It would be useful to consider whether there might be a distinction between the term "pictorial" as in "pictorial vs. non-pictorial" and "pictorialism". In my mind, the distinction is pretty sharply defined. Most people who use cameras use them pictorially without any particular intent, where the "pictorialist" applies graphic and technical means to express a particular aesthetic predisposition.
While the particular aspects of the pictorialist's aesthetic foundation have changed over time, its basis seems to have remained fairly intact; to construct an image deliberately rather than to accept what is there when the camera arrives on the scene. One key thing to look for might be the employ of "closed frame" compositional devices rather than "open frame" - meaning that the dynamics of the visual structure are confined within the boundaries of the frame rather than the frame's cutting through significant forms. Another characteristic might be reference to work in other media; pictorialism as practiced originally by Robinson and Rejlander adopted conventions that were prevalent in academic painting at the time. It is easy to see how the Pre-Raphaelites, and later the impressionists and their contemporaries in photography were looking across the boundaries at each others' works and feeding from the same trough. Pictorialism adopted the attitude that "pictures of things" were one thing, and the expression of ideas was another. The nature of some of these ideas might turn out to be fairly thin; F. Holland Day's Crucifixion for example, which we would probably see today as kitsch, and ridiculous. That didn't seem to matter very much.
There are contemporary artists who might take some umbrage at the application of the term "pictorialist" to their work, but, if compared to the original meaning of the term, would fit right in. I think J Peter Witkin is a great example of a contemporary pictorialist. If a specific example of reference to painting is required, many can be found. He's knocked off Goya, for one example, and Archimboldo, for another. Compare his work with the painter Odd Nerdrum. What a team! Of course, Jerry Uelsmann even admits that he is a pictorialist. In the 1960's, that took a lot of courage.
I don't find a lot of use in quibbling about who is and who isn't a pictorialist, but I do think that if language is to be useful, we really ought to use the terms we have in ways that are as specific and accurate as possible.
I sat down at the weekend with The Model. I must say that it's one of the best books on the subject that I've ever read (I wish I'd read it a few years ago!). If you allow yourself to look past some of Mortensen's aesthetic comments, and accept that he was writing in an age with different social norms from ours, there's a huge amount of common sense about the body, posing, composition, the relationship between photographer and model, etc. And his language is priceless: I particularly enjoyed his description of "bad nudes" which includes the Nujol Nude, Dislocated Nude, Pretzel Nude, Gooseflesh Nude, Hippity-hop Nude and the Knick Knack Nude.
As to the question of pictorialism, I haven't found a sufficiently satisfying definition of what pictorialism is to be happy commenting on whether any particular photographer is or isn't a pictorialist. Most of the descriptions I've seen use negative and judgmental language, which in my book is unhelpful. So if anyone knows a good definition then I'd love to hear it.
Good question, Ian, but possibly irrelevant to all but art critics (I hope!). Previous threads make it clear that 'pictorialism' is not a matter of post-production. I can say this because one can make 'pictorialist' photographs in-camera, as many past and present photographers do.
I'm struggling with words here, but I often find greater value in the universal and/or abstract photographs, in that they represent not a SPECIFIC tree or mountain or human model, but an abstract representation. A memory of a time or place. I'm sure I can't tell you why this is important to me, but it is. Some faded memories of my experience and how I felt are triggered and I am reminded of something beautiful or important. This is not going to happen with a photograph that is too literal or realistic.
To keep dragging AA's name into this conversation, he did something extraordinary for us by recording landscapes we probably would never be able to enjoy for ourselves. I think what pictorialism attempts to do is harken in us things we have already experienced in a more universal way, and make us connect with something in our past experience, or help us keep a moment forever.
I've taken photographs of my sunset at the cottage. There is no room for doubt that is is a sunset from MY cottage. I've also taken sunsets that remind me of the beauty of sunsets in general.
When I see the early gum-bichromate work of Steichen, I see not HIS sister teaching HER daughter to walk, but all mothers teaching all daughters. When I see the works posted here by Gene Laughter (since he's contributed, I feel it's okay to mention him as an example), I see universals that harken back to moments I've had. When I see a Freeman Patterson floral, it represents an essential beauty of all flowers.
There is a reason abstract and impressionistic painting came into being, as opposed to portraits of Sir So-And-So on his faithful steed. They were trying to get to something else. Same in sculpture, and same in other forms of art. Swap your brushes and chisels for lenses and we can see that photography is just a versatile as anything else.
There have been many movements in photography since it was invented, and each one has brought something different, leaving us to find that which resonates.
I don't think it is, "irrelevant to all but art critics," because some people define themselves (and others) as being (or not being) pictorialists. Understanding the label is therefore important to understanding their perspective on their work.
What you've said rings true to me, David. It seems to me that pictorialist work is as much about conscious storytelling as it is about anything else – the subject as a metaphor for something else – while 'straight' photography is perhaps more about the subject as a thing of value in itself.
The degree of image manipulation doesn’t seem relevant to me. Mortensen manipulated his photos to a degree that’s possibly only recently re-emerged via digital imagery, but 'straight' photographers have used clever lighting, filters, darkroom techniques, and other things to create pictures that aren't 'real' also. And the craftsmen who eliminated Stalin’s victims from the photographic record weren’t pictorialists either.
However I’m only musing when I should be asleep. I’m sure there are more knowledgeable people out there...
Well, in a way, Ian, the label has become rather inconvenient to all but critics, for reasons you cited earlier when you were searching for a definition. And let's face it, we live in n-dimensional superspace. I'm also afraid we're going to be hearing from the 'religious' crowd.
If you look at say, oh, let's just say David Hamilton, just for instance. His style is unmistakeable, but not down to any post-production or manipulation or trickery, it's just what he wanted and was able to manage, and consistently, with a minimum of fuss. Some find it lovely and some find it revolting. Some are certain it is pictorialism, but I'm sure if you asked him if he was a pictorialist, he say, "No, but....".
It's pretty hard to photograph something without injecting some personal view or values. From subject matter and juxtapositioning, framing, selective focus, lens perspective, and just when specifically the shutter was opened and for how long. There is always something 'unreal' or 'reconstructed' about our photographs.
I'm thinking that at the end of the day, pictorialism is less about our instruments or materials or production methods and more about our motives and our esthetics.
Sadly, that's all I've got to put on the table at this time.
D.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Has there ever been such a devision in two camps of art , where one camp would put the other so harshly down for it's own proclamation and having such a strong influence for generations to come?
My 19 year old daughter who paints with water color and works with pencil made a reference to a pictorial photography as being a water color of photography , her comparison was based mostly at the way you view it - from a distance , you have to stand back to take it all in.
Moving in for a closer look would delute and bring out "imperfections" of paper and reveal color runs and look more of an abstract , simular to what you would see with the early pictorial photography
Now,
Paul Strand and then EW and then Adams has used minute detail to describe the sceen, in that case you defenetly would benefit from moving in for a closer look.
BUT,
Lately I find Strand's work the most powerful in that camp, his vision of a subject works both upclose and from a distance , it works close up using the detail , and it works as a whole if you back off and look frorm a distance .
The abilaty to see close and far is an art and in my mind a defenetion of a master...
Works that cross lines are master works , they do not need a label-THEY JUST ARE.
...Has there ever been such a devision in two camps of art , where one camp would put the other so harshly down for it's own proclamation and having such a strong influence for generations to come?
ILYA
Sure. In the first couple of decades of the 20th Century, many of the various movements published their "manifestos" which proclaimed their own supremacy, and discounted, utterly trashed everyone else.
There is a case to be made that one of the great battlefronts of the cold war was fought through the confrontation of abstract expressionism in the west versus social realism in the east. This puts aesthetic disagreement on a much grander scale, and, in a way I think, parallels the pictorialism vs. "f/64" vision quite closely. Mortensen's work does rather look like social realism, don't you think? Minor White, whose roots were deep in the Weston/Adams group, was identified with Abstract Expressionism as were Aaron Siskind and Harry Callahan. The latter two weren't associated with the group if group it was; there is some reason to question that. However, if we consider the f/64 community in terms of a sort of "shared vision", AS and HC fit right in.
While it is fairly easy for those of us in the west to envision Soviet social realism as an instrument of state policy, our own cultural blindness may make it a bit harder to see ab-ex as its western counterpart. Looking at the similarity of names on the list of directors of the Museum of Modern Art, which championed ab-ex, and the names of officials in American government, especially the State Department, one's suspicion might be stoked a bit. The State Dept. sent Ab-Ex work abroad, in an exhibition mounted by MOMA.
Now, we couldn't very well fight their social realism with social realism of our own, could we? It is hard to imagine a more perfect opposition than that of overblown heroics and happy workers on the one hand, and the intensely personal expression of Jackson Pollack, etc. on the other. I have information on this in my files somewhere which was fascinating reading in a course in Abstract Expressionism at U of Washington. It came as something of a revelation. One of those "Aha!" insights.
Art has, at least since, say, around 1800, been a procession of such battles. Classicism vs. Romanticism, the academy vs. the Salon des Refusés, etc. Imagine the commotion that ensued when Duchamp showed the "Fountain" - an upturned urinal signed "R. Mutt" with the implication that "It is art because I say it is". In your face, you fossilized academics!
Pretty exciting, art is not for the faint of heart.
("Art has, at least since, say, around 1800, been a procession of such battles. Classicism vs.. Romanticism, the academy vs.. the Salon des Refusés, etc. Imagine the commotion that ensued when Duchamp showed the "Fountain" - an upturned urinal signed "R. Mutt" with the implication that "It is art because I say it is". In your face, you fossilized academics!")
YES!!!
You are absolutely right and I am sorry for not considering it until you've mentioned it.
______________
("It is hard to imagine a more perfect opposition than that of overblown heroics and happy workers ")
Growing up in Russia we never looked at that as ART we saw it as propaganda
______________
("and the intensely personal expression of Jackson Pollack, etc.")
Yes, he is THE man.
_______________
(Looking at the similarity of names on the list of directors of the Museum of Modern Art, which championed ab-ex, and the names of officials in American government, especially the State Department, one's suspicion might be stoked a bit. The State Dept. sent Ab-Ex work abroad, in an exhibition mounted by MOMA.)
What would you say to be today's art goal , what should be my social responsibility today to fight for ?
Drugs?, WAR? how does what we are talking about here is relevant to today?
How does the beautiful prints of Emil's ( gandolfi) Brian Kosloff( earlyriser) , Bill Schwab, John Nanian ( jnanian) , Kerik and other photographers participating here , sorry to drag you all in , how does their work fit in a grander skim of things and does it really matter?
I think that political agenda is the furthest from their minds, maybe not.
I don't know how we went from art to politics here .
To me art should not be mainstream , it should be very personal otherwise it belongs on a shelf at Wal-Mart
The idea of a sharp image was a novice in a stream of pictorial photography back in time , now it seem like the tide has changed and blurry and "pictorial" photography is "IN"
This conversation is nothing new ,I suppose , EW was doing rocks right in the midst of WWII and was questioned for for his patriotism , but the man stood for what was important to him...The rest seem not to matter.
Linear Mode
