Open Legs Pose: Always Vulgar?
Frank
Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
First, the erotic in human nature should be a valid subject for
artists to explore, and photographers are artists. They create images,
and that is a basic definition of "artist". Taste is another issue.
How does the artist convey the erotic when photographing a nude woman
model? There are many approaches: why not admit that the display,
whether incidental or not, of the female vulva in a pose can be one
route on the way to achieving an erotic image?
Second, I personally feel disgusted by crude stereotyped assembly-line
photos of women with their legs splayed open, which obviously lack any
depth of feeling, and convey not even an attempt at being intelligent.
What I mean is that erotic images should show some imagination and
creativity. Each photographer has a point of view and should exploit
it when making images for others to enjoy. It all comes down to a
question of taste, doesn't it? In the unique setting of the photo
shoot, many models enjoy opening up and posing in an erotic manner. It
is fun. Why should that be seen as wrong and vulgar?
Frank
Frederic Goudal
fra...@fog.net (Frank ) writes:
>
> Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
> vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
Not always, I pretend I have done some "open legs" that are not vulgar.
By the way I pretend too that they are not erotic.
>
> First, the erotic in human nature should be a valid subject for
> artists to explore, and photographers are artists. They create images,
> and that is a basic definition of "artist". Taste is another issue.
> How does the artist convey the erotic when photographing a nude woman
> model? There are many approaches: why not admit that the display,
> whether incidental or not, of the female vulva in a pose can be one
> route on the way to achieving an erotic image?
>
> Second, I personally feel disgusted by crude stereotyped assembly-line
> photos of women with their legs splayed open, which obviously lack any
> depth of feeling, and convey not even an attempt at being intelligent.
> What I mean is that erotic images should show some imagination and
> creativity. Each photographer has a point of view and should exploit
> it when making images for others to enjoy. It all comes down to a
> question of taste, doesn't it? In the unique setting of the photo
> shoot, many models enjoy opening up and posing in an erotic manner. It
> is fun. Why should that be seen as wrong and vulgar?
Because it is shown wrong and vulgar. If you consider the usual
Mapplethorpe example and you replace vulva with penis, you have the
answer : I guess that he did a good job as many art galleries/museum
exhibit his work. But there is always a bunch of puritans that find it
"wrong and vulgar".
Ok how to make "open legs" picture to be not vulgar ?? I have no
answer. I think you have to consider what do you want to show. Back to
my open legs picture. What I want to show in this pictures is that the
sex as a body part is no more or less interesting that any other
bodypart and that you may show a sex as you would show an hand, an
elbow or what ever you want, without any "sexual" involvment.
So I have tryed to ba as "pure graphic" as possible, and to avoid any
detail (external or in the position) that could lead to an unwanted
interpretation. Theese photo are still a big problem to people who
look at them, but I can't do anything more.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu
In article <56fq5i$n...@news.wco.com>, fra...@fog.net (Frank ) wrote:
>Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
>vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
>
>artists to explore, and photographers are artists. They create images,
>and that is a basic definition of "artist". Taste is another issue.
>How does the artist convey the erotic when photographing a nude woman
>model? There are many approaches: why not admit that the display,
>whether incidental or not, of the female vulva in a pose can be one
>route on the way to achieving an erotic image?
>
to use your term, vulgar. Jock Sturges and Sally Mann have taken lots of
flack for very wonderful work just because the subjects may not have their
clothes on. I think part of the issue specifically with displaying the vulva
is that in the normal course of events, this is not a part of the female
anatomy that is displayed in any sort of really direct way even where women
are unclothed. It can not help but have a sexual connotation. Like any other
subject, it can be reduced to abstract elements, but I'm not sure you are
getting at this.
>Second, I personally feel disgusted by crude stereotyped assembly-line
>photos of women with their legs splayed open, which obviously lack any
>depth of feeling, and convey not even an attempt at being intelligent.
>What I mean is that erotic images should show some imagination and
>creativity. Each photographer has a point of view and should exploit
>it when making images for others to enjoy. It all comes down to a
>question of taste, doesn't it? In the unique setting of the photo
>shoot, many models enjoy opening up and posing in an erotic manner. It
>is fun. Why should that be seen as wrong and vulgar?
>
Who is to determine taste? I too find most attempts at "erotic" or "sexy"
images really lacking. Just check out the stuff posted on AOL and Compuserve.
Even the titles the photographers attach to the images are silly,"Here is
Becky showing off her huge boobs", etc. I had a chance to take a look at the
40 year retrospective of Playboy recently, and it is interesting to see the
development of the Playboy "style" over the years. To me, the straight
forward work of Peter Gowland and Bunny Yeager is so much more interesting,
even for work that really makes no pitch at being art.
I shoot a bit of glamour and some more classic figure studies. I rarely worry
about exposing or not exposing certain "bits" of the female form. I also tend
to work with models for whom being without clothing is no big deal. If it
shows, it shows. If the image is served by printing down or retouching to
eliminate certain details, so be it. I've never set out to do open leg poses
as and end to itself, so you are on you own there.
hparg...@aol.com
>Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
>vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
>
>
Why are you asking the world's permission? If you are not comfortable
with making the images you believe in, that YES deep down inside it is
vulgar to YOU, but you might be looking for someone in net-land to tell
you it's ok (I know, I'm an armchair therapist!). If you are comfortable
with the images you make, then make them with a clear conscience. There
are two possible errors: not just labelling art as pornography (ie. Jesse
Helms, et al.), but also labelling pornography as art.
Andy
Sal
>Mapplethorpe's bullwhip was a self-portrait and a personal statement.
>As such it is best judged in the context of photo-journalism; not fine
>art. To make your analogy work your 'heterosexual photographer' would
>have to be the woman herself.
What a load of crap. (No pun intended). <g>
Frank
hparg...@aol.com wrote:
>Why are you asking the world's permission? If you are not comfortable
>with making the images you believe in, that YES deep down inside it is
>vulgar to YOU, but you might be looking for someone in net-land to tell
>you it's ok (I know, I'm an armchair therapist!). If you are comfortable
>with the images you make, then make them with a clear conscience. There
>are two possible errors: not just labelling art as pornography (ie. Jesse
>Helms, et al.), but also labelling pornography as art.
I'm not asking for permission, I'm posing a question.
Frank
Frank
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu wrote:
>Just check out the stuff posted on AOL and Compuserve.
> Even the titles the photographers attach to the images are silly,"Here is
>Becky showing off her huge boobs", etc.
Man, AOL must have really let its hair down to have "naked women"
posted on its immaculate server.
Frank
W. Keith McManus
Martin Fouts wrote:
>
> >> William S Rowell writes:
>
> William> What I find irritating is that someone like Mapplethorpe
> William> could take a photo of himself with a bullwhip sticking out
> William> his butt, and people call that art, but god forbid a
> William> heterosexual photographer take a photograph of a woman
> William> doing something similar. That would be pornography!
>
> Mapplethorpe's bullwhip was a self-portrait and a personal statement.
> As such it is best judged in the context of photo-journalism; not fine
> art. To make your analogy work your 'heterosexual photographer' would
> have to be the woman herself.
Please, all things aside, lets not include Mapplethrope's work in
photo-journalism.
--
W. Keith McManus - Photo Editor - New Media
U.S. News & World Report
Washington, DC
Documentary Video & Photography
====================================
kmcm...@usnews.com
====================================
www.usnews.com
====================================
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu
In article <56io04$i...@unx1.shsu.edu>,
std...@unx1.shsu.edu (William S. Rowell) wrote:
>x-archive-no: yes
>
>Frank (fra...@fog.net) wrote:
>: Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
>: vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
>
>something similar. That would be pornography!
>
>profession; most of the public think photographers are some
>kind of perverts to being with. He didn't help.
>
>WSR
I don't know if many people consider it art - more likely a disturbing image
from an artist. I am very conflicted by Mapplethorpe's work. Some is among
the most beautiful portrait and figure work done the last 25 years. Most of
the self-portrait and homo-erotic work that I've seen is cruder in execution
and rather disturbing. Then again, I don't exactly walk in the same boots as
he did. He work seems like the work of two totally different people.
I don't think any artist can harm the art-form or the profession. The public
reaction to their work can, however. Most of the noise surrounding
Mapplethorpe's work occurred after his death, when he obviously couldn't
control what others were doing.
By the way, I met him briefly in NY many years ago. He didn't strike me as
any more unusual than any of the rest of the downtown art crowd at this time.
Bill Bell
Jim Mac Donald
For a photo technique art group I am amazed how a question on nude
photography from a man has almost changed to the re-banning of Mr.
Mapplethorpe's work who photographed nude men and himself. I take
landscape photographs but I still enjoy looking at other peoples work on
how they see and present their image to me (others). When I first saw Mr.
Robert Mapplethorpe's work I was amazed, shocked (?) but came away with a
new understanding and questions to my own thinking and my landscape work.
I think it is the same after veiwing work by Mr. John Sexton, Mr. Paul
Caponigro or Mr. George Krause.
If you have something to say photographical then say it, but think it
over. What do you want to say and how will it be different, will it reach
out and grab me (others)? Or will the viewer say `seen that, done that'.
Or would your nude photograhic image be even stronger fully dressed? Or
very close ,like the images in the past issue of European Photography? Or
if your not ready then veiw other peoples work (not just nudes) and read up
on the subjects and talk and hear what women have to say. Then it is up to
you.
Sincerely
Jim Mac Donald joy...@arctic.ca
.f...@shellx.best.com>...
>
> >> "Sal" == Sal <phot...@airmail.net> writes:
> Martin Fouts <m...@best.com> wrote in article <ixbiv752uhy
> >> Mapplethorpe's bullwhip was a self-portrait and a personal
>
>
> --
> Martin Fouts - Fine Art Photographer
> m...@best.com - <http://www.best.com/~mjf>
> no more fun...
>
feral mermaid
fra...@fog.net (Frank ) wrote:
>Question: In photography of women, is the open legs pose always
>vulgar? Why do people think such poses are vulgar?
Howdee y'all :)
I do birth photography so immediately saw the topic as entirely
different than the threads have been running.
My work emphasizes *all* aspects of birth... the kids and family
members with their reactions, very close-up birthing shots, and my
favorite, hands.
Photographing a woman during birth has the woman with her legs open
(unless, of course, we are in the OR and she is having a cesarean...
then she has her belly open and I *still* take pics) as a matter of
course. People viewing my photographs make all *sorts* of comments...
including how "vulgar" or "disgusting" they are. I generally have a
better response from women, especially those who have given birth
already (of course), but even so, my own mother, who gave birth to
three kids herself and who has been to three of her grandkids' births,
can't look at the (what she calls) "intimate" shots longer than it
takes to flip it to the back of the pile.
The grand majority of folks, however, *love* the pictures, commenting
on the love, the energy, and the incredible shots I have gotten (my
favorite being the baby's head out of the mom's vagina, the bright
blue umbilical cord around his neck... the head purple-ish, the body
white-ish... and the mother's inner thighs with goosebumps and her
clitoris obviously swollen as the moment of birth bares its rarely
acknowledged sexual components).
Is it art? You bet. Is it vulgar? Depends on the viewer's
socialization.
And best of all... it chronicles the continuation of life... which is
my calling :)
Barb
aka gardenia <who is moving into being published after being asked to
by Harriette Hartigan, a birth photojournalist, and will have dozens
of questions eventually, but will hang and listen before asking
questions>
---------------------------
Orlando
gard...@magicnet.net
the beauty of movement is discovered in the momentum!
Marcus J. Ranum
>Mapplethorpe's bullwhip was a self-portrait and a personal statement.
Yah. He shoulda just posted to USENET if he'd wanted to
make such a stupid personal statement.
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Marcus J. Ranum
>from an artist. I am very conflicted by Mapplethorpe's work. Some is among
>the most beautiful portrait and figure work done the last 25 years.
AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
Mapplethorpe's work is - workmanlike - but I would hardly
call him a genius. To me, it's a shame that his work is technically
so average(*) and that he chose to make a name for himself through
shock value rather than skill.
mjr.
(*still better than mine but at least I'm working on it!)
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Jeff Spirer
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
>
> >from an artist. I am very conflicted by Mapplethorpe's work. Some is among
> >the most beautiful portrait and figure work done the last 25 years.
>
> AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
> BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
> were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
> the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
> Mapplethorpe's work is - workmanlike - but I would hardly
> call him a genius. To me, it's a shame that his work is technically
> so average(*) and that he chose to make a name for himself through
> shock value rather than skill.
>
I've seen his photos exhibited without any of these problems.
To address "shock value" - Mapplethorpe did a tremendous number of
photos that could not be considered in the least to have "shock value"
so to minimize his photos into one area that *some* sectors of society
find "shocking" is patently ridiculous. His flower photographs are
hardly shocking to anyone, nor are the vast majority of his portraits.
--
Jeff Spirer
http://www.hyperreal.com/axiom/
Axiom Records/Material Communications
Marcus J. Ranum
Peter Ray <pet...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
>
>museum where I volunteered and they were of the highest quality, truly
>exceptional.
Huh, weird. I wouldn't assume that a gallery exhibit would
have bad examples of a photographer's work. Certainly, not on purpose,
anyhow. I seem to recall reading that Mapplethorpe never did his own
printing anyhow, and that he specified that prints not be spotted, etc.
Maybe I am wrong in this recollection, but I definitely remember that
I spent quite a while peering up close at a number of the prints and
was seriously underwhelmed. I'm not talking Ansel Adams-esque issues
of technical perfection, either, I'm talking about pretty basic uglies.
Seen 'em with my own eyes! Anyone else care to comment -- am I suffering
hallucinations of some sort?
I'm used to walking into a gallery and being much more impressed
by real prints than repros in a book. In the case of Mapplethorpe, I
walked in and immediately felt as if I'd been fooled by good scanner
operators when the books were made. So I formed (clearly!) a very strong
negative impression of Mapplethorpe's technical abilities that (clearly!)
has lasted to this day. Now, if you're telling me I was having visual
hallucinations, or that the Mapplethorpe:Weston exhibit had 3rd rate
prints only, then maybe I should make a point of looking at some more
examples of his work.
None of this has anything to do with the content of the work
just impressions of the prints and print qualities. Mind you, I'm not
holding *my* prints up as examples of how to do it better, but I've
seen enough Adams originals, Westons, and a few stunning 20x24s by
Karsh that I think I know a good print when I'm looking at one.
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Oleg Volk
m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) wrote:
> AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
>BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
>were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
Hmmm...I have seen only a few of his prints and thought them to be
well-made. Of course, I may have overlooked the blemishes back then...
Oleg Volk
NEW PHOTOS on Nov.23 - "3Views"
http://www.ddb.com/olegv/3Views
Private show coming up on Dec.1
David Rosen
Peter Ray (pet...@execpc.com) wrote:
: Marcus J. Ranum <m...@clark.net> wrote:
: >
: > AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
: > BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
: > were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
: > the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
: I am not a big Mapplethorpe fan, but I have handled several prints at a
: museum where I volunteered and they were of the highest quality, truly
: exceptional.
I am half way out on limb here, but I suggest that
the poster of "AUgh! Please..." is tending to lump
all controversial erotic work together, and is
referring to another artist, whose work is known
for looking like it barely survived the lab, but
whose image content is both erotic and nightmarish.
The general appearance of the print quality is just
as the posting describes.
Unfortunately, the name of this artist escape me at
the moment, but I would recognize it immediately.
I really believe the described works must be his.
Mapplethorp's work looks like it is supervised by
Irving Penn for quality assurance, so there is
definitely some mistaken identity here.
David Rosen go...@capital.net go...@acmenet.net
Peter Eddy
Joel-Peter Witken perhaps? I'm a fan.
David Rosen
David Rosen (go...@Capital.Net) wrote:
: Peter Ray (pet...@execpc.com) wrote:
: : Marcus J. Ranum <m...@clark.net> wrote:
: : >
: : > AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
: : > BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
: : > were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
: : > the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
: : I am not a big Mapplethorpe fan, but I have handled several prints at a
: : museum where I volunteered and they were of the highest quality, truly
: : exceptional.
: I am half way out on limb here, but I suggest that
: the poster of "AUgh! Please..." is tending to lump
: all controversial erotic work together, and is
: referring to another artist, whose work is known
: for looking like it barely survived the lab, but
: whose image content is both erotic and nightmarish.
: The general appearance of the print quality is just
: as the posting describes.
: This work described above sounds like Joel Peter
: Witkin. I really believe such works to be his.
: Mapplethorp's work looks like it is supervised by
: Irving Penn for quality assurance, so there is
: definitely some mistaken identity here.
: David Rosen go...@capital.net go...@acmenet.net
David Rosen
Martin Fouts (m...@best.com) wrote:
: Mapplethorpe was a commercial photographer who successfully worked
: with portraits and landscapes, although not with advertising to any
: degree. He also documented a part of the homosexual milleu in New York
: at the time. As far as I can remember, that qualifies as
: photojournalism. You may not like the quality of his work, or even his
: choice of subject matter, but his photojournalism was as legitimate as
: that of the FSA photographers, Robert Frank, or even Nan Goldin.
: --
: Martin Fouts - Fine Art Photographer
: m...@best.com - <http://www.best.com/~mjf>
There were PJ's who dis extensive documantary work
of such quality that it is also currated as fine
art work. Gene Smith is one example. This leads
some to garble their terms, as in "I know Smith was
a famous PJ and I saw his powerful beautiful book
on Minimata, so such books are Photojournalism.."
Such a book is not PJism. It is Documentary. It's
like calling an old newsreel film or yesterday's
CNN footage "Documentary Films". Even though the
same newsfilm crew might actually shoot both, and
even though some projects may have a foot in both
worlds, one can still define news/journalism as
being distinct from documentary.
While it is hard to call Mapplethorp's best known
stuff Photojournalism, much of it is Documentary.
David Rosen go...@capital.net go...@acmenet.net
Frederic Goudal
m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:
>
> >from an artist. I am very conflicted by Mapplethorpe's work. Some is among
> >the most beautiful portrait and figure work done the last 25 years.
>
> AUgh! Please! I went to the Mapplethorpe:Weston show at the
> BMA a few years ago and was shocked by Mapplethorpe's photos. They
> were grainy, the prints were sloppy, and had very little density in
> the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
> Mapplethorpe's work is - workmanlike - but I would hardly
> call him a genius. To me, it's a shame that his work is technically
> so average(*) and that he chose to make a name for himself through
> shock value rather than skill.
>
> mjr.
> (*still better than mine but at least I'm working on it!)
> --
> http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
It is evident that you just have a problem with art vs craft...
I can't care less about craft if art gives me the feeling.
And I can't say that more or less grain, or dust spots have anything
to do with art.
It is evident too that reducing Mapplethorpe to his X portfolio is
completely stupid. Mapplethorps has done a wide range of pictures
which shows a lot of others things. If you are not able to handle a
bit of discussion about human nature....
After all nobody has ever been shocked by a painting of Zeus and
Leda... but think about it it's just zoophilia !!!
Sam Carleton
On 23 Nov 1996 00:58:19 -0500, m...@clark.net (Marcus J. Ranum) wrote:
> Mapplethorpe's work is - workmanlike - but I would hardly
>call him a genius. To me, it's a shame that his work is technically
>so average(*) and that he chose to make a name for himself through
>shock value rather than skill.
Well, being a straite male I have been very impressed with Mapplethorpe's work
becuase it gave me an insight into a life stile that I would have not know
anything about without his work. Ok, not knowing anything about is a little
strong but I do feel that it gives many persons an insight into a way of life
they aren't part of. As someone else stated, some of these folks looking at his
work, such as yourself, consider it shock value. Others like myself consider it
art becuase he put part of himself into his work.
Each his/her own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (got
to love the USA!)
Sam
Peter Field Peck / Krista Haimovitch
In article <32988E75...@bigfoot.com>, Peter Eddy
<pet...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> David Rosen wrote:
> >
> > Peter Ray (pet...@execpc.com) wrote:
> > : Marcus J. Ranum <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > I am half way out on limb here, but I suggest that
> > the poster of "AUgh! Please..." is tending to lump
> > all controversial erotic work together, and is
> > referring to another artist, whose work is known
> > for looking like it barely survived the lab, but
> > whose image content is both erotic and nightmarish.
> > The general appearance of the print quality is just
> > as the posting describes.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the name of this artist escape me at
> > the moment, but I would recognize it immediately.
> > I really believe the described works must be his.
> > Mapplethorp's work looks like it is supervised by
> > Irving Penn for quality assurance, so there is
> > definitely some mistaken identity here.
> >
>
> Joel-Peter Witken perhaps? I'm a fan.
> Witkin is a very particular printer, incredible technique.
can't be him showing bad prints...
David Rosen
Peter Field Peck / Krista Haimovitch (kri...@sover.net) wrote:
: In article <32988E75...@bigfoot.com>, Peter Eddy
: <pet...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Witkin is the artist whose name escaped me.
Many of his images look like they are made on
hand-coated paper, lacking a full tonal scale
and with small defects here and there.
I always felt that this "quality" of his work
was a perfect match for the dark spirit of his
message [as i read it]. I know at a glance
the effect is intended, but I think the same
effect could stike many viewers as low quality
printing, if the only quality standard they've
ever adopted is the likes of Adams or Weston.
I don't mean Adams/Weston is a bogus standard.
I do mean that too many "critcs" take a rather
absolutist view, saying that if two standards
conflict, then one must be correct and the
other must be bogus. To those who "learned"
that Adams/Weston [et al] is the *only* real
standard, all work holding to a very different
standard will be judged as wanting, or even as
trash. Such "single-standard" critics abound.
Personally, I find Witkin's stuff to be like
dark dreams, "through a glass darkly.." as the
appostle described our human perception of the
greater reality. Thus I find the quality to
be beyond question. Jerry Ulesman worked for
years to touch on "hidden" realities and on
dreamworlds in his prints. His adherance to a
"landscape/portrait/still-life" Adams/Weston
set of print standards stifled him so that he
never approached the gut level delivery of
Joel P. Witkin. Pictures *can* be too pretty.
David Rosen go...@various.sites.net
Peter Marshall
In reply to: <5787n5$f...@explorer2.clark.net> from m...@clark.net (Marcus J.
Ranum)>
> >> the blacks, and worse, there were dustspots all over the negs.
> >
> >museum where I volunteered and they were of the highest quality, truly
> >exceptional.
>
> have bad examples of a photographer's work. Certainly, not on purpose,
> anyhow. I seem to recall reading that Mapplethorpe never did his own
> printing anyhow, and that he specified that prints not be spotted, etc.
> Maybe I am wrong in this recollection, but I definitely remember that
> I spent quite a while peering up close at a number of the prints and
> was seriously underwhelmed. I'm not talking Ansel Adams-esque issues
> of technical perfection, either, I'm talking about pretty basic uglies.
> Seen 'em with my own eyes! Anyone else care to comment -- am I suffering
> hallucinations of some sort?
Marcus
No, you are making a reasoned comment on the work as exhibited, and one that
has been echoed by photographers here who have seen the current show in London
- possibly the same as you saw elsewhere.
However it is only photographers who comment on this aspect of the work, which
may be an interesting reflection of our own priorities.
I understand that Mapplethorpe never made a print in his life (unless you
count Polaroid!). Also that in the last six months or so of this life there
was a massive rush to produce large quantities of prints from his team - which
no doubt meant standards were dropped. I also understand that in many of the
latter works his involvement was pretty minimal - merely being around in the
studio and at times giving approval while the minions did the trivial things
like setting up subject lights camera etc and taking the shots. Not that this
necessarily devalues the work in any way although it may make us see
Mapplethorpe as author in a different light. But artists don't have to get
their fingers dirty if they don't want to.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/
.
Frederic Goudal
go...@Capital.Net (David Rosen) writes:
>
> Witkin is the artist whose name escaped me.
> Many of his images look like they are made on
> hand-coated paper, lacking a full tonal scale
> and with small defects here and there.
>
> I always felt that this "quality" of his work
> was a perfect match for the dark spirit of his
> message [as i read it]. I know at a glance
> the effect is intended, but I think the same
> effect could stike many viewers as low quality
> printing, if the only quality standard they've
> ever adopted is the likes of Adams or Weston.
>
> I don't mean Adams/Weston is a bogus standard.
> I do mean that too many "critcs" take a rather
> absolutist view, saying that if two standards
> conflict, then one must be correct and the
> other must be bogus. To those who "learned"
> that Adams/Weston [et al] is the *only* real
> standard, all work holding to a very different
> standard will be judged as wanting, or even as
> trash. Such "single-standard" critics abound.
I once said that Adams "polluted" american photography. Of course, not
Adams himself, (as some understood).
It is marvellous to see that from american photographers I read in
different internet things, Adams is the name that comes repetitively.
As if photo did not exist before him, or after him....
I think you should build a movement "There's a life without AA", "You
can make a photo without using Zone System".
I can say that here in France, Adams is not so known and we have very
good photographers, and a very high standard in photography.
And what about the Bill Brandt ultra hard prints ???
The richness of any art/craft comes from diversity, so you should
forget a bit theese stadards, open your eyes, and do your OWN thing.
(and don't answer me your OWN thing is to follow Adams, its crap).
f.g. (nervous this morning...).
Marcus J. Ranum
>> > definitely some mistaken identity here.
No, they were Mapplethorpe's and I thought the print quality
was terrible. The photos were grainy, there were dust spots on the 'negs,
and the blacks were weak.
I was the original poster who commented that Mapplethorpe's
prints were pathetic -- I stand by that comment. Perhaps not all of
his prints were so bad, but I looked at a roomful of them, and I
really, truly, spotted a lot of basic flaws. I'm sorry if that gets
someone's nose out of joint, but that's my opinion based on the
prints that I've seen. Maybe I just managed to see the one roomful
of lousy Mapplethorpe prints in the whole world.
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu
Marcus,
I've seen a fair number of his prints some years ago. The portraits and the
flower shots were truly excellent prints, regardless of style. The
homo-erotic images were of much less technical quality, so much so that they
appeared to be the work of a different photographer, or at least printer.
This was before he died, by the way. However, once a photographer dies, all
bets are off as to the quality of the work that bears their name that is sold
or exhibited - maybe Weston was right - burn the negs before you go!
Mapplethorpe, was by his own admission, not much of a techie - TriX in 1:1 D76
if I remember correctly. He never used a meter, instead just shooting
Polaroids.
A few years ago I was shocked by an exhibit of work by a very famous
photographer at the National Portrait Gallery - poorly hung prints that
clearly belonged in the trash - not the photos, but the prints.
Bill
Chuck Goodwin
Frederic Goudal wrote:
> I think you [Americans?] should build a movement "There's a life without A[nsel]
> A[dams]", "You can make a photo without using Zone System".
[Goodwin hops on his sopa box and answers:]
And there's music after Beethoven, physics after Einstein, and painting
after Picasso (Imagine what a drag it must have been being a painter
during Picasso's life)....
A few points should be made in addressing Adams/Weston/f64 in
general....
1) Their work must be seen in historical context and compared with the
thousand-veils style of pictorialism that preceded them and which they
sought to suplant. If every photo looked like an Elizabeth Taylor
perfume advertisement (you can just hear the phtog. shouting "hey, can
we get another diffuser filter over here, I'm still seeing wrinkles on
the old bat"), you'd REALLY want to have the image ultra sharp.
2) If you want to be an "artist" photographer, you have to be conscious
of the history of photography to know where the heck you're going and
where you're coming from. Nobody is going to look at your photographs
(including you the artist) without memory/knowledge of the other photos
they've seen.
3) The technical resources available today are _so_ much better than
those available in the 1930's and 1940's, that there is no excuse for
anyone making a photo that doesn't fit the photographer's intention. If
you want it grainy you can have it grainy, if you want it sharp, you can
have it sharp. Adams' intent as expressed in his technical manuals (The
Camera, etc.) is on how to put the image you want to put on the final
print. That's pretty agnostic as to aesthetics.
> I can say that here in France, Adams is not so known and we have very
> good photographers, and a very high standard in photography.
Accusing Americans of being slavish to Adams? In the words of the great
American Philosopher, Bart Simpson, "Au contaire, mon frere." Please
explain (a) Diane Arbus, (2) Nan Goldin, (3) Walker Evans, (4) Robert
Frank, (5) Lee Friedlander, (6) Weegee (Arthur Fellig) etc. etc.
etc......
Lets have some examples of French photogs uninfluenced by Atget and
Cartier-Bresson.
> The richness of any art/craft comes from diversity, so you should
> forget a bit theese stadards, open your eyes, and do your OWN thing.
> (and don't answer me your OWN thing is to follow Adams, its crap).
There is no standard aesthetic in art to define what is good and what is
bad. There is a shifting concensus among artists, critics, patrons, and
the viewing public at large. But who cares about them. Today,
diversity, as opposed to a formal canon of "great art," is "in style."
Hell Herb Ritts has a retrospective at the MFA in Boston. Tomorrow,
things will change.
But I agree with the poster, The question is, and will always be, are
you happy with it? What's your theory as the photog./viewer? Would you
put it up in your house? If you want to be derivative of Adams, go
ahead, it's your film/camera/etc. Anything anybody says about
aesthetics is bound to make him/her sound like a j*ck*ss in 100 years
from now. (People in 1896 thought they were as advanced as we think we
are in 1996. We'll look just as antique and naive in 2096). The only
thing you as artist can know is what makes you happy.
> --
> Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
> alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
> photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
> meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
> own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
> photograph.
>
> Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
> 1923, p 613
This was said by Strand before he moved to Italy and traded his rough
american images for scenic shots of Italy, wasn't it?
As to the original question, "Open Legs Pose: Always Vulgar?" Search
me. Guess it's possible. Heck, Playboy's puttin' out cawffee table
books these days. (Shees, how's that to impress your neighbors with yer
sophistication...)
[Goodwin, having answered ad nauseum, hops off his soap box, walks over
to his picture of Anselm Adams, and lights a votive candle]
Frederic Goudal
Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> writes :
]
] Frederic Goudal wrote:
]
] ] I think you [Americans?] should build a movement "There's a life without A[nsel]
] ] A[dams]", "You can make a photo without using Zone System".
]
] [Goodwin hops on his sopa box and answers:]
] And there's music after Beethoven, physics after Einstein, and painting
] after Picasso (Imagine what a drag it must have been being a painter
] during Picasso's life)....
]
] A few points should be made in addressing Adams/Weston/f64 in
] general....
]
] 1) Their work must be seen in historical context and compared with the
] thousand-veils style of pictorialism that preceded them and which they
].....
] 2) If you want to be an "artist" photographer, you have to be conscious
] of the history of photography to know where the heck you're going and
]......
] 3) The technical resources available today are _so_ much better than
] those available in the 1930's and 1940's, that there is no excuse for
] anyone making a photo that doesn't fit the photographer's intention. If
] ....
I can only agree with that : but as your first sentence stated :
nobody make musics like beethoven, nor physic like einstein no
painting like picasso... but a lot of people still do photo like
Adams...
I agree that Adams is a master. (In my little eurpoean head I prefer
Weston who had a larger point of view - from nude to landscape - and a
less "american" point of view (ahh the beauty of nature....) but Adams
said it better).
] ] I can say that here in France, Adams is not so known and we have very
] ] good photographers, and a very high standard in photography.
]
] Accusing Americans of being slavish to Adams? In the words of the great
] American Philosopher, Bart Simpson, "Au contaire, mon frere." Please
] explain (a) Diane Arbus, (2) Nan Goldin, (3) Walker Evans, (4) Robert
] Frank, (5) Lee Friedlander, (6) Weegee (Arthur Fellig) etc. etc.
] etc......
Yes but in thees newsgroups I never see a reference to Evans, Arbus,
Bourke-White, or any of the great american photographers...
Speaking about history theese photographers have done their job in the
evolution of photography, but reading the people here, it seems that
they have not existed.
]
] Lets have some examples of French photogs uninfluenced by Atget and
] Cartier-Bresson.
Yes me !!! ok it's for fun...
]
] ] The richness of any art/craft comes from diversity, so you should
] ] forget a bit theese stadards, open your eyes, and do your OWN thing.
] ] (and don't answer me your OWN thing is to follow Adams, its crap).
]
] There is no standard aesthetic in art to define what is good and what is
] bad. There is a shifting concensus among artists, critics, patrons, and
] the viewing public at large. But who cares about them. Today,
] diversity, as opposed to a formal canon of "great art," is "in style."
] Hell Herb Ritts has a retrospective at the MFA in Boston. Tomorrow,
] things will change.
]
] But I agree with the poster, The question is, and will always be, are
] you happy with it? What's your theory as the photog./viewer? Would you
] put it up in your house? If you want to be derivative of Adams, go
] ahead, it's your film/camera/etc. Anything anybody says about
] aesthetics is bound to make him/her sound like a j*ck*ss in 100 years
] from now. ....
No I don't believe you, the sayings of Giotto, Fra Angelico, and all
the masters of the past are still interesting. In fact what you say
about aesthetic has to be detached from the fashion to be a bit
intelligent.
But I simply like what you wrote.
] ] --
] ] Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
] ] alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
] ] photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
] ] meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
] ] own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
] ] photograph.
] ]
] ] Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
] ] 1923, p 613
]
] This was said by Strand before he moved to Italy and traded his rough
] american images for scenic shots of Italy, wasn't it?
I don't know I have stolen that somewhere in the net.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
nob...@nowhere.umd.edu
In article <32A40F...@sprynet.com>,
Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>A few points should be made in addressing Adams/Weston/f64 in
>general....
>
>1) Their work must be seen in historical context and compared with the
>thousand-veils style of pictorialism that preceded them and which they
>sought to suplant. If every photo looked like an Elizabeth Taylor
>perfume advertisement (you can just hear the phtog. shouting "hey, can
>we get another diffuser filter over here, I'm still seeing wrinkles on
>the old bat"), you'd REALLY want to have the image ultra sharp.
>
The big contribution of the f/64 group was the creation of a specific
photographic aesthetic apart from painting.
>3) The technical resources available today are _so_ much better than
>those available in the 1930's and 1940's, that there is no excuse for
>anyone making a photo that doesn't fit the photographer's intention. If
>you want it grainy you can have it grainy, if you want it sharp, you can
>have it sharp. Adams' intent as expressed in his technical manuals (The
>Camera, etc.) is on how to put the image you want to put on the final
>print. That's pretty agnostic as to aesthetics.
>
At the highest level, technically the difference isn't as great many make out.
I'm not suggesting there have been no changes, just that their affect on
taking most pictures is fairly minimal.
>> The richness of any art/craft comes from diversity, so you should
>> forget a bit theese stadards, open your eyes, and do your OWN thing.
>> (and don't answer me your OWN thing is to follow Adams, its crap).
>
First, I always found Adams'images too cold and lifeless until I saw some
early original prints at ICP some years ago. They were nowhere near the size
and flawlessness of the images most of us have come to know from posters and
prints in books. Anybody whose sole guide is Adams is sure missing a lot.
The fact that Adams' pictures of people, many done as commercial assignments,
are so unspectacular is actually as much an inspiration as the grand
landscapes are.
Bill Bell
Thomas Fattaleh
Ansel Adams is an ok photographer, but i found nothing great in his
works. His reputation was made on a limited number of senic photos that
after the first two or three,,,, well you've seen them all.
The zone system was not his invention. He wrote a work book that took
the basic 8 shades of gray and expanded them to include ultra black and
ultra white. The zone system had been used for quite some time before
him.
In my opion, he had great pr.
Tom...
Chuck Goodwin
Frederic Goudal wrote:
>
> Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> writes :
> ] Frederic Goudal wrote:
> ]
> ] ] I think you [Americans?] should build a movement "There's a life without A[nsel]
> ] ] A[dams]", "You can make a photo without using Zone System".
> ]
> ] [Goodwin hops on his sopa box and answers:]
> ] And there's music after Beethoven, physics after Einstein, and painting
> ] after Picasso (Imagine what a drag it must have been being a painter
> ] during Picasso's life)....
> ]
>
> nobody make musics like beethoven, nor physic like einstein no
> painting like picasso... but a lot of people still do photo like
> Adams...
[Goodwin, can't keep himself off the soap box;]
Nah, nobody's quite as good. Yup, you can find a lot of people churning
out calendars that look like the photog. wanted to be Adams. It's
probably an American tradition. Looking at 18th and 19th and early 20th
century American art, the only thing we did that could compete with the
Europeans were landscapes. It's an old habit. Hard to break. But it
is a pretty country when you get away from the strip malls.
> I agree that Adams is a master. (In my little eurpoean head I prefer
> Weston who had a larger point of view - from nude to landscape - and a
> less "american" point of view (ahh the beauty of nature....) but Adams
> said it better).
IMHO, for what little it is worth, Weston is a more interesting and
creative photographer and, at least from a formalist perspective, a
better artist; but Adams was a far better technician. Looking at Adams'
prints is an intimidating experience. They are so good and they are so
good in a way that I can explain to my wife and to my mother (they just
look at me strangely when I do and hope that I have other, redeeming
qualities). But hey, Adams & Weston were pals.
BTW, there is an intriguing but small exhibit (hidden in a room behind
the 20th century American painting room) in the Boston Museum of Fine
Art of the photographs that Adams and Weston took on their trips
together, with comparable photographs hung side by side.
Anyone in Boston who is reading this group should go to see that
exhibit. Evidently, there is no catalogue.
> Yes but in these newsgroups I never see a reference to Evans, Arbus,
> Bourke-White, or any of the great american photographers...
> Speaking about history theese photographers have done their job in the
> evolution of photography, but reading the people here, it seems that
> they have not existed.
Yes, and Evans etc. were every bit as picky, deliberate, and slow in
making their photographs as Adams was. Evans, especially, is known to
have spend hours setting up his "true-to-life" photos of impoverished
farm families. It is not the "journalism" that it is taken to be. (Of
course, Evans didn't spend his latter years writing books on how to take
photographs. Rather, he drank excessively while sort-of working for
Time-Life and tried to pick up co-eds while sort-of-but-not-really
teaching at Yale).
> ] . . . Anything anybody says about
> ] aesthetics is bound to make him/her sound like a j*ck*ss in 100 years
> ] from now. ....
> No I don't believe you, the sayings of Giotto, Fra Angelico, and all
> the masters of the past are still interesting. In fact what you say
> about aesthetic has to be detached from the fashion to be a bit
> intelligent.
I did not speak clearly. It's not what the artists' say that sounds
foolish, but what the audience/critics say that will come to sound
foolish.
> ] This was said by Strand before he moved to Italy and traded his rough
> ] american images for scenic shots of Italy, wasn't it?
> I don't know I have stolen that somewhere in the net.
>
> f.g.
Does anyone in this group know of a good monograph on Strand's early
years? I was looking at his photos in Newhall's History of Photog. and
it seems Strand did almost everything before anybody else. I would love
to find a good book of his early (pre 1950) work, but don't find
anything at my local Borders/Barnes and Noble. Adams and Strand met in
1930 and Adams claims to have learned a great deal from Strand. Strand,
however, was probably not as careful as Adams in setting up a trust to
preserve his legacy.
David Rozen
Chuck Goodwin (cz...@sprynet.com) wrote:
[snips]
: Accusing Americans of being slavish to Adams? In the words of the great
: American Philosopher, Bart Simpson, "Au contaire, mon frere." Please
: explain (a) Diane Arbus, (2) Nan Goldin, (3) Walker Evans, (4) Robert
: Frank, (5) Lee Friedlander, (6) Weegee (Arthur Fellig) etc. etc.
: etc......
OK, OK, maybe we should only accuse americans of
being chauvanistic. Robert Frank an american ?
GMAFB ! Now WeeGee, there's a true american...
David Rosen go...@acmenet.net or @capital.net
Robert E. Smith
Thomas Fattaleh wrote:
>
> Ansel Adams is an ok photographer, but i found nothing great in his
Tom...
OK. We now know what you don't like. We would like to know:
What, in your opinion, ^are^ the "great" photographers?
dr bob
Frederic Goudal
Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> writes:
]Frederic Goudal wrote:
]] Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com] writes :
]]] Frederic Goudal wrote:
]]] ] I think you [Americans?] should build a movement "There's a life without A[nsel]
]]] ] A[dams]", "You can make a photo without using Zone System".
]]]
]]] [Goodwin hops on his sopa box and answers:]
]]] And there's music after Beethoven, physics after Einstein, and painting
]]] after Picasso (Imagine what a drag it must have been being a painter
]]] during Picasso's life)....
]]]
]]
]] I can only agree with that : but as your first sentence stated :
]] nobody make musics like beethoven, nor physic like einstein no
]] painting like picasso... but a lot of people still do photo like
]] Adams...
][Goodwin, can't keep himself off the soap box;]
Yes but you are mainly saying interesting things....
] Nah, nobody's quite as good. Yup, you can find a lot of people churning
] out calendars that look like the photog. wanted to be Adams. It's
] probably an American tradition. Looking at 18th and 19th and early 20th
] century American art, the only thing we did that could compete with the
] Europeans were landscapes. It's an old habit. Hard to break. But it
] is a pretty country when you get away from the strip malls.
I read a book on american art a few days ago. I was reading the
cahpter concerning the armory show, and the work Stieglitz did at his
gallery (291 ???). It was the confrontation between american art and
it's fascination for the landscapes, and european art which was at the
time, Picasso, Braques, Duchamp, Matisse, Brancusi....
This book states that american favorite subject is nature and
landscape. I don't think that we have to do a quality judgment about
that. But Adams, is right in this tradition.
That's maybe why people stop at his work.
]] I agree that Adams is a master. (In my little eurpoean head I prefer
]] Weston who had a larger point of view - from nude to landscape - and a
]] less "american" point of view (ahh the beauty of nature....) but Adams
]] said it better).
]
] IMHO, for what little it is worth, Weston is a more interesting and
] creative photographer and, at least from a formalist perspective, a
] better artist; but Adams was a far better technician. Looking at Adams'
] prints is an intimidating experience. They are so good and they are so
] good in a way that I can explain to my wife and to my mother (they just
] look at me strangely when I do and hope that I have other, redeeming
] qualities). But hey, Adams & Weston were pals.
In his autobiography it is very fun that Adams does not say a word
about Weston nudes... is this a bit of censorship ???
] BTW, there is an intriguing but small exhibit (hidden in a room behind
] the 20th century American painting room) in the Boston Museum of Fine
] Art of the photographs that Adams and Weston took on their trips
] together, with comparable photographs hung side by side.
] Anyone in Boston who is reading this group should go to see that
] exhibit. Evidently, there is no catalogue.
Can you give us poor European a comment about this exhibition ???
] ] ] . . . Anything anybody says about
] ] ] aesthetics is bound to make him/her sound like a j*ck*ss in 100 years
] ] ] from now. ....
] ] No I don't believe you, the sayings of Giotto, Fra Angelico, and all
] ] the masters of the past are still interesting. In fact what you say
] ] about aesthetic has to be detached from the fashion to be a bit
] ] intelligent.
]
] I did not speak clearly. It's not what the artists' say that sounds
] foolish, but what the audience/critics say that will come to sound
] foolish.
Ok, ok ok...
]
] ] ] This was said by Strand before he moved to Italy and traded his rough
] ] ] american images for scenic shots of Italy, wasn't it?
] ] I don't know I have stolen that somewhere in the net.
] ]
] ] f.g.
]
] Does anyone in this group know of a good monograph on Strand's early
] years? I was looking at his photos in Newhall's History of Photog. and
] it seems Strand did almost everything before anybody else. I would love
] to find a good book of his early (pre 1950) work, but don't find
] anything at my local Borders/Barnes and Noble. Adams and Strand met in
] 1930 and Adams claims to have learned a great deal from Strand. Strand,
] however, was probably not as careful as Adams in setting up a trust to
] preserve his legacy.
Me too... I'm very interested in Strand work. I know him as the
"father" of the 1920-1940 american photography. Stieglitz is reputed
to have discoverd him and first published.. is this true ???
But I would like to find more about him.
Marcus J. Ranum
Martin Fouts <m...@best.com> wrote:
>I think that Ansel Adams' work with the Sierre Club and his landscapes
>tend to obscure his major contributions to the photographic art.
>
>For example, everyone (so far) in this debate has refered to his
>landscapes, yet he also made some very interesting portraits.
One could almost completely ignore the body of Adams'
photographic work and he'd still be a "great" in my book.
Perhaps it was an accident of timing, but for better or
worse, he was the first photographer who attempted to apply a
vocabulary of scientific reasoning to photography. His technical
skills, I think many will agree, were awesome -- but he went
beyond that to *teach* which is a greater gift, still.
Whether or not they're "Zonies" any photographer who
understands the significance behind the concept of being able
to explain the intended values in a scene to another photographer
will admit to the importance to the zone system concept. I'm
not a "zonie" myself but it's awful nice to be able to ask a
buddy to "meter that shadow over there, I want to put it on
zone 4 with an aperture of f/22" and not have to mum and jum
about how dark I wanted what.
I won't say technical masters are a dime a dozen, but
there have been many great photographers, such as Weston, who
were not light scientists and were not especially good teachers.
It's my personal bias as the son of an academic, but I believe
it is the greatest expression of mastery in a field, to love
it enough and to internalize it so well you can explain it to
others, and pass along the love you feel for your art.
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
Marcus J. Ranum
Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Lets have some examples of French photogs uninfluenced by Atget and
>Cartier-Bresson.
Jeanloup Sieff and David Hamilton. :)
mjr.
--
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr
LJ Powell
Thomas Fattaleh <tfat...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ansel Adams is an ok photographer, but i found nothing great in his
>works. His reputation was made on a limited number of senic photos that
>after the first two or three,,,, well you've seen them all.
>The zone system was not his invention. He wrote a work book that took
>the basic 8 shades of gray and expanded them to include ultra black and
>ultra white. The zone system had been used for quite some time before
>him.
>In my opion, he had great pr.
>Tom...
Yeah - he had great PR. He also had a lot of brass.
In the infinite scheme of things, which is more important - inventing
the answer to the world's problem, or marketing that answer to the
world? I think Ansel's real contribution was in promoting the craft
of photography and doing it with a flare that caught the attention of
almost every other photographer around. If he had not promoted the
zone system, it would probably have faded into obscurity.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Louie Powell
<LJPo...@ix.netcom.com>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nancy Manosh
ansel one of the finest photographers of his time he also played a major
role in bringing legitimacy to photography as an art to the worlds
mind.And lets not forget that his photos made our wilderness areas seen
by the masses thus helping to sway public opinion for thier
preservation.Without him our world would be a diferent place simple!! Im
sure if you asked him he would say saving the wild areas of our country
is what he would want to be remembered for.Not just a couple images he
took.
Frederic Goudal
Nancy Manosh <man...@sover.net> writes:
> Dear uninformed i would sujest a little art history class.Not only was
> ansel one of the finest photographers of his time he also played a major
> role in bringing legitimacy to photography as an art to the worlds
> mind.And lets not forget that his photos made our wilderness areas seen
> by the masses thus helping to sway public opinion for thier
> preservation.Without him our world would be a diferent place simple!! Im
> sure if you asked him he would say saving the wild areas of our country
> is what he would want to be remembered for.Not just a couple images he
> took.
Dear uninformed...
I would suggest that you look around you.
By example in Europe Adams has not the influence you give to him. Here
you should speak about Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau.
About photo as an art, you forgot Stieglitz who did the work and who
was the primary artisan of this movement.
About saving wild areas, it has nothing to do with photography (but
photography has indeed a lot to do with saving wild areas).
spectrum
LJ Powell wrote:
>
> Thomas Fattaleh <tfat...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Ansel Adams is an ok photographer, but i found nothing great in his
> >works. His reputation was made on a limited number of senic photos that
> >after the first two or three,,,, well you've seen them all.
>
> >The zone system was not his invention. He wrote a work book that took
> >the basic 8 shades of gray and expanded them to include ultra black and
> >ultra white. The zone system had been used for quite some time before
> >him.
>
> >In my opion, he had great pr.
>
> >Tom...
>
> Yeah - he had great PR. He also had a lot of brass.
>
> In the infinite scheme of things, which is more important - inventing
> the answer to the world's problem, or marketing that answer to the
> world? I think Ansel's real contribution was in promoting the craft
> of photography and doing it with a flare that caught the attention of
> almost every other photographer around. If he had not promoted the
> zone system, it would probably have faded into obscurity.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Louie Powell
> <LJPo...@ix.netcom.com>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Strand,Land,White,Weston and Bullock did have some input, but it was an
all A.Adams idea derived from his experience with music as a concert
pianist. Exactly who did you think invented the Zone system ? Minor
White ? Gimme a break !
And as far as PR, well it really didn't come into play until the late
sixties when the term gimmick was coined and the hype of the seventies
was on the horizon. By that time Adams had already been teaching
photography for 20 years at which time he,along with Stieglitz,Weston
and others, brought photography into galleries for the first time in
America. No, PR is a relatively modern tool used by such fabulous artist
as Mapplethorpe,Man Ray,Uelsman and other "artist".
Spectrum
Tom Ferguson
Oh PLEASE..... I realize that "Adam is God" thought pattern is a montra
for some people, but don't slam others to put your "God" on a pedestal.
By all accounts, Man Ray can not be seen as a more contemporary artist
than Adams!!!!! Uelsman was a friend of Adams, and had his respect! Get
real, or at least get yourself behind a camera!
> And as far as PR, well it really didn't come into play until the late
>sixties when the term gimmick was coined and the hype of the seventies
>was on the horizon.<SNIP> No, PR is a relatively modern tool used by such
Tjkphoto
If nothing else, this interminable bickering over Ansel Adams serves
to help confirm something more important than the attribution of his
ideas. It confirms his SIGNIFICANCE. Whether or not the work of an artist
appeals to us as individuals today ( or next week, or whatever) hopefully
doesn't distort the view of that person's significance within his/her era.
Adams was very significant to mid-century photography. We're certainly
still sorting out his influence. Many of us (definitely me included) have
unconsciously incorporated notions about photography that stem from Adams'
impact. Little discoveries and realizations about the roots of our own
tastes come clinking out of the back of our brains over time. There's a
lot of Adams in there, even if we're simply reacting negatively to the
Modernist thing in general. It seems to me that we're fortunate to be in
the temporal vicinity of some photographic giants, like them or not. Makes
for interesting times.
- TeeJay
bs
Actually your all right. Adams was great for several reason. Just because
he was great does not mean the lady has to appreciate his work and unless
one appreciates photographic technique as an end his work could be a bore.
Adams brought the rules of composition, the detail of F64 and superb
darkroom work, and excellent choices of subject matter to the common
person. He brought bits and pieces of other elements like the Zone system
together and made them workable and teachable. By doing this he opened the
door for many of us to learn a great deal about photography.
It was one of the most memorable experiences to go to the park and take a
three day workshop with him. In these courses he could take a student's
eye and make it see the world in a new light. Few teachers of photography
have been able accomplish this. In the eary 70's I was a student at the
Academy of Art in San Francisco and was able to get a fild trip to be with
him. I have not been able to mimic his style, but he did wonders to help
me create one of my own.
Peter Marshall
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> You've gotta be kidin',right? While others such as
> Strand,Land,White,Weston and Bullock did have some input, but it was an
> all A.Adams idea derived from his experience with music as a concert
> pianist. Exactly who did you think invented the Zone system ? Minor
> White ? Gimme a break !
> And as far as PR, well it really didn't come into play until the late
> sixties when the term gimmick was coined and the hype of the seventies
> was on the horizon. By that time Adams had already been teaching
> photography for 20 years at which time he,along with Stieglitz,Weston
> and others, brought photography into galleries for the first time in
> America. No, PR is a relatively modern tool used by such fabulous artist
> as Mapplethorpe,Man Ray,Uelsman and other "artist".
>
> Spectrum
I think a little homework would have resulted in a great improvement in the
above post.
For example Stieglits was busy getting photography into galleries before Adams
was even born in 1902. (Adams only took up photography seriously in his late
'20's). The basis of the Zone System was of course the work by John L
Davenport, published in US Camera in 1934, (also of course based on earlier
work) though of course this was greatly developed by Adams in the early 1940's
and also improved by the contributions of others.
PR has a much longer history than this of course - though I'm not sure when
the actual term was coined (the OED would be a good place to look to find
out.) Mapplethorpe, Man Ray and Uelsmann are indeed a strange trinity and I
would find it hard to suggest much they have in common. Almost all
photographers who become well-known (at least those who do it in their
life-time) both are pretty good at various forms of self-promotion and devote
considerable time and effort to it. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing!