Criticising Famous Photographers

[Kirk Gittings]

After over 35 years in LF and 20 teaching, I have made or seen pretty much every mistake in the book and learned to look closely for flaws and their sources. Generally I have learned not to critique anyone's work unless they ask me too. It is only then that they will be receptive to constructive criticism. But over the years I have also been in circumstances where I saw some obvious processing or printing flaws in the work of someone famous and debated with myself whether I should say something. In the ignorance of youth I did comment a couple of times and got very defensive angry responces and put downs except for Elliot Erwit in about 1971 who exclaimed with a smile "you caught me". I was recently in someone's home who had some their "famous" work on the wall and one of the prints showed some faint repeated bands in the midtones on one side of the print (silver) that I could only guess was an internal refection off the bellows pleats. To me it was obvious but he couldn't see it at all. I backed out of the awkward situation by saying that without my reading glasses I couldn't be sure, though I wasn't sure of the cause, but was sure there was a problem.

This evening I was surfing the web and went to a site of a close aquaintance who's lead image showed obvious uneven processing flaws in an even grey sky at the upper corners of a scanned print. I know the signs well. I have seen it in my work occsionally and student work commonly. This person in particular is kind of an arrogant putz, thinks they are a technical guru, does not take criticism well and is a bit of a narcisist. So I resisted the temptation to email a comment, but I really wanted to and may yet. However ther would probably be a price to pay down the line a ways.

How have some of you handled this?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, is he a friend or not? You call him a "close acquaintance" which leads me to believe you somehow "have" to deal with him/her but do not consider this person a friend. If this is so, why the hell do you care? Dont you know the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Mind your own business and do your thing.... :-)

Barring this and you do care for this person, dont criticize.....ask "questions" like..."Why/how did you put those darker tones in the sky? " IOW use the Socratic method instead of just coming out and saying it.....

[robc]

First you should remember that you are looking at WEB images. That means you ain't looking at the " finished product". So you have to ask yourself what you are judging. The web image or something you haven't seen. If you are to say anything then perhaps it might be better to ask who prepared the web images or point out that the web images have not been properly prepared. At least then you aren't criticising the "finished product" and are allowing the "putz" to do something about if they choose too.

[John_4185]

May I drift to a different humiliating experience?

Many years ago when I lived and worked in the city of Chicago, I would stop by a pub called O'Rorke's (North street near Wells). It was a quiet place, good clientel. There was one chap I'd seen there a few times and also in the halls of the Chicago Sun Times & Daily News. We struck up a conversation one evening. He mentioned that he was leaving his job as a reporter. "What are you going to do now?", I asked. He replied, "Movie reviews". I said, "Do you really think there's a future in that, Roger?"

You know his last name.

I'm an idiot.

[Bill_1856]

The story is told about Paul Caponigro showing some prints to Paul Strand. Strand complained that there wasn't any detail in the shadows. Caponigro said "thank you very much," and left with steam nearly coming out of his ears, since he had gone to a lot of pains to get that look in the print. So, as you see, two of the world's greatest printmakers didn't agree on what they saw.

[Kirk Gittings]

JJ,

Where I stay in Chicago is above the Gene Siskel theater, which is where the sound stage is for Siskel and Roper. I run into Roger Ebert a couple of times every summer. He seems like a very nice guy.

Jorge, No not a friend, but I do have ongoing professional relationship that involves making some joint presentations every year, which could go on for many more years. I don't care. If I did I would feel obligated to let them know.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't care

Well, there is your answer. As long as it does not affect your presentations keep your mouth shut. In fact, I think if you do say something it might create you problems you dont need.....

[robert_4927]

" I have learned not to critique anyones work unless they ask me too".......need I say more? Never jeopardize your integrity. Which in just asking such a question, in the context in which you have , may have already done so.

[Jeff Bishop]

I will critique someones work if they ask. I will be honest.

My work is far from perfect. I appreciate anyone offering any comments good or bad on anything I do.

This photography is a long road. There is something to be learned at every bend. I want to learn as much as I can. If you see an error, point it out. It could very well be that I'm not even aware of it. I would rather not keep making the same mistake until I happen to notice or realize it.

As far as others go... I'd let them ask for a critique first.

[John Kasaian]

I truly enjoy discussing images with the various photographers I've had the pleasure to meet. I think a good image challenges the viewer to make a relevant comment other than, say, "Nice tree." OTOH if I can say why the tree is exceptional I think that is a worthy comment. It is a mental exercise just to come up with accurate words to express what it is I see. It takes time and requires a careful study of the photographs in question. It may take five minutes or longer for me just to understand what it is I'm seeing when looking at a really good photograph---and another five just to recover from the experience. Off the cuff comments after a cursory look are I think, worthless to all concerned and are most likely insulting to the Photographer. I like to think of really 'seeing' kind of like those inspections in the military where you could almost feel the IG's eyeballs going over you...thats what a good photograph deserves IMHO.

I don't recall a single instant when anyone has taken offense or gotten miffed by my comments but then I have been fortunate to have seen some pretty fine exhibitions over the years.

Flaws are a different matter. I see them two ways:

1) I don't expect a perfect print unless its processed into sterile perfection. It is the printer's craft to make hundreds of copies, one identical to the others and perfection has it's place in the calender biz, but I find it makes for boring original 'art' photographs and especially in photography I want to see some human imperfection that I can tell it apart from the work of a souless machine.

2) I dislike sloppy prints that show that the photographer isn't enjoying His or Her time in the darkroom. I mean, if I really connect with an image, I'm going to make the best darn print I possibly can. The negative demands that I give it my best shot and if I were expecting someone to buy the thing I owe my best effort to the buyer. That "connection" or level of concern I think telegraphs quite a bit to the attentive viewer. Looking at a sloppy photograph is like listening to a french horn player who dosen't like the music.

I'd expect that your associate knows what kind of work He's putting out. A student just getting started is another matter, but a Pro should know and if He's not concerned about the quality of His work, why should You? (unless of course He asked for your criticism!) It may even tell viewers more about the Photographer than the subject matter or 'artist's statement' so I guess thats an accurate, if not "good" thing, isn't it? I mean at least its not contrived.

OTOH, dealing with an arrogant putz is something I'd refrain from.

Groucho Marks said He "...refused to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

My 2-cents.

[Eric Leppanen]

If there were no practical repercussions from these printing faux pas, it is easy to argue that you should stick to your own knitting. It sounds like your professional association with this person has been on-going for awhile, so if he/she was interested in your opinion of their work, you would have been asked by now. And since this person is an arrogant, self-absorbed, narcissistic putz whom you could personally care less about, there is no personal motive to risk destabilizing an otherwise successful professional association.

Kirk, I'm sure all of this is self-evident to you, yet you apparently are still uneasy about the situation. Are you concerned that such sloppy printing will reduce sales, or worse, by association reflect badly upon your own work or professional reputation? If so, you have a damn strong professional justification for discussing your concerns with this individual. Better to nip such problems in the bud, rather than risk losing orders. And by discussing these issues within a narrow commercial context (rather than your personal artistry versus theirs), your associate may react less badly to your feedback.

Frankly, I would question a professional association with someone I can' t talk to. Often no good comes of this, and life is too short to put up with this type of crap.

[Duane Polcou]

A friend of mine in the music business once told me in his experience that the most talented, gifted people were often the most insecure, even questioning of their abilities, and the arrogant ones were largely mediocre. If this example translates to photography, even the most accomplished among us should realize that everything is a work in progress, subject to judgement, and a criticism given in earnest, although it may briefly sting, can serve to help perfect craft. But, hey, photographers are an egotistical, self-aggrandizing group of elitist snobs who think their pictures change the world. I know mine do. They really do. No, really. They really really do. Don't criticize me. I took a workshop with Ansel once and handed him a sandwich.
Ansel Blaumstein. No relation.

[robc]

What is your motivation behind alerting your close acquaintance to your observations?

As has been discussed here recently, it is quite possible for scanning to introduce artifacts into an image. Particularly as you go thru the downsizing and conversion to jpeg format. Have you ascertained this is not the case before criticising the prints or are you merely concerned about the quality of the web images and not the real prints? Have you seen the real prints in question?

[Brian Ellis]

I'm very critical of technical flaws in my own work. No matter how minor they are, once I become aware of them they're all I can see in the photograph. But assuming an aesthetcially excellent photograph, minor technical flaws in someone else's work only bother me if they're so obvious that they interfere with appreciation of the image. Flaws that can be seen only with nose to print, especially those that wouldn't be apparent to anyone except another photographer, aren't a big deal to me and I wouldn't say anything about them unless I was asked to critique the print. Look at all the vignetting in many of Atget's prints. I'd consider them a horrible flaw in my own work but they don't seem to bother people looking at his prints today.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I've faced a similar dilemma, but in my experience, the photographer whose work was in question pointed to his newest masterpiece hanging on his wall and "asked" me "isn't this great"? I really had a hard time saying yes and fumbled around for some innocuous response. I have thought about that incident many times since and wish I had said something like "the important thing is what do you think about it"? It's so difficult to make a living in this business as is the case in many other fields that there is what amounts to an unwritten rule to not criticize the work of other artists. You just never know what trouble might come back your way as a result.

That said, I recall a very scathing critique of Kenny G. by guitarist Pat Metheny. At first I thought, holy crap, Pat's shooting himself in the foot. But I read the whole article and it was an extremely thoughtful and justifyiable statement and one I agree with. It hasn't seemed to affect Metheny's career in any negative way and in some respects it demonstrates the high calibre of artist he truly is. I can't imagine it has hurt Kenny G. either as it's unlikely fans of his would have any understanding of Metheny's work or care.

So, I'll be watching this thread closely as I anticipate another encounter with the mystery photographer very soon and I'm not beneath borrowing some clever ideas from this group.

A Happy Holiday to the LF community and my apologies to any Kenny G. fans.

[Walt Calahan]

As a senior in college, we had a "world famous" photographer give a lecture. As was the tradition, our professors tapped two senior students to show their work to the lecturer. I was very honored to be one of the chosen.

After the lecture, we all gathered for the portfolio review. My worked was looked at without a comment. At the last image the photographer looked up and said "Next."

One of the other students said "Hey wait a minute, you didn't say anything."

Our visitor blinked his eyes, shook his head, and said "Right." Then started with my portfolio once again. He came to a landscape I had shot a year before while a student in England. It was of a row of pine trees in the fog in Wales. I made the image on 35-mm while hiking in the woods.

The vecturer stopped at this image, looked up and said "Ansel Adams is a friend of mine. He does this better."

I don't remember anything more he said. Just sat there thinking "What an a**hole." I learned a lot from that person, and never tried to be like him when looking at other's work. No matter how bad an image is, I always try to respond to the good I see.

Kirk, I know you don't want to hurt this photographer's feelings because you won't want someone to do the same thing to you. I likes your diplomacy about the reading glasses, and the internet is a terrible venue for judging someone's work.

[paulr]

i'm curious to know why this is coming up for you. it sounds like it's a struggle in some of these cases to hold back from giving uninvited criticism. why does it bother you so much that someone else has made an imperfect print?

the world is full of flawed prints. including some brilliant work that's brilliant in spite of (or sometimes partly because of) its imperfections.

personally i'm more likely to be biting my tongue when i see technically perfect, but otherwise empty work. it drives me crazy to see someone putting so much work into highly polished nothing.

on another note, i think that's a good policy to give criticism only when asked. it's also a good policy to make all criticism forwarding ... work to help the person come closer to their vision; don't just sit back and point out flaws. i also ask what KIND of criticism someone wants. there are so many ways to look at work. they might have a specific question they're trying to figure out ... find out what it is before launching into your theories about Taosim or the One True Toner.

[Frank Petronio]

Just smile and move on. All you'll do is piss the guy off and make it hard to deal with him later. If his work really sucks, don't be associated with him.

I used to criticize everything and all it did was make me a crank.

You won't change the pretentious and pompous art world by pointing out technical flaws. Go see a Starn Twins show and relax.

Merry Christmas to all, even the uneven sky developers!

[Philippe Debeerst]

What Rob is saying about web immages is verry imoprtant now days.
But can someone tell me what to do about that?
I am working on a website and this problem accured and this is why my website is still under construction.
Monitor callibration is not allways the answer... No colour, no grey scale is acceptabel on the web, what to do?
We all know that we will be judged by the look on the web, and 'mistakes' are unavoidebel.

I stoped judging photo's printed in books to. As a mather of fact, I do no more judge ar all, I look, I listen and I schut up and try to learn what NOT to do.
My oppinion became verry, verry personal, this is perhaps why I am considered as solempsistic...
Who cares?

[Ken Lee]

There is an old story in the Jewish tradition: A man asked Rabbi Shamai to teach him all of Judaism, while standing on one foot. Shamai chased the man away.

The man went to Hillel and made the same request. While standing on one foot, Hillel said: "Do unto to others what you would have them do unto you. That is the whole teaching: all the rest, is just commentary."

[darr]

"Just smile and move on."

[Ben Calwell]

I've never felt that I could criticize another photographer's work because I know that my own work is not without flaws.

[John Flavell]

The last fight I ever had and lost, a long time ago, was in a bar where a very drunk man was sitting with his girlfriend. I went up for a fresh one and he suddenly turned on me and asked, "Hey! Are you looking at MY woman?". I looked at her and before I could stop myself, replied, "HER? No, I'd like to keep my dinner down."

It's best just to walk away.

[Allen Quinn]

This is a great thread and it reminds me of a now humorous incident that occurred many years ago. I have a photojournalist background so my views on print quality may be somewhat different than the norm on this board. That said, I expect to see technically perfect prints when viewing gallery or museum exhibits.

As a young lad returning from my first overseas assignment, I was eager to soak up some "Art World" ambiance and chanced upon a very famous British photographers show in Houston. This man's creative vision was a big influence on young photographers during the 60s and 70s. The photographer, then an old man, was not present but a chatty young lady greated patrons as they entered the gallery and offered to answer any questions one might have. The prints were images I had seen many times in books and magazines. Very famous and incredibly awful. These were 16x20 prints from 35mm and very grainy. Not Tri-X grainy but more like Super XX from 35mm. Ok, I can deal with grain as an artistic vision but these prints had unretouched scratches, dust spots and lint everywhere. They appeared to have been printed in an enlarger that allowed the center of the negative to "pop" resulting in unfoucused edges. The blacks were muddy and in short appeared to have been printed by a novice who had just learned the developing sequence of developer-stop bath-fixer. Recalling the chatty young lady's offer to answer questions, I asked: "Did this guys negatives get damaged during the war?"

I've forgotten the exact words but her reply was akin to the sound of finger nails scratching a chalk board.

[Bill_1856]

Wasn't it Alice Roosevelt who said: "If you can't say anything nice about someone...come sit next to me at dinner."

[adrian tyler]

i try to be very careful with criticism, as it really has lots of stings attached, i've noticed that people who tend to dish out continual negative criticism are generaly venting some personal frustration. then again when asked (or if i asked) i'd prefer to get the truth.

the best line i got when i asked for a crit of a book i'd just designed (not from a designer but an editor) was "do you want it as a friend?, or do you want it as a professional?"

adrian

[Kirk Gittings]

I have not seen the original print, but having personally scanned close to 750 images on a dozen different scanners, there is no way these are scanner flaws. They are obviously uneven developement issues where I have seen these flaws many times. I would bet my BTZS tubes on it.

I continue my association with this person, because frankly it benefits me. This person is much better known than I am and I benefit from the exposure. It is pure unadulterated self interest.

Honestly, my deep down motivation is pretty petty. It would only be to do a little pay back for all the arrogant crap I have had to put up with in the past. I don't like my motives. I will leave this one alone.

[Michael Gordon]

Kenny G.? Yuk.

Here's that Pat Metheny bash of Kenny G: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/arti0900_03.htm
And the follow-up parody :) http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?review_id=11858

[John_4185]

It never hurts to make no comment upon a friend's work unless he is clearly open minded and solicitous.

Somehow I don't feel compelled to greater respect for photographs that make it to gallery walls than the photographs that I see in casual life unless the occasion is invited scholarly discussion, and that's rare, and I am happy it is. (It all about scope.)

Occasionally, when I am in the depths of curmudgeoness (to make up a word), I'll return a bit of nastiness to an aggresively arrogant photographer's boasts (obviously, not a friend). It is probably not a good thing. (Just recalling such cases... well, we all have stories.)

My work just sucks from the Fine Art perspective. Perhaps like Allen, my photographs are from what I'd call ordinary life and definitely nothing to hang on a wall. In fact, I have no photos on my walls and never did (and every year I burn prints and negatives.)

Now, with all that said, yesterday a photographer, writer, editor, (and nonpracticing attorney) associate for whom life has been very unkind lately (dying last parent, broke, mortgage crisis, broken car, etc..) returned from New York City with one roll of 36 exposure Tri-x and printed every frame. What an experience! Certainly, there was nothing to rock the art world, but to experience being behind that lens for every item he framed and captured was a privilege, and yielded a great deal of provocative, moving ideas. That is an important kind of photography.

I cannot remember ever feeling hurt by criticism, but I have one excruciating disappointment that I will share if asked; it involves decades of anticipation that led to a let-down.

[Scott Davis]

Kirk-

keep it as a personal private trophy. I remember going to see the prints of a famous photographer whose work I greatly admired (and still do) and would have studied with had course schedules permitted. The work was on display in a New York gallery, on lower Broadway. Very prestigious. I remember looking at the photographer's prints up close, and seeing dust spots that were obvious enough that they should have been spotted, and having my Eureka! moment... "Photographer x is not technically better than me... just better marketed than me. I too can be here someday if I try hard enough" (not that I accept or condone unspotted prints, but I took it as a sign that great photographers need not be godlike).

Carrying around that little bit of knowledge with you helps serve as armor against arrogant bs. It actually makes it more potent when you can say to yourself, "I know your weakness... nyah nyah nyah!" as the other person is talking down to you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Why on are you posting this confession? It's implications are terrible. I suggest that in the future you consider your contributions to this forum as unerasable publishing, and not simply communication. With that said, I wish you well.

I dont know Michael, if anything it makes me like Kirk more. It gives us an insight into his character and his honesty. Not many here (and this includes myself) have admited to be wrong and in fact "confess," as it were, of petty motives....... Takes balls to write what Kirk wrote.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yet presenting oneself to an unknown readership with that kind of statement is surely a distortion as well,

Are really that unknown? We might not have met face to face, but many here have been in this forum for years and sort of "know" each other. Besides, how can we get to know each other if we cannot be candid? IMO your question is an unanswerable one, what is Kirk going to say, that does not cause him even more embarrassment?.......

[Kirk Gittings]

My original motivation was simply thinking out loud (which is almost always a mistake), which I almost immediately regreted, but after it was done figured what the the hell. I am not really concerned with reprocussions. My career is so diverse. I wear so many different hats in photography that it could be any number of people that I work with and I do not believe that they visit this forum. They would consider themselves above this.

Thanks Jorge for your understanding.

[John_4185]

Kirk:

If it matters, I found your post enlightening, heartening, humane.

[Frank Petronio]

Kirk, just show your prints to the audience next to his. Let your work say all that needs to be said...

[William Mortensen]

I think when one displays his work, be it on the web or in a gallery, it stands as an invitation to criticism. The height of hubris would be to say, "Everyone, look at my work, but I don't want to know what anyone thinks of it."

Technical critiques, such as uneven development, dust spots, etc., seem more an observation of the obvious, and Elliot Erwit's smiling "you caught me" is the most honest and gracious reply. And given the nature of his work, such a flaw seems trivial.

Negative statements about visions and intentions seem much more likely to be damaging to a photographer's ego, and there I would tread more lightly.

In this case, Kirk, you might consider toilet-papering your famous aquaintance's house in the middle of the night, and leaving an anonymous note to the effect of: "Develop your negatives more evenly or it happens again..."

[Marko]

Duane: But, hey, photographers are an egotistical, self-aggrandizing group of elitist snobs who think their pictures change the world. I know mine do. They really do. No, really. They really really do.

Sir, I think you have captured the essence of this hobby/profession with this remark. Although, on the other hand, I'm not so sure if it is our photographs that necessarily change the world as much as the process of taking/making them. Photography being such a solitary and detail-oriented endeavor, it HAS to change the world by taking us out of it during the process... I know for sure MY photographs do that.

Perhaps Kirk's friend should go out and take/make more of them too? Seriously, Kirk, if she's such an arrogant putz, why not just let someone else prick her bubble? You'll not just avoid a futile conflict but will also have a pleasure of seeing someone like that being put in their place.

Regards,

[e]

Funny how Pat Metheny was taking the time out to criticize Kenny G publicly. In my days as a professional drummer in both commercial and jazz venues I heard absolutely nothing positive about Pat Metheny at all from any guitarists. He was basically looked down upon in the Jazz guitar world as milk instead of cream. Weak and wimpy were some of the descriptions I remember being said. More than one very well known guitarist had mentioned that if it were not for Pat Martino (Martino, not Metheny) that Metheny would have no ideas at all. I know Pat Martino personally and consider him a close friend and to quote/paraphrase him in a lesson to a young jazz college student who was criticizing a famous living classical composer, he said..."if you really knew this composer personally and were a friend of his you would have another opinion".

Personally I don't favor either Pat Metheny or Kenny G (I don't know them either, maybe if I did I would like them more), Coltrane and Martino and Benson and others are more to my liking. But there is always someone in the arts for whatever level of understanding the public may be attuned to whether milk or cream.

I really think that the tendency to criticise rather than help is something we are all at one time or another affected by. Most of the times it is just a exclamation of our own personal artistic issues not recognized in ourselves. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com

[Dan_5988]

shrug...you guys should listen to some punk or something.

critiques shouldnt be about technical details IMHO...

last critique I had half the time was 2 really good photographers spending half the time talking about some technical stuff...needless to say i didnt honestly care about that stuff, and was a little miffed about that...i just wanted to know what they thought of what was in the picture yknow?

[e]

Punk...why??? I heard a lot of it it live and in person over 25 years ago. While impressive in an energetic sense, there is really nothing else to it emotionally or artistically except for negativity which can be also said for another form of music in the present day that the listening public seems to be enraptured with.

[John_4185]

Read this on the net recently.

A famous technical photographer walked into a bar with a giant frog on his head.

The bartender asked, "What is that on your head!?"

The FROG said, "Would you believe it started out as a wart on my ass?"

[paulr]

it might help (in a general sort of way) to get past the idea that criticism is negative.

it doesn't have to be.

robert adams reveals one the many reasons john szarkowky is a great critic: he never wastes his time critiquing anything he doesn't like. life is too short, there's so much to be learned from good work, and the bad tends to fall away of its own weight anyhow.

this isn't to say we can't learn from our failures ... just that there's little reason to dwell on work bad work of others. feel free to let the bad pictures go ... there will always be more where it came from.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

critiques shouldnt be about technical details IMHO...

Why not? Shouldn't the technical details be mastered before you can move on?

Personally I only feel comfortable critiquing technical details. I figure I might not like the content or the way the picture was printed, but those are personal choices made by the photographer. Sometimes a suggestion on burning or dodging might improve the content of the picture, but isn't this just a technical matter?

I dont recall in what forum it was, but one guy posted a very nice landscape and a well known photographer posted a critique that the "clouds were all wrong", my first thought was "what an ass!" what is the photographer supposed to do, reach out with the hand of God and arrange the clouds? Sometimes you just got to take what you can get.

Most people here are fond of quoting Adams' phrase about nothing being worse than a perfect picture of a fuzzy concept, what the hell is that? I wish someone here would show me a perfect picture of a fuzzy concept (specially as it pertains to landscape) and tell me why they think it is a fuzzy concept?

IMO trying to critique the content of a photograph is a slippery slope where one is actually projecting a personal taste bias on the work being shown.

[Ken Lee]

"I wish someone here would show me a perfect picture of a fuzzy concept (specially as it pertains to landscape) and tell me why they think it is a fuzzy concept?"



Here's one I made last week. Upside-down, on the groundglass, I thought I had something nice. Technically, I got what I wanted. In that sense, the image is competent, or "perfect" - but it's a dull photo. It doesn't sing.



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/personal/fuzzy.jpg



The "concept" to which Ansel referred, may have been visual concept or "artistic content". Perhaps what Ansel meant by "fuzzy" was "mediocre" or uninspired.



It must be tough to be a teacher, a famous one at that: People quote you later on, and try to make sense of what you said, and you can't be there to explain. Instead, you're off somewhere in heaven, chasing snow-storms in the Sierras with your 8x10, driving that new celestial 4-wheel drive vehicle which Santa Claus just gave you for Christmas. :-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think we need to stablish the difference between a fuzzy concept and a failed shot. I bet my house that there is nobody in this forum who has not at one time set up the camera, taken what he/she thought it was a great shot and later when it was developed and printed the first thought that came to their mind is "what the hell was I thinking?!?"......I got plenty of them.

But doesnt this just mean that the concept was clear but the execution was lacking? IOW, the basics were not paid attention to? IMO the problem with your picture was composition, but hey as Gretzky said, you miss a 100% of the shots you dont take...no?

[John_4185]

he never wastes his time critiquing anything he doesn't like.

Periodically I throw out negatives and prints by the fistfull. The world does not become a better place, except that perhaps a poor critic remains unemployed.

[Walt Calahan]

"Jorge is in the crease . . . Shot . . . SCORE!!!!!!

Now let's see if he can pull off a "hat trick?"

Grin

[paulr]

"I think we need to establish the difference between a fuzzy concept and a failed shot. "

remember that back in the day that ansel said that, the word "concept" was a lot less loaded than it is today. his frame of reference was the world before the conceptual art of the 70s and 80s, postmodernism, academic art, etc. he probably meant something pretty simple by it ... a failed shot, certainly, but most likely one that failed by not having anything to say in the first place.

in my experience, this is the most common failure in the world of pictures made with large format cameras. it's easy to get seduced by the process, the techniques, the inherent prettiness of the materials ... sometimes to the point of forgetting what we're trying to discover or to question or to affirm. it seems a lot of people never even concern themselves with the bigger questions. they're happy making a lot of textbook-perfect nothing.

i see a lot more work that's sabotaged by lack of clear reasons for having been made than work that's sabotaged by bad technique. a strong image can often survive incredible abuse.

[John_4185]

paulr i see a lot more work that's sabotaged by lack of clear reasons for having been made than work that's sabotaged by bad technique. a strong image can often survive incredible abuse.

Indeed, and one of the reasons I like Shots Magazine, among a couple other publications (none LF), and find a particular something about rangefinder enthusasts' work in general.

(I don't think I would like Shots prints in person. The magazine complements the work. It's a real niche.)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but most likely one that failed by not having anything to say in the first place

See, this is another concept I just dont understand. Why does have picture need to have "something to say." Hell, if I wanted to "say" something I would be making movies not photographs.

What does Pepper #30 has to say, or "running deer"? Not a damn thing IMO. We can marvel at the vision of the photographer and their ability to "see" the shot before they pressed the shutter, but the picture itself has nothing to say..... As I understand it, Weston took a lot of shots of the pepper, is this a lack of clear concept? Arent we making things more difficult than they should be? Arent we try to give meaning to something when there is no meaning present? Is this going to be the measure of a good picture, one that "says" something even if it is crappy?......

[Paddy Quinn]

"See, this is another concept I just dont understand. Why does have picture need to have "something to say." Hell, if I wanted to "say" something I would be making movies not photographs."

Why then would you go to the effort of clicking the shutter? In order to say "nothing"?

(in addition, once the photograph has been taken - and particularly once it has been printed and displayed it is saying something. It communicates something whether you want it to or not. In the same way as speaking - the only way not to say something is simply not to say it. Once the words are out, you have said something. Once the picture is taken, it is saying something.)

[Oren Grad]

remember that back in the day that ansel said that, the word "concept" was a lot less loaded than it is today. his frame of reference was the world before the conceptual art of the 70s and 80s, postmodernism, academic art, etc. he probably meant something pretty simple by it ... a failed shot, certainly, but most likely one that failed by not having anything to say in the first place.

Au contraire, "concept" carries a huge load with Adams because he made such a fuss about previsualization. If you buy previsualization, the "fuzzy concept" thing makes some sort of sense.

i see a lot more work that's sabotaged by lack of clear reasons for having been made

How would you know what was a picture's reason for being made, unless the photographer tells you?

[paulr]

"What does Pepper #30 has to say ..."

it says a lot to me. and in the context of weston's larger body of work, it says volumes.

"As I understand it, Weston took a lot of shots of the pepper, is this a lack of clear concept? "

not any more than a writer working through lots of drafts before being satisfied that he's got it.

which doesnt' mean that i think great art comes from someone knowing precisely what they have to say before they say it. on the contrary, i think it comes more often when someone recognizes something significant, but uses the process of artmaking to fully discover it. not everyone agrees with me on this, but this is my prejudice ... it's why i tend to dislike "conceptual" art.

weston had a strong idea of what he was interestd in. he spoke and wrote about it often. it had to do with a sense of quintescences, of a sense of unifying form and life force in the universe. he tried many different views with many different peppers (and shells, leaves, rocks, dunes, dead things ...) before being satisfied that he had an image that clearly expressed his sense of things.

the point is that he was striving to express something important to him. someone who is simply copying his esthetic or his subject matter or his printing style will only succeed at capturing the most superficial aspects of the work. this tends to give us the "clear picture of a fuzzy concept."

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It communicates something whether you want it to or not

Wrong, whatever it "says" to you is your interpretation which might or might not be the intention of the photographer, and the "meaning" you attribuite to it is only yours, the photographer might have had a totally different idea than what you give the photograph.

the only way not to say something is simply not to say it. Once the words are out, you have said something. Once the picture is taken, it is saying something

According to whom? so tell me, what does pepper #30 say? What is the message?

[Paddy Quinn]

"i see a lot more work that's sabotaged by lack of clear reasons for
having been made How would you know what was a picture's reason for being made, unless the
photographer tells you?"

if the concept is crystalised then it has the potential for being perceived by the viewer. If the photographer needs to explain it, then it's probably a poor photograph/fuzzy concept (which doesn't mean it may be the first thing seen when viewed. It may take some work on the viewers part)

[Paddy Quinn]

"What is the message?"

it speaks of essentials of beauty and sensuality and form in nature

things which Weston himself wrote that he was trying to say and which he succeeded in saying in the instance of Pepper #30.

[Paddy Quinn]

and if a pepper is just a pepper is just a pepper and they all say "nothing" - why go to all the bother of photographing so many. Why not just go with the first one the photographed? Unless was Weston photographing for a green-grocers catalogue at the time?

[Paddy Quinn]

i see a lot more work that's sabotaged by lack of clear reasons for
having been made How would you know what was a picture's reason for being made, unless the
photographer tells you?

Oren,

Photography is a form of communication - visual rather than verbal or written. As such there are always two sides to it (unless the photographer prints their work and never shows it to anyone and the photographer is only ever the viewer - in which case it is really a form of masturbation).

So in the same way that if you wrote an article (or even just spoke) and failed to convey what it was you were trying to say, most would say you were either a poor writer/speaker, or perhaps you hadn't worked out clearly enough what it is you wanted to say (the concept) . Thus for a photograph and a fuzzy concept.

[paulr]

"Wrong, whatever it "says" to you is your interpretation which might or might not be the intention of the photographer, and the "meaning" you attribuite to it is only yours, the photographer might have had a totally different idea than what you give the photograph."

this statement does actually correspond to a theory of criticism, but it's only one among many theories of art and meaning out there. it also happens to be a rather extreme and one-sided theory, and interestingly, one espoused by the kinds of postmodern critics that most people on this board despise.

[Oren Grad]

Why then would you go to the effort of clicking the shutter? In order to say "nothing"?

why go to all the bother of photographing so many. Why not just go with the first one the photographed?

Because pictures are enjoyable to look at. It's not necessary (though it is possible) to have an agenda beyond that.

if the concept is crystalised then it has the potential for being perceived by the viewer. If the photographer needs to explain it, then it's probably a poor photograph/fuzzy concept

Nonsense. You cannot assume that a viewer will share your semiotic conventions. He might share them all, or some of them, or few of them, or none of them. Even if he grew up in the same cultural milieu, he may be a perverse iconoclast who likes to see things differently.

A photograph may be a "text", but it's not a text.

[Oren Grad]

So in the same way that if you wrote an article (or even just spoke) and failed to convey what it was you were trying to say, most would say you were either a poor writer/speaker, or perhaps you hadn't worked out clearly enough what it is you wanted to say (the concept) . Thus for a photograph and a fuzzy concept.

Sorry, I utterly reject this as applying to photographs. If you have some sort of agenda for your photographs beyond pleasing yourself, you had better either make sure that you attach lots of words to them, or that nobody sees them outside of your own circle of shared conventions, or you will indeed fail to make your point.

[Paddy Quinn]

in which case of course it might be possible for a person to master being able to speak or write at great length while saying nothing and also being able to make photographs which say nothing

[tim atherton]

"If you have some
sort of agenda for your photographs beyond pleasing yourself"

As has been pointed out, such an agenda us usually masturbatory in nature and inevitably fairly shallow.

Conflating and/or equating "some sort of agenda" with a photographer saying something with their photograph is mistaken

[Oren Grad]

in which case of course it might be possible for a person to master being able to speak or write at great length while saying nothing

Alan Greenspan. It's quite a talent. :-)

Under the right circumstances photographs may elicit shared associations, but they don't have logical truth-values.

[Paul Kierstead]

Nothing wrong with masturbation, so long as you don't start believing it makes you into some sort of expert at the topic when practiced with partners.

[Oren Grad]

As has been pointed out, such an agenda us usually masturbatory in nature and inevitably fairly shallow.

Not at all. There is no correlation between the value of a body of photographic work, and whether its creator was sure he had something to communicate or was merely scratching an itch.

[Paddy Quinn]

A perfect example of the "fuzzy concept" are the recent Katrina photographs psoted on here. It's clear that at the time the photographer wasn't quite sure of the why and wherefore when they took the photographs and that this was extended into the editing process.

As a result while there are some individually quite good photographs, overall all they are quite weak and somewhat confused. There is a lack of clear vision as to what they are really about - the fuzzy concept at work.

[paulr]

"Under the right circumstances photographs may elicit shared associations, but they don't have logical truth-values."

there's no reason to assume something needs to have "logical truth-values," a precise and unwavering meaning, or a message that's clear regardless of context, for it to be powerful in the sense of having something to say.

most photographs, even great ones, require a lot of help from their context in order to be understood in a way close to the artist's inent. context comes in many forms, but three of them strike me as paramount: something that tells what kind of image it is (an art gallery wall, a newspaper, a cookbook, etc.), a body of work to which the image belongs, and the social/educational/cultural context of the audience.

weston's pepper will not likely convey much of its intended meaning if it's shown in a botany textbook, or as part of a group of pictures by artists whose last name starts with "w", or if it's being shown to group of kalahari bushmen who have no exposure the traditions implicit in early 20th century western art.

if we take care of the context in these three major ways, it's a different story. print the image in an art book. edit it as part of a sequence of weston's other formal modernist closeups. and show it to people who come from weston's culture, and who are familiar with western art leading up to the early modern period (and therefore have acquired some of the visual vocabulary that weston had).

these people won't all agree on what the picture means, but if you get them talking about it you'll probably find many of them making a similar range of observations, and expressing a similar range of feelings. there will be a lot of individuality in their responses, but most of it will fall within a range that's defensible and that makes sense given the context in which the work was presented and observed.

none of this is specifically about photography. you'd find the same phenomena at work in painting and literature and music

"There is no correlation between the value of a body of photographic work, and whether its creator was sure he had something to communicate or was merely scratching an itch."

i'd agree with this also. artists aren't always conscious of what they're trying to say, or why--and even when they do have a strong sense of it, it may be a completely nonverbal sense. if they had all the words for it, they might just write an essay instead of making a picture.

but when the art is succesful, it means there was a pretty strong intuitive sense that whatever needed to be said was said ... that the itch was finally scratched.

[Kirk Gittings]

Showing photographs to the world (as opposed to keeping them in your closest for your own sole gratification) is a bit like raising children and sending them out into the world to survive. you do your best to prepare them and even have your expectations about what they will be in the world, but it is basically out of your control. Success at child rearing is not having them achieve your career goals, but finding some meaningful place for themselves. Success with photographs is not only about finding an audience who "gets" your specific intent, but an audience that finds something meaningful of themselves reflected in the image.

The things people see in my images amaze and disappoint me many times. When I was younger it really disturbed me that people did not get my specific intent, but now I am thrilled when anyone has a strong response regardless of their interpretation. People bring their own life experience to an image and that is completely beyond my control. I sometimes use titles to point the viewer in some interpretive direction, but that has limited usefullness for the same reasons.

I actually like going to my own exhibits "anonomously" after the opening and watching people's spontaneous reactions to the images and sometimes striking up conversations with them too hoping to get some real feedback that is unincumbered by their knowledge that I am the artist. What people see is oftentimes at odds with my intent, but sometimes I learn something about my work and myself from their interpretation that is both profound and insightful.

[paulr]

one of things you can get from a good teacher or critic or peer group is a sense of what other people see in your work. they can help you come to terms with it, and even cultivate it. like Kirk says, what your work is saying may not be what you'd hoped it would say. learning to come to terms with this--discovering what your work is about, embracing it rather than fighting it--is probably a lot like coming to terms with those kids who took a different path from the one in your old fantasies.

you'll probably have a richer life if you embrace that your kid is a drummer, or gay, or a republican. it's more interesting than than if he turns out to be a carbon copy of you!

[John_4185]

Jorge: What does Pepper #30 has to say, or "running deer"?

What do your pictures add to the collection of photographs? I see nothing but more of the same in brown.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What do your pictures add to the collection of photographs? I see nothing but more of the same in brown.

I would say they add as much as yours....but then, yours are nowhere to be seen....so maybe they add more.... :-)

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually not all of us really have a unique vision but simply try to do the best we can with our mediocre talents on subject matter that moves us. I feel that simply by hard work I have gotten an extraordinary amount of mileage from my rather less-than-unique vision, because of my enthusiasm for my subjects. Sometimes it is enough to apply some LF technical expertise to a fresh area of subject matter. I think in Jorge's case he is building an extrordinary collection of architectural images of the colonial period architecture in old Mexico. I have seen no originals and only fragments of what he has done, but some of what I have seen it is very very good and a real contribution.

[William Mortensen]

Every photographer's vision is unique, except for mine...

[darr]

Actually not all of us really have a unique vision but simply try to do the best we can with our mediocre talents on subject matter that moves us.

Wow, sounds like a a case of teacher burn-out or disappointment with one's self-importance.
Life can be disappointing if you set your expectations incorrectly.

[John_4185]

I think in Jorge's case he is building an extrordinary collection of architectural images of the colonial period architecture in old Mexico.

!! dawns the light !! Good point! When seen as a collection, his mastery of toning and printing will be clear as well. Thanks for that.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Wow, sounds like a a case of teacher burn-out or disappointment with one's self-importance.
Life can be disappointing if you set your expectations incorrectly.

I dont think this is the case, I thank Kirk for his kind comment and I also understand his point very well. I think we all struggle to develop a style that is readily recognizable. When you see a Michael Kenna, David Fokos, Bill Schwab photograph you can "recognize" the photographer right away in the photograph even if there is no tag with the name right next to it.

I think this is what Kirk means by unique vision and I have to count myself among those who do not have it and have to work hard at getting some successful shots.

[tim atherton]

"Under the right circumstances photographs may elicit shared associations, but they don't have logical truth-values."

"You cannot assume that a viewer will share your semiotic conventions. He might share them all, or some of them, or few of them, or none of them. Even if he grew up in the same cultural milieu, he may be a perverse iconoclast who likes to see things differently.

A photograph may be a "text", but it's not a text."

which is where the essential or at least somewhat unique nature of photography comes into play. It lacks a full or complete language, but the inherent ambiguity of its half or partial language is what more often gives a photograph its breadth of expression or power

[tim atherton]

Actually not all of us really have a unique vision but simply try to do the best we can with our mediocre talents on subject matter that moves us. I feel that simply by hard work I have gotten an extraordinary amount of mileage from my rather less-than-unique vision, because of my enthusiasm for my subjects. Sometimes it is enough to apply some LF technical expertise to a fresh area of subject matter. I think in Jorge's case he is building an extraordinary collection of architectural images of the colonial period architecture in old Mexico. I have seen no originals and only fragments of what he has done, but some of what I have seen it is very very good and a real contribution.

Kirk, I think it's often simpler than that and you capture it with your "enthusiasm for my subjects" statement as opposed to the "unique vision" one.

At its simplest (and possibly most effective), the concept we are talking about in "fuzzy concept" isn't really the concept of post-modern conceptual art. It's more about a clarity of vision - seeing (and possibly? thinking) clearly.

Photography is more often about a gesture. Pointing to something, indicating it and simply saying "this was what I saw" and to me it was beautiful/intriguing/fascinating/exciting/ugly/horrifying/sensual (take your pick and more).

The concept is simply about saying as "this is what this place/person/thing looked like (to me)" as best or as clearly as we can with our photographs.

(Of course "clearly" and "to me" are different for each one of us, which is where the exciting and challenging bit starts





(with thanks to the Deadman and SP)

[Oren Grad]

Photography is more often about a gesture. Pointing to something, indicating it and simply saying "this was what I saw" and to me it was beautiful/intriguing/fascinating/exciting/ugly/horrifying/sensual (take your pick and more).

The concept is simply about saying as "this is what this place/person/thing looked like (to me)" as best or as clearly as we can with our photographs.

Exactly.

And per Kirk's and Jorge's points, the importance of uniqueness of vision, whether that means style, subject matter or whatever, is way overstated, maybe because of the importance of having a shtick if you want to succeed commercially in the fine art world. If I happen across a body of work that I like, I don't care whether work done by others is similar in some way.

[Kirk Gittings]

"the importance of uniqueness of vision, whether that means style, subject matter or whatever, is way overstated"

I agree with this totally. As an instructor in art schools the question is always put first "Is it new", but for me the first question is always "Is it any good". I have seen too many students hard pressed to come up with a new idea, as if that was all that mattered.

[darr]

A photograph may be a "text", but it's not a text."

which is where the essential or at least somewhat unique nature of photography comes into play. It lacks a full or complete language, but the inherent ambiguity of its half or partial language is what more often gives a photograph its breadth of expression or power

Well said!

unique vision = originality

[John_4185]

unique vision = originality

Perhaps - if you can bring it to reality, a print.

[paulr]

"the importance of uniqueness of vision, whether that means style, subject matter or whatever, is way overstated"

I don't know if it's overstated, but it's probably misunderstood.

If you take it to mean you need a unique schtick for your work to be worth anything, then yeah, it's foolish thing to be chasing.

But if you consider that you as a human being are unique ... that to those who know and love you, you are unmistakeable, unforgetable, and unrepeatable, it only follows that work born of what moves you most profoundly will have similar qualities. You are not at your best when you mimic Brad Pitt's character in some movie ... but rather when you allow yourself to break through self consciousness, fear, shame, or whatever other blocks you , and just be you. Likewise your work will not be at its best when it mimics ansel adams or edward weston's. If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it.

[Oren Grad]

Paulr - in my own snapshooting, I like just pursuing whatever comes most naturally to me, or whatever I feel personally compelled to do. It would be nice to think that not only does this feel more comfortable in the doing, but also that this will result in work that others will somehow perceive as better or more natural. But I remain skeptical about the existence of any such correlation.

[Oren Grad]

If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it

To address your point more directly, yes, it will be unique, but no, it won't necessarily matter more to those who see it just because you were in an affective groove while making it.

[darr]

... it only follows that work born of what moves you most profoundly will have similar qualities. You are not at your best when you mimic Brad Pitt's character in some movie ... but rather when you allow yourself to break through self consciousness, fear, shame, or whatever other blocks you , and just be you. Likewise your work will not be at its best when it mimics ansel adams or edward weston's. If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it., paulr

Perhaps - if you can bring it to reality, a print., jj

I agree with paulr that in life, we all experience a number of events, and most are unique to our being. I am almost certain the things I saw in my childhood were very different from anyone else in this forum. These differences can be found throughout our entire lives and can help us grow in creative ways since they are unique to us personally. Take this example of how I created a unique piece based around a stereotypical symbol found in the "Christmas story". This was meant to be a parody about the experiences of motherhood.

non-unique vision = "Three Wise Women"
http://cameraartist.com/3_wise_women.jpg

[Paul Butzi]

If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it.

But yield who will to their separation
my object in living is to unite
my avocation and my vocation
as my two eyes make one in sight

Only where love and need are one
and the work is play for mortal stakes
is the deed ever really done
for heaven and the future's sakes


(Robert Frost, "Two Tramps at Mud Time", last two verses).

[tim atherton]

Photography is more often about a gesture. Pointing to something, indicating it and simply saying "this was what I saw" ...

The concept is simply about saying as "this is what this place/person/thing looked like (to me)" as best or as clearly as we can with our photographs...

... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it....

Which brings us back full circle to the "fuzzy concept" - and whatever its opposite is - a clear concept, an unfuzzy concept or whatever...

Saying "this is what I saw" or "this is what this looks like (photographed by me)" isn't perhaps quite as simple as it sounds. It requires - for want of a better word - honesty - as well as a level of self-understanding, a certain amount of clarity, and a refusal to fall into cliche, convention or plagiarism

At that point there are real possibilities for something original, something worth saying - as opposed to the one-trick-pony "unique schtick" that Paul talked about

[John_4185]

http://elearning.winona.edu/staff_o/jjs/3.jpg

If I hadn't believed it with my own mind...

[paulr]

"Saying "this is what I saw" or "this is what this looks like (photographed by me)" isn't perhaps quite as simple as it sounds. It requires - for want of a better word - honesty - as well as a level of self-understanding, a certain amount of clarity, and a refusal to fall into cliche, convention or plagiarism"

it's much easier said than done. the difference between "this is what I saw" and "this is what I saw that reminded me of those other pictures that I saw at the museum" is huge. it takes a great deal of self trust to move away from mimicry and toward authentic responses to things.

there's a lot of gray area, too. at what point does does influence become mimicry? einstein said he saw as far as he did because he stood on the shoulders of giants. i like that as a metaphor for art as well. you couldn't be where you are now without the work you've studied and admired. but if you're true to what you see, now, from the place that other work helped you to get to, your work will not be mistaken for that other work. it will be something entirely different, with a life its own.

this may be one of the things that makes doing authentic work difficult--if your standards for what's good or acceptable are too rigidly tied to the work you've already seen, then work that looks different will strike you as a failure. it's a conundrum.

[Oren Grad]

it's much easier said than done. the difference between "this is what I saw" and "this is what I saw that reminded me of those other pictures that I saw at the museum" is huge. it takes a great deal of self trust to move away from mimicry

Nice point, I think there's more than a grain of truth to that, but...

and toward authentic responses to things.

...smuggling in "authenticity" adds yet another layer of baggage. It's remarkable just how many different assumptions and ideas are bundled into the let's-take-Art-seriously-establishment view of the world. I think many of those assumptions and ideas are quite reasonable and defensible, but they're neither obvious nor necessary.

[paulr]

yeah, "authentic" has a lot of baggage. i'm trying to use it in the simplest way i can think of ... to describe a response that is really yours and not just a repackaged version of someone else's. how you dance when no one's watching.

[darr]

jj: your idea would sell more copies than mine!

[John_4185]

Darr jj: your idea would sell more copies than mine!

Gosh, I hope not! Seriously, I believe there's a market for your image.

I'm pleased that you did not take it badly. I did check your website first and sensed that you had a healthy view of the world.

I find it interesting that pears so often depicted in a similar arrangement of three, but are still so very different.

[William Mortensen]

"... to describe a response that is really yours and not just a repackaged version of someone else's. How you dance when no one's watching."

I do get the feeling that much of art and photography is done to impress someone else... Nothing new, and perhaps an inescapable part of the human condition. Maybe on a less-cynical day I could just change "impress" to "share with."

[darr]

jj Darr: I'm pleased that you did not take it badly.

If you kicked my dog, I would take that badly, but not your creative work as I am opened to visual suggestions. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your talents and point of view. A few of us on this end enjoyed it well!