Photography is dead
Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art}
According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
-- Joshua Curry at address mentioned below
{Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
Christopher Kolar
>According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
>photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
>and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
>this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
>this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
>nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
>photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
While the socio-political possibilities of photography have certainly
been unmet, I would hate to consider photography dead. I think that
it is far from acomplishing everything it set out to do (I would
argue against the belief that it had an agenda to begin with to be
more precise), but the problem appears to be that photographers
are not encouraged to work in such a manner as would upset our
understanding of the relationship between art and politics.
Photography, like most are these days, is produced as a commodity. We
have to eat, so commercial sucess is not something that anyone would
easily turn away. Yet taking pictures of babies and weddings and dogs
and landscapes and mountain goats &c. will not necessarily put more
bread on the tables of the workers or bring anyone in the world
to a sudden understaning of the effects of class conflict.
Photographic theory is not of much help here. Sontag or Barthes may tell
us why we love our wedding photographs, but they will not help us much
if we have a wedding to shoot (well, unless they help to guide us to
paradigmatic wedding "subjects" ie "hands with rings" or "hands on
knife cutting cake" :). I just managed to find a copy of Mohr & Berger's
_Another Way of Telling_ -- a teriffic book but one that has left me
confounded with respect to What I Do Now.
I originally subscribed to this group hoping for the kinds of conversations
that you too desire. I wouldn't be so hard on the readership though.
Most groups on the net are filled with people trying to do things, this
group included. A dozen coursed in literary theory and the philosophy
of language did not help me to write a novel (I am still waiting for
it to happen). The discussion that you want is one that should happen
and it should happen here. Though it is doubtful that the readership
of this group will take to the streets with their cameras hoping to
bring about a more desirable society, it is something that I should
certainly like to see.
--chris
(formerly of The Wide Angle Group, now an institutional slave at:
--
/////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\ The University of Illinois
Christopher G Kolar at Urbana-Champaign
Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory Internet: c-k...@uiuc.edu
Center for the Study of Reading NovaNET: chris / mfl / nova
Frank Kolwicz
: According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
: photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** Ascribing a notion of will to an abstract idea is new to me, how can
"photography" act? I thought that "photographers" acted through their
chosen medium. How do you know that everything every photographer has
wished to accomplish has been accomplished? If this is a modernist
principal, then no wonder modernism is such dreck. Setting up such
philosophical strawmen is the lowest of debating tactics. FHK
: and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
: this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
: this group are geared to.
: Discussions of technique and equipment do nothing for the world outside
: of photography.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** Why should learning the techniques of photography owe anything to the
"world outside"? Maybe the ART of photography has something to do with it,
for some photographers, but most users of photography never develope any
art and don't intend to. I suspect that most of us artful photographers
are involved with the world to just about the same extent as any other
human being is - to make a living or, perhaps, as an escape from the
"world outside". Art IS for its own sake, it need not be harnessed to any
outside agenda nor does it require external justification. FHK
: -- Joshua Curry at address mentioned below
: {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
*** Frank
Frank Kolwicz
: While the socio-political possibilities of photography have certainly
: been unmet, I would hate to consider photography dead. I think that
: it is far from acomplishing everything it set out to do (I would
: argue against the belief that it had an agenda to begin with to be
: more precise), but the problem appears to be that photographers
: are not encouraged to work in such a manner as would upset our
: understanding of the relationship between art and politics.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** Is that all? Is politics the only possible outlet for photography? FHK
: Photography, like most are these days, is produced as a commodity. We
: have to eat, so commercial sucess is not something that anyone would
: easily turn away. Yet taking pictures of babies and weddings and dogs
: and landscapes and mountain goats &c. will not necessarily put more
: bread on the tables of the workers or bring anyone in the world
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *** Why should my work put food on
anyone's table but my own? FHK
: to a sudden understaning of the effects of class conflict.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *** I
couldn't possibly care less about the "effects of class conflict". If that
were the only value of photography or any art, we humans wouldn't be worth
a damn. FHK
: Photographic theory is not of much help here. Sontag or Barthes may tell
: us why we love our wedding photographs, but they will not help us much
: if we have a wedding to shoot (well, unless they help to guide us to
: paradigmatic wedding "subjects" ie "hands with rings" or "hands on
: knife cutting cake" :). I just managed to find a copy of Mohr & Berger's
: _Another Way of Telling_ -- a teriffic book but one that has left me
: confounded with respect to What I Do Now.
: I originally subscribed to this group hoping for the kinds of conversations
: that you too desire. I wouldn't be so hard on the readership though.
: Most groups on the net are filled with people trying to do things, this
: group included. A dozen coursed in literary theory and the philosophy
: of language did not help me to write a novel (I am still waiting for
: it to happen). The discussion that you want is one that should happen
: and it should happen here. Though it is doubtful that the readership
: of this group will take to the streets with their cameras hoping to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: bring about a more desirable society, it is something that I should
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *** Such temporary political
solutions as these actions might bring about are farts in a gale.
Photography (Art) could bring about far more lasting changes in human
consciousness and behavior, but not overnight and not the way it is
practiced at present and no amount of politics can change that. FHK
: certainly like to see.
: --chris
: (formerly of The Wide Angle Group, now an institutional slave at:
: --
: /////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\ The University of Illinois
: Christopher G Kolar at Urbana-Champaign
: Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory Internet: c-k...@uiuc.edu
: Center for the Study of Reading NovaNET: chris / mfl / nova
*** Frank
Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art}
Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form,
but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point? WHo said
National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
below)
Hakan Delic
I was not aware that photography had a specific goal over its 150 or so
years of existence. Could you please elaborate?
As for this particular newsgroup, it is inevitable that people will end up
arguing over equipment when every day someone asks what camera to buy. We all
went through that stage and there is nothing wrong with it.
Discussions of technique may not do much for the outside world but that is
how an artform grows and evolves. On the other hand, one may ask: "Does
photography as art do anything at all for the world outside? Should photography
care?"
Hakan Delic
mh...@virginia.edu
Hakan Delic
writes:
>
> I originally subscribed to this group hoping for the kinds of conversations
> that you too desire. I wouldn't be so hard on the readership though.
> Most groups on the net are filled with people trying to do things, this
> group included. A dozen coursed in literary theory and the philosophy
> of language did not help me to write a novel (I am still waiting for
> it to happen). The discussion that you want is one that should happen
> and it should happen here. Though it is doubtful that the readership
> of this group will take to the streets with their cameras hoping to
> bring about a more desirable society, it is something that I should
> certainly like to see.
>
I probably misunderstand you, but will ask anyway. :-) Why should
photography as art bear more responsibility than other artforms
to change the world? Artists have responsibilities, but art?
Hakan Delic
mh...@virginia.edu
Hakan Delic
I too have a hard time understanding why an artist should care about
what others think or how others perceive his/her art. Besides, most
viewers and consumers of photography never develop any appreciation of
photography as an art anyway.
Hakan Delic
mh...@virginia.edu
Hakan Delic
Oh, let me tell you: I have seen people look at the same image of a
landscape all day long, and still not get the point. Photography, from
the consumers' viewpoint, is the art of seeing. Many people just look,
look and look, but never see. These same people will never become
photographers in an artistic sense.
If art is indeed a form of communication, then I am afraid most of it
is nothing more than a monologue. Seeing all the dynamics in a landscape
picture is not that easy, and maybe that's one reason why those many in the art
community think photography as art is dead. Perhaps art is dead in all
forms, given the public's lack of appreciation and response; but I would not
put the blame on art or the artist.
Hakan Delic
mh...@virginia.edu
Mark A. Natola
>From: bar...@pd.org (Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art})
>Subject: Photography is dead
>Date: 5 Dec 1993 05:43:55 GMT
Photography is not dead, it just smells funny!
Mark
Tom Unger
I don't think you are every going to get the discussion you want on this
news group. I've felt the same dissatisfaction - I would like to read some
substantitive discussion on the "art" of photograpy but all I see are
articles about "Which is better: Nikon or Cannon" or "Flair in the
Nikon xxx?".
I don't think most people reading this group are deeply interested in
the "art" of photography. Photography is a broad subject. Many many
people use point and shoot for snap shots of their trip. Or an SLR
for photo journalism. Or shoot weddings or products or portraits. There
are a few, but only a few, on this news group who seem to be doing "fine
art" photography, but apparently not enough sustain an inlectual discussion
about photography.
Most people here probably aren't capable of an extended discussion
of the nature you want. I say this based on my own abilities.
While I like to think that the pictures I print are art, I must admit
that I don't spend a whole lot of time analyzing what I do nor am I good
at explaining it to others. This is a hobby, I've had very little
photography training, and no general "art training". I would probalby be
a better photographer if I persued more education and exchange of ideas
but this is a hobby, one of several hobbies, and I'm enjoying it at the
current level. I suspect many others here have a similar background.
As for discussing what I do with others, even when I can show the photos
to other people they all have different oppinions, which are all different
from my oppinion. In the end I mostly ignore what others say and persue
my own vission.
But here on the net I can't even show the photos to others (yet). Best
I can do is discuss techniques used. And I have gotten some useful
info on technique from this discussion.
The intersection of computer users and photographers probalby brings out
a lot of "gear heads", people who are fasinated, some to the point of
forgetting the reason for, the photography gear they have. Thus the
obbession with lens sharpness and lines per inch.
But I must admit that I've posted some gear questions when I've
considered new equipment and got some info back. And if every reader posts
an equipment question every couple years that will generate the continous
flood of equipment questions that we see.
Mostly I think there is too much traffic on this group most of little
interest to me. Splitting the group may help.
Tom Unger
John W. Verity
That photography is dead is news to me. I wonder what such people as Cindy
Sherman, Lee Friedlander, and Sebastio Selgado might think--just to name a
few leading lights on the current scene.
Joshua Curry/Barbara Hudsel writes that "Photography (may have) done
everyting it set out to do." What did "it" set out to do, precisely? This
issue was the basis of a fascinating show at the Museum of Modern Art a few
years ago, Photography Until Now. It showed how the purpose anduse of
photography has changed over time under the influence of other h istorical
and technological developments. At first, shooting pictures required a
bunch of equipment, and the photog. had to make his own plates on the spot.
The result: studio portraits. Then, the chemistry became
portable, contained in a wagon. But still, the exposure times were so long
that only stable things -- landscapes, pyramids, etc. -- got shot. Then came
the dray glaa plate, and the camera got even more portable; then sheet film,
and ditto. Then, as printing techniques developed, the camera got used to
capture news events and describe the world to the masses. The high point was
reached in the 40s, more or less, with Life and Eugene Smith, etc. When the
television came on to the scene, photography was freed to be a more pure
art, used by artists to explore art and their inner selves, etc.
I haven't explained that particularly well, but you get the idea. The
point is that photography--like painting and sculpture, for that matter--is
evolving, radically and perhaps unpredictably. I doubt very much that it is
dead--especially if you believe that the new digital imaging techniques
represent a further evolution of the photographic idea.
And Hear Hear for more discussion here about the loftier aspects of
photography--the craft and art of it, if you like. I'm fascinated with some
of the technical discussions--has anyone ever seen how similar photo and
cooking are; both involvemixing up ingredients and putting them in a special
machine for a calculated period of time and, after a little prayer, hoping
the results will be what you expected--but am most interested in hearing
about how people use their camera, not simply about the new parts they
intend to buy. Granted, photography was, until the computer came along, the
most gadget-oriented hobby ever, but I vote for more talk, from novice and
the experienced, of what we're
doing/thinking/feeling/experiencing/dreaming/avoiding/knowing as we caress
that private button of pleasure, the shutter release. Indeed, what besides
the shutter itself, do you release in the privacy of your own mind.
And three cheers for Neil Baylis for his "catching tadpoles" metaphor a
few days back. I tried to wire yoiu directly, Neil, but the net failed me
for some reason. I've been very taken by that figure of speech.
Some books I can recommend about photography as art and historical
phenomenon: Susan Sontag's On Photography (title?); Janet Malcolm's diana
and Nikon; John Berger's Another Way of Telling. All very accessible by the
art-illiterate--e.g. me.
Hakan Delic
Monson) writes:
> In article <CHL7C...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
> Hakan Delic <mh...@cajal.med.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> >In article <2dtcdh...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> bar...@pd.org (Barbara
Hudsel
> >> How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
> >> Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
> >> goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
> >> below)
> >> {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
>
> >Oh, let me tell you: I have seen people look at the same image of a
> >landscape all day long, and still not get the point. Photography, from
> Here we have a second contributer talking about "getting the point"
> of a landscape. Again, I'm not certain that I understand the
> meaning of the expression "the point" as used in this context.
> A person can set out with a number of different objectives
> in creating a landscape. One objective might be simply producing an icon
> to associate with memories of a place or an occasion. It would
> be unreasonable to expect a viewer unfamiliar with the location to
> recognize the photograph as an icon. In other words, viewers need
> not be expected to "get the point."
>
I think you answered your question below. The "point" in an image is
*that* something you consider noteworthy, of all you have seen. (I guess
the corollary is that we all take many pointless pictures, even the
"masters".) Now, what I fail to see is if photography as an art
is a form of communication and viewers are not expected to get the point,
then why should the photographer be responsible for relaying some sort
of social message (or whatever) through his/her images.
Perhaps everything goes back to the definition of art, which does not seem
to exist.
>
> >the consumers' viewpoint, is the art of seeing. Many people just look,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
Weird choice of word on my part. I meant the "viewers' viewpoint". :-)
> Photography is an art of seeing from many photographer's
> viewpoints, as well.
Quite true. But the photographer has to go one step further and be able
to predict how the film sees what he sees. I think this necessity to
control the chemical medium is what separates photography from other artforms,
and this is why technique is such a critical issue. Just "seeing" is not
enough.
> Indeed, seeing is one of the most important aspects
> of photography. (You don't need skill in seeing
> when the work is entirely based on darkroom tricks,
> or alteration of prints with non-photographic media, of course.)
> When you produce a photo, your images are telling the viewer
> "of all I have seen,
> *this* is something I consider noteworthy."
>
Hakan Delic
mh...@virginia.edu
Neil Baylis
Keywords:
In article <2drser...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> bar...@pd.org (Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art}) writes:
>
>According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
>photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
I don't think photography is any more dead than painting. Both are extremely
flexible media, and each has advantages and pitfalls. For photography,
verisimilitude must be simultaneously its greatest advantage and its most
serious pitfall, but many workers find this not a problem. I do wish
however that many people would realise that Ansel Adams is actually dead,
and stop endlessly retracing his footsteps. Life (and art) goes on.
Neil Baylis
Ty Monson
>{Atl Col of Art}) writes:
>>
>> photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
Only a few months ago I attended a talk at the local community
arts center where I heard that in recent years art museums
have been increasingly inclined to recognize photography as a
legitimate art medium, and have been increasing the money they
allocate to acquisition of photographs. I have no specific
data to support this, but I now have this seemingly contradictory
statement that photography is dead as art.
I am inclined to remind readers how much "good art" is a function
of fashion trends, like the length of women's dresses.
What is "in" one year may be "out" a few years later. Also, I
suspect that opinions on art vary a bit from one part of a country
to another, as different pockets of art experts define what
is in fashion.
>> and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
>> this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
>> this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
>> nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
>> photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you please expand on what you mean by this passage?
Are you really asking for a discussion of photographic
theory - which appears in rec.photo regularly anyway?
Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418
>I don't think you are every going to get the discussion you want on this
>news group. I've felt the same dissatisfaction - I would like to read some
>substantitive discussion on the "art" of photograpy but all I see are
>articles about "Which is better: Nikon or Cannon" or "Flair in the
>Nikon xxx?".
>
>I don't think most people reading this group are deeply interested in
>
>Most people here probably aren't capable of an extended discussion
This has already been an interesting discussion, one of the first
longish threads in a while I'll bother to follow thoroughly.
It's my view that philosophical discourse and a media such as an
electronic network have a large mistmatch. By and large, messages
posted here are typed in on the fly, without much reflection. This is
very different from what it takes to write a meaningful philosophical
essay. When I wrote such pieces as part of a art and criticism
curricula, they'd take a heck of a lot longer than anything I'm
willing to do on the net.
I believe that many people here *do* have interest, but basically are
unable to devote the time necessary for serious contemplation. It may
be best to view net discussions of philosophy and art as being at the
same level as a conversation in a cafe. So, don't be discouraged and
acuse people of geek-dom, invite them in and see what they have to
offer to the repartee.
As for the contention that Photography is Dead as an Art Form, at
least in certain moderist circles, I'd say I agree. There has always
been a cult of the new about modernism, which makes those who follow
it discard known technologies and styles in favor of the lastest
thing. This is certainly something techno-geeks can relate to. In
this circle, photography is a passe as painting or sculpture. Hence
"environmental" works like the plan to put a chain of bras across the
Grand Canyon.
However, in many broader art circles, Modernism itself is considered
played out. Many have rejected the never-ending cult-of-the new, and
wanted some appreciation of older methods and styles, or at least some
contemplation of the past using the current methods. This of course,
is the moving force behind Post-Modernism (PM), one of the current
Politically Correct (PC) art trends of the last 15-20 years or so.
In the PM sense, photography is quite alive as an Art Form, as the
referential nature of photography is a fine fit for intentionally
reflexive work. Therefore, you see, the gradient filter line on
Rowell's landscapes is intentionally visible, to call your attention
to the artifice of the image, and make it clear that Art is better
than Reality. That is, he's a good ironic post-modernist, or he's a
documentory pictorialist who cheats. Okay? :-)
cheers,
-dB
--
"Any criticism you have, I have an answer for." -- one post modernist motto.
Ty Monson
William Caloccia <calo...@tornadic.sw.stratus.com> wrote:
>In article <2dug72...@flop.engr.orst.edu> mon...@mycroft.ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson) writes:
>> I am inclined to remind readers how much "good art" is a function
>
>> What is "in" one year may be "out" a few years later. Also, I
>> suspect that opinions on art vary a bit from one part of a country
>> to another, as different pockets of art experts define what
>> is in fashion.
>Though art we may often see a perspective of what is fashionable (at the
^^^^^^^
I presume this was supposed to be "through"?
>time it was created).
>
>However the above statement would imply that "good art", as a function of
>fashion, is only temporary (as fashion is only temporary -- is this true ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, fashion is temporary. That most certainly is true.
Look at womes's hair styles of the 30's-40's.
Consider mes's zoot-suits of the 20's.
Consider the tail fins on automobiles in the 50's-60's.
They were in fashion, then out of fashion.
A particular fashion may be retained for a long time,
or something may come back into fashion,
but that doesn't change the fact that fashion, in general,
changes. (I don't understand why that is not obvious.)
(delete irrelevant discussion about marketing clothing.)
>Would you say the same is true for good art ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The trap here is in finding a definition
for "good art". What is considered good
art depends on what a particular group
of people think at some particular time.
Since the definition of "good art" is
dependent upon variable opinions,
good art is certainly a function of
fashion trends - fashion trends in art,
in of which the wardrobe industry might
be considered a subset.
>Does that mean that an Elvis air-brushed on black velvet is as "good art" as
>any other popular reproduction, such as works of Monet or Adams or ... ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The point here is rather obscure. Is the issue about the fashionability
of reproductions of original works?
Ty Monson
>> photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
>> it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form,
We've debated this in rec.photo before, but it helps to
expand on the matter. I have a history of taking the position that
art need not communicate anything. Why must it?
>> but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
>> and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
>> sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
>> pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point? WHo said
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have made many landscapes. I don't feel that I have finished.
What do you mean by "the point"?
>> National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
>> How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
>> Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
>> goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
>> below)
>> {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
Then H. Delic begins:
>Oh, let me tell you: I have seen people look at the same image of a
>landscape all day long, and still not get the point. Photography, from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here we have a second contributer talking about "getting the point"
of a landscape. Again, I'm not certain that I understand the
meaning of the expression "the point" as used in this context.
A person can set out with a number of different objectives
in creating a landscape. One objective might be simply producing an icon
to associate with memories of a place or an occasion. It would
be unreasonable to expect a viewer unfamiliar with the location to
recognize the photograph as an icon. In other words, viewers need
not be expected to "get the point."
>the consumers' viewpoint, is the art of seeing. Many people just look,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Photography is an art of seeing from many photographer's
viewpoints, as well.
Indeed, seeing is one of the most important aspects
of photography. (You don't need skill in seeing
when the work is entirely based on darkroom tricks,
or alteration of prints with non-photographic media, of course.)
When you produce a photo, your images are telling the viewer
"of all I have seen,
*this* is something I consider noteworthy."
>look and look, but never see. These same people will never become
>photographers in an artistic sense.
(rest deleted)
Barry Sherman
>I don't think you are every going to get the discussion you want on this
>news group. I've felt the same dissatisfaction - I would like to read some
>substantitive discussion on the "art" of photograpy but all I see are
>articles about "Which is better: Nikon or Cannon" or "Flair in the
>Nikon xxx?".
Um. Nikon doesn't have a "Flair", although Canon does have an "Elan", which
might be similar in concept. :-) Lenses, however, do exhibit more or less
"flare". (Ok, ok, I'll stop being a jerk. :-)
>I don't think most people reading this group are deeply interested in
>the "art" of photography.
You've noticed this also.
>Photography is a broad subject. Many many
>people use point and shoot for snap shots of their trip. Or an SLR
>for photo journalism. Or shoot weddings or products or portraits. There
>are a few, but only a few, on this news group who seem to be doing "fine
>art" photography, but apparently not enough sustain an inlectual discussion
>about photography.
I suspect that those with formal training in art will be both disappointed
and short-term visitors to rec.photo. For me the art of photography is
very important, far more so than the hardware. But I refrain from most
discussions of it for a couple of reasons:
* Much of what I see exhibited as serious photographic art strikes me as
noise. Perhaps it has meaning to the sub-culture of those who have
studied formal art, but to me most seems to be attempts to recreate
in photography what has been done in other media, examples of people who
have disdained to learn the craft of the art or desperate attempts to
do something original, no matter how silly.
* It often appears to me that to the seriously educated in art, it isn't
art if it doesn't carry a political message. And not just a political
message. A left-wing political message. I'm at a particular disadvantage
here as I consider the political liberal factions to be the only groups
equal in idiocy to the the conservative factions. Since I have zero
tolerance for ideologies or ideologues I'm operating under an insurmountable
disdvantage in this area. Can neither participate nor comment without
being castigated from all sides.
So I'm resignd to the notion that my efforts to show the world in a way
that we do not usually see it will be relegated to meaninglessness by the
formal art world and, truly, don't give a damn.
I just do my photography, which is the bigggest non-relationshipal thing
in my life, and let those who care about art in the abstract play by
themselves. It's obvious that they've abandoned any pretense at having
meaning beyond their own closed caste anyway.
Barry
--
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and |
| b...@uts.amdahl.com | capture spectacular scenes than to take a |
| | spectacular picture of a really boring |
| | green pepper". - Anthony Tse |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction. Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions. Unfortunately, this has been |
| said of me as well. (I.e. My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Dave Miller
>but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
>and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
>sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
>pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point? WHo said
>National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
>How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
>Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
>goal of searching for and communicating ideas.
What kind of photography are you talking about? The examples
you cite here (baby pictures, etc.) are roughly equivalent to saying
that painting is dead because Starving Artists sales have paintings
that use old ideas. There are probably more people than you realize
who are doing original work that doesn't draw on preconceived ideas of
what photography is and what how it should affect the viewer. Most
photographers have shed their technology except in case where it
really does make a difference in the final image. (i.e. flash
spot-meters) This newsgroup is not representative of photography in
general and it's probably even less representative of photographers
who consider themselves 'art' photographers. You're not talking about
art photography, you're talking about photojournalism and social
documentation. Both can be considered art, but they aren't
necessarily art and shouldn't always be treated as such. Where is
this 'goal' of photography from? Was it written down somewhere? Does
painting have a goal? If so, what is it? If I remember correctly,
Clement Greenberg stated that painting was dead sometime in the
1950's or early 60's. Maybe you're just not looking in the right
places. Hint: mainstream media is not the right place.
--
d i g t h e m u s i c , k i d s . . .
______________________________________________________________dvmi...@osu.edu
William Caloccia
> I am inclined to remind readers how much "good art" is a function
> of fashion trends ...
> What is "in" one year may be "out" a few years later. Also, I
> suspect that opinions on art vary a bit from one part of a country
> to another, as different pockets of art experts define what
> is in fashion.
Though art we may often see a perspective of what is fashionable (at the
time it was created).
However the above statement would imply that "good art", as a function of
fashion, is only temporary (as fashion is only temporary -- is this true ?
Once more fashion is one of the most repetitive, controlled, and competitive
businesses -- the whole point to to create ``new'' wardrobes which are
appealing to a handful of people who can afford to have their clothes made
to order, and if accepted, will be copies countless times by mass producers
before they are season starts.
Would you say the same is true for good art ?
Does that mean that an Elvis air-brushed on black velvet is as "good art" as
fle...@aa.wl.com
> In article <2dtcdh...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>,
> Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art} <bar...@pd.org> wrote:
> I don't think you are every going to get the discussion you want on this
> news group. I've felt the same dissatisfaction - I would like to read some
> substantitive discussion on the "art" of photograpy but all I see are
> articles about "Which is better: Nikon or Cannon" or "Flair in the
> Nikon xxx?".
>
> I don't think most people reading this group are deeply interested in
> the "art" of photography. Photography is a broad subject. Many many
> people use point and shoot for snap shots of their trip. Or an SLR
> for photo journalism. Or shoot weddings or products or portraits. There
> are a few, but only a few, on this news group who seem to be doing "fine
> art" photography, but apparently not enough sustain an inlectual discussion
> about photography.
>
> Most people here probably aren't capable of an extended discussion
> of the nature you want.
I can see this topics going to dominate for a while.
My own feeling is that there's more than enough arrogance to
go around among these self-declared "art fans" within the
photo community. I would draw your attention to a possible
explanation for the "techie" nature of many of our discusions
on the net (which applies to me at least): 1. Being unable
to share photos effectively, and not being together in
a room for face to face discussion, not to mention not
having several hours to sit at this newsgroup, means that
what we can discuss is limited. And, the one element of
our photo passion that DOES lend itself to this type of
disembodied, distant (in space AND time) discussion is
tech stuff. 2. There is no 2, that was enough.
So, since this item came on immediately after my
posting asking for advice from users of 180 degree
fisheye lenses ("Nikkor 16/2.8 and other 180s)
and overwhelmed it, can I get just a couple more
opinons on that topic before we abandon ourselves
to artistic slaughter?
Steve (all I do at night is stroke my lenses...
who needs film?)
all opinons are my own, and I'm to dumb to understand
the group and form an opinon anyway..
Robert Slugg
Well if photography is dead, then all other art forms ought to be dust in
the wind. I really don't understand the point of this post. Are you saying
that because we aren't in a perpetual state of emotional anguish over our
existence that our medium of artistic expression is not worthy of consideration.What exactly is photographic theory? Rule of thirds? Ideal proportion? Push
processing? I test photographic theory with every picture I compose, I'm
just not at the level of self-absorbtion that I need to share what I did on
each picture with the net. MY pictures haven't done that much to change the
world. But thats OK because I didn't take them to change the world. I took
them to improve that day in my life, and they did, and I self-congratulated
myself when I got the pictures back. Perhaps we should start rec.photography.
things to do for the world outside.
I know, I'm flaming again. I'll go back to not having feelings or an
opinion again so as not to "disturb" anyone.
Bob
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
I didn't think you knew anything about me! For your information, it is
not the *artists* who say photography is dead, but rather the *critics and
historians*. I shoot with a leica with a 35mm f1.4 and TMAX 3200 to
capture available light street scenes at night. If you think handling
that film doesn't require a modicum of technical know-how, then I suggest
you try it.-- Joshua Curry
(my original posting even states that I don't agree with the idea, I
posted it to get feedback on it from other photographers)
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
happening, so there is room for it on a forum such as this. As far as I
can tell, it has generated a level of reponse that hasn't been seen in
some time. If you want "let those who want to deal in the abstract play
by themselves", then stay out of the sandbox.
-- Joshua Curry (at address below)
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
was mostly interested in hearing perspectives from other photographers
when I posted this. Most of the art critics and historians that invent
movements like modernism and post-modernism are not practicing artists.
My opnions are not condemnations. I chose this forum because it is
available to to a large number of people. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to
underestimate the readers and writers of on forums such as this.
Contemplation usually happens before one tries to write his or her
thoughts. The act of writing is just a process of organizing these
thoughts.
-- Joshua Curry ( at address below)
gen...@husky1.stmarys.ca
>
> Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
> photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
> it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form,
> but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
> and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
> sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
> pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point? WHo said
> National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
> How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
> Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
> goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
> below)
> {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
I wonder about this line of thinking. Does that mean that we should lose our
Nikons and Sinars and return to the Kodak? Do we have to give up the extremely
technical films that we use.
Or does it mean that we should use the equipment we have and stop trying to
master the technology at our hands?
Is it possible to use a medium with which we are unfamiliar to communicate
ideas? I get very impatient with "artists" who, so full of self importance,
never bother to learn about the medium they work with and then expect us
to understand their message.
A real artist, one who both has something to say (and knows what it is) and
who has mastered the physical tools she uses to produce her message, is worth
the time and money to listen and discuss.
Sadly, many self styled artists,
many of whom are saying that photography is dead, do not know what their
message is, nor do they know how to express what they have figured out. They
do know which cafe to eat at and where to live and what sort of colour to
die their hair. They even sometimes learn the vocabulary. But have not
done the work.
Photography is not an art. Painting is not an art. An ARTIST can be a
photographer, and an ARTIST can be a painter.
As long as there are people who think about the images they produce and
who work hard to understand both the medium and the message, there will be
photography.
David Green
GEN...@husky1.stmarys.ca
St. Mary's University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
imitate other mediums. Straight from the horses mouth. Check the rest of
the forum and see for yourself. Is the Internet now considered
"mainstream media"?
-- Joshua Curry {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org
UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
Alan Sanders
| community, photography is dead as an art. It has done everything
-Joshua Curry
Horse pucky! What exactly is "it", anyway? It is a tool which, in
the hands of sentient beings, becomes an expressive medium. Nothing
more, nothing less. Tools die when people do.
-Alan
Richard J. Meldrum
>In article <2dtcdh...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> bar...@pd.org (Barbara Hudsel
>{Atl Col of Art}) writes:
>>
>> Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
>> photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
>> it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form,
>> but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
>> and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
as volatile as defending a religion or politician. Art is whatever *I*
interpret it as when I experience it, and whatever *you* interpret it as
when you experience it. It may be a form of communication - a medium -
or it may not. I have doodled and dabbled and come up with some pretty
interesting things that I would consider artistic (though not necessarily
"works of art") and would never show them to anyone, they were by no
means developed as a form of communication, but I might condsider them art.
(And you probably wouldn't :-)
>> sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
>> pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point? WHo said
>> National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
>> How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
>> Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
>> goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
>> below)
>
>Oh, let me tell you: I have seen people look at the same image of a
>landscape all day long, and still not get the point. Photography, from
If I have someone look at a landscape of mine all day, then they *have*
gotten it. It may be their own interpretation, but if they have the
desire to look at it at great length they still get it.
I doubt any rendition of Beethoven's 9th is even close to the artist's
original conception, but we still *get* it.
>the consumers' viewpoint, is the art of seeing. Many people just look,
>look and look, but never see. These same people will never become
>photographers in an artistic sense.
I think the non-photographers of the world will always like "pictures,"
and the photographers of the world will always appreciate good photography.
>
>If art is indeed a form of communication, then I am afraid most of it
>is nothing more than a monologue. Seeing all the dynamics in a landscape
>picture is not that easy, and maybe that's one reason why those many in the art
>community think photography as art is dead. Perhaps art is dead in all
>forms, given the public's lack of appreciation and response; but I would not
>put the blame on art or the artist.
Good point. As for the death of art, I think there are two possible scenarios:
o Either there are more people around who simply don't look at
art for art - if they look at all, they're looking for a simple
message like a picture,
o Or the few that have always been there are just getting louder!
Then there are the critics who I never listen to anyway :-)
...rjk (r...@chewy.phcs.com)
Richard J. Meldrum
>In article <2dtcdh...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>,
>Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art} <bar...@pd.org> wrote:
> >
> >Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
> >photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
>
>news group. I've felt the same dissatisfaction - I would like to read some
>I don't think most people reading this group are deeply interested in
>the "art" of photography. Photography is a broad subject. Many many
>people use point and shoot for snap shots of their trip. Or an SLR
>for photo journalism. Or shoot weddings or products or portraits. There
>are a few, but only a few, on this news group who seem to be doing "fine
>art" photography, but apparently not enough sustain an inlectual discussion
>about photography.
>
>Most people here probably aren't capable of an extended discussion
>of the nature you want. I say this based on my own abilities.
how long you've been following rec.photo - or how closely - but you
must be aware that a good deal of interesting discussions take place here.
I agree that more discussion of the nature in question would be nice, but
we need to keep in mind the fact that this forum is not necessarily
conducive to such discussions. Without examples in front of us, without
the ability to see each other, with the diversity of backgrounds and
individual photography interests represented here, it is difficult to
inspire and/or sustain such discussions. As for that remark about "aren't
capable," I'll leave that for the other folks that post regularly!
I also think you're off base saying most readers aren't interested in the
art of photography - I can tell just by listening to these "gear heads"
as you call them, that they take great pride in their ability as artists.
I would love to see some of Barry's or donl's work for example. I am
compelled to equate your slam of these folks with slamming Picasso for
discussing pigment or canvas materials.
>While I like to think that the pictures I print are art, I must admit
>that I don't spend a whole lot of time analyzing what I do nor am I good
>at explaining it to others. This is a hobby, I've had very little
>photography training, and no general "art training". I would probalby be
>a better photographer if I persued more education and exchange of ideas
>but this is a hobby, one of several hobbies, and I'm enjoying it at the
>current level. I suspect many others here have a similar background.
You may find that you can enjoy your hobby more if you take the time to
learn its technical aspects.
......
>But here on the net I can't even show the photos to others (yet). Best
>I can do is discuss techniques used. And I have gotten some useful
>info on technique from this discussion.
Bingo!
>
>The intersection of computer users and photographers probalby brings out
>a lot of "gear heads", people who are fasinated, some to the point of
>forgetting the reason for, the photography gear they have. Thus the
>obbession with lens sharpness and lines per inch.
It is only occasionally that discussions get down to the quantum level!
(I kill those too :-)
>Mostly I think there is too much traffic on this group most of little
>interest to me. Splitting the group may help.
Use kill files!
>
...rjk (r...@chewy.phcs.com)
William Tyler
>
>Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
>photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
>but it can still be translated.
I'd take issue with the idea that art can be translated, at least
without losing much of its meaning. This might be clearer if you
consider the art of music. Can any amount of verbiage really translate
the effect of <insert your favorite musical form here>? The whole
point of having different art media and forms is that they CANNOT be
freely translated without losing most of their meaning, and often that
meaning CANNOT be expressed at all in another medium.
>Photography (abstractly, personalized,
>and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
>sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
>pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point?
The first time I told my wife-to-be that I loved her, she got the
point. I haven't stopped saying it, even though objectively it might
seem redundant. Likewise, I haven't tired of looking at good landscape
photographs, nor at good portraits, etc. There really are VERY few
completely new ideas, and simply being new does not necessarily add
value.
>Who said
>National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
Since when is NG an authority on art? They have a different goal, and
fulfill it well.
>How are cute baby pictures of today any different than ten years ago?
They are of MY babies.
>Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
>goal of searching for and communicating ideas.
This just seems nonsensical. It's like telling an artist to throw away
his/her paints and brushes and simply communicate. The technology is
the tool that the photographer uses to communicate. Without the
technology, there is no possibility of communicating photographically.
Bill
--
Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
Atlanta. He held the opinions that I originally posted in the beginning
of this discussion. The question that came up most often was, "Is this OF
x, or ABOUT x ?" I was at a loss to defend my work, because I think it
functions on both levels. I related it to an old joke between two
friends, "You look like I feel" The scenes in my photos look like how I
feel. So, in a sense, I am using the appearence of the people in the
photos to illustrate how I feel. He didn't buy it. He response was
basically, "So what about that? Why should I care?" He stated that the
points I was trying to make with the photographs required me to be there
to explain them. I was using a visual language that is not easily
accessible to a general cross-section of viewers. While he did say the
photos were strong, visually and asthetically, he said they were not
articulate enough.
This interchange illustrates some of the points I've been trying
to make. To him, my photos either had make a point or not make a point.
If they were trying to make a point, then they needed some specific
direction and information to make that point easily accessible to a number
of viewers. It seemed to me that I was not supposed to leave any room for
multiple interpretations.
Also, because I choose a "straight" documentary style, I'm limited
to just what's in the image to get my idea across. In order to address
the issues he was talking about, I would have to ADD information to the
photograph. This would probably take the form of manipulation, text, or
alternative presentation. When I said that people are saying that
photography is dead, it was concerning the ability of an image to survive
on its own. Apparently, the only photographs that can survive on their
own are abstracts, with no content.
I'd be interested in reading what people think of this.
--
Joshua Curry {Atl Col of Art} at address below
Domain: bar...@pd.org
UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
Ty Monson
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art} <bar...@pd.org> wrote:
>
> Today, I had a body of my work critiqued by a gallery director in
>Atlanta. He held the opinions that I originally posted in the beginning
>of this discussion. The question that came up most often was, "Is this OF
>x, or ABOUT x ?" I was at a loss to defend my work, because I think it
>functions on both levels. I related it to an old joke between two
>friends, "You look like I feel" The scenes in my photos look like how I
>feel. So, in a sense, I am using the appearence of the people in the
>photos to illustrate how I feel. He didn't buy it. He response was
>basically, "So what about that? Why should I care?" He stated that the
>points I was trying to make with the photographs required me to be there
>to explain them. I was using a visual language that is not easily
>accessible to a general cross-section of viewers. While he did say the
>photos were strong, visually and asthetically, he said they were not
>articulate enough.
I presume this gallery is a place where the director actually
makes money from sales? Maybe his living? If this is so, then
the sentence above with undercarats is the key piece of information.
The director was telling you that in his estimation, the works
won't sell. It is one person's opinion, to which he is entitled.
Since this person *is* the director of the gallery, you are out
of luck. Try another gallery. And another. If you get
the same message, then take a hint. Take a different tack in
your photography.
(delete)
> Also, because I choose a "straight" documentary style, I'm limited
>to just what's in the image to get my idea across. In order to address
>the issues he was talking about, I would have to ADD information to the
>photograph. This would probably take the form of manipulation, text, or
>alternative presentation. When I said that people are saying that
>photography is dead, it was concerning the ability of an image to survive
>on its own. Apparently, the only photographs that can survive on their
>own are abstracts, with no content.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you considered hand-altered images? People seem to respond
well to such works. Of course, in extreme cases one may
legitimately wonder what photography has to do with the final
product...
I really don't believe that only abstracts can survive on their
own. On the other hand, creating something that the public
will respond to with more than a yawn *is* tough.
For the sake of discussion, suppose you tell us why we want
to see photographs that show us how you feel.
Jerry Tam
my responses to Joshua comments.
Joshua Curry (bar...@pd.org) wrote:
>Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
>photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
>it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form
>but it can still be translated.
1) An image can only be described but it can't be translated.
Anything that is described cannot be equal to the image itself and
may contain personal interpetation.
2) Question (True or Flase): "all art is a form of communication."
if a person draws a picture without anyone else knowing about it,
is that picture an art (since communication require at least 2 people)?
>... Photography (abstractly, personalized
>and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
>sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
>pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point?
why does landscape photography (or art in general) has to satisfy anyone?
it could be the case that an artist create art to satisfies oneself ignoring
what other people think (many of the dead and famous artists did that) even though
the subject maybe redundant or boring to others.
i don't think art is a competition of "the most creative" nor "how well it
communicate."
jerry
ps: i hope someone is collecting all the comments of this topic.
r...@phcs.com
>
>So I'm resignd to the notion that my efforts to show the world in a way
>that we do not usually see it will be relegated to meaninglessness by the
>formal art world and, truly, don't give a damn.
>I just do my photography,[...], and let those who care about art in
>the abstract play by themselves. It's obvious that they've abandoned
>any pretense at having meaning beyond their own closed caste anyway.
>Barry
I couldn't have said it better...
Rick (r...@chewy.phcs.com)
r...@phcs.com
I think Barry's point - one I agree with - was that "they" are trying
to tell us how our sandbox should be. And if that's the case, we might
all be better off if they play by themselves.
Rick (r...@chewy.phcs.com)
John W. Verity
Many years ago, Isadora Duncan, an avant-garde dancer, was asked by a
journalist, "Ms. Duncan, what do your dances mean?"
"Mean?" she replied. "If I could tell you what they mean I wouldn't have
to dance them, would I?"
Or, as someone once said, "Writing about music is like dancing about
architecture."
It has long been recognized, since the days when there was no question about
photography being dead or alive, tthe meaning of a photograph was highly
dependent on the text around it. Life magazine, for instance, wouldn't have
been what it was--a window into other worlds, if you like--if there wasn't
text helping to identify the subject of photos. Ideally, the text and
photos worked together to create an i mpression that neither could have done
on their own. Many photos are "meaningless" without a caption; the famous
example of this is Cartier-Bresson's shot of a female Nazi collaborator
being screamed at by a French citizen. Without it being pointed out who this
woman is and why people around her are so upset, one is confronted by a
mystery. Once the caption's in place, it all makes sense, so to speak.
Great art, Gregory Bateson said, plays with the relationships between
the various levels of meaning that it conveys. That is, the different levels
play with each other, in ways that are difficult but not completely
impossible to describe. I recommend his essay on Balinese art, which is
arguably meaningless to the Western eye (vs. the Balinese eye) but which
still remains fascinating because much of its beauty and structure are so
universal.
Perhaps it is the idea that photography provides us with a firm,
reliable view of the world--as championed by Life magazine, among
otherpopular outlets--that is dead. Between the onslaught of video as a
record of the everyday world and the attack of (undetectable) computer
retouching, photography is no longer relied upon as strong evidence. At one
time, a photo seemed to say, "This happened, I saw it, it was 'real.' " No
more, because "real" has changed its meaning. Would a single snapshot of
Rodney King getting beaten have had the impact of that famous video?
Now, it seems, some of the most interesting photographic art plays with
the medium's unreliability--just as much modern fiction deals with the
unreliable narrator. Cindy Sherman comes to mind. Her photos portray her as
the historical female art subject and draw us into the role of voyeur. Yet,
she is the creator of this art, too, and has purposely played on our
complicity in the act of making the female into an object. So, is "she" an
object or not? She ups the stakes, too, by incorporating all sorts of visual
clues--signs--that point to sexuality, brutality against women, and other
scary topics.
Photography is hardly dead. Its role or purpose, so to speak,continue to
change, however, and the bestists (who aren't necessarily photographers in
the traditional sense) are exploring that change. Personally, I yearn for
the medium's golden age--the 1930s to 1960s, say--when photos held sway as
THE way to document the world. Imagine what it must have been like to open
Life magazine each week and see images from the battle fronts of the world
war, say. One might not have known how censored those photos were, but they
would have created such powerful impressions on readers as eye-witness
accounts of what was "really" going on out there. As in so many things in
life, I am only now, at age 39, catching up with this now-archaic way of
doing things; that is, my photography is almost 100% dedicated to emulating
those ma--Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Robert Frank, Abbott, and the rest.
Perhaps one day I will move on, to less archaic phase of photo history, but
I'm sure by then there will have occurred some further evolution in photo
technology/art and I will be just as behind the times as ever. But content,
nevertheless.
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
>
>> original post deleted
>
> . . . There are a few, but only a few, on this news group who seem
> to be doing "fine art" photography, but apparently not enough sustain
-----------------------
Who's doing the judging ?!?
> Most people here probably aren't capable of an extended discussion
> of the nature you want. I say this based on my own abilities.
Mostly because "modernistic principals" belonging to the "art
community" are about as relevent as an extended discussion of
how the positions of the stars affect your picture taking (except
for donl, maybe ;-)
>
> some deleted
>
> The intersection of computer users and photographers probalby brings out
> a lot of "gear heads", people who are fasinated, some to the point of
> forgetting the reason for, the photography gear they have. . . .
Please tell me why I have the photography gear I have; I often
have a difficult time deciding why exactly I love photography, so
it would be nice to know, once and for all !
> Tom Unger
- Dennis
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
>
> Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
> photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
> but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
> and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
> sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
> National Geographic was the anthropological authority on its subjects?
This treatment of Photography as something that can make a conscious
decision is really quite silly. "Photography is still using old
ideas" ? "Photography" doesn't "do" anything . . . we "do"
photography. That said, if I (a photographer) am using "old"
ideas, so what ? Don't buy my photographs (not that they're
for sale, but you get the point).
And whoever defined the basic goal of photography as searching for
and communicating ideas ?!? Did the people who first invented
cameras and film (sorry, I know no photographic history) really
have that goal in mind ? Or did they just want a way to capture
images ? It all depends, I guess, on how you define photography.
Think about this : Music is an Art (whatever that statement means),
and you can debate its purpose all you want. Record albums, tapes,
cd's are all recording media for *many* things; not just music.
Similarly, photographic film is simply a medium for recording
images. You're apparently looking for innovative artists who
use this medium. When I call myself a photographer, I don't
assume that role; I'm just somebody who does what I want using
a camera and film. Maybe photography as an Art *is* dead; maybe
nobody is using it as a medium for Art; or maybe the holy Art
Community assumes that everyone who calls himself a photographer
is also an Artist, and that the predictable results produced by many
commercial photographers in the name of marketability somehow imply
that photography can no longer be a medium for Art.
IMHO, photography is not a real good medium for "expressing
abstract ideas"; it can be done, but *I* certainly don't like the
results. Photography tends to be a medium for showing people what
the photographer sees. The definition of seeing can vary from
"looking" all the way up to "interpreting". When I walk through
the woods, I look around, and I see a certain beauty in a pattern,
or shape, or light, and I try to convey that. I'm not trying to
"further the art of photography" or find any new or novel technique.
All I'm trying to do is put an image on film that will let me
say to other people (and to myself, after the fact) "see what *I*
saw when I walked through the woods !" Why do I want to do that ?
I'm not sure; maybe I'm just so struck by the beauty of nature,
that I want everyone to see it the way I see it . . .
Whatever the reason, photography is nothing but a word; there's
no grand institution called Photography that owes something to
the world, lest all our cameras turn into pumpkins. We do what
we do, and that's all.
- Dennis
Frank Kolwicz
: Today, I had a body of my work critiqued by a gallery director in
: Atlanta. He held the opinions that I originally posted in the beginning
: of this discussion. The question that came up most often was, "Is this OF
: x, or ABOUT x ?" I was at a loss to defend my work, because I think it
: functions on both levels. I related it to an old joke between two
: friends, "You look like I feel" The scenes in my photos look like how I
: feel. So, in a sense, I am using the appearence of the people in the
: photos to illustrate how I feel. He didn't buy it. He response was
: basically, "So what about that? Why should I care?" He stated that the
: points I was trying to make with the photographs required me to be there
^^^^^^^^^^^^
*** Since you are not making "art" in the dark of your basement for your
own entertainment or education, but sharing them with the rest of the
world, I think it was unusually perceptive of the galley director to
expect the rest of us to have some comprehension of your images without
the explanation. If the gallery director, who presumably has some
familiarity with art, finds your images obscure, how will his average
customer respond? FHK
: I was using a visual language that is not easily
: accessible to a general cross-section of viewers. While he did say the
: photos were strong, visually and asthetically, he said they were not
: articulate enough.
: This interchange illustrates some of the points I've been trying
: to make. To him, my photos either had make a point or not make a point.
: If they were trying to make a point, then they needed some specific
: direction and information to make that point easily accessible to a number
^^^^^^ More or less, but
accessible without your lecture/explanation, anyway. FHK
: of viewers. It seemed to me that I was not supposed to leave any room for
: multiple interpretations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *** Or, maybe, there should be at least one
clear one. FHK
: Also, because I choose a "straight" documentary style, I'm limited
^^^^^^^^^^^
: to just what's in the image to get my idea across.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *** YOU are the
artist, YOU have to decide what you must do to get the idea across. In my
opinion, your first obligation is to get the idea across, everything else
you do must contribute to that goal. When you make art for public viewing,
you are communicating. If you made art for your own pleasure, I wouldn't
call it communicating, but, then I'm not quite sure what to call it. (And
keep this discussion polite, anyway.) FHK
: In order to address
: the issues he was talking about, I would have to ADD information to the
: photograph. This would probably take the form of manipulation, text, or
: alternative presentation.
: When I said that people are saying that
: photography is dead, it was concerning the ability of an image to survive
: on its own. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^ *** I'm in the dark about this. How can we know whether an
image will survive until we see it again after 50 or 100 or more years? A
great deal of the art that is accepted ($$$) as outstanding art today
dissappeared for a number of years or was derided by the critical
establishment of its time (if there was one). I think that we are creating
a problem if we demand instant gratification in this field; we expect our
work to be instantly received, lauded, displayed and bought. That has
rarely been the case in former times and should be equally rare today. FHK
: Apparently, the only photographs that can survive on their
: own are abstracts, with no content.
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ *** I don't think these two phrases
are necessarily linked. An abstract can have content, although, I must
admit, I have seen plenty of abstracts whose content eluded ME.
It also occurs to me that the documentary style is not so easy to get
accepted as fine art and by selecting that style for your work you are
placing an additional handicap on your images. Perhaps you should re-think
your photographic (artistic) values. There is nothing that I know of that
will confuse your images better than having cross-purposes in making your
art.
But, then again, maybe you just need to keep at it and wait for
recognition of what you are doing.
Frank
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
> :
> . . . Discussions of technique and equipment do
> nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
> photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
I guess if you want to do something for the world outside of
photography, you probably shouldn't look to rec.photo ;-)
I'm fairly new to this newsgroup; been following it for a couple
months or so now. In that time, I've seen similar requests to
discuss non-technical aspects of photography more. The general
response has been : you discuss what you want, we'll discuss what
we want.
I would guess that this newsgroup is primarily made up of folks
who consider themselves photographers first, with a minority of
people who consider themselves "artists" who practice art using
the medium of photography (purely speculation !) I certainly
fall into the first category. I don't earn a living by photo-
graphy, so I'm honestly not all *that* interested in what other
people consider a "great" photograph; I'm primarily interested
in methods and equipment I can employ to take what *I* consider
to be a great photograph ! Everyone is into photography for
something different, though photography is practiced by far
more "non-artists" (by their own definition) than by "artists"
(also, by their own definition ;-)
Finally, no offense intended, it seems to me that as far as value
goes, discussions of equipment and technique are of far more
value to various people on the net than discussions of art. The
former helps people make educated decisions on what equipment to
buy, and has helped me a little (hopefully more as time goes by)
in achieving my goal in photography. What have discussions of
art achieved other than "modernist principals" stating that
"photography is dead as an art" ? In my opinion, discussions of
"Art" itself are fairly useless, since after thousands of years,
you still can't find two people who agree on a definition of the
word ! You can't pin down "photography" any better, either,
with the exception of a defined medium . . .
To sum up, I agree with many of the other people who generally
engage in technical discussions : Discuss whatever you want;
whoever's interested will join in. But don't try to bully other
people into discussing what you want for you by denouncing our topics
of conversation !
I, too, wouldn't mind seeing more varied discussion, but I'm not
about to ask other people to start the discussion, and I'm *certainly*
not going to deduce anything about the "state of photography as an art"
from these discussions !!!
> -- Joshua Curry at address mentioned below
> {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
- Dennis
Shane Bouslough
: Photographic theory does not necessarily have to entail describing what a
: photograph does. I am more interested in what a photograph can do. At
: it's core, all art is a form of communication. It's a very complex form,
: but it can still be translated. Photography (abstractly, personalized,
: and in general) is still using old ideas. The technique has changed for
: sure, but the basic ideas have only been tweaked a little. How many
: pictures of landscapes can you look at before you get the point?
Yes, art is a form of communication, and one of the things it often
says is "Isn't this beautiful?". I don't think that can be said enough!
You should learn to separate the medium from the message. Reading
between the lines, I think what you're really saying is "I don't
think art (photography) is addressing the (social) issues I feel
are important." I'm sorry you feel that way.
One might say that it isn't art that's dead, you're just out of step.
: {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
-Shane
--
Shane Bouslough | sh...@sbcs.sunysb.edu | "Follow your bliss"
PO Box 890 | sh...@peri.com | -Joseph Campbell
Miller Place, NY 11764 | 516-241-4141 |
Shane Bouslough
: Is the Internet now considered "mainstream media"?
ABSOLUTELY! The fact we see references to the Internet in Doonesbury
in the comics leaves no possible doubt. Can a reference to the net
on "Roseanne" be far behind?
: -- Joshua Curry {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org
: UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
-Shane
Barbara Hutsell {Atl Col of Art}
a show or for purchase, so I doubt that financial considerations were in
his mind. (How can I really know?) -- Joshua Curry (soon to get my
own address!)
Paul Repacholi
> In article <CHL7C...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mh...@cajal.med.Virginia.EDU (Hakan Delic) writes:
> >In article <2dtcdh...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> bar...@pd.org (Barbara Hudsel
> Good point. As for the death of art, I think there are two possible scenarios:
>
> o Either there are more people around who simply don't look at
> art for art - if they look at all, they're looking for a simple
> message like a picture,
>
> o Or the few that have always been there are just getting louder!
In 1990 there was a survey project done in Broken Hill ( a town around
a bloody big hole in the planet called a mine, not a gentile place )
counting 'art' atendances and sporting events. The art count was about
twice the sports!
~Paul
Paul Repacholi
> Today, I had a body of my work critiqued by a gallery director in
> Atlanta. He held the opinions that I originally posted in the beginning
> of this discussion. The question that came up most often was, "Is this OF
> x, or ABOUT x ?" I was at a loss to defend my work, because I think it
> functions on both levels. I related it to an old joke between two
> friends, "You look like I feel" The scenes in my photos look like how I
Tell him it's a photograph. If he can understand ordinary english that is.
Seems like the whole point of that conversation was to put you on the
defensive as a preparation to screwing you over fees, price or what ever.
~Paul
Ralph Durham
mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee) writes:
>
>
>It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
>there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
deleted stuff.... If it were a painting these things would be
considered
>forgeries. Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
>Fortunately there are some photographers out there who are truly artists
>in every sense of the word. It is just that you have to wade through so
>much to get to them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, this is true but is it not the same in *any* art medium? In
fact its the same in all human endeavour. How many Olympians, how
many wanna bees?
Ralph
HAL9000
>It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
>there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
>Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a camera and many feel that
>they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
>Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
>and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
>to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
>forgeries. Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
^^^^^^^^^
I missed previous discussion, but only literal copying of a
print/slide/neg of anothers work constitutes forgery in the strict
sense. Standing in the same spot, shooting the same subject under (at
best) similar conditions with similar equipment only constitutes
imitation. Of course, with surreal subjects (not taking the
object/subject as it presents itself) the distiction starts to
incorporate a broader description including intellectucal property.
:)
>Fortunately there are some photographers out there who are truly artists
>in every sense of the word. It is just that you have to wade through so
>much to get to them.
Artists, yes! Few, unfortunately yes! But, so it true of painters,
sculptors, musicians, etc. Technnique and tools aren't enough, but
then again, neither is a bowl full of aesthetic theory.
:)
harvey "teacher of aesthetics, philosophy or art, but most
importantly, photographic artist"
ps. I guess my .sig should include "not humble"
John W. Verity
There is a woman named Sherry Levine (sp?) whose "thing" is to make near-
perfect copies of famous Walker Evans images -- the one I remember is a '30s
barbershop, I believe -- and show them as her own art. These are direct,
photographic copies of the original; obviously, they end up lacking
something, but they're damned near close to the original. Levine justifies
this with lots of post-modernist mumbo-jumbo that I, for one, find terribly
difficult to follow. But she gets gallery and, I assume, museum space along
with money and attention from the art world.
Is this a sign of photography's, or even art's, death? Of the audience's
gullibility? Of cultural decadence? Who knows. But the NY Times very slyly
let Ms. Levine hang on her own words in an article published a couple of
years ago. They let her go on and on with all her theoretical uniquack and
left it up to the reader to make up his/her own mind.
Photography obviously is not dead. But like painting before it, it may be
entering or even well into a phase of turning in on itself and being more
about itself than anything else--at least as considered by the art elite,
whose opinions and judgements can't be entirely without merit.
I say, let's make photos. Let's all make images, with whatever tools we
have available, Nikons, Leicas, pinholes, Dianas, 11x14 view cameras. May a
thousand rolls be developed. May photography (and painting and writing and
sculpture and dance and theatre and jazz music) continue the class struggle,
communicate information ideas, and feelings, enlighten the populace, make
money, obliterate old distinctions, create new ones, ponder its own birth
and death, extend old formulas, shatter conventions, rip the social fabric,
uphold the aristocracy, and, finally and most importantly of all, open
people's eyes.
I have this idea about guns and cameras. I mean, one reason guns are so
popular, I believe, is this: A good gun is like a good camera; it's a
precision instrument, a well-crafted machine that's designed to work
perfectly exactly when you need it to. There's something very satisfying in
this age of throwaway computers, planned obselescence, and shoddy
merchandise, to own a precision machine. some people buy BMWs, others Rolex
watches and still others Leicas and Rolleis. Others buy a pistol or rifle.
I do not own a gun, and do not believe there should be so many in the hands
of the American people. I've seen and heard about too many murders in my own
city, New York. This is just a thought I had recently. Please excuse if I've
offended anyone by bringing up guns in a photo discussion. But does anyone
else out there know what I mean? There's something quite erotic about the
craftsmanship that goes into a fine camera; I found this out recently after
seeing a near-perfect Leica M camera at a dealer here, for a good price,
which plunged me into a vortex of lust that gripped me for a good three
days. I had to force myself to leave the shop, but then I paced the block
outside for 20 minutes, wolfing down a brownie and thinking: "I should. No,
I shouldn't. But I SHOULD! No, I shouldn't, no, no, no . . . . "Eventually,
my credit card throbbing in my wallet, I struggled down into the subway and
reluctantly went back to work. But for the next two days, I pined for that
camera, caressed it in my mind, and thought how much better my pictures
would be if only I would have that machine. Talk about commodity fetishism!
Father, I have sinned . . . .
All lust aside, I am enjoying a new 100-ft. roll of Ilford FP-4-Plus. I
haven't read anything about what's so Plus about it, but it's working
wonderfully for me. I had shot much FP-4 a few years ago and dropped it in
favor of HP-5. Like a kid in a candy store, I seem to glom onto a particular
type of film for a while and then drop it for some other, more enticing one.
Truth is, I started shooting Ilford B&W a few years ago for this peculair
reason: I figured Kodak, monopoly that it is, deserved some competition;
also, i reckoned that Ilford, as No. 2 in B&W films and a company that's
probably trying to make its mark in that area, is probably working very hard
to overtake Tri-X, the old standard. So, I thought, use Ilford film and help
the company out. So far, I've been quite pleased. HP-5 pushes real well.
FP-4 has a great look to it. Pan F has virtually no grain if souped
properly, although I find it scratches a bit too much for. I ought to add
that hardener to the fixer, I guess. This is not scientific, I know, but who
cares. The idea is to have fun and make the big guy, Kodak, work a little
harder. Perhaps I should try some Tri-X and see if they got the message yet!
Well, I'm off to 53rd St., near the Mus. of Mod. Art (where photography
as art seems to be thriving), where a friend sells his photos on the street
to tourists and others. I'm too shy to ask him about the economics of this
work--I doesn't add up: a couple of $20 sales an hour, if he's lucky, and
he's apparently supporting a wife and child--but it makes me awfully
envious: To sell one's photos to people who really like them, to be true to
one's calling. Me, I'm a knowledge worker, but my heart's in the photo dept.
Frank Kolwicz
: The gallery director I showed my work was not considering them for
: a show or for purchase, so I doubt that financial considerations were in
: his mind. (How can I really know?) -- Joshua Curry (soon to get my
: own address!)
*** Well, then, inquire about the director's reputation around your art
community or elsewhere. Maybe you just got the best advice there is from a
knowledgeable, honest source. Now, that's worth its weight in Gold!
Frank
Barry Sherman
>
> left wing liberal politics, political agenda, using techniques to
>imitate other mediums. Straight from the horses mouth. Check the rest of
>the forum and see for yourself. Is the Internet now considered
>"mainstream media"?
Uh, this long stream of responses to articles has been entertaining but would
be far more enlightening were they to include quotes so that people know
to what you're responding.
Barry
--
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | "It's much easier to go to exotic places and |
| b...@uts.amdahl.com | capture spectacular scenes than to take a |
| | spectacular picture of a really boring |
| | green pepper". - Anthony Tse |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction. Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions. Unfortunately, this has been |
| said of me as well. (I.e. My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Barry Sherman
>(my original posting even states that I don't agree with the idea, I
>posted it to get feedback on it from other photographers)
As your name is not familiar to me I assume that you're relatively new to this
form of comunication. It's unfortunately true that you *must* beat people
over the head with your exact intention in order to prevent misunderstanding.
I suspect that this is a function of the recent enormous influx of
participants to Internet. You get enough people together and you'll get
a few who either fail to read carefully or lack the ability to interpret the
written word or who chronically read personal offense into whatever they
read.
You just have to 1) Beat people over the head with your disclaimers and 2)
expect to hear from the peanut gallery. No need to get upset. It's just
human nature. As for me, after 4 years of participating in rec.photo I'm
getting sufficiently fed up with the angry and strident voices who have come
crowding in lately to be seriously rethinking whether the forum is any longer
worth following. The signal-to-noise ratio is getting absurd.
And, again, some quotes so that people know what you're talking about would
help readability.
Roger Paulson
SH>between the lines, I think what you're really saying is "I don't
SH>think art (photography) is addressing the (social) issues I feel
SH>are important." I'm sorry you feel that way. One might say that it
SH>isn't art that's dead, you're just out of step.
WELL said Shane!
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş In the race for quality, there is no finish line.
dfa...@vnet.ibm.com
>
> It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
> there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
Well, I basically agree with this statement. I disagree, however,
with the implication that this is a "bad thing."
> Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a camera and many feel that
> they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
True, anyone can buy and use a camera - and a lot of folks think that
they're better than they really are. However, I've seen an awful lot
of modesty in the months I've been on rec.photo. The survey taken a
while ago showed that most folks consider themselves technically good
photographers, but lacking in artistic ability. I personally feel
that it's in more "traditional" art forms (painting, sculpture, etc.)
that people who practice them automatically feel justified in calling
themselves artists, whether or not they deserve the name.
Oh, and just what does "as good as a so called artist" mean ?
> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
> and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
> to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
> forgeries. Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
Um, no. Not easy. It may be possible to photograph a photograph,
and thereby get a reproduction. But it's a challenge; a learning
exercise, to try and emulate Adams' work. (Personally, I wouldn't
want to try to emulate anyone else's work, but that's just me).
And a forgery is only a forgery if presented as an original. This
is an ethical issue : in woodworking, the advice from ethical
woodworkers is "go ahead and make furniture that looks antique,
but don't try to pass it off as a real antique". Same thing here.
> Fortunately there are some photographers out there who are truly artists
> in every sense of the word. It is just that you have to wade through so
> much to get to them.
Aw, c'mon now ! Photography is just a medium for, among other things,
art. Just like painting. And if you don't think you have to wade
through lots of paintings, or sculptures, or *any* art form, to find
something good, then you're sadly mistaken !
Besides, why look for Art, when there's so much good Photography
around ??? ;-)
- Dennis
Ty Monson
timothy.j.lipetz <t...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
(deletions)
>Finally, there is Mark Twain who said, "Rumors of my death have been
^^^^^
That should be "demise"
>greatly exaggerated."
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <2drser...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>, bar...@pd.org (Barbara Hudsel {Atl Col of Art}) writes:
>
> According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
> photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
> and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
> this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
> this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
> nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
> photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
If we enjoy posting and reading what is here, then what is the problem?
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - Advanced Workstation and Systems Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
John Sparks
>Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
>and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
>to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
>forgeries.
Actually, it's generally part of every painting program at art schools to
copy paintings from the masters. It's considered a step in learning
techniques of painting and experimenting with different styles to learn
which direction to take to develop your own personal style. They're only
considered forgeries if you try to pass them off for the real thing.
>Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
Try it sometime, it's not nearly as easy as you might expect. In fact,
someone given Ansel Adams negative who had never seen Adam's print (not
very likely for someone with the skills to print the negative, but this
is strictly hypothetical) would probably not come up with a similar
print (there is quite a bit of manipulation in that particular print).
The particular spot where that image was made does not exist in the same
state. The relationship between sun and moon and clouds is impossible
to recreate.
I think the real problem with photography is that it is very hard to
develop a personal style to the point where someone seeing a print
somewhere could say "That looks like a Mary Smith photograph". Some
photographers are successful at this, and many are not. With painting
or other traditional arts, this is a little easier as there is much more
flexibility in the paint application techniques than photographic techniques.
On the other hand, types of brush strokes or choice of lens focal length
has only minor revelance to whether something is fine art or not.
John Sparks
William Tyler
>
>It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
>there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
It is true that people photograph for a variety of reasons, not all of
them 'artistically' motivated. People paint their houses, too. That
doesn't invalidate painting as an art form. People use pencil and
paper to do accounting, also. That doesn't invalidate great literature
as an art form. Neither does someone's use of a camera to document a
child's birthday party make photography less suitable as a medium of
art.
>Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a camera and many feel that
>they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
>Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
>and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
>to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
>forgeries.
Odd. It seems that if an art student attempts to copy a famous
painting, that's a normal part of learning art. If a photographer
attempts it, it's forgery. But you've missed the main point of the
thread. No one was seriously proposing to go to the site to produce a
forgery, or even with the idea that 'if I go there and do the same
thing, I'll have a masterpiece'. It's more a matter of curiousity,
just as one might also be interested in seeing in person the subject
of a famous painting. (Usually by the time the painting is famous, the
subject is dead, however.) The other part of the thread addressed how
one might calculate the position of sun/moon rises/sets generally.
Bill
--
Bill Tyler wty...@adobe.com
Richard Webber
Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
forgeries. Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
I think it would be very hard to duplicate other works such as Moonrise over
Hernandez, especially since Ansel admits that he had passed that spot many
times before and just happened to be lucky with the lighting. Duplicating
studio shots might be more feasible.
It's worth noting that many painters will copy works by the great masters
as part of their training. I have seen them in galleries working from the
original rather than photographs. It seems that in attempting to reproduce
the work one can understand more about how it was painted. Art schools
clearly believe that this exercise has value if used properly.
As an aside, I do a lot of singing as well as my photography. It makes an
interesting contrast since it is a performing art rather than a fine art.
There is less room for creativity and (in a choir) less room for individual
interpretation. Nevertheless, after singing many works by one composer, you
start to understand the composers style in a way that is different from hearing
it. You start to understand the structure of the music and you almost feel
as if you are getting inside the composers head. As an example, the first
few times I sang works by Poulenc I found it fairly impenetrable, it was
exciting but still confusing because I didn't know where he was going to take
the music next. But now I have sung more I find I "understand" the music,
which also means I find it easier to sing.
Continuing the musical analogy, one of Bach's favorite composers was Vivaldi.
Bach not only made every effort to hear his music played, he also emulated the
composer and reused this themes. He even rescored Vivaldi's four violin
concerto for four harpsichords (I think it was that one - maybe it was the
double...).
My point is, that there is nothing wrong in trying to emulate works by artists
(e.g. photographers) that you like, if you understand your intentions. Art,
like science, is built on generations of people learning from the works of
others.
Richard
Doug S. Caprette
My own opinion on the subject is that the technology of electronic imaging will
overtake chemically based photography within ten years for most applications.
Then I think that chemically based photography will be for the most part dead
*EXCEPT* as an art form.
After all, photography did not cause painting to die out as an art form despite
the fact that photographers are able to obtain greater realism in their images
than the best painters.
--
d...@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov
| Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC |
| Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would rather see starlight than streetlights."
-- The Chagrin Valley Astronomical Society
EUGENIE SHINKLE
>
> According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
> photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
> and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
> this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
> this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
> nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
> photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
> -- Joshua Curry at address mentioned below
> {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
i don't know where to start ranting in reply to this article.... since you're not
neccessarily in agreement with the aforementioned "modernist principals" (i'd be
interested to find out who the individuals are who hold to these principals; i
thought modernism was dead as an art, having accomplished everything it set out
to do....) i'll leave those aside for the time being and address the question of
your distress vis-a-vis the discussions that go on in this newsgroup. i haven't
been subscribed for very long, and don't know how many other members are in my
situation, but i am a practicing artist/photographer, and, as such, find the
information in this group extremely useful. so, in fact, discussions of equipment
and technique have wide repercussions in the world "outside" of photography, in
that (at least in my case) they lead to the production of "art," and thus to all
of the wonderful effects that postmodern art produces in the viewing audience.
of course, this is only a single possible eventuality. what about the documentary
photographer who, thanks to some new item of technical information, is able to
capture an image that brings to light some dreadful social injustice? what about
the amateur photographer who is, thanks to advice on what lens to choose, able to
finally get that shot of the UFO that landed in his/her back yard?
to say that
discusssions of technique and equipment do nothing for the world outside of
photography is somewhat surprising coming from someone who professes to be
interested in photographic theory. surely you are aware of the impact that
photography and the proliferation of iamges has had on our society.
have to cut this rant short because my time is up for today, but i'd be
m;ore than happy to engage in discussions on photogrpahic theory, if anyone in
this newsgroup is interested.
genie
Jack Campin
> Finally, no offense intended, it seems to me that as far as value goes,
> discussions of equipment and technique are of far more value to various
> people on the net than discussions of art. The former helps people make
> educated decisions on what equipment to buy, and has helped me a little
> (hopefully more as time goes by) in achieving my goal in photography.
Most people reading this need new ideas far more than they need new equipment.
Camera manuals won't provide those ideas. Camera makers have always been
quite happy for their customers to take the same image a billion times if
it sells their gear. When it was rising fronts, photographers the world
over went into orgies of my-cathedral-is-straighter-than-yours. When it
was fast shutter speeds, the cathedrals got forgotten and it was trains and
motorboats. When good electronic flashes came along, the same pictures of
people in party clothes covered with ribbons and holding bottles got
replicated from Manila to Manchester. Now we have autofocus and a billion
variants of gee-lookit-that-thing-whizzing-at-the-camera. Each technical
flavour of the month means forgetting most of the old stereotypes only to
acquire a wodge of new ones. With electronic imaging it will doubtless be
endless crummy and boring uses of image combination as people try to
imitate MTV videos and advertising shots on their home computers.
Looking at other people's photographs *might* provide the ideas; there are
people out there trying to make pictures that aren't being dictated by
historical inertia. But most photographers who genuinely *are* doing new
things are looking well beyond photography insofar as they have any clear
influences: Cindy Sherman to all of art history for raw material and the
performance art movement for her methods of using it, Duane Michals to
comic strips and movies, Arthur Tress to Magritte, Martin Parr to Grosz,
Dix and Ensor.
Looking at art can do more than *give* you ideas, it can also *destroy*
ideas you didn't know you had. What artists can be *very* good at is
shoving your face in the visual cliches of your time so you never, ever
use them without thinking ever again.
> What have discussions of art achieved other than "modernist principals"
> stating that "photography is dead as an art" ?
It isn't just principles, it's ways of making a picture and ways of making
people *see* a picture. To be extremely concrete: I hadn't seen a late
picture by Francis Bacon, except in reproductions, until this week; the one
in the modern art museum in Frankfurt. This uses an idea which most
photographers would see as a bug: it's of a nude woman with her head a
grotesque motion blur. I'd vaguely thought of that as a way of doing
portraits before, but never really tried to push it beyond a few tentative
experiments. Now I have something to aim at. Seeing that picture has
freed a part of my mind to make photographs I wouldn't have done otherwise.
> In my opinion, discussions of "Art" itself are fairly useless, since after
> thousands of years, you still can't find two people who agree on a
> definition of the word !
It's no harder to define than plumbing; it's what artists do, and they're
as identifiable a group as plumbers. Some of them will have ideas you can
exploit with your cultural background and photographic equipment, some
won't. Learning how to set the controls in your head that determine what
kind of image you're producing is as important as setting the camera up
right; the camera manufacturer won't give you a manual on this, the history
of art just might.
--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4195 HOME: 031 556 5272 FAX: 031 451 3431
INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet
Oliver Bryk
i think the discussions about Ansel Adams's photographs (whether Hernandez
or wherever) were not intended as "how do I duplicate Ansel's work". They
sounded to me more like, "I'd like to see the setting from which Ansel
selected a great image". I think it's unfair to attribute motives to people.
Regarding art or not-art, who is the judge? Regarding the interpretation of
discussions of the finer points of films and printing techniques, let's be
aware that there's a tremendous amount of craft and the mastery of technique
in virtually every photograph that has achieved the status of being
memorable.
As someone pointed out, the good art schools make the painting students go
through a "copy" phase. I can share my own experience of looking for - and
finding - quite a few of Ansel's tripod holes and studying the scene in the
ground glass for a long time, often with a copy of his books in hand. It's a
very valuable experience. And I made my own images which were very
different.
Photography is not dead; all that electronic hoopla is going to settle
down...
P.L. Steppic
>
>
>There is a woman named Sherry Levine (sp?) whose "thing" is to make near-
>perfect copies of famous Walker Evans images -- the one I remember is a '30s
>barbershop, I believe -- and show them as her own art. These are direct,
>photographic copies of the original; obviously, they end up lacking
>something, but they're damned near close to the original. Levine justifies
>this with lots of post-modernist mumbo-jumbo that I, for one, find terribly
>difficult to follow. But she gets gallery and, I assume, museum space along
>with money and attention from the art world.
(Interesting but somewhat lengthy article deleted)
Frankly, this type of thing makes me sick. Touting that sort of thing
as your own art...It's no more art than, say, scanning a Van Gogh and
having your printer spit it out...
Ansel Adams donated all of his negatives to a museum (I believe in
Arizona), where people can make their own prints...however, those prints
are clearly stamped as NOT Ansel Adams prints, nor to they leave the
premises. Adams was very picky about the fact that he would only sign a
print that he himself made, from one of his own negs. It would have
been inconceivable to him to allow the sort of thing that Ms. Levine is
perpetrating; it's too bad that Walker Evans didn't have the same
foresight.
--
//////////^\\\\\\\\\\ +------------------------+
<<<<<<<< Pat >>>>>>>> | "That cat's something |
\\\\\\\\\\v////////// | I can't explain" |
+------------------------+
Barry Sherman
> >So I'm resignd to the notion that my efforts to show the world in a way
> >that we do not usually see it will be relegated to meaninglessness by the
> >formal art world and, truly, don't give a damn.
> Jeez Barry, are we just a little cycnical? This discussion is
>happening, so there is room for it on a forum such as this.
Of course there's room for it. Never implied otherwise. And, yes, I
*am* cynical. A few decades of observing human behavior often has that
effect. Realistic might be another adjective. Expecting very little of
people and, therefore, being constantly pleasantly surprised and, therefore
again, having a generally sunny disposition.
>As far as I
>can tell, it has generated a level of reponse that hasn't been seen in
>some time. If you want "let those who want to deal in the abstract play
>by themselves", then stay out of the sandbox.
Uh, gee, I thought that's what I said that I do. I said that I don't care
about what is thought by people who indulge in sillinesses like saying
that "photography has accomplished what it set out to do". (And I know
that Joshua didn't say that.) Joshua threw it out for discussion and quite
a few people opined that it's silly balderdash. That's what discussion is
all about.
Good job of starting discussion, Joshua.
Barry Sherman
>and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
> [ ... ]
>Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
Uh, I have to disagree. I've found that one of the most difficult things
is to "retake" a photo. No longer do I have the attitude that "oh well, if
there's a problem I can come back and retake it. If for no other reason than
that light is different every time you go somewhere. (I'm talking about
outdoor, natural light photography exclusively here.)
I had a mechanical defect in a architectural negative taken in the San
Francisco Financial district. Hey, no problem, I'll just go back at about
the same time of day a couple of weeks later, right? Wrong. The sun's
elevation in the sky was different and the patterns of shadows were very
different and not as interesting. I've realized that the only way to
duplicate the photo is to go back on the same day and same time *next year*.
I reasoned that I could return the same number of days *after* the summer
solstice as were yet to elapse *before* the solstice when I took the
photo. But it was cloudy that week.
And I have another picture of a beach with a scratch on the negative. No
problem, I'll just go back and retake it? Except that the rocks in the
foreground have vanished. Come to find out, the depth of sand on a beach
varies with the tide and surf conditions. By enough to sometimes completely
bury a 5 foot diameter drainage pipe at a beach I visit sometimes. At
other times the pipe is completely exposed, completely blocking access
to areas beyond the pipe. In 6 trips back to that beach I've never seen
those (very low-lieing) rocks again. And never seen the wonderful glowing
quality to the light and air, either, and that's what really made the
original.
The infinite complexity of light and atmosphere makes duplication of outdoor
photographs nigh-on impossible. You can take *a* picture at the same
place but taking *the same* picture is going to be passing rare. And the
subtleties that differentiate something extraordinary from something nice
are unlikely to occur that next time out.
Barry Sherman
>It seems that
>there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
I notice two things:
1. This deduction has been drawn from an exceedingly small sample population.
Can this methodology be defended, please?
2. No definition of a "true artist" has been given. Would a definition of
this term be possible?
Dean H. Barto
Ansel's negatives are kept at the Center for Creative Photography at the
University of Arizona in Tucson. Great place to visit and see the
archived portfolios of famous photographers (you can see up to three
selected portfolios if you arrange for it in advance).
8^Dean
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Barto | (602) 861-7611
FDC Anasazi, Inc. | (602) 861-7687 FAX
7500 N. Dreamy Draw Dr. |
Suite 120 | de...@anasazi.com
Phoenix, AZ 85020 | CompuServe: 71763,2205
Susan McAtee
: According to modernist principals held by many in the art community,
: photography is dead as an art. It has done everything it set out to do
: and now is in a state of self-congratulaion. I don't necessarily hold
: this to be true, but it is distressing to see where all the discussions in
: this group are geared to. Discussions of technique and equipment do
: nothing for the world outside of photography. How about a little
: photographic theory put to the test on this forum?
: -- Joshua Curry at address mentioned below
: {Atl Col of Art} Domain: bar...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!barbara
Here! Here!
Susan McAtee
It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a camera and many feel that
they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
forgeries. Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
timothy.j.lipetz
Let's see...
Someone (I think Nietzsche) said, "God is dead." That presaged the
growth of religious fundementalism. (in the US, Middle East, etc.)
Someone (lot's of communists and socialists) said, "Capitalism is dead."
The presaged the rush of former communists states to capitalism.
Someone (a few pompous critics!) said, "The Novel is dead." That
presaged the boom in sales for paperbacks, and genre literature (S.F,
Mystery, Romance, etc.)
Now we have someone saying, "Photography is dead."
I guess that gives me a strong postive feeling about the long and
healthy future of photography.
Finally, there is Mark Twain who said, "Rumors of my death have been
greatly exaggerated."
Tim (Sorry, I can't hear you, I'm too busy enjoying photography) Lipetz
t...@cbzoo.att.com
EUGENIE SHINKLE
>
> Maybe photography needs to shed its technology and return to the basic
> goal of searching for and communicating ideas. -- Joshua Curry(at address
> below)
to this i facetiously reply that if photography sheds its technology it won't be
able to communicate very much at all....
Steve Gombosi
> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
> and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
> to do this? If it were a painting these things would be considered
> forgeries.
It's only a forgery if the work is passed off as being by
Adams. Even so, duplicating such a scene is far from easy -
especially considering the extent to which the town itself has
changed since Adams made that famous photograph.
Besides, generations of painters have refined their craft
by copying works by the great masters - how is a photographer
who is trying to enhance his skill by emulating Adams any
different from a painter who is attempting to enhance his
skill by copying a Titian?
Steve
Doug McFarland
What is the purpose of this message other than to get everyone upset ?
I guess I agree with Barry - this news group is getting out of hand.
I've been reading this thread because I have used and continue to use
"true artists" mediums such as watercolor, oil, pastels ..., as well as
"true art unrecognized" mediums such as photography. I have fine art prints
that took 50 hours over a 6 week period to "get right", and commissioned
pastels that took an evening. I take pride in both. I'm not an artist.
In fact, it is messages like the one that follows that causes me to distance
myself from the elitism attitude of many in the "art" community.
In article <2e8rh9$e...@rainbow.sosi.com>, mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee) writes:
|>
|>
|> It appears that this subject has raised quite an uproar. It seems that
|> there are very few true artists in the photographic community.
Perhaps you could define "true artist". I haven't seen a good definition of
art yet - perhaps artist could be defined. I could also say that there
are very few true artists in the watercolor community, or "true musicians" in
music community, but that would be a stupid statement with no purpose.
|> Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a camera and many feel that
|> they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
Unfortunately anybody can get their hands on a brush and canvas and many
feel that they can create or duplicate anything as good as a so called artist.
Not sure of the purpose of this statement. Many that buy a book on C feel
that they are programmers. Heck, sometimes I think I'm a plumber when the
sink is broken. and on and on ...
Are you saying that art can only be created by an "artist" ?
|> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find Hernandez NM
|> and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why would you want
|> to do this ?
Interesting - my formal art training included the study of form and composition of
"artists". We would often be given assignments to study and emulate style, color and
composition. It's an effective training tool. When I took music, I learned style
and technique, my music teacher taught me her style of interpretation.
|> If it were a painting these things would be considered
|> forgeries.
What are you talking about ? two people taking a picture of the same thing is not
forgery. I doubt that in all those figure drawing classes I've been in I was
forging someone else's work - but we were drawing the same thing.
|> Unfortunately it is very easy to duplicate with a camera.
If I could dupliacte the work of AA, I wouldn't be hacking around in unix.
You obviously don't understand photography. I suggest you study
the medium before you make such uninformed statements.
|> Fortunately there are some photographers out there who are truly artists
|> in every sense of the word. It is just that you have to wade through so
|> much to get to them.
This could be said of any experssive medium. Of course, I'm sure that my
sense of what constitutes a "truly artists" is different than yours. And that's
the real beauty of art.
What a meaningless message - including my response. Geezzz why did I respond ?
If this is flame bait - I took it hook line and sinker.
My peers say I'm an artist, during code reviews they say I'm "creative" :)
--
doug
I represent myself, not the big blue X.
mcfa...@eso.mc.xerox.com
mcfarland...@xerox.com
===================================================
Jan Brittenson
> From: mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee)
>> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find
>> Hernandez NM and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why
>> would you want to do this? If it were a painting these things would
>> be considered forgeries.
> It's only a forgery if the work is passed off as being by Adams. Even
> so, duplicating such a scene is far from easy - especially considering
> the extent to which the town itself has changed since Adams made that
> famous photograph.
I think what mcatee was refering to wasn't really forgery, but
plagiarism. Plagiarism is certainly a concern -- what to one viewer
is naked plagiarism may very well be elaboration (standing on the
shoulders of a giant) to another.
> Besides, generations of painters have refined their craft by copying
> works by the great masters - how is a photographer who is trying to
> enhance his skill by emulating Adams any different from a painter who
> is attempting to enhance his skill by copying a Titian?
Emulation is an important learning tool. Obviously there's nothing
intellectually dishonest about it unless you try to pass it off as
your own work and style -- in which case it becomes plagiarism. It's
important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
of years of artistic tradition and refinement. Bootstrapping an
intellectual and artistic little world of one's own might be an
interesting experience, but it's very rarely culturally relevant,
because no one else will be able to relate to it.
--
-- Jan Brittenson
bs...@ai.mit.edu
Tim Takahashi
>> > From: mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee)
>> >> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find
>> >> Hernandez NM and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why
>> >> would you want to do this?
>> Emulation is an important learning tool. It is
>>important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
>>of years of artistic tradition and refinement.
>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
>The way YOU interepret it is what is communicated in your pictures.
> So, my point is, what makes Ansel's vision so much better than your
>own?
> In case you're wondering, I speak from experience, and from what I have
>heard personally from people such as Galen Rowell, another Nat Geo photographer
And what makes Galen's "vision" so special? Who was it that said how much
easier it is to go to exicting places and take pictures than it is to
take exciting pictures of a pepper?
If I could consistently, or even once, duplicate an Ansel Adams work using
my own view camera, lens, film, darkroom, I would have learned much. It
would be a revelation to my own persona. If I could sucessfully market
a line of camera bags, it would also change my perception of the world.
Do those who stress "right brain" over "left brain" and discount emulation
for innovation at the same time dismiss study and learning for haphazardness?
If I were to study, say, Violin, without emulating at one point or another
one of the grand masters (or ones instructor). How could I ever develop
as an artist? One must build upon a foundation. The foundation is built
upon study and practice. Only then can these "tools" be used in new
and creative ways to express the artist's vision.
tim
Shane Iseminger
> > From: mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee)
> >> Recently there was a discussion in this group about how to find
> >> Hernandez NM and talk about duplicating Ansel Adams famous photo. Why
> >> would you want to do this? If it were a painting these things would
> >> be considered forgeries.
>
> > It's only a forgery if the work is passed off as being by Adams. Even
( . . . . babble deleted . . . )>
> Emulation is an important learning tool. Obviously there's nothing
>intellectually dishonest about it unless you try to pass it off as
>your own work and style -- in which case it becomes plagiarism. It's
>important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
>of years of artistic tradition and refinement. Bootstrapping an
>intellectual and artistic little world of one's own might be an
>interesting experience, but it's very rarely culturally relevant,
>because no one else will be able to relate to it.
At the risk of starting a huge thread of flames, I feel like I need to
interject at this point- all you people are missing the point, to
be perfectly blunt.
I'll tell you what any photojournalist, outdoor photographer, etc.,
will tell you, provided they are accompished in their field.
Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
The way YOU interepret it is what is communicated in your pictures. Everyone
has their own interepretation of things, although many may be similar.
Many photographers refer to this as their "vision"- I believe that it is
important to have a strong vision, or you can't do your job as a photographer.
Any *good* photograph conveys some sort of feeling to the viewer; if
you don't know what you are conveying, chances are that your photographs
won't show any feeling. This goes way beyond pretty pictures- anyone can
see it every day.
So, my point is, what makes Ansel's vision so much better than your
own? You can use techniques that he used to convey his vision, you just need
to know HOW he used them so that you can successfully convey your own.
So why spend your time taking photos that have already been taken, when
you can learn so much more by challenging yourself to come up with something
new and different?
Sorry, but photography hasn't been around for thousands of years.
Photography as we know it is only about a century old. Or are you referring to
painting? "Artistic tradition and refinement" has nothing to do with
photography- as long as your photo makes someone look twice and think, it
has been successful. There is no reason that you need to keep taking
the pictures someone else has already taken; how did Adams get to be such
a legend?? Not by taking the pictures everyone else was taking- he pioneered
his brand of photography in many ways, and I can guarantee you that many can
"relate to it." *ANYONE* can relate to a photograph as long as it is done
right, and this by no means implies that "right" is the way someone else
has done it. Is this what you mean by "culturally relevant"? Relevant to
WHAT culture??? To quote, uhh, paraphrase an excellent photographer,
who shall remain nameless because the name escapes me, the photograph transcends
all cultures, all languages, and has the opportunity to sear itself into
the visual consciousness forever.
I really don't see the concern about the legal crap-plaigarism, etc.
The concern is more that you don't become good by doing what everyone else is doing. There has to be a first for everything!!
In case you're wondering, I speak from experience, and from what I have
heard personally from people such as Galen Rowell, another Nat. Geo photographer
, and many other professionals in the field. I don't even just lectures and
crap- I mean deep conversation.
-Shane Iseminge...@lamar.colostate.edu
================================================================================
Disclaimer: My opinions are mine all mine and you can't have them.
"Grown-ups are just obselete children, and the hell with them." -Dr. Seuss
================================================================================
Shane Iseminger
>>In article <BSON.93De...@moomin.ai.mit.edu> bs...@ai.mit.edu writes:
>>> > From: mca...@rainbow.sosi.com (Susan McAtee)
>>> >> would you want to do this?
>>> Emulation is an important learning tool. It is
>>>important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
>>>of years of artistic tradition and refinement.
>
>>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
>>The way YOU interepret it is what is communicated in your pictures.
> So, my point is, what makes Ansel's vision so much better than your
>>own?
>> In case you're wondering, I speak from experience, and from what I have
>>heard personally from people such as Galen Rowell, another Nat Geo photographer
>And what makes Galen's "vision" so special? Who was it that said how much
NOTHING makes his vision special, I'm just saying that he knows what he is
talking about when he says how important it is to have a personal vision.
>If I could consistently, or even once, duplicate an Ansel Adams work using
>my own view camera, lens, film, darkroom, I would have learned much. It
[....]
>If I were to study, say, Violin, without emulating at one point or another
>one of the grand masters (or ones instructor). How could I ever develop
>as an artist? One must build upon a foundation. The foundation is built
>upon study and practice. Only then can these "tools" be used in new
>and creative ways to express the artist's vision.
You still missed my point. I am NOT talking about "haphazardness" rather
your ability to come up with your own pictures. To know how famous pictures
were produced helps, but you don't need to "re-take" it to do that.
All you have to do is look at the photo, and notice the compositional elements,
where the picture leads your eye. Just re-shooting the photo doesn't tell
you any of that, which is what you need to know. Study these pictures,
and find these elements, and then the challenge is to apply them in
soem way to your own photography.
Anyway, my point is: if you keep taking pictures that have been
taken before, how are you ever going to learn to come up with your own??
Sure, you can take tips from the masters. Just don't do the
same thing they did, or you just copying, not learning how to use the tips
effectively. I guarantee that there are more situations than that *one* photo
that need the effective use of that "tool."
Your analogy of the violin doesn't work. Playing the violin
is much different than photography. Many violinists want to become good
enough to play particularily hard pieces with the feeling that the
composer intended. Photography is not becoming good at taking
other people's photographs; it's becoming good at communicating the world
through pictures. Sorry, but Ansel isn't the composer in your analogy- he's
the performer, just like you and I. God is the composer you're talking
about.
Tim Takahashi
(Shane Iseminger) writes:
>(Tim Takahashi) writes:
>>>> Emulation is an important learning tool. It is
>>>>important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
>>>>of years of artistic tradition and refinement.
>>>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
>NOTHING makes "vision" special, I'm just saying that he knows what he is
>talking about when he says how important it is to have a personal vision.
>>If I could consistently, or even once, duplicate an Ansel Adams work using
>>my own view camera, lens, film, darkroom, I would have learned much. It
>you don't need to "re-take" it to do that.
>All you have to do is look at the photo, and notice the compositional elements,
>where the picture leads your eye. Just re-shooting the photo doesn't tell
>you any of that, which is what you need to know.
First of all, I don't go to Hernandex, NM and attempt to reshoot "moonrise."
But "looking" at the photo, occurs at many different levels. The final
print - the original scene - how things look underneath the focusing
cloth - how to set up or manipulate the lighting - how to wait for the
decisive moment.
I spent several hours on the Rainbow Bridge (between Niagara Falls USA and
Canada) at dusk just yesterday. I had ample opportunity to investigate
different lenses, viewpoints and compositions. I waited for the decisive
moment, did it ever come? I am not so sure. To reshoot "moonrise" would
involve a similarly intense situation. To print it would be even more
intense.
> Anyway, my point is: if you keep taking pictures that have been
>taken before, how are you ever going to learn to come up with your own??
I never implied that kind of stagnation. I have never attempted a
Weston Pepper; I am sure it would be an involving study in form,
lighting and viewpoint. How much study can be accomplished simply by
analysis? how much can be accomplished by wrote? Study through emulation
need not be an exercise in "wrote!"
>>If I were to study, say, Violin, without emulating at one point or another
>>one of the grand masters (or ones instructor). How could I ever develop
>>as an artist?
> Your analogy of the violin doesn't work. Playing the violin
>is much different than photography.
Is it?
>Many violinists want to become good
>enough to play particularily hard pieces with the feeling that the
>composer intended.
I am not so sure. How does one know what the composer intended? To become
a master, one must offer their vision through the performance process.
If you have heard Kreisler, Heifetz, Oistrakh and Perlman recordings
of the same piece at the level that I hear them, you will hear each artist's
voice loud and clear.
The score is the landscape, the performance the photograph, the violinist
the photographer.
>Photography is not becoming good at taking
>other people's photographs;
It could be enlightening to discover the motions of a great artist for
oneself. A bit "zen," perhaps?
>it's becoming good at communicating the world
>through pictures. Sorry, but Ansel isn't the composer in your analogy- he's
>the performer, just like you and I. God is the composer you're talking
>about.
I think we agree on something.
Cheers!
tim
Shane Iseminger
>This discussion keeps getting better and better!
>
>(Shane Iseminger) writes:
>
>>(Tim Takahashi) writes:
>
>>>>> Emulation is an important learning tool. It is
>>>>>important to build on the style of others, as it's based on thousands
>>>>>of years of artistic tradition and refinement.
>
>>>>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
>
>>NOTHING makes "vision" special, I'm just saying that he knows what he is
>>talking about when he says how important it is to have a personal vision.
>
>>>If I could consistently, or even once, duplicate an Ansel Adams work using
>>>my own view camera, lens, film, darkroom, I would have learned much. It
>
>>you don't need to "re-take" it to do that.
>
>>All you have to do is look at the photo, and notice the compositional elements,
>>where the picture leads your eye. Just re-shooting the photo doesn't tell
>>you any of that, which is what you need to know.
>
>print - the original scene - how things look underneath the focusing
>cloth - how to set up or manipulate the lighting - how to wait for the
>decisive moment.
>
>I spent several hours on the Rainbow Bridge (between Niagara Falls USA and
>Canada) at dusk just yesterday. I had ample opportunity to investigate
>different lenses, viewpoints and compositions. I waited for the decisive
>moment, did it ever come? I am not so sure. To reshoot "moonrise" would
BTW: my own thought on this is that the decisive moment comes when you decide
it comes- you may not even know for sure until you look at the results
of your shoot, but the challenge is showing your decisive moment. It depends on
what you are concentrating on. You probably know this.
>
>> Anyway, my point is: if you keep taking pictures that have been
>>taken before, how are you ever going to learn to come up with your own??
>
>I never implied that kind of stagnation. I have never attempted a
>Weston Pepper; I am sure it would be an involving study in form,
>lighting and viewpoint. How much study can be accomplished simply by
>analysis? how much can be accomplished by wrote? Study through emulation
>need not be an exercise in "wrote!"
>
>>>If I were to study, say, Violin, without emulating at one point or another
>>>one of the grand masters (or ones instructor). How could I ever develop
>>>as an artist?
>
>> Your analogy of the violin doesn't work. Playing the violin
>>is much different than photography.
>
>>Many violinists want to become good
>>enough to play particularily hard pieces with the feeling that the
>>composer intended.
>
>I am not so sure. How does one know what the composer intended? To become
>a master, one must offer their vision through the performance process.
>If you have heard Kreisler, Heifetz, Oistrakh and Perlman recordings
>of the same piece at the level that I hear them, you will hear each artist's
>voice loud and clear.
>The score is the landscape, the performance the photograph, the violinist
>the photographer.
Exactly what I said below :*) Kreisler doesn't play it the same as Heifetz,
does he? They may use similar techniques they learned from each other(?)
but not exactly the same.
>
>>Photography is not becoming good at taking
>>other people's photographs;
>
>It could be enlightening to discover the motions of a great artist for
>oneself. A bit "zen," perhaps?
Makes sense. As long as you are not going out of your way to take the picture
exactly the way it was taken by someone else and skipping the personal thought
process, however abstract it may be.
>
>>it's becoming good at communicating the world
>>through pictures. Sorry, but Ansel isn't the composer in your analogy- he's
>>the performer, just like you and I. God is the composer you're talking
>>about.
>
>I think we agree on something.
>Cheers!
>tim
Nice! (:^)
One other thought: to anyone reading this, you can use "tools" used by the
"greats" whoever that may be, but don't be afraid to come up with your own!!
And re: the "best camera" thread that I always see, and was brought up
in association with this discussion: remember that the camera
doesn't take the picture- you do! (BTW, there is no "best camera", "best film",
etc.-that's like asking "what's the best car?" or "what's the best football
player"
-Shane
Jake Livni
> I'll tell you what any photojournalist, outdoor photographer, etc.,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>will tell you, provided they are accompished in their field.
>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
Should this properly be true for photojournalists, as well?
Shouldn't they strive for an unbiased representation of reality, as
opposed to their own interpretation of reality?
--
Jake Livni "Imagine: Palestineans were taught to hate from childhood.
ja...@bony1.bony.com That was seen as good for the national interest.
My opinions only - In fact, it was rather negative; a lot of violence
- employer has no opinions. took place." - The Dalai Lama, NY Times 93/11/28
Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418
>In article <Dec16.220...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sh...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Shane Iseminger) writes:
>
>> I'll tell you what any photojournalist, outdoor photographer, etc.,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>will tell you, provided they are accompished in their field.
>>Photography is *not* reality, it is an interepretation of reality.
>
>Should this properly be true for photojournalists, as well?
>Shouldn't they strive for an unbiased representation of reality, as
>opposed to their own interpretation of reality?
No, I don't think any working photographer, PJ or otherwise believes
that the picture is anything but an incomplete, interpreted, slice of
reality. They may strive to make the picture match their view of the
reality, but few would deny the level of "mediation"
Wee Gee loved to put the dead man's hat in the picture, and he'd move
it if it wasn't in a good place.
-dB
--
You think, "that's it, I'm going off", but you don't. That's where
the limit is. - Ayrton Senna
Thomas R. Karlo
da...@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:
> Wee Gee loved to put the dead man's hat in the picture, and he'd move
> it if it wasn't in a good place.
>
> -dB
I think that's very different from PJ's mediation of reality
through the choice of photo. Many PJ's would consider moving part
of the scene, especially a relevant part, such as a dead man's
possessions, fairly unethical. While most photographers would
agree that it's OK to, say, remove a bit of litter from a nature
shot, it's really not right not manipulate the actual subject if
the final product will be presented as reality. And
photojournalists have probably the greatest responsibility to
respect the scene as they find it. I'm not saying that WeeGee
wasn't a pioneer and a good photographer, but you wouldn't want
to be using the equipment he used either would you? I think that
PJs need to hold themselves to a bit higher standard of ethics
than that. (Also not everyone loved Wee Gee... I myself have
a slight bias against anyone who asks for their photos to be
credited to "...the great."
Tom Karlo
Shoot now, edit later!
Tim Takahashi
>In article <1993Dec23.1...@pony.Ingres.COM>
>da...@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:
>> Wee Gee loved to put the dead man's hat in the picture, and he'd move
>> it if it wasn't in a good place.
>it's really not right not manipulate the actual subject if
>the final product will be presented as reality.
The Gaza Pyramid incident at National Geographic (a synthesized
cover presented as reality) is an example of one kind of manipulation.
Ansel Adams work at Yosemite (extensively burned and dodged print)
is another. What about Galen Rowels oversaturated landscape work
published by the Sierra Club? Who is to determine where the line is
(or should be) drawn?
>I'm not saying that WeeGee
>wasn't a pioneer and a good photographer, but you wouldn't want
>to be using the equipment he used either would you?
If you follow all of the 4x5 Speed Graphic threads on the net
you might realize that a number of us do use the equipment he used!
>Shoot now, edit later!
Isn't that a distortion of "reality?" What is reality anyhow?
tim
Thomas R. Karlo
t...@fulcrum.me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes:
>
> The Gaza Pyramid incident at National Geographic (a synthesized
> cover presented as reality) is an example of one kind of manipulation.
> Ansel Adams work at Yosemite (extensively burned and dodged print)
> is another. What about Galen Rowels oversaturated landscape work
> published by the Sierra Club? Who is to determine where the line is
> (or should be) drawn?
>
Sure, but we're discussing a news photographer, not a landscape
photographer such as Adams or Rowell. Their job is to present an
asthetically pleasing image - but not necessarily truthful. Also,
National Geographic took a lot of flack about that image - I wouldn't
want to use it as an example of the "acceptance" of manipulation.
> >I'm not saying that WeeGee
> >wasn't a pioneer and a good photographer, but you wouldn't want
> >to be using the equipment he used either would you?
>
> If you follow all of the 4x5 Speed Graphic threads on the net
> you might realize that a number of us do use the equipment he used!
>
I realize that - but I also know that you'll see very, very few
photojournalists out in the field using one! I love larger formats,
but it's just not that realistic to be using a 4x5 Speed Graphic when
you're shooting news. I mean, people still use pinhole cameras too,
but that doesn't mean that they still are able to compete in every
application.
> >Shoot now, edit later!
>
> Isn't that a distortion of "reality?" What is reality anyhow?
>
How do you mean this? I think it's more of a way of trying to present
a fairer story by taking what you see, not just what you think your
editor or readers want to see. But there is also a time when you have
to consider how balanced your coverage is.
> tim
- Thomas R. Karlo, Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA
-- Shoot by your gut, edit with your brain!
fjc...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
say you take a series of frames with your 6 fps motor drive of some
fleeting event like a rampaging elephant stomping on a photojournalist.
Now imagine that one of the frames shows the perfect view of the
elephant's foot planted firmly on the photojournalist's rear end, but
there is a dust cloud obscuring the photojournalist's face. Imagine
further that the next frame shows a perfect view of the photojournalist's
horrified countenance, but the dust cloud has moved to obscure the rest
of his body. What's unethical about electronically combining the best
of both images to make a composite that tells the story better? After
all, the elephant did step on the photojournalist. This stricture
against anything but straight photography seems to miss the real
ethical issue completely. If a straight photograph is used to tell a
lie, it is unethical. If a doctored photograph is used to tell the
truth, it is perfectly, and unarguably ethical.
Frank Cost
RIT
Ty Monson
<fjc...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>Ethical Schmethical! What's unethical about doctoring a photograph? Let's
There's a persuasive line!
>say you take a series of frames with your 6 fps motor drive of some
>fleeting event like a rampaging elephant stomping on a photojournalist.
>Now imagine that one of the frames shows the perfect view of the
>elephant's foot planted firmly on the photojournalist's rear end, but
>there is a dust cloud obscuring the photojournalist's face. Imagine
>further that the next frame shows a perfect view of the photojournalist's
>horrified countenance, but the dust cloud has moved to obscure the rest
>of his body. What's unethical about electronically combining the best
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of both images to make a composite that tells the story better? After
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>all, the elephant did step on the photojournalist. This stricture
>against anything but straight photography seems to miss the real
>ethical issue completely. If a straight photograph is used to tell a
>lie, it is unethical. If a doctored photograph is used to tell the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>truth, it is perfectly, and unarguably ethical.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not true. Very arguable.
Creating a composite to make a scene look better is fine, so long as
the image is represented as an illustration, which in fact it is.
But representing the image as an actual photographic documentation
of the moment is a lie.
Not that I haven't been lied to. Many times.
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>Ethical Schmethical! What's unethical about doctoring a photograph? Let's
>of [two partially obscured] images to make a composite that tells the
>story better?
>the real ethical issue completely. If a straight photograph is used to
>tell a lie, it is unethical. If a doctored photograph is used to tell the
>
>RIT
REPLY: bravo frank. one of my favorite lying straight shots is a VERY
conventional photo made in china during the maoist terror. the image is
of a group of laughing, talking happy workers, taken inside a bus. the
title is "on the homebound bus from political re-education class." this
technically straight shot indicates two "truths" that i cannot buy:
[A] these victims of the cultural revolution are all happy.
[B] these persons are returning home from political re-education
"camp". i understood that this re-education was generally a
terminal condition !
of course i agree with your example of truth in a manipulated image also.
12 frames to get and print one image ? happens every day. who cares how
many were spliced to get the final result: one - two - several ? no matter
the splicing, the fact is that twelve exposures by the photog yielded one
final print and the photog made the decision [or briefed the editor so that
the decision was delegated to an informed party.]
all images are manipulated. time is frozen, context lost, dimensions
compressed, tones and colors falsified, the photographer's personal agenda
invisibly imposed, and the viewer's agenda affecting his/her interpretation.
all of these things are in EVERY making and viewing of all photographs. we
should rename an old thread. how about "photography never lived" ? or "the
queer truth of straight photography" ? "straight lies" ? i could go on.
david rosen dr8192@albNYvms a little vision goes a long way.
Thomas R. Karlo
photo illustration, which is governed by an entirely different set of
rules. And it should be visually obvious when an image has been
created as an illustration. Also, you're not adressing the "Wee Gee"
argument - you're saying that that's OK too because we do things like
burning and dodging to make a picture more acceptable. There's a big
difference between working around the limitations of photographic
emulsions and actually manipulating a news scene... I mean, you guys
wouldn't find it very ethical if I paid the elephant driver $50 to have
Jumbo trample the photojournalist, just so I could sell the photo to
the Times, right? Or maybe if I asked him to trample the guy again
because I want to get it from another angle?
Tim Takahashi
>You are not adressing the "Wee Gee"
>argument
>There's a big
>difference between working around the limitations of photographic
>emulsions and actually manipulating a news scene... I mean, you guys
>wouldn't find it very ethical if I paid the elephant driver $50 to have
>Jumbo trample the photojournalist, just so I could sell the photo to
>the Times, right?
There is a big difference between Jumbo trampling someone and moving a
hat into the scene of a homicide. How many homicide photos did Wee Gee shoot?
Was it the bulk of his output? (a money making fraction yes) Did he sponsor
Homicides? No.
His style of a #40 flashbulb in nearly every lighting situation and his
burned in dark backgrounds alter our perception of "reality" more than
moving a hat into view. In any case, I believe that his "art" is significant
as "art." Press photography has had its ups and downs, "news" was
business back then. Business can be unscrupulous. Wee Gee was no worse
than the norm in terms of unscrupulousness.
tim
Thomas R. Karlo
t...@fulcrum.me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes:
> [text deleted]
> His style of a #40 flashbulb in nearly every lighting situation and his
> burned in dark backgrounds alter our perception of "reality" more than
> moving a hat into view. In any case, I believe that his "art" is significant
> as "art." Press photography has had its ups and downs, "news" was
> business back then. Business can be unscrupulous. Wee Gee was no worse
> than the norm in terms of unscrupulousness.
>
I won't argue that Wee Gee chose a style that did influence his
pictures - but the choice of heavy flash usage is a style one, and it
doesn't change the factual content of the picture - moving the hat
does. Plus he's becoming part of the story - It's illegal to move
things at a crime scene. I'm not really concerned with his art - he's
shooting news, and that has a much greater need for truth to the
original scene than art. Finally, your making the whole point we've
been arguing - it was UNSCRUPULOUS - just because everyone is doing it
doesn't make it ethical... business or not! Are you talking about the
New York Times type of photojournalism or the National Enquirer?
By the way, in the future when you quote me (or others) you probably
shouldn't delete crucial phrases (i.e. the stuff between "argument" and
"There's a big..." in the middle of paragraphs - if you don't keep
things in context, you're just putting words in my mouth!
fjc...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
>of the moment is a lie.
Why is the moment necessarily true? And why is a combination of momentary
fragments necessarily a lie? I question the very foundation of the
premise that photographic truth must be a contiguous slice of space-time
with no manipulation. So call it illustration. I don't care. In fact
it may be best to label all images from now on with exact description
of how they were created.
Frank Cost RIT
Thomas R. Karlo
fjc...@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> Why is the moment necessarily true? And why is a combination of momentary
> fragments necessarily a lie? I question the very foundation of the
> premise that photographic truth must be a contiguous slice of space-time
> with no manipulation. So call it illustration. I don't care. In fact
> it may be best to label all images from now on with exact description
> of how they were created.
But aren't illustrations usually either so manipulated so as to be
obviously a creation of the artist?? One of the big no-no's in most
photojournalism texts is producing an illustration that could be
mistaken for an actual photo.
Shane Iseminger
>>In article <1993Dec23.1...@pony.Ingres.COM>
>>da...@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:
>>> Wee Gee loved to put the dead man's hat in the picture, and he'd move
>>> it if it wasn't in a good place.
>
>>it's really not right not manipulate the actual subject if
>>the final product will be presented as reality.
not be affecting the scene- altering the scene is just as bad as doctoring
quotes, as it alters reality and is no longer the truth.
>
>The Gaza Pyramid incident at National Geographic (a synthesized
>cover presented as reality) is an example of one kind of manipulation.
>Ansel Adams work at Yosemite (extensively burned and dodged print)
>is another. What about Galen Rowels oversaturated landscape work
>published by the Sierra Club? Who is to determine where the line is
The Nat. Geo. received such an overwhelming amount of bitching and negative
publicity that they would not try anything like this soon. I would hope
that they would measure up to the rest of the profession and have the
ethical standards of not doing this. BTW, the picture was a horizontal of
the pyramid and a couple of people on camels. The pyramid was moved over
to make it vertical, so it could be used on the cover.
Dodging and burning is okay, as far as I'm concerned. To break down a
myth: does NOT see a situation as we see it- film
has always had inherent characteristics that make it different from
how our eye sees, one being lattitude. In our minds, we tend to pay lesser
attention to the lesser important things - burning and dodging is used for the
same effect. I can't recall the Adams work that you are talking about, and
I might have a different reaction to it; extensive dodging and burning can
be a different story.
>
>>Shoot now, edit later!
>Isn't that a distortion of "reality?" What is reality anyhow?
No. That's a common practice, as a photojournalist can make a more complete and
sound decision as to what most accurately tells the story when he/she sees
everything on the light table. There's no possible way to edit when shooting(?!)
because you often don't know what's going to happen next. Of course you have
to edit later-to NOT do so would be a distortion. I don't understand how it can
be a distortion to do so, as long as the photographer does not include his/her
own biases.
Please don't post anything asking how one knows what is "accurate."
It's pretty well known in the news business that we can't be *totally* objective. But, it's an ideal to hold up, and bias is something that journalists are
constantly working to minimize. We don't crop out or exclude important
information. We run the photo that tells the story the best, and has
all of the important info in it. We don't run a photo that could be misconstruedand taken to mean something other than what it should.
-Shane
Jake Livni
>But aren't illustrations usually either so manipulated so as to be
>obviously a creation of the artist?? One of the big no-no's in most
>photojournalism texts is producing an illustration that could be
>mistaken for an actual photo.
This is like making photocopies of paper currency that look like the
real thing - another no-no.
Thomas R. Karlo
ja...@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>
> >But aren't illustrations usually either so manipulated so as to be
> >obviously a creation of the artist?? One of the big no-no's in most
> >photojournalism texts is producing an illustration that could be
> >mistaken for an actual photo.
>
> This is like making photocopies of paper currency that look like the
> real thing - another no-no.
As I clarified before, discussing photo illustrations. Or maybe I'm
missing the point of your comment entirely. A little explanation would
help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Karlo Email:tomk...@mit.edu
Massachussets Institute of Technology The Tech
-The above is my opinion only and not that of The Tech or MIT-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Iseminger
>Ethical Schmethical! What's unethical about doctoring a photograph? Let's
>say you take a series of frames with your 6 fps motor drive of some
>fleeting event like a rampaging elephant stomping on a photojournalist.
[ . . . babble deleted . . . .]
>ethical issue completely. If a straight photograph is used to tell a
>lie, it is unethical. If a doctored photograph is used to tell the
>truth, it is perfectly, and unarguably ethical.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!
A doctored photograph CANNOT be used to tell the truth - how can it?
When you start moving things around, deleting, etc. the photo IS NO
LONGER THE TRUTH. Period. (see the period?two of 'em, even!) It's
that simple.
I won't put in everything I want to say on this, because most
of it has already been said. Thomas Karlo's posts are right on track-
David Rosen seems to have a slightly lesser amount of respect for
photography. Yeah, yeah, there are many things that *can* influence
the story that the photograph tells, but you underestimate many
photojournalists, David. *Most* know better than to inject their own
opinions into the photograph, and know how to recognize when it is and isn't
being done. They are there to convey the situation to the reader,
and that's where their drive comes from. Photographs are not any more
biased than the words that accompany them, many times less so.
Photographs are much more than just ilustrations. Don't go
quoting Webster, because I'm sure that the definitions do match up.
I'm saying that illustration is not a very good term for it. I can
draw a stick figure and call it an illustration. A good photojournalist
will produce an *image* that tells the intensities, emotions, attitudes,
etc. of those *involved*, and will strike you in the heart with these
things all at once, and may even slap you in the face once in a while,
but keep in mind that this is done with the *truth* (relatively speaking,
of course. I don't want to start a thread on "what is truth"; go read
Descartes for that.
-Shane
P.S. A couple-three weeks ago, I posted a list of questions on
photojournalism ethics- I wanted to know what all of YOU felt, I know what
I feel. It was for a term paper I was doing on the subject of ethics
in sensitive situations. I also promised to post results of that an possibly
little blurbs from my paper, and then I promptly went on break and forgot
about it. I will do my best to get that stuff posted in the next few.
>Frank Cost
>RIT
Joshua Curry {Atl Col of Art}
As for the discussion, I would contribute a saying that my
photojournalism teacher at San Francisco State came up with:"You can't
tell the truth, it doesn't exist, but you can be honest and shoot with
integrity." This is just one person's opinion, but I took it to heart and
use it.
The problem of doctoring or setting up photographs is when you say
they actually happened. I would think that readers of newspapers and
magazines have a general trust in the pictures showing a piece of an event
that actually happened. When you manipulate the image, you are deceiving
a trusting public that assumes that the image is unmanipulated. As a
student photographer in San Francisco, I regularly saw photographers
setting up or, more specifically, recreating an event for the sake of the
photograph. The standard arguement for this would say that the event
actually happened, but was missed. The photographer was only recreating
something that actually happened. Maybe, but I wouldn't do it. If I
missed it, it's my fault and I should be ready and alert next time.
-- Joshua Curry
{Atl Col of Art} Domain: jcu...@pd.org UUCP: ...!emory!pd.org!jcurry
Jake Livni
>student photographer in San Francisco, I regularly saw photographers
>setting up or, more specifically, recreating an event for the sake of the
>photograph. The standard arguement for this would say that the event
>actually happened, but was missed. The photographer was only recreating
>something that actually happened. Maybe, but I wouldn't do it. If I
>missed it, it's my fault and I should be ready and alert next time.
Wouldn't it be so much easier for wedding phtogrphers if they could
set things up instead of having to shoot the real thing? At least
SOME photographers still have some morals.
The practices of modern journalism remind me of the t-shirt with the
message: The more I get to know some people, the more I like my dog.
Similarly, the more I learn about current journalism practices, the
less I believe them.