his historical importance.)
Again, it's all "outside of photography circles."
Michael
Paul Stimac <pa...@rabbitbrush.com> wrote in message
news:3AA51C9F...@rabbitbrush.com...
albert
I can say only one thing. to do smething in arts we must find a way to
see, an original and personal way. to find it, we must walk on a road
and have experiences. so we can get inspirated or copy a photographic
style like adams, evans, penn ecc. this is very important, with this you
can know the others works on your skin. after this period it is normal
and natural to find a personal style. I passed some years in my
beginning to emulate giacomelli. I think that your road starts were
finish adams road, so you must go haead! do not worry.
excuse me for the error, but my english is not very good.
bye
--
alessandro
Brian Ellis
States Robert Maplethorpe was perhaps better known outside photography
circles than Ansel Adams (but not for the same reasons). At the beginning
of the last two semesters I've asked my Beginning Photography students who
their favorite photographer is. Most of them can't come up with a name. I
often ask for a show of hands of people who've heard of a particular
photographer under discussion. Most of them don't recognize Ansel Adams'
name. One student said she had heard of him but his name wasn't Ansel
Adams, it was Adam Ansel.
"eMeL" <badb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aa63...@news2.one.net...
Hamish Reid
This is a very US-centric view, I think. As a photographer living in
UnAmerica (London, at the time) 15 years ago, I'd never heard of
Adams, although I'd certainly heard of many more "arty"
(typically European or New York) photographers. I'd be very
sure that none of my non-photographer
friends or acquaintences had heard of him either -- and I'm pretty
sure they would have been able to name someone like, say, one of the
better-known British or European fashion photographers when asked
for a photographer.
It wasn't until the Adams exhibition in the Barbican in (about) 1986
that I even knew Adams existed; and it wasn't until I moved to
California that I became aware of just how ubiquitous his images are
in California and (maybe) the US. This is not true of the world in
general.
Hamish
annqlee
Your points are valid and makes good sense.
It was not a malacious comment by the viewer, she was no where
condescending. I believe that
it was an interesting point, that she would not capture the photograph
because it has already been done.
Like she was "robbed"(a term used) of the experience. So what I am telling
you is that I don't behave
in that way and that I should follow my instincts to take what is beautiful.
To me it was not obvious
why she wouldn't take such a photograph. She did not ask me defend nor did I
defend
if my photograph was a copy of Adams. The more interesting point to me was
the presentation,
that was a real eye opener for me.
> Why do you show you're pictures to anyone else but you, if not to get
> response? You make a statement, and must wait and see what others will
make
> of it. If you don't think the reception they get is valuable, you should
not
> show them.
> So if you don't think the people you are showing your work to are capable
of
> a valid response, only hype, show it to someone else, find the right
forum.
> If that means turning your back on academia, so what?
> But everywhere you go, there wil always be an unpleasant, socio-political
> fringe. Art pour l'art? Forget about it.
I showed my photographs to get a response. I will not react to those
responses by creating photos that pleases the viewer.
Please keep in mind that I have followed many other advices for other
critiques. Not taking a photograph because it
was "done" before, is something I will not follow. I think we disagree
there, and I respect that.
Please don't read more into it, by saying that I only like things that
are positive. Please don't think that I seek audiences which "will" like my
work. I reject certain audiences because
I feel that I will get too much affected by their comments in the way I view
what is important. Forget about it? So what?..
I did not say that my viewers are not capable of a valid response. If it was
implied, I did not mean that.
I am fully aware of unpleasant responses, and it is fine with me as long as
it was polite. It was polite.
> But why do you think i find being "blazingly new" a quality that all by
> itself can give satisfaction?
I don't think you do, but you seem to give it more weight than I do. It was
a series of elevators with nothing in them, a typology.
The doors behave as shutters....etc.
> Not to you, but apparently to someone expecting something else. Obviously.
> Again, do you care at all about what others think? If not, don't show your
> pictures. And don't look at someone else's pictures too. Do something
else.
> But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
I care what other people think, on certain photographs. On certain ones I
don't. I think you have some of those photographs too?
I might be condescending to you, and I apologize. But your tone here is a
little on the nasty side. What I am saying is that
in the end the photographs that are important to *ME* are the ones that I
don't care what "other" people think. That is not completely
true, even the photographs of my parents I care what my siblings and my
parents think. What I meant is other people like strangers.
> > You would of loved the academic-position presentation, it was amazingly
> > "lipped-serviced".
>
> It was? But would i have liked it...?
My apologies.
> You did get my point? Art is not 'quod libet'. It is about what we all,
> collectively, are concerned with. This common ground is what makes art
> succesful, what enables art to work in the first place. Creativity in art
is
> not about free expression, it is finding (new) ways of restating the very
> few basic truths about what it means to be alive, what it is to be human,
> living in the world we live in. It is reconfirming the achievements in our
> attempts to deal with this all so far, and expressing our believe that we
> can (or can not) go on and come up winners.
> Adressing this, adding to what has been said already, restating what was
> said before in a "better" way, is what is expected. You know what
fascinates
> other people, what other people will want to hear and see, and what things
> they hate to be reminded of but is fascinating all the same, simply
because
> you're one of them. So do go and "give lip-service"... you'll be true to
> yourself.
>
I have nothing against creativity.
I dare say that I am a creative person. But creativity to please other is
false to me. I could play that game but
probably not too successfully, becuase in the end it is not fullfilling.
Creativity because
it comes from your unique experience is what I want. I have created many
photographs to that extent. There
are photographs from my fantasy, nothing but creations.
I have never said the clearing storm picture was
breath-takingly creative. However, it is not a rip off of Adams. You might
consider your photographs of Yosemite
a rip off, but I don't. I don't want to trivialize my time on Earth and my
experience by your standards. I think Adams
will be totally against that notion to reduce my experience down to a copy
of his work. It is absurd even to justify.
What you photograph and
your motives might be different from mine. I don't pretend to contribute to
your art world, if it happens it happens.
I will not trivialize photographs of my parents to please your art world, to
reduce them down nothing more than
a creative set of gimmicks. It is creative(if that even matters) because
they are my parents, because they are unique to me, because
I presented them with enough care. I could care less what the art world
thinks. All I am saying is that I should
take more of those photographs. I should not take more of what your art
world thinks. And if the case where
no one else wants to see the photograph, then fine. That is a hypothetical
situation. I don't want to mold my parents
into creativity for the sake of pleasing your art world. I don't want to
stop photographing clouds and sunsets to
please your artworld quotas. Its fine that she(the viewer) won't take that
photograph, I will. I really believe it is not my loss in
that case not to conform to your art world quotas. It is not about promoting
photography as a philosopher or
art champion. It is a tool that I choose to capture my experience, which is
trivial to the art world. Remember that! Don't
think for one second that it is not trivial.
And I have learned not to show those, probably to your art-world
satisfaction.
I should stop here, it is not appropriate to be mean in this forum. If I
sound condenscending, which after reading
my previous posts could be the case. I apologize. I think your points are
valid for your experiences and my points
are valid for my experiences. I gave a hypothetical situation where in this
academic art I shall talk to myself. In reality
the academic art is not encompassing, so I shall speak frequently with
others.
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:981ft2$f7i$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> annqlee wrote:
>
Michael McGuire
: Michael McGuire wrote:
: Hi All,
: Mike
Touched a sensitive nerve, did I? My POV is indeed tough on a romantic view
of academia. But it's a rather breathtaking non sequitur to construe it as
support for the Kansas School Board's position on teaching evolution. What I
said applies quite well to the egotists who dumped on Ann's work. As for you,
there's no obligation to wear the shoe if it doesn't fit. FWIW, I also have a
Ph.D. in Physics, but don't generally feel I have to flaunt it to be credible
in a discussion of this kind. Another thought for Ann -- Critics are like
eunuchs. They have a general idea about how, but...
Francis A. Miniter
Giotto and 25 others had done it before him, where would we be? Where
would the academics at Ann's university be?? Not studying Italian
Renaissance Art, that is for sure. And the his various Madonna and
Child pictures? Forget it. There were thousands before. It had been
done. Even now we are able to find new and provocative ways to render
the subject. Just look at Mayor Giuliani's reaction to the exhibit at
the Brooklyn Art Museum.
Actually, my academic experience was very different from what Ann is
getting. I hope her university is not typical of current trends.
Francis A. Miniter
albert wrote:
> hi from italy
>
> <snip?
Wayne
Generally I have shudddered and looked away when I've seen something
that looks like an "imitation" or strongly reminds me of anyone elses
work. I've also shuddered at staged and/or hand-colored photographs.
Recently I came across some staged, hand-colored photographs that I was
moved by. This unsettled me greatly, and caused me to re-evaluate my
criteria. So, flash ahead to now. Why isnt your reaction to and
interpretation of Yosemite every bit as original and/or important
(especially to you) as Adams? It is, and to hell with what anyone else
says. I make 99.99% of my photographs for myself. Occasionally I shoot
something while in the back of my mind thinking that someone else might
like it too. I'm thrilled when someone else appreciates something I see,
but I dont need anyone's approval but my own. I want it, sure, but dont
need it. I do it for me, I have to do it, and thats all that matters. In
the end you just have to do what feels right to YOU (its your "personal
relationship" with the medium), and you obviously arent confused about
what that is. That IS your answer.
As for the science and art thing, dont even get me started on that. I
also survive by science, sort of, and have lost my passion for it. But
that loss has helped fuel my passion for photography.
Wayne
annqlee wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The question is if you can only speak to yourself will you still speak.
> Will you still photograph if no one sees your work, how much of my
> motivation is
> upon the pleasing of the academics.
>
> But to the main point, the fundamental argument is
> that if you see a scene like the clearing storms of Adams on your vacation
> time, do you
> try to capture the photo? Please bear in mind that Adams had scene a capture
> a similar
> scene. Am I so saturated with images and being original/academic that I
> treat nature and the beauty of photography no more than a tool to get some
> sprinkling of
> psuedo-passionate remark on the originality of my work. It is not about the
> image, not
> even about originality, it is not about Adams, it is a personal relationship
> that you are
> having. That is how I see it, that is not how some of my classmates sees it.
> It is intimate
> to me, an Adams reprint to them.
>
> I am a scientific person (probably like yourself), many parts of science is
> nothing more
> than a business in academia. I have lost passion for the science and have
> turned into
> a publishing machine. Not studying what I like but studying what people like
> to publish.
> In my earlier sciences, I would like to think I am exploring the physical
> universe or abstract laws
> of mathematics. Even though they were studied by the greats before. Now I am
> publishing
> new and original work with "valuable" applications. It is not sufficient. I
> have turned to hate the institution
> with no one to blame except myself.
> Once you play that publishing game, you will have to compromise.
> I have "no choice", that is my living.
>
> Art is a little different than science, so I thought. It is used to explore
> oneself, it is very intimate
> in my use. Much more so than science. If I am to be damned in it like in the
> sciences, I am prepared to
> be in an asylum and speak to myself.
> At least those words are what I think are true. At least those are important
> words that I speak.
> I can tell people psuedo-truth and whisper what they want to hear,
> and in turn they will give some lip-service. But fortunately there are
> forums that differ from academic art,
> I just have to seek it.
>
> I don't mind creative work, it comes when the situation
> demands it. And I have used in on numerous occassion. I just don't want to
> force it for other's sake, not for
> their lip-services. It really isn't worth it.
>
> Ann
>
> Q.G. de Bakker <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
> news:97pjmi$j0c$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
>
> > But also consider what "success" might be.
> > Do you want to communicate with others, be part of the universal exchange
> of
> > views and viewpoints, or are you quite happy talking to yourself?
> > If you want your work, your art to be an expression of your view of this
> > world, be sure that it is telling something others will want to hear, and
> > not repeat something they have all heard before, however valid and
> valuable
> > it in itself might be.
> >
> > Of course repetition plays a very important part in culture, stressing the
> > importance of achievements of the past, lest we forget. But culture will
> get
> > stale very quickly if it gets stuck repeating things only. In western
> > culture at least, there is an insatiable demand for new ways to explain
> the
> > world, new ways to make the world more palatable. We must have a sense of
> > progress or are deemed doomed.
> > These two are incompatible, yet are linked. It's like climbing a steep
> > mountain face: once you have found a firm grip it is vital for survival to
> > hang on to it, but sooner or later you must release it to go on.
> > So you will always find lots of people admiring the works of, say, Adams,
> > but very few of them would want to see this work done all over again. Most
> > would not want to see their own work done over again, and, yes, would
> rather
> > confine it to the bin and forget all about it.
> > The thrill in being creative is just that, being creative: finding new
> ways
> > to tackle something, new ways of expressing yourself. Even telling the
> same
> > old story, as long as there is a new twist that can be added.
> > That's why very many, creative, academians do not want to continue their
> own
> > work once they know someone else has taken the same road. There's no fun
> in
> > it anymore.
> > Think about it, would you really praise anyone claiming he or she has just
> > yesterday invented, say, the internal combustion engine? Would it be the
> > great invention it was over a hundred years ago? A great achievement,
> true,
> > but not very remarkable, not today, except for its redundancy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
c._downs
In an earlier life as an aerial photographer I had the pleasure of
meeting and talking the afternoon away with Ray while waiting for the
weather to clear enough to be able to photograph from a plane.
He walked over and asked who I was and why I had a huge pile of
camera gear, Where I was headed and so on.......I didn't recognize him
and was just making polite small talk. This went on for about a half
hour as I slowly realized that he knew every thing about where I was
working { Mt. Baker and the N. Cascades} and seemed to know my
business better than me!
I gave him a "who the heck are you?" look and he grinned and told me
his name. Kinda' brings a man down to size if you know what I mean!!
:o).....
We talked away the afternoon as the sky never cleared and I wasn't
going to fly over the N. Cascades with a single engine plane with no
real instruments in bad weather.
Wonderful guy! Gave me all kinds of pointers and ideas on places to
go! A true Gentleman and open to any question! Just as Adams and
others were responsible for many of the ways we have come to look at
B&W landscapes Ray was one of the first to show what could be done
high up on the mountains and with color. If like Richard K. says that
all art is somewhat derivative { sorry if I misquoted you Richard} I
see in his work the fundamentals that are common in many of todays
best color landscape photographers . I'm really sad to know that much
of his original work is disappearing and like Weston's color will be
gone forever soon.
I wish the thread that Kerry started had continued about Ray
as I really don't get to know about him from most sources today as I
no longer live in the P. N West.
Wayne
Why will Weston's color be gone forever soon? Didnt Cole and the CCP
Cibachrome the remaining transparencies (or are you referring to the
trannies)?
(Unlike AA's color work I thought EW's showed potential-too bad he did
so much of it of "copying" his own work that he had already done in
B&W).
Wayne
Geo
"hardware" and forget about the "software".
Reminds me of the time years ago when, as a teenager I went to see a "World
Famous Photographer" to critique my work. Of course I wasn't looking for a
critique, I was looking for validation, approval, encouragement. Let's face
it that's what we really want when we ask for an "honest opinion". Well,
let's say he wasn't very impressed. To this day I don't remember exactly
what he said (aside from mentioning he had an erection when he took one of
his pictures he showed me. Boy was I impressed.). I just remember walking
out of there feeling sort of numb. Since his office was right across the
street from Central Park (New York) I was looking forward to visiting one of
my favorite hunting grounds.
I've always enjoyed the hardware of photography; the look, the feel, the
sound, the smell of cameras. What Playboy was to heterosexual teenage males,
Pop Photo was to me. I would lust after a Leicaflex SL or Rollieflex SL66
and drool over the ads like they were centerfolds (kinky?). Anyway, the
point is that day after my "critique" I took out my camera and it felt like
a foreign object; I almost didn't know what to do with it or why I brought
it. I guess I'm the sensitive type but I didn't pick up a camera for over a
year. But eventually I did pick up a camera again. The criticism (valid or
not) didn't destroy me, it made me look more closely at my work and made me
a better critic of my own work.
And photography has been the longest lasting, if not most fullfilling
relationship of my life. Hey, I like this therapy stuff!!! Feels great!!!
When's the next session???
_George_
Natural Light Black & White Photography
http://www.accesshub.net/~naturalight
Dick Weld
concern about doing "derivative" work. Because of this feeling, I've
obtained most of my photographic gratification by doing black & white
"fine art portraits." My portrait of a particular person... at a
particular time and place... will never be a copy of someone else's
work, no matter how many times my subject has been photographed. It's
unfortunate for me, of course, that portraits are not a popular genre in
the fine art world (... just try submitting one to a juried show.) but
it does give me satisfaction.
Concerning academic training, my only interest has been to acquire
mechanics and technique. I've taken about 25 hours at the collegiate
level, and it gave me a strong base of darkroom skills. But my "eye" and
"artistic soul" have been influenced more by exposure to all kinds of
art, including painting and sculpture, and trips to museums and
galleries. One of the portraits which is most pleasing to me came from
an idea gleaned from a novel by Dick Francis.
And, as Ann points out, the most important criterion in evaluating my
work is my own satisfaction.
Dick Weld
albert
I don't say that you must do for all your life what adams do. the
classical study is important not for emulare it. witkin and cindy sheman
are very classical, they learn from painters and religious iconography,
but they have a very personal style. the problem is that some kind of
university or photographic or artistic school theach you the classical
but after only you can do something of new, because they do not teach
you to use this classical study with something of modern. the student
say: yes, I study da Vinci, but why? I don't want to paint like da
Vinci...
and some kind of student refuse all of this, because they want to paint
like pollock or klee. but to write and play music you must study, so why
not in painting or photography? only a genius can be an artist without
study the past, and use this past to build somethig of new and
provocative. ann is a student, not an artist at the end of her carreer.
--
alessandro
c._downs
wrote:
I know little about it but have heard that most is gone already and
the rest is going fast. I hope, like you said, that there is
preservation of any remaining images as it is just too easy to do this
today either with copy images or digital scanning.
I have not seen ANY of Weston's work in color and wish I could find a
source for any images.
Contrary to many fine print folks I feel that there is no quality
difference in the best B&W and the best color so would really like to
see the Weston images to see what his focus was on. I don't think that
color is very often explored in a "fine print" method and all too
often what we have is very colorful "pretty" scenes. Even with the
finest print quality too much of the color today is not "expressive"
and is only high quality recording of scenes. Atkeson had an eye for
color and what it takes to use it instead of tone in prints. I'd bet
with modern materials and equipment he would have certainly pushed the
envelope - as far as conveying the traits that are considered
necessary for what is known as "fine prints" or "fine art prints".
eMeL
news:3AA6E85C...@attglobal.net...
> Italy! Yes! If da Vinci decided not to paint the last supper because
> Giotto and 25 others had done it before him, where would we be? Where
> would the academics at Ann's university be?? Not studying Italian
> Renaissance Art, that is for sure. And the his various Madonna and
> Child pictures? Forget it. There were thousands before. It had been
> done. Even now we are able to find new and provocative ways to render
> the subject. Just look at Mayor Giuliani's reaction to the exhibit at
> the Brooklyn Art Museum.
Yeah...but da Vinci was a rather talented chap, wasn't he?
And before "doing" the Last Supper (or anything else of note) he had spent
many, many years perfecting his craft, and didn't try to pass it as "art."
For training purposes, there is nothing wrong with looking for Adams's
"tripod holes" and "doing" another Half Dome.
Unfortunately the followers of Adams are trying to pass their training
exercises as art. And 65 (?) years after his picture was taken I have yet
to see a "new and provocative ways to render" Half Dome. What we've got are
basically the same photographs executed with less flair and skill. (I was
moved to tears by someone's Half Dome in digital... Same picture like
Adams's, but with a lengthy manifesto-like explanation of "bending the
borders of time by using a 100 years old camera and lens with a digital
back"...'scuze me for wanting to go to the bathroom...)
Michael
Wayne
>
>
> I know little about it but have heard that most is gone already and
> the rest is going fast. I hope, like you said, that there is
> preservation of any remaining images as it is just too easy to do this
> today either with copy images or digital scanning.
> I have not seen ANY of Weston's work in color and wish I could find a
> source for any images.
CCP put out a book of about 30 color images, EDWARD WESTON: COLOR
PHOTOGRAPHY. I suspect they are hard to come by, since I didnt even
know the book existed until then. There are several color images in one
of his better known and more easily found books, maybe someone else can
remember which one (Supreme Instants maybe? I just cant recall but I've
posted the info before). There are also one or two in a photo book on
the Big Sur coast (Not Man Apart, I think is the name).
> Contrary to many fine print folks I feel that there is no quality
> difference in the best B&W and the best color so would really like to
> see the Weston images to see what his focus was on.
Unfortunately, he mostly focused on the same subjects he did in B&W. I
think a bunch of his chromes were done during the filming of "The
Photographer" by Van Dyke. While they were filming EW photographing some
of his favaorite haunts, E was actually shooting chromes (or so I've
read).
Some of his color was rather ho-hum, but some of it showed potential. He
was very excited about color, but never had the chance to pursue it. He
only shot it over the last 2 years he was able to photograph.
I don't think that
> color is very often explored in a "fine print" method and all too
> often what we have is very colorful "pretty" scenes.
Even with the
> finest print quality too much of the color today is not "expressive"
> and is only high quality recording of scenes. Atkeson had an eye for
> color and what it takes to use it instead of tone in prints. I'd bet
> with modern materials and equipment he would have certainly pushed the
> envelope - as far as conveying the traits that are considered
> necessary for what is known as "fine prints" or "fine art prints".
Wayne
Tom Thackrey
On 5-Mar-2001, jo...@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam) wrote:
> Do you want to join a self-congratulatory circle of
> academic critics, or do you want to create art that speaks
> to ordinary people?
>
> Can you name a truly great artist whose voice was shaped to
> please critics?
IMHO your best bet is to create art that speaks to YOU and don't worry about
the critics or ordinary people. The hard part comes after you become
"successful" then you get pressure to repeat yourself.
Most truly great art wasn't appreciated by the critics or ordinary people at
the time of its creation.
Morton Klotz
>On 03 Mar 2001 13:48:11 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>I saw that 1950 show. It was quite disapointing.
>
> Ansel mentioned somewhere in the book that he felt he never quite
>came to grips with color photography.
> My impression of the photos in the book was that they were standard
>Adams fare that just happened to be in color and didn't have any
>impact; they were sort of just snapshots.
>
>
>
>---
>John Hicks
That's why I no longer work in color. All my color photos were picture
postcards.
Kerry L. Thalmann
> I know little about it but have heard that most is gone already and
> the rest is going fast. I hope, like you said, that there is
> preservation of any remaining images as it is just too easy to do this
> today either with copy images or digital scanning.
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for getting this thread back in the direction I'd hoped it would
go. WRT to Ray Atkeson's work, I believe they have scanned and restored
many of the images that were salvageable. Unfortunately, by the time
the technology became practical, many of them had already faded beyond
repair. In the forward to one of his books (I believe "Oregon III") Ray
stated that his biggest regret in life was shooting the majority of his
life's work on Ektachrome. He passed away in 1990, so he lived long
enough to see the work from his most productive years fade away
forever. I'm sure that must have been heartbreaking for him, but it
also has robbed us and future photographers of the chance to enjoy those
images. I agree with your statements about Ray being at the forefront
of color landscape photography. Unfortunately, many of those images of
historical significance are now lost forever. Some of them were
published in coffee table books, so at least we have a sample of his
work to enjoy. I also believe the Kodachromes he shot in the late 1930s
through the 1940s have survived reasonably well over the years. So, not
a total loss, but still a shame to lose so many of his images.
Wayne
Thats not colors fault though, is it? Why didnt you stick with it and
try to find a better (color) way? Or is it just impossible for color to
be art? (and yes, I'm trolling ;-)
Wayne
c._downs
the mountains. I've climbed the 14,000 footers in the NW with a small
camera but have no idea how he got his camera to some of the places he
went to.
Maybe he just took longer trips and went slower but dang if I can get
a LF camera and tripod above 10 to 12000 ft without one hell of a
scramble. Since I've reached the AARP age I'm not ever carrying the
8x10 higher than the top of Hood again! { in reality I'm not too wild
about carrying it further than the parking lot! }
Just curious if maybe Ray had written any thing about his
mountaineering.
{ to Kerry T. -- if you happen to read this would you mind contacting
me at natur...@mindspring.com }
Thanks,
Chuck
John Emmons
John Emmons
<el...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:97vccg$d7l$1...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca...
> I am partial to some of the works of Wynn Bullock. How's that :)
>
> Elvis
>
> Kerry L. Thalmann <large...@thalmann.com> wrote:
>
> > Geez guys, I changed the subject line in the hope to generate a
little
> > discussion about a landscape photographer other than St. Ansel.
And
> > here we are, just one or two posts later full circle and back to
the man
> > in no time. BTW, I have nothing against Ansel Adams, love his
black and
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> Elvis Chow el...@chowtech.cuug.ab.ca "If you don't ask questions,
it could
> ec...@rockyview.ab.ca mean you are afraid to learn ......"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Wayne
Wayne