Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,492   Posts: 1,542,973   Online: 872
      
Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2678910111213141516171822 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 278
  1. #111

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    390
    Images
    11
    Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.?

    Anyway, appropos of the original topic, here is a discussion between a couple of noted photography critics/curators about some of these issues, particularly the issue of what "matters" in a photograph. At one point in the discussion, Jorg Colberg says this:

    JC:

    That’s a very interesting point you’re making about photographers. I’ve long been baffled by so many photographers seemingly having no interest whatsoever to look into their own art form more deeply. How can this be? How can you not look at a lot of photographs, just like writers, let’s say, typically read a lot (to then spend most of their time being utterly devastated about the fact that so many other writers are so much better)? How is this possible? The often complete lack of knowledge of obvious references pains me! You’ve just got to know who and what came before you so you, too, can stand on the shoulders of giants!

    I’ve often thought that this disconnect from the past is tied to the lack of imagination I see in so much photography: If you’re not curious enough about the world, you can still make plenty of photographs. Of course, you won’t bother to look at what came before you, and of course those photographs will then at best be one liners (that someone else might have done a whole lot better).

    It’s a bit like trying to learn a language by learning parts of the grammar and some words, but never looking at how that all can be used before having a go at it. Sadly, our culture, at least out photographic culture, truly buys into that, in all kinds of ways. For example, there is that cult of the young photographer. I don’t mean to say that young photographers cannot produce wonderful photography. But just like in any art form, being able to say something is contingent on having lived a life, experienced things. None of that stuff comes easy!

    Add to that the obsession that everything has been new, and you’re truly in trouble. I have had students who told me they didn’t want to photograph something any longer, because someone else had already done it. How can that be? Why are there so many people writing about love – now that has been done before as well, hasn’t it? The moment you’re in photoland, the absurd idea that something is done when someone else has done it before is widely accepted.

    _______

    Back to my view: this discussion seems to have degenerated into an argument over technique, as things so often do on these forums. I don't give a damn about your technique; show me something new in your photographs, something you are exploring, something that matters like hell to you and you can show it any way you damn well please, including paint on photo!

    What often pains me is to see so much Ansel Adams-y pretty b&w landscape work here as if repeatedly making the same photograph can deliver interest to the viewer. There is a difference between pretty and beautiful, between truth and prettiness. That difference is found in art. Art does not care what your method is if it coalesces with your message and your matter.
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by jglass View Post
    Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.?

    Anyway, appropos of the original topic, here is a discussion between a couple of noted photography critics/curators about some of these issues, particularly the issue of what "matters" in a photograph. At one point in the discussion, Jorg Colberg says this:

    JC:

    That’s a very interesting point you’re making about photographers. I’ve long been baffled by so many photographers seemingly having no interest whatsoever to look into their own art form more deeply. How can this be? How can you not look at a lot of photographs, just like writers, let’s say, typically read a lot (to then spend most of their time being utterly devastated about the fact that so many other writers are so much better)? How is this possible? The often complete lack of knowledge of obvious references pains me! You’ve just got to know who and what came before you so you, too, can stand on the shoulders of giants!

    I’ve often thought that this disconnect from the past is tied to the lack of imagination I see in so much photography: If you’re not curious enough about the world, you can still make plenty of photographs. Of course, you won’t bother to look at what came before you, and of course those photographs will then at best be one liners (that someone else might have done a whole lot better).

    It’s a bit like trying to learn a language by learning parts of the grammar and some words, but never looking at how that all can be used before having a go at it. Sadly, our culture, at least out photographic culture, truly buys into that, in all kinds of ways. For example, there is that cult of the young photographer. I don’t mean to say that young photographers cannot produce wonderful photography. But just like in any art form, being able to say something is contingent on having lived a life, experienced things. None of that stuff comes easy!

    Add to that the obsession that everything has been new, and you’re truly in trouble. I have had students who told me they didn’t want to photograph something any longer, because someone else had already done it. How can that be? Why are there so many people writing about love – now that has been done before as well, hasn’t it? The moment you’re in photoland, the absurd idea that something is done when someone else has done it before is widely accepted.

    _______

    Back to my view: this discussion seems to have degenerated into an argument over technique, as things so often do on these forums. I don't give a damn about your technique; show me something new in your photographs, something you are exploring, something that matters like hell to you and you can show it any way you damn well please, including paint on photo!

    What often pains me is to see so much Ansel Adams-y pretty b&w landscape work here as if repeatedly making the same photograph can deliver interest to the viewer. There is a difference between pretty and beautiful, between truth and prettiness. That difference is found in art. Art does not care what your method is if it coalesces with your message and your matter.
    As someone else mentioned earlier, which was probably the most rational post in the thread; that everyone has a camera now doesn't make them a student of photography, and shouldn't have to.
    Jorg Colberg, the astrophysicist, says a lot of things, but it seems to be the point he's missing in the above extract. I've read his blog quite a bit, as much as it infuriates me at times. Cameras are increasingly accessible, education isn't (even though information is) - which is hard to comprehend for academic photography commentators.

    And the Ansel Adams lineage is what the OP is interested in, so tread carefully on that hallowed ground. His grasping to the past and the lightning speed everyone else is moving forward is the reason for his disquiet. That's the beginning and end of this thread.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  3. #113

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    610
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    I seriously doubt you shot that sunflower out of focus on purpose.
    I seriously did, with an old manual-focusing Nikon Micro-Nikkor on a Canon DSLR, at varying degrees of OOF, because I wasn't sure of the effect due to the small LCD display. If you'd rather believe that I accidentally mis-focused an MF lens a half dozen times and got lucky, knock yourself out.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    If you think otherwise, then you won't mind your brain surgeon using a spoon instead of a scalpel.
    Funny you should mention brain surgeons. If I ever had to pick one, his knowledge of mid-20th century techniques and medical history wouldn't be a factor in the selection process.

  4. #114
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,276
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by moose10101 View Post
    A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.
    That questioner was me. And that questioning had nothing to do with "digital" anything. Or pack animal behavior. Or what it takes to be a "real" photographer. Or even, at its root, photography at all.

    It had to do with making a conscious decision to choose screwdrivers with which to pound nails when excellent hammers are readily available.

    Why would someone do that? Just because they can?

    If you were faced with major surgery would you prefer the surgeon use a chain saw or a scalpel? They can both cut, you know.

    Sorry you missed the fundamental point...



    Ken

    (Apologies to David for this OT detour.)
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #115
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    I really don't believe you are confused, but OK.

    1. How you got there, platinum, silver, digital, does not matter. The final image is all that matters. I DID NOT say, anything goes under all circumstances.

    2. You have a responsibility to your buyers not to use materials you know to be garbage. Knowingly selling trash is called swindling.


    Where did I say "70-100 years ago"? You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

    As for photographers working in the last ten years... I see new work constantly. I will not play your silly game.

    Current trends in photography, now or at any time, cannot make the history of photography irrelevant.
    When you start trotting out Adams and Weston as examples of "fine art" photography, you're dating your standard to the first half of the 20th century, really the first quarter. They're about as artistically relevant (note I did not say MEANINGFUL - very different animal...) as the Pictorialists or the first wave photographers like Daguerre, Fox-Talbot, Morse, and Bayard are to modern photography as a movement. They may be relevant AND meaningful to a few individual artists working today, but they're outside the mainstream (and there's nothing wrong with that, but do acknowledge that they're outsiders). Today's art in general and photography in particular is all about the "conceptual", about mixed-media, and very much a reaction to the advent of the digital age. That can take the form of embracing the digital medium and using its strengths, weaknesses and characteristics to produce images that respond to and speak about the changes in society as a whole wrought by the digital age, or they can be constituted as a reaction against and a critique of that same phenomenon.

    Wishing for a return to "archival" materials and f-64 aesthetics is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The same issue has arisen in other media, and been dealt with by the art world, not always with success. David Hockney, when he was a young painter still struggling to make ends meet, did some large canvasses with house-paint because it was cheap. Some of them have faded and even flaked off the canvas because housepaint is not made to be durable the same way fine art oil paints are. If I recall correctly, Hockney was forced to reimburse a museum for one of his lost paintings to the tune of several million pounds (although he could afford to do it now, given what his work sells for today). But the paintings still hang in major museums. Robert Rauschenberg went out and made his pieces out of found objects. There's nothing per-se archival about rusty soda cans, broken doll heads and tattered flag fragments - if anything, their non-archival quality and therefore impermanence is a designed-in quality of the piece. The work is designed to change over time.

    I think part of the problem you're experiencing is that young photographers/artists, if they have these notions in their head about their work (specifically related to permanence vs. impermanence, virtual vs. real, tangible vs. intangible, 'craftsmanship' vs. mass-production, quality vs. kitsch), either haven't or can't articulate them to you, and so you reject their work as being slip-shod. And in their ignorance, you may be correct in assuming that they're just slapping some crap together and don't know how to present it or why they're presenting it that way, and it is in fact 'bad' art. But as a gallerist who should know better than the artist, it's your job to see the kernel of genius hidden inside the popcorn fluff, nurture and cultivate that, and articulate to the buying audience those ideas the artist can't articulate (one reason why artists paint/photograph/draw/sculpt is that they can't articulate ideas well in words - otherwise they'd be writers).

  6. #116
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    I think this entire thread falls under the umbrella of being "well rounded" in your chosen hobby/profession. It isn't a prerequisite to learn the basics and learn from previous fellow travelers and masters to be competent, but it's probably helpful and knowing where you came from is usually some sort of a leg up.

    Much like modern Navy officers learning how to sail tall ships as a part of their training. Certainly not necessary but it certainly rounds out their knowledge as well as their respect for their profession.

    I agree with a previous poster that with the glut of "photographers" today, it's perhaps difficult to see the wheat through the chaff, but I'd bet that most "serious" photographers have a desire to learn where their craft evolved from.

    Also as someone who moved to digital after 30 some years as analog, I don't find analog/digital to be two separate disciplines at all but merely an evolution of technology and a branching off of the main tree, which is using a camera to record or capture a subject and convert it to a visual medium.
    Last edited by blansky; 03-14-2013 at 03:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #117
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    Great photographs result from photographers wringing the very best out of the photographic medium, not by trying to make the photographic medium imitate some other art form.
    .
    So you think that there were no great photographs made during the Pictorialist period? Get your hands on TruthBeauty - Pictorialism and the Photograph as Fine Art if you want to see a myriad of examples of the best of the genre. I could look for hours and hours on end at Steichen's Flatiron Building print and never get bored. But I can take in everything there is to see in Clearing Winter Storm in a single sitting. That's part of the message of the images though - one was designed to pull the viewer in - the other was designed to reach out to the viewer and smack them upside the head with a message. Both are highly successful at their goal, and as such they are acknowledged as masterpieces. Those pictorialist photos were every bit as much photographs as an Adams or Weston or Strand or even an Aaron Siskind. But they have their own aesthetic informed by painting, for a reason. I'll give you the argument that making a violin sound like a tuba for the sake of making a violin sound like a tuba will probably not yield the next Beethoven's 5th. But if you have a purpose for doing it, and can communicate that purpose, then maybe it will.

  8. #118

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    390
    Images
    11
    Mr. TheFlyingCamera, I agree with your comments. On Pictorialism, here is a video of a presentation by AD Coleman on the resurrection of pictorialist approaches to photography and the recent demise of the straight photograph. Very interesting that this new work is deeply rooted in history. To a great degree, this new work could not have been done without and is deeply informed by knowledge of what went before it. That knowledge led to rejection, in many ways, of Adams/Weston and their aesthetic, but ignorance of them is not an option, in my opinion.
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  9. #119

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,273
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
    1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.
    I find this to be a weirdly prescriptive statement. I'm aware of at least one serious photographer in this thread who intentionally makes one-shot prints with a lifetime measured in hours; I wouldn't want to speak for them as to their motivations, but what I get from that work as a viewer is a combination of "the transitory is interesting" and "it's kinda cool that this technique works", with a side of "don't take art too seriously". You seem to be saying, not just that you don't like such a way of working, but that it's somehow *wrong* to do it that way...?

    My comment earlier about "fine art" as a marketing category was only a little cynical; I think it's basically a circular category, in that "fine art" is whatever the "fine art" people say it is, and who those people are is defined by who those people accept as one of them. To my mind that's a sort of incestuous, sclerotic artistic hothouse (mix those metaphors!), and it's just the sort of thing that people build artistic movements *against*. So I tend to find my sympathies lying with the brash, self-important kid who doesn't care to learn about a canon of past masters but would rather be building their own aesthetic---and, yes, making a lot of the same old mistakes again. Some of those "mistakes" may turn out to have more promise in them than the canon would like to admit.

    By the way, I hope we're not arguing at knifepoint here or anything. I think this is actually an interesting discussion, and I'm really disappointed to see branches of it devolving into the same old film-vs-digital crap (which you were at pains to avoid invoking, I realize, but it seems to show up habitually on APUG anyway).

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #120
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,913
    I, too, am enjoying this discussion and don't want it to degrade into some sort of film vs. digital thing. I see this as more of a "modernist vs. contemporary" theory discussion. I began my career as a modernist photographer, but over time I have began to drift into a much more contemporary mindset in the concepts of my work. As an artist and educator I find this topic very interesting, but I will continue to ask "devil's advocate" and inflammatory questions to provoke thought.

    If you really want an argument, I can refer you to one of my graduate students that very loudly states nobody should look at other photographs and that he will only produce work in the "cloud", not on paper.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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