Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,643   Online: 672
      
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst 123456789101115 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 181
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    perhaps i am an outlier...

    i have been doing large format work since the 1980s, and adams was never a photographer i looked towards
    for inspiration or to follow in his path, so i suppose you are right.
    You are not alone. Me too, right down to the LF "profile" except I'm not pro and probably not as talented as are you. The person who got me interested in LF was a total AA groupie. I can appreciate his work but mine is very different... and always has been.

  2. #42
    sdotkling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Outside of New York.
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    47
    Images
    25
    Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
    One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration. That---and his undeniable technical chops---put him in a much different class than the cynical Kincade, who invented nothing and wasn't even very good at the exploitative hokum he was peddling. (Maxfield Parrish and NC Wyeth did the magical-fairy-dust thing so much better a hundred years ago, and Walt Disney's Snow White is the atelier of Rembrandt by comparison.) I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original." This was art marketing at its weirdest dollar-gushing apex, and now that Kincade is dead, I would expect that nothing will change. Except they'll raise the prices.
    This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's. The ironists, of course, have made the originator of that schlock-art (yeah, seems there was one guy who invented it and was then ripped off by others) highly collectible...though with a smirk.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by sdotkling View Post
    This is just the same thing as big-eyed waifs on black velvet in the 1970's.
    ... so what are those selling for these days? I almost purged my memory of them until you brought it up. Gee, thanks.

  4. #44
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    Adams is often called the last of the 19th century landscape photographers and that's what he is, the only thing unique to Adams is the overdramatization of the sky the rest is pure 19th century and even the sky isn't really unique to AA. To quote sdotkling ...he invented nothing... same thing could be said for AA. The zone system wasn't really something new btw. Both Kincade and AA are extremely important Artists AA popularized landscape photography and Kincade had huge success with his kitsch. Art is not the thing shown in galleries art can be anything see Duchamps. There is art for the masses something artist and critics often hate and bestow with demeaning comments and then their is gallery art often hated by the masses. So my question which is more important the thing created for a few hundred that often don't understand the art pieces content anyway or the thing that pleases a large amount of people and touches them on an emotional level. Imho both are important and both can be consindered art even if I or the critics don't like it. The funny thing is that if asked who they want to reach with their art a lot of artists tell the interviewer that they want to create art for the people, well Kincade and AA did Damien Hirst and some others didn't.

    Dominik

  5. #45
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,723
    Images
    6
    If you take a look at the world of commercial photography, it's mostly about creating images that will sell. Stock photography also. What also is in common with Kinkades work is that there's escapism and work that isn't challenging. For some, this type of art and photography is palatable. There are not right are wrongs here. I do cringe when Americans go to Paris and go to McDonalds. Those are the types that think Thomas Kincade is the cat's meow. Does anybody remember Burger King offering prints of Leroy Neiman? How many of those posters are still hanging on people's walls. It's probably landfilled decades ago. Like commercial photography, it's disposable art. I might be proven wrong, but I think Kincade's work will follow the same fate. We shouldn't shame those that love posters of poker playing dogs. What ever floats your boat.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,173
    Images
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sdotkling View Post
    Ooh, good, a fight about "art"!
    One can't deny that Ansel Adams created a new esthetic in his work: monumental landscapes rendered with great skill, with that American patriotic veneer so many have found resonant over the years. The rampant commercialization of his images followed widespread acceptance and admiration.
    Right. The big difference is that AA was great before he was a commercial success. He really didn't make much money until Bill Turnage showed up.

    Quote Originally Posted by sdotkling View Post
    I always wondered how on earth the guy could stock all those mall stores with paintings, and I figured he had a Chinese factory cranking them out: assembly line 1 worked on foliage, assembly line 2 handled mountain peaks. But then I read that it was mostly prints with a few brushstrokes added on top to qualify it as "original."
    As I understand it, a lot of those brush strokes were done by starving art students he hired.

  7. #47
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Adams didn't create a new esthetic, and Kinkade wasn't a cynic. Adams created a dramatization of what he found, while Kinkade created a fantasy land out of his head. For a moment, compare Kinkade to Salvador Dali. Both painted essentially dreamscapes. Kinkade stretched and deformed light like Dali did with basic form.

    There are lots of current photographers who are close to what Kinkade did. Look at any of the movie-esque things like "Diner" and you'll see plenty of light that's out of place. Everybody has an intangible light on them.

  8. #48
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,723
    Images
    6
    Forget Kinkade. Digital photographers can to it to with HDR.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/makahiki/2676542006/

    My teeth hurt just as much as looking at Thomas Kincade's stuff now

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,791
    I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,503
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    I was about to introduce a new twist to the thread: Olan Mills. Portrait photography for the masses. But maybe I shouldn't.
    Did Olan Mills die too? What a great photographer.

    Anyhow Mr. Shaw, your work is pretty darned good, I don't think you need take second seat to anyone.

    I understand what jnanian is saying to a point. I don't like AA just because of the amount of manipulation it takes to create those prints, as if they aren't prints of those negatives, but fabrications for the lust of the general public.

    But good expressions of what AA wanted to present. It just wasn't what AA shot.

    That said, I do a bit of manipulation of my scenic landscapes, it's part of pulling in what I saw to the material I have available.

    So, no, I don't put kinkade in the same level as AA, but there are similarities.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin