Joel Meyerowitz interview

[Tim Hyde]

There is a 2-part Joel Meyerowitz interview over on the "2point8" blog. I think he is one of the most influential photographers of the past 50 years, especially his Cape Light work that is now being exhibited (newly reprinted) at Jackson Fine Art in Atlanta. The interviews are especially interesting where he discusses moving from 35mm to large format and the effect that had on his "street" style; also the problems he had getting access at Ground Zero.
http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=284
http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=285

[roteague]

I think he is one of the most influential photographers of the past 50 years

That is nice. I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap. His work show no life, no sense that he did anything more than show up and snap the shutter.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That is nice. I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap. His work show no life, no sense that he did anything more than show up and snap the shutter.

So....Robert, tell us how you really feel, don't hold back... :)

[Brian Ellis]

That is nice. I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap. His work show no life, no sense that he did anything more than show up and snap the shutter.

Does this mean you won't be flying from Hawaii to Atlanta for the exhibit?

[keeds]

I'm with Robert. He was interviewed alot in "The Genius of photography" and from what I saw all he did was poke his Leica in peoples faces and was lucky enough not to get punched. I'm sure some of his stuff is great, but the expression "an infiinite number of monkeys and typewriters......" come to my mind. But then what do I know, just what I think.

[JPlomley]

Interesting. I read an interview in Digital PhotoPro a while back about shooting at ground zero. He extolled the virtues of working with the Mamiya 7 for its discreet nature and outstanding image quality. Never mentioned anything about shooting LF. Is he using a Fotoman?

[Louie Powell]

Never mentioned anything about shooting LF. Is he using a Fotoman?

He uses an 8x10 Deardorff.

I agree that his street work is pretty dreadful - a pushy, New York street photography who shoves his camera in the face of people to make pictures that don't say very much.

And his Bay/Sky series is - - - is "boring" an appropriate term?

But in my opinion, Cape Light defines Cape Cod landscape photography. We've spent a lot of time there, and I've concluded that there are only two photographers who have really managed to capture the feeling of the Cape - Meyerowitz and Jon Vaughn.

[PhotoHistorian]

That is nice. I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap. His work show no life, no sense that he did anything more than show up and snap the shutter.

Robert,
Very articulate! "I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap." I would say the same about all those boring dawn/sunrise shots on your website. If you have seen one you have seen them all. Show up when the sun comes up and snap the shutter. How difficult is that?

Walker

[Tim Hyde]

We stand on his shoulders, guys--at least those of us who shoot color. It's hard to imagine now how much color was looked down on before Meyerowitz and Shore and Sternfeld and...yes...Eggleston. It's one thing to find his work boring or superficial, it's quite another to be so oafishly dismissive.

[Michael Graves]

I saw the Cape Light exhibition way back when it first toured. The prints then were done on dye transfer, according to the catalog; so that may have affected my perception of quality. But even though the photographs were made on 8x10, they didn't have the sharpness I expected. The landscapes were quite good, in my opinion, and I actually tried to talk my wife into ordering a print. (Too much money, she said). But the portraits did nothing for me. The colors didn't seem right.

[Daniel Grenier]

"I find it strangely beautiful that the camera with its inherent clarity of object and detail can produce images that in spite of themselves offer possibilities to be more than they are ... a photograph of nothing very important at all, nothing but an intuition, a response, a twitch from the photographer’s experience".
-Joel Meyerowitz - a quote.

[Toyon]

I've spent a lot of time on Cape Cod. I never have felt that Meyerowitz got the tones right. I always assumed it was the limitations of the medium. I think his photos show mastery, but a certain personal reserve that keeps everything at a distance.

[Richard Edic]

If I remember correctly, Meyerowitz shot unfiltered tungsten negative film, I think because of reciprocity issues. It has a shifted color look that is almost impossible to correct, especially in a conventional darkroom situation like where the original "Cape Light" prints were made. I have some old c-prints from this film,probably taken in imitation of Meyerowitz, and they are odd looking.

[PViapiano]

I just can't believe the negativity on this thread.

Of course, one's opinion is one's own and an entitlement, but the reasons given or at least the way they are expressed seem very hurtful and full of anger.

A camera, be it LF or otherwise, is just a tool for an artist's vision. Nothing says that LF needs to be tack-sharp or your scene have perfect color. Too many times talk on this forum is about gear, and yes, you need gear to practice this art, but don't forget that it's about your vision, what you want to say with your work.

Meyerowitz has another book, made for Barnes & Noble, with images produced in Tuscany. Many of those images are not "perfect" in the LF sense (as viewed by members of this forum) but are a wonderfully evocative and valid artist's view of that part of the world.

Toyon's comment above, I think his photos show mastery, but a certain personal reserve that keeps everything at a distance, shows he gets it. Daniel's quote above from Meyerowitz also shows that he's a thinking photographer and cares very much about the work, as well as the quote I've posted in the past, found on my site here (http://www.paulviapiano.com/blog/archives/quotable.html).

If you're going to attack work that is 30 or 40 years old, please realize the color technology in use at that time and adjust your expectations accordingly or you might just as well attack Atget for printing albumen.

[Brian Ellis]

That's a great quote PV, thanks for sharing it. I've been photographing exclusively in color for about two years after many years of b&w only. I've really been struggling with the postcard look, everything I do seems to end up looking like a pretty postcard. I didn't realize how much I had been relying on the fact that my b&w photographs were b&w and therefore inherently unrealistic to remove them from the postcard category. The Meyerowitz quote gets right to the heart of the problem I've been wrestling with.

[roteague]

We stand on his shoulders, guys--at least those of us who shoot color. It's hard to imagine now how much color was looked down on before Meyerowitz and Shore and Sternfeld and...yes...Eggleston. It's one thing to find his work boring or superficial, it's quite another to be so oafishly dismissive.

If I owed anything to Meyerowitz (or Eggleston for that matter) I would give up photography.

[roteague]

Meyerowitz has another book, made for Barnes & Noble, with images produced in Tuscany.

That book was my first real introduction to his work, and the biggest turnoff. The colors are muddied, depth of field odd, boring skies, just a general lack of any sense of life to it. Those images definitely did not make me want to visit Tuscany. As a landscape photographer, Meyerowitz is a failure. He needs to study some of the masters, like Joe Cornish, Jack Dykinga, Tom Till, Ken Duncan, Peter Dombrovskis, as just a few examples.

[Kirk Gittings]

That book was my first real introduction to his work, and the biggest turnoff. The colors are muddied, depth of field odd, boring skies, just a general lack of any sense of life to it. Those images definitely did not make me want to visit Tuscany. As a landscape photographer, Meyerowitz is a failure. He needs to study some of the masters, like Joe Cornish, Jack Dykinga, Tom Till, Ken Duncan, Peter Dombrovskis, as just a few examples.

By all means, lets keep doing the same old romantic landscape cliches.

[Gordon Moat]

Like his work or not, Meyerowitz is about as anti-traditional as it gets. Look at some of the surveys on this forum: the predominant subject matter is landscapes, and I would venture a guess that the predominant posters to this forum shoot B/W film. So it should probably not be too surprising to see criticism of urban images shot on colour film.

However, I can state I don't like that much of what Meyerwitz shoots. I find his 8x10 shots of NYC streets quite interesting, though partially that is a reflection on my preferences for environments. I was surprised at seeing him with his Leica bouncing in front of people to grab shots ... likely those people were wondering who is this nut.

The camera always looks both ways. What I see in the images I like from Meyerowitz is that insight into him as a photographer. That introspection is something that intrigues me, though it doesn't always work. Likely his name has become so known that we are now seeing more of his so-so work ... there are images to compel us, but there is chaff to wade through to find it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[tim atherton]

As a landscape photographer, Meyerowitz is a failure. He needs to study some of the masters, like Joe Cornish, Jack Dykinga, Tom Till, Ken Duncan, Peter Dombrovskis, as just a few examples.

They are the ones who have something to learn - time to get out of their cookie cutter, dime a dozen, over saturated, postcard stuff.

[Vaughn]

I never had much "extra" cash to buy many books, but Cape Light is one that I bought. I have always felt that Meyerowitz uses color as part of the image...not just as something that happens to be in front of the camera. Brian, I think that is what can take a color photograph beyond the pretty postcard stage.

If I were to make color photographs on the same level as my B&W, I would have to do a bit of reading on color theory...actually that has been on my list of things to do for a long time, as I think a better understanding of color would also inform/benefit my B&W work.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

By all means, lets keep doing the same old romantic landscape cliches.

C'mon Kirk, this is a cheap shot. What if I said, "yeah Kirk, move on to digital and keep doing the same old Wagnerian B&W shots you have been doing for the last 30 years,only just bigger" ? Not nice is it, I am surprised you posted this comment.

PViapiano posted he is surprised about the negativity, well I am also surprised about the negativity exhibited egainst someone who expresses his/her opinion. Perhaps Robert posted his opinion a bit too forcefully, but in the end it is his opinion and a matter of taste, his does not run in the same vein as many of you do.

I get where he comes from, Eggelston, Jeff Wall, Stephen Shore, etc, etc...are all photographers which I feel have elevated the mediocre to a from of worship, but this is just my opinion and I am told by the resident art experts I know nothing about photography. So what! It is my opinion and it is nothing to get so exited about.

Then again, Photohistorian posted "just show up in the morning and press the shutter", well, maybe this is why he is a photohistorian and not a photographer.....

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge, as you know I appreciate both well done traditional work in well worn aesthetic veins (like yours and mine and Roberts) as well as good visionary new work, but I object to this straight jacket vision that tries to freeze aesthetics in some post-industrial romanticized nonsense.

What a bore photography would be if the aesthetics of the medium never bloomed beyond the vision of the pre 1960's

[paulr]

I wonder how many people here, if they met Meyerowitz at a dinner party, would tell him to his face that his work is "pure, unadulterated crap." No matter how little they liked it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, as you know I appreciate both well done traditional work in well worn aesthetic veins (like yours and mine and Roberts) as well as good visionary new work, but I object to this straight jacket vision that tries to freeze aesthetics in some post-industrial romanticized nonsense.

What a bore photography would be if the aesthetics of the medium never bloomed beyond the vision of the pre 1960's

Fair enough Kirk, but on the other hand, is work that swings the pendulum enterily the other way all that good? I mean, a tricycle on a drive way?!? A wash cloth?!? And this is great and visionary work?

When someone states cathegorically that photographers like this are the most influential in the last xxxx years, I think some of us should be allowed to disagree or at least be able to say not to me they have not.

[paulr]

Calling someone's work influential doesn't mean it influenced everyone or that it influenced you.

Personally I don't care for Cindy Sherman's work from the '70s and '80s, and I certainly wasn't influenced by it. But I'd have to be blind to deny that it was hugely influential in the photography world and parts of the art world beyond it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge,

Holding up as the "masters" of landscape photography, a very narrow group of people who all work in the same narrow vein with a 50 year old aesthetic relegates landscape photography to the attic of history.

Cape Light, with its faults which I have written about before on other threads, is a widely recognized masterpiece with a stature that none of the "masters" mentioned have even come vaguely close to.

[Mike Lopez]

....

When someone states cathegorically that photographers like this are the most influential in the last xxxx years, I think some of us should be allowed to disagree or at least be able to say not to me they have not.

When someone states categorically that a photographer's work is pure, unadulterated crap (and makes similar comments any time that photographer's name comes up), I think some of us should be allowed to disagree or at least be able to say "Not to me, it's not."

[Kirk Gittings]

What would traditional photographers do without the foil of contemporary photography?

[Kirk Keyes]

What would traditional photographers do without the foil of contemporary photography?

I don't think many traditionalists even really care about comtemporary photography. They just enjoy doing what they are doing.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't think many traditionalists even really care about comtemporary photography. They just enjoy doing what they are doing.

I know that is true of some but.......then all this endless verbiage bashing contemporary photography is about what?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

Holding up as the "masters" of landscape photography, a very narrow group of people who all work in the same narrow vein with a 50 year old aesthetic relegates landscape photography to the attic of history.

Cape Light, with its faults which I have written about before on other threads, is a widely recognized masterpiece with a stature that none of the "masters" mentioned have even come vaguely close to.

Well, isn't this just your opinion? So am I now allowed to take a cheap shot at you and tell you, "well Kirk by all means start taking pictures of dog turds on the street, print them on ink jet and print them big and call it comtemporaty and you are on your way to fame!"?

On the other hand, using the same arguments that many on this forum use against AA I wonder if Cape Light was published today it would be considered a "masterpiece"?

[Kirk Gittings]

On the other hand, using the same arguments that many on this forum use against AA I wonder if Cape Light was published today it would be considered a "masterpiece"?

Teaching at a university photo program it is astonishing and saddening how little knowledge and appreciation there is for the early masters. I've run across attitudes that look at AA as a photographic equivalent to Thomas Kincade, completely oblivious to the overwhelming contributions he made to the medium on so many fronts and oblivious to how quintessentially "modern" his work was at one point. Meyerowitz work is more complex than it appears. It is both about his subjects and a reaction to earlier landscape photography, but I suspect it would be lost on most students today. I was around when Cape Light first came out and saw the first traveling show. It was a revelation.

Students sit through photo history presentations like it was about the history of quilting.

On the other hand many traditionalist hang on to the early masters like their aesthetic it is an eternal credo, and fail to recognize how completely revolutionary much of the work was at the time of its creation and that those same artists today would be creating revolutionary cutting edge work.

[roteague]

Cape Light, with its faults which I have written about before on other threads, is a widely recognized masterpiece with a stature that none of the "masters" mentioned have even come vaguely close to.

They may not have the "stature", but most of these others has contributed something to society, something that Cape Light or Tuscany have failed to do. For example, the work of Peter Dumbrovski stopped the Franklin River in Tasmania from being dammed; and area now protected as a UNESCO site. Jack Dkyinga's work was instrumental in wildlands along the US/Mexico border. Their work serves to protect our environment. So, I don't care about Meyerowitz's so called "stature".

[paulr]

Their work serves to protect our environment. So, I don't care about Meyerowitz's so called "stature".

It's admirable that their work was able to serve some larger good. But I'd suggest that furthering a social cause is only one of many possible functions for a picture.

There are public service posters that arguably did more social good than Weston's landscapes ever did. That doesn't necessarily make them great art, or even significant art.

[Tim Hyde]

If I owed anything to Meyerowitz (or Eggleston for that matter) I would give up photography.

I stand corrected. You conspicuously owe nothing to them.

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert,

I have never liked Eggleston's work, yet I do not deny the importance of it in the history of photography. It is undeniable. I don't like Hitler, but his imprint on history is undeniable. There is a difference between what I like and what I know is important. You confuse the two, because Meyerowitz didn't influence you.

And FWIW, Jack is a friend of mine, we presented together a few times at the VC Conference and swapped stories about Edward Abbey. I really like his work and respect the issues he has used his photography to promote.

[paulr]

I like Eggleston more than I like Hitler, even thought that's not the prevailing view around here.

(ducks for cover ...)

[chris_4622]

On the other hand many traditionalist hang on to the early masters like their aesthetic it is an eternal credo, and fail to recognize how completely revolutionary much of the work was at the time of its creation and that those same artists today would be creating revolutionary cutting edge work.

This is an excellent point. Think where we would be if music, architecture etc. were to hang on doing only what has already been done.

chris

[D. Bryant]

This is an excellent point. Think where we would be if music, architecture etc. were to hang on doing only what has already been done.

chris

Well all I can say is that I look forward to viewing the 'Cape Light' exhibit at the Jackson Fine Art Gallery next week. I'm sure I won't be disappointed.

Don Bryant

[roteague]

If I were to make color photographs on the same level as my B&W, I would have to do a bit of reading on color theory...actually that has been on my list of things to do for a long time, as I think a better understanding of color would also inform/benefit my B&W work.

Color theory isn't what you need for color photography, it is the light that is important. It is the light that gives an image feeling and imparts emotion to the viewer.

[Vaughn]

Color theory isn't what you need for color photography, it is the light that is important. It is the light that gives an image feeling and imparts emotion to the viewer.

True, but it is the ignoring of the color of the reflected light in color photography that can make the photographs postcard-like. In B&W we use the light's intensity, contrast range and level of diffusion to compose an image (or at least I do -- I am more light-orientated than subject/object orientated in my work). We can also use color to manipulate the range and placement of values through the use of filters and films of selected sensitivity to different wave-lenghts (color, UV, IR) of light.

In color photography the color of the light can (and IMO, should) be taken into consideration, which is where color theory comes in. Such things as the use of contrasting and complementry colors in composing an image, and the human emotional responce to color are all important considerations.

Of course, one does not need to study color theory no more than one has to study the Zone System to create good images. Thoughtful study of one's own images and those of others can be enough. Experience can be a great teacher...but one must be a great student.

Vaughn

[Keith S. Walklet]

The book Cape Light was as influential to my early understanding of the color of light as were Eliot Porter's.

A photographer friend shared the book with me and my memory of the images is as powerful some thirty years later as it was the day we flipped through the pages.

I never had the opportunity to see an exhibition of the work, but thought that the reproductions in the book faithfully recreated what I felt on my own family's visits to that area. I especially appreciated the sense of space the immense skies he captured offered.

You can't please everyone, but if my own work were to resonate with a viewer like that book did with me, that's plenty.

[paulr]

Color theory in art typically comes from people figuring out how artists have done what they've done. I don't think there's an imperative for an artist to study it, but anyone who finds themselves stuck in a rut (for example, always using color in ways no different from what the Romantic painters did over a hundred years ago) might find it illuminating.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well all I can say is that I look forward to viewing the 'Cape Light' exhibit at the Jackson Fine Art Gallery next week. I'm sure I won't be disappointed.

Don Bryant

Let us know what you think and which print set it is, I have now seen an exhibition of it with C prints, dye transfer, and pigment ink.

[Daniel Grenier]

Let us know what you think and which print set it is, I have now seen an exhibition of it with C prints, dye transfer, and pigment ink.

Actually, what did you think of the variations since you've seen all sets, Kirk?

I've seen his C prints but not the others and I'd be curious to see how much of a departure his HP inks are from the originals.

[Kirk Gittings]

Unfortunately there was many many years between the C prints (1978?), the dye tranfer (1982?) and the pigment ink last summer.

The C prints and dye transfers were contact prints and the pigment ink were about 24x30? (maybe a bit larger) enlargements. So memory does strange things. At every given stage I think they worked well, but worked differently. I thought the C prints were the most accurate color wise and had that depth that only a contact print can give. The dye transfers were a goosey, surreal, almost dreamlike color. The ink prints had a very soft warm glow to them like a fond memory. All in all, I guess I liked the scale and feel of the ink prints. You could fall into them. HOWEVER, at that size a few of the large prints were not very sharp, indicating some original focus issues, so a couple of them did not hold up well on close inspection.

[roteague]

True, but it is the ignoring of the color of the reflected light in color photography that can make the photographs postcard-like.

That is what I am referring to. Light has numerous forms and colors.

[Daniel Grenier]

Thanks for your thoughts, Kirk.

Incidentally, Meyrowitz discusses his ink prints on this 6+ minute HP "commercial".
Some have seen this before but for those who have not here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_qE_J_mHg

[Kirk Gittings]

By the way, notice in that piece that he is using a some kind of Creo/Scitex/Kodak pro flatbed scanner. I can't see the model. The case is the same as mine so I assume it is some model of the Eversmart

[Mark Sawyer]

Let us know what you think and which print set it is, I have now seen an exhibition of it with C prints, dye transfer, and pigment ink.

Like most people who have seen his work, I saw the other set of Cape Light prints... the book. I found the work quite beautiful, and while I don't know that it influenced me heavily, I still recall it more clearly than most images, even "fine art photography" images, I've seen, and I still think very highly of it.

His street work seems rather pedestrian (sorry...) to me, but I can allow how others might find something in that while disregarding the Cape work. What I don't quite understand is the open hostility towards his work and him personally.

But then, my own work is unpure, adulterated crap...

[sanking]

By the way, notice in that piece that he is using a some kind of Creo/Scitex/Kodak pro flatbed scanner. I can't see the model. The case is the same as mine so I assume it is some model of the Eversmart

That is definitely an EverSmart.

His comments about the HP3100 Vivera pigment inks are very interesting. In terms of permanence this ink set appears to be the most highly rated as of now.

Sandy King

[David A. Goldfarb]

I hate it when crap gets adulterated.

[Richard Edic]

I wish someone would describe my work as pure and unadulterated.

[Vaughn]

I wish someone would describe my work as pure and unadulterated.

My work is pure and unadulterated, then I blow it by actually exposing the film (Adulteration in the First Degree!).

Vaughn

[roteague]

My work is pure and unadulterated, then I blow it by actually exposing the film (Adulteration in the First Degree!).

Vaughn

Quite possibly, still better than Meyerowitz's best.

[Vaughn]

Quite possibly, still better than Meyerowitz's best.

Hello Robert,

I am more than willing to accept your opinion of Meyerowitz, but only as your opinion...not as fact.

I enjoyed looking through your website, you have several striking images. You are very good at finding light and color, but IMO, but with a few exceptions, you have not yet mastered the use of light and color. Your series of images at the Dead Sea are almost Meyerowitz/Cape Cod-like, but without the emotional content of Meyerowitz's images. This is understandable, one cannot express an emotion that is not already inside oneself...and it is difficult to photograph far from home on an emotional level. I do see more emotion in your work that is closer to your home.

You make a statement on your "Fine Art Print" page..."Images taken with the large-format camera are known for their unparalled clarity and sharpness, and are the standard by which fine art prints are measured." This statement is very telling. It is very good commercially-orientated statement, which is the purpose of your site. IMO, it fails as a general statement about art. (BTW, it is "unparalleled") I did notice that several of your images have tilted horizons, but that may be due to the curvature of the earth, I suppose.

Your work has a high OTC factor, which is good for sales (OTC -- how a piece of art looks "Over The Couch"). But if one are going to point a finger and declare another artist's work rubbish, it might be wise to remember that when one does point a finger, there are three pointing back at oneself.

Vaughn

[Tim Hyde]

Note to self: don't ever under any circumstances allow myself to become disharmonious with Vaughn or get in his crosshairs.

[Vaughn]

Note to self: don't ever under any circumstances allow myself to become disharmonious with Vaughn or get in his crosshairs.

You should see the sparks fly when I put myself in my own crosshairs!:eek: I see those three fingers pointing at me too often...like right now.:o

vaughn

[roteague]

Hello Robert,

I am more than willing to accept your opinion of Meyerowitz, but only as your opinion...not as fact.

I enjoyed looking through your website, you have several striking images. You are very good at finding light and color, but IMO, but with a few exceptions, you have not yet mastered the use of light and color. Your series of images at the Dead Sea are almost Meyerowitz/Cape Cod-like, but without the emotional content of Meyerowitz's images. This is understandable, one cannot express an emotion that is not already inside oneself...and it is difficult to photograph far from home on an emotional level. I do see more emotion in your work that is closer to your home.

You make a statement on your "Fine Art Print" page..."Images taken with the large-format camera are known for their unparalled clarity and sharpness, and are the standard by which fine art prints are measured." This statement is very telling. It is very good commercially-orientated statement, which is the purpose of your site. IMO, it fails as a general statement about art. (BTW, it is "unparalleled") I did notice that several of your images have tilted horizons, but that may be due to the curvature of the earth, I suppose.

Your work has a high OTC factor, which is good for sales (OTC -- how a piece of art looks "Over The Couch"). But if one are going to point a finger and declare another artist's work rubbish, it might be wise to remember that when one does point a finger, there are three pointing back at oneself.

Vaughn


I never considered any of my 35mm work to be fine art (including all the Jordan images), I just considered it stock photography. However, I can see where you are coming from, and in fact, I'm in the process of splitting my site into two separate domains; one for the fine art stuff, and one for the travel/stock work.

[Ted Harris]

I'll add a note here that Tim is too modest. I've seen his work and it is very good.

[roteague]

I am more than willing to accept your opinion of Meyerowitz, but only as your opinion...not as fact.

I've never represented it as anything else. The original poster represented Meyerowitz's work as the most influential ... which was his opinion, and I countered with mine.


Your work has a high OTC factor, which is good for sales (OTC -- how a piece of art looks "Over The Couch").

Which is your opinon. Frankly, it doesn't bother me what you think of my work or not; it isn't done to please you. You haven't shown me that you even understand color landscape photography, much less are in a position to critique it. So have fun.

[Kirk Gittings]

The simple fact that Meyerowitz's work has been included in every history of photography (that looks at the twentieth century) since Newhall's 1982 revised History of Photography , suggests that the original poster was absolutely right in his assessment.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The simple fact that Meyerowitz's work has been included in every history of photography (that looks at the twentieth century) since Newhall's 1982 revised History of Photography , suggests that the original poster was absolutely right in his assessment.

To some not to others.... :rolleyes:

[BrianShaw]

My one-and-only Meyerowitz print is "OTC" (a cute phrase I have never heard before... perhaps I'm living a sheltered life). It seems like a good time to replace it. Can any give suggestions that would keep us from being laughed at when we have dinner guests?

[Kirk Gittings]

I think he is one of the most influential photographers of the past 50 years from the original post.

For this statement to be accurate doesn't require that he influenced every living photographer or even every living photographer positively. It might even include those photographers, who choose to work in the 19th century vein, who show the influence by their reaction against his work.

[Vaughn]

My one-and-only Meyerowitz print is "OTC" (a cute phrase I have never heard before... perhaps I'm living a sheltered life). It seems like a good time to replace it. Can any give suggestions that would keep us from being laughed at when we have dinner guests?

Hello Brian!

No, don't replace it. "OTC" is not a negative connotation. It is just a class of art work that is an indication of why some people might buy a particular piece of art. Generally speaking it has to be 1) big (since it is difficult to get close to a piece hanging over a couch, it must have a long viewing distance) and 2) match the decor/color scheme of the room.

How successful an OTC peice is depends on (IMO) how it "wears" over time. If after a few months on does not notice it or hardly look at it, it is not a very successful piece of art. If one finds oneself looking at it intently occasionally over a long period of time, then it is successful as a piece of art. If one's company makes nice compliments about the piece, then it may also be a successful piece of decor.

Vaughn

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the comments, Vaughn. The photo I currently have OTC is Meyerowitz's 'The Table', 1981. And, it has been hung in my house pretty consistently since then, so I suppose it has "worn well".

The thought has been to move it to a more private environment since to me it always evokes fond memories of soothing and more serene times of my childhood. Yet it also is a constant reminder of how my currentl location/lifestyle is quite the opposite. Perhaps I'll leave it there since everyone tends to associate that photo with who I really am, rather than who I've been pretending to be for the past 30 years.

I am also looking for something to put "OTM" - Over The Mantel. I hope that is an equally non-offensive term since it is one of Jorge's prints I'm contemplating and I'd hate to offend him! :eek:

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am also looking for something to put "OTM" - Over The Mantel. I hope that is an equally non-offensive term since it is one of Jorge's prints I'm contemplating and I'd hate to offend him! :eek:

LOL..... 99% of the work I sell is for decoration, only a few people (maybe 1 or 2) collect my work as representative of Mexican pt/pd photography, the rest are OTC, OTF (over the fireplace) OTM (over the mantel) and I hope none are ITTC (in the trash can) :D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

from the original post.

For this statement to be accurate doesn't require that he influenced every living photographer or even every living photographer positively. It might even include those photographers, who choose to work in the 19th century vein, who show the influence by their reaction against his work.

Even by your definition, you have not stopped to consider that he had no influence at all. I bet you 90% of the photography community does not know who he is, and that probably holds true for most of the photographers we discuss here. I would consider most influential those names which you mention at a party and most everybody knows who they are, even if they don't know jack about photography, some of them famous for only one shot like Eddie Adams.. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

By the cocktail party test, even Edward Weston would not be influential. No matter how you want to spin it, and whether you like his work or not, to deny Meyerowitz's influence is wishful thinking.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Or perhaps noting his influence as greater than what it really is, is wishful thinking...

[Kirk Gittings]

So your explanation of why he shows up in all the history books is.........wishful thinking on whose part?

If you don't know too many, in my experience, there is no more critical, competitive, dismissive, contrary group of academics than art historians (with the exception of Newhall, who was most gracious to his colleagues). The fact that there is general consensus on Meyerowitz might just suggest that it is your wishful thinking that is out of touch with this reality.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So your explanation of why he shows up in all the history books is.........wishful thinking on whose part?

If you don't know too many, in my experience, there is no more critical, competitive, dismissive, contrary group of academics than art historians (with the exception of Newhall, who was most gracious to his colleagues). The fact that there is general consensus on Meyerowitz might just suggest that it is your wishful thinking that is out of touch with this reality.

LOL...Let me tell you, I know far more academics than you will ever know, this behavior is not confined to the art history field. Be that as it may, you seem to want to ram down our throats the idea that this guy is one of the most influential when clearly there are many of us who do not agree, of course, I am suppose to agree with you because some historians said so....the fact not withstanding that many history books are wrong and keep being revisited and corrected. We don't know that a 100 years from now some historian will not write, "that guy made crap and all these fools fell for it..." :)

[Mark Sawyer]

:
No, don't replace it. "OTC" is not a negative connotation. It is just a class of art work that is an indication of why some people might buy a particular piece of art. Generally speaking it has to be 1) big (since it is difficult to get close to a piece hanging over a couch, it must have a long viewing distance)...

Note to forum: ULF work shall now be refered to as "OTC-format". In a pinch, "sofa-sized" will do... :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

Let me see, in one hand Beaumont Newhall, in the other Jorge, hmm......

You can have the last word. I'm bored with this discussion.

[Tim Hyde]

Note, Jorge and others, that I didn't say in my original post that I thought Meyerowitz' work is good, I said it was influential, and I think that is what Kirk is saying too, at least here. (Though, of course, I DO think his work is great.) Asserting his influence is a very different from saying it is good. Meyerowitz' is influence hardly open to dispute. Saying that most people have never heard of him so he's is not influential is laughable: a lot of people have never heard of Stravinsky or Enrico Fermi or James Joyce, but that doesn't diminish their gargantuan influence. The fact is that before Meyerowitz and Eggleston and Sternfeld and Shore, color photography was considered lowbrow, a useful tool for advertising and tourists. Since, it is a legitimate form of artistic photographic expression.

[Gordon Moat]

Seems some would rather have a consensus of mob rule that acceptance. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but convincing others is tougher. Largely I agree with Kirk Gittings on this, though it should be pointed out that this forum is ultra-traditionalist B/W landscape enthusiasts ... even Edward Burtynsky has been bashed on this forum.

When someone doesn't like the work of another photographer, then there is still influence. In such cases, the influence is to be careful not producing any works that would remind anyone of those photographers you despise. Influence can be positive or negative ... like it or not.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Note, Jorge and others, that I didn't say in my original post that I thought Meyerowitz' work is good, I said it was influential, and I think that is what Kirk is saying too, at least here. (Though, of course, I DO think his work is great.) Asserting his influence is a very different from saying it is good. Meyerowitz' is influence hardly open to dispute. Saying that most people have never heard of him so he's is not influential is laughable: a lot of people have never heard of Stravinsky or Enrico Fermi or James Joyce, but that doesn't diminish their gargantuan influence. The fact is that before Meyerowitz and Eggleston and Sternfeld and Shore, color photography was considered lowbrow, a useful tool for advertising and tourists. Since, it is a legitimate form of artistic photographic expression.

What influence, I did not know who the guy was until I read about him here, I am sure many (although they don't want to admit it) are in the same boat. I knew who Elliot Porter was, I knew who Pete Turner was (even though he uses mostly 35 mm) I knew who Andrès Serrano was even before he did his santeria series and all the BS about the Christ in piss, and I don't shoot color.

So you see, although you might find it laughable, not knowing who the guy is, is a very good indication of the influence.

Seems to me the great "influence" that you talk about is merited because some critics told us it is great and influential work and since you like it you agree. The funny thing to me, is that all you mention in this post are all of the ones who I feel are engaged in the worship of mediocrity just because it is different and some critic said it was great work...ah...you forgot Jeff Wall....

[Vaughn]

Note to forum: ULF work shall now be refered to as "OTC-format". In a pinch, "sofa-sized" will do... :rolleyes:

Maybe 16x20 or 20x24 may qualify as OTC, but generally they would have too much detail to enjoy to be put over the sofa. And generally being in B&W, they would need to have a fancy frame to satisfy the decor requirements ;) . Digitally printed 30"x40" prints with saturated color -- now those are classic OTC material.

ULF would make for better OTM work, IMO...a place where good lighing can be placed and one could put one's nose up to the work, yet be able to stand back 6 or 8 feet for a good look.

Vaughn

[sanking]

I consider myself only reasonably knowledgeable about modern and contemporary photographers, but I have known about the work of Joel Meyerowitz for a very, very long time. At least two decades I am sure, primarily via his Cape Cod color work but also from other sources.

Not for me to say how much influence his work has had on other photographers, but an American photographer who is invited to exhibit at the Jeu de Paume in Paris is not a person languishing in total obscurity.

Sandy King

[Michael T. Murphy]

Wow, I am stunned! Meyerowitz is too **radical** for this forum? :confused: :D

Even if you exclude most of the images made throughout his long career, Meyerowitz has earned his place in the history of photography by:

1) Working daily in the streets of New York with Winogrand, Arbus, et. al. in the 1960's,

2) Writing a very well regarded book on that "field", "A History of Street Photography", that includes one of the most inciteful analysis' of Frank's accomplishments taht I have seen,

3) Creating his highly regarded film "Pop", and

4) Gaining access to Ground Zero when it was next to impossible, then going daily with an 8x10 view camera over a period of almost a year, working 18 hours a day, to create an incredible document of that space.

I have seen him present and talk about his Ground Zero work twice. I was absolutely stunned by the effort required to create the archive, at great personal expense, as much as by the images.

Personally, I had thought Meyerowitz was as well known within the history of photography as Weston. Certainly better known than someone rather obscure, like Atget.

Wow! :cool: :eek:

[Frank Petronio]

I always enjoyed Meyerowitz's stuff, all of it. He's right up there with Misrach. And one of his large prints would look awesome over our couch.

On a side note, did you know he did the Newport cigarette ads for a few decades? Good old (Jewish) boy NYC connections... cigarette advertising paid for a lot more of his fine art work than any freaking tax-payer funded grants.

That alone -- that he was a working commercial photographer doing higher end fine art, better than all those effete intellectual MFA snobs -- sold me on Meyerowitz. He's a good guy and a smart businessman/artist.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not radical at all anything but as a matter of fact..... :rolleyes:

1.. so what? I am good friends with Dan Burkholder, that does not make me a better or worse photographer

2.. well regarded by whom? I guess it is a matter of interest, if street photography floats your boat, then it is no surprise...

3... Must be in the back bin of Amazon, first time I heard about this film...not so highly regarded by all I guess.

4..shameless self promotion, and not so good pics at that...at least what I saw. I have carried the 12x20 on my back, uphill BOTH ways on my knees, took a few pics and shelve them away...just because it is difficult it does not make it good... :rolleyes:

[Michael T. Murphy]

if street photography floats your boat, then it is no surprise...


We were talking about his place in the history of photography. I forgot - if it is something that you don't care about, it doesn't exist.

What happens at ground zero *does* happen to be history. The same as what happened in the streets of New York in the 60's with Winogrand, Arbus, et. al.

When you are in the books maybe someone will give a shit about you crawling on your knees. Until then, I agree - no-one cares about those pictures.

[Tim Hyde]

I think we have to accept the possibility that Zapatista Rebels have kidnapped Jorge and somebody has gotten ahold of his computer. We should let the State Department know before his reputation is ruined.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

We were talking about his place in the history of photography. I forgot - if it is something that you don't care about, it doesn't exist.

What happens at ground zero *does* happen to be history. The same as what happened in the streets of New York in the 60's with Winogrand, Arbus, et. al.

When you are in the books maybe someone will give a shit about you crawling on your knees. Until then, I agree - no-one cares about those pictures.

Did I say I don't care about it? No, like usual with you who beleive all is wonderful because a critic told you, you assumed I did not.

LOL...history, yeah right.

I might be crawling on my knees, but I least I have my own mind, you instead need someone else to tell you what is good. Geeez, you are such a mature person.. :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think we have to accept the possibility that Zapatista Rebels have kidnapped Jorge and somebody has gotten ahold of his computer. We should let the State Department know before his reputation is ruined.

Zapatista rebels where from the Mexican revolution in 1910, they are not around anymore. So if you plan to be "cute" at least try (as difficult as this might be to you) to know what you are talking about.

[harrykauf]

Zapatista rebels where from the Mexican revolution in 1910, they are not around anymore. So if you plan to be "cute" at least try (as difficult as this might be to you) to know what you are talking about.

Are you up to date in anything??

"The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) is an armed revolutionary group based in Chiapas, one of the poorest states of Mexico. "

"The group takes its name from Emiliano Zapata, a proponent of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920); The Zapatistas see themselves as his ideological heirs.

In 1994, they declared war "against the Mexican state.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

geez..they are writing about this Subcomandante Marcos guy even in germany.

[Tim Hyde]

Zapatista rebels where from the Mexican revolution in 1910, they are not around anymore. So if you plan to be "cute" at least try (as difficult as this might be to you) to know what you are talking about.


No, Jorge. The Zapatistas are modern rebels based in Chiapas. They are called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), obviously named after the early 20th-Century revolutionary Zapata but very modern. I thought you lived there.

[tim atherton]

Personally, I had thought Meyerowitz was as well known within the history of photography as Weston. Certainly better known than someone rather obscure, like Atget.

Wow! :cool: :eek:

Damn - finally some real fighting words in this thread...

Hopefully you've read Bystander where Atget's seminal place is recognised? Without Atget there probably would be no Winogrand, Friedlander, Frank etc (or Meyerowitz) as we know them. Atget is the foundation for much of what followed and still is.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Are you up to date in anything??

"The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN) is an armed revolutionary group based in Chiapas, one of the poorest states of Mexico. "

"The group takes its name from Emiliano Zapata, a proponent of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920); The Zapatistas see themselves as his ideological heirs.

In 1994, they declared war "against the Mexican state.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

geez..they are writing about this Subcomandante Marcos guy even in germany.

LOL...certainly more up to date than you are. But then again what can I expect from experts like you and Hyde who get google and wikipedia tid bits and all of the sudden are experts.

For starters, the leader of the so called army joined with the presidential candidate Lopez Obrador to increase voting among the poorer states, this effectively nullified the effectiveness of the rebels and in fact it has for all purposes disbanded the group.

Comandante Marcos is old news and in fact many of his old supporters view him as having sold out for attempting to participate in the politcal arena.

So, the two of you as I said before better know what you are talking about before you try and correct me, I not only know more than you about Mexico, but probably about the US as well.

Then again, why am I arguing with two new commer wannabes....off to the ignore list you go...

[harrykauf]

Zapatista rebels where from the Mexican revolution in 1910, they are not around anymore.



For starters, the leader of the so called army joined with the presidential candidate Lopez Obrador to increase voting among the poorer states, this effectively nullified the effectiveness of the rebels and in fact it has for all purposes disbanded the group.

Comandante Marcos is old news and in fact many of his old supporters view him as having sold out for attempting to participate in the politcal arena.


The link to the wikipedia article was just to clarify that Tim was refering to the modern
Zapatistas in his joke. I dont follow mexican politics and know about Marcos only
from an article about his role as a writer and about the Zapatistas from their online
resistance attemts around 10 years ago.
So its quite amazing how something that doesnt exist since 1910 can still get noticed
by someone like me who isnt even interested in the subject and lived in austria at that
time.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The link to the wikipedia article was just to clarify that Tim was refering to the modern
Zapatistas in his joke. I dont follow mexican politics and know about Marcos only
from an article about his role as a writer and about the Zapatistas from their online
resistance attemts around 10 years ago.
So its quite amazing how something that doesnt exist since 1910 can still get noticed
by someone like me who isnt even interested in the subject and lived in austria at that
time.

You once again show your ignorance, you should have just stayed out of it from the beguinning and I would not have to show just how ignorant you are.

When you say "something that does not exist since 1910" it is clear you are not aware that these are two entirely different things. Emiliano Zapata was the rebel who led the Mexican revolution in 1910. The Zapatista movement in southern Mexico only took the name of the revolution general but has nothing to do with the Mexican revolution, the most that it can be said is that it was created in the same spirit of a desire for greater equality, but once again it has nothing to do with the Mexican revolution so in that sense it has not "existed" since 1910 nor is it still being noticed.

So I guess the one that is not "up to date" as you put it is you not me..huh?

[harrykauf]

It was fun for a while but I think I will start feeling sorry for you,
so have a nice day.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It was fun for a while but I think I will start feeling sorry for you,
so have a nice day.

Don't worry I already feel sorry for you...you have a nice day too.

[Duane Polcou]

I like reading the first post in a thread and then the last, trying to figure how it ended up that way. It started with Joel Meyerowitz and ended with Zapata.

So, Jews are really from Mexico?

[fuegocito]

Just a thought, can we come to a consensus about one artist, piece of work or anything for that matter that we either like or dislike?

For the record, "I can't believe it's not butter" IS not butter:D

Robert

[Gordon Moat]

This reminds me of when my niece asked me why the sky was blue. My answer was that a bunch of us grown-ups got together, looked at the sky, and decided we would call it blue ... and that's it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Vaughn]

I really like Frank Zapata's music.

Vaughn
Don't eat that yellow snow...

[jetcode]

That is nice. I think his work is pure, unadulterated, crap. His work show no life, no sense that he did anything more than show up and snap the shutter.

how is that any different then your work?

[Michael T. Murphy]

Are you up to date in anything??

geez..they are writing about this Subcomandante Marcos guy even in germany.

Rage Against the Machine has an interesting interview with him on their "The Battle for Mexico City" cd.

[Michael T. Murphy]

you instead need someone else to tell you what is good. Geeez, you are such a mature person.. :)

None of my comments had anything to do with my opinion about his images, or his work.

The question that I was addressing was Meyerowitz' relative position in the history of photography. Some folks seem to be uninformed about his work and influence, to the point of barely recognizing his name.

The solution when you *are* uninformed, of course, is to do *research* - to try to evaluate his place within the recent history of photography in the US.

Others seem to prefer to express their opinion, which essentially equates to an argument that goes something like: "I am not familiar with him, I don't like that kind of work, so he must be irrelevant to the history of the medium." Rather arrogant, but of course no-one really cares about such a vacuous opinion.

I am a professional. I have degrees in photography and philosophy – including logic. These arguments ad hominem amount to little more than mindless dribble.

[Vaughn]

Good points, Michael.

What I have observed and have read is that there is a certain personality type that believe, literally, that they are always right. This personality type usually makes for strong leaders -- they make quick decisions and are virtually unmovable from their position. They see people who oppose them do so for one of two reasons 1) they are stupid and don't know any better or 2) they are disagreeing just to be nasty.

This is evident here...and this is why logic and the ability to see two sides of an issue seem to be lacking in many of the discussions...it is just not in the nature of this personality type to use these as tools when their position in a discussion is opposed. Thus they resort to using statements about the lack of intellence and other ad hominem type arguments against those who disagree with them. They literally cannot see nor process arguments counter to their strongly held positions.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

None of my comments had anything to do with my opinion about his images, or his work.

The question that I was addressing was Meyerowitz' relative position in the history of photography. Some folks seem to be uninformed about his work and influence, to the point of barely recognizing his name.

The solution when you *are* uninformed, of course, is to do *research* - to try to evaluate his place within the recent history of photography in the US.

Others seem to prefer to express their opinion, which essentially equates to an argument that goes something like: "I am not familiar with him, I don't like that kind of work, so he must be irrelevant to the history of the medium." Rather arrogant, but of course no-one really cares about such a vacuous opinion.

I am a professional. I have degrees in photography and philosophy – including logic. These arguments ad hominem amount to little more than mindless dribble.

And the question I am addressing is this idea that he is one of the most influential photgraphers. It might be to some, but to qualify him as "most" is far from correct.

As to your degrees....... bfd, maybe you should get your money back since the "degree" in logic (if that exists) seems not to have done you any good.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Good points, Michael.

What I have observed and have read is that there is a certain personality type that believe, literally, that they are always right. This personality type usually makes for strong leaders -- they make quick decisions and are virtually unmovable from their position. They see people who oppose them do so for one of two reasons 1) they are stupid and don't know any better or 2) they are disagreeing just to be nasty.

This is evident here...and this is why logic and the ability to see two sides of an issue seem to be lacking in many of the discussions...it is just not in the nature of this personality type to use these as tools when their position in a discussion is opposed. Thus they resort to using statements about the lack of intellence and other ad hominem type arguments against those who disagree with them. They literally cannot see nor process arguments counter to their strongly held positions.

Vaughn

I am sorry to be in such a great presence as yours Vaughn, wich such logic powers and superb critical analysis gift.

OTOH, why don't you go mix some photo chemicals..... seem this is what you are better suited for.

[Ralph Upchurch]

And his Bay/Sky series is - - - is "boring" an appropriate term?

While my first introduction to Joel's work was Cape Light, I have to say that Bay/Sky is probably my favorite. I have a personal reason for that. Joel took the photos for Bay/Sky from the backyard of his home in Provincetown. Every summer, my wife and I stay at a house next door to his, and watch the tide move in and out over the same rocks and sand bars. It's almost as if we were able to commission this enormously perceptive photographer to capture the moods of the view from our home over a several year time span.

The boats that moor there are different now, but the rocks and the subtle topography and gradation of color in the sand are unchanged. As many times as I have seen that view, it has never been the same twice, and I think that is the main point of the series.

I've found that tidal flat to be a great source of photographic inspiration over the years, but have never captured anything there with as much power as Bay/Sky.

[Vaughn]

Ah, so the analysis fits and has been proven correct. Actually, I will hold back on mixing chemicals as the university has just let out for the Xmas break and no one will be printing for a month. Now is the time for cleaning and aligning enlargers, another task that I am hopefully suited for, being more of the plodding analytical type. Even still, I can only do about 4 or 5 enlargers before having to take a break from it. Having caused one of the biggest in-building floods in the university's history, the Plant Operation people prefer if I don't do anymore plumbing work.:o

Vaughn

[Vaughn]

snip...I've found that tidal flat to be a great source of photographic inspiration over the years, but have never captured anything there with as much power as Bay/Sky.

Hello Ralph, not many can capture the power of the ordinary or the simple. Very different from photographing the extremes of weather or landforms. Living near Humboldt Bay and having done B&W and some color of the Bay, I do appreciate Meyerowitz's skill and vision.

Digital equipment has made it even easier to capture the extremes and the fleeting moments of chaos, getting us more and more spoiled and less appreciative of the simple and the quiet.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ah, so the analysis fits and has been proven correct.

LOL...if you call that "analysis"....I call it psyco babble BS from a third rate mind. Anyhow, when I get incompetent customer service people on the phone, rather than wasting time with them I just simply tell them to have a nice life answering phones and hang up, so....have a nice life aligning enlargers.

[jetcode]

LOL...if you call that "analysis"....I call it psyco babble BS from a third rate mind. Anyhow, when I get incompetent customer service people on the phone, rather than wasting time with them I just simply tell them to have a nice life answering phones and hang up, so....have a nice life aligning enlargers.

if your position and truth is so secure why the need to trash others?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

if your position and truth is so secure why the need to trash others?

:rolleyes:

[Marko]

if your position and truth is so secure why the need to trash others?

Because some people can only feel big if they manage to make someone else feel small. Their version of having a nice life, I suppose... :rolleyes:

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Because some people can only feel big if they manage to make someone else feel small. Their version of having a nice life, I suppose... :rolleyes:

Or it could be that some people don't take shit from anybody, unlike people like you... :rolleyes:

[Vaughn]

Marko, Jetcode, don't worry about me, I realize that it is just his personality style. And I do not think it is a bad personality style, nor was I trying to give Jorge "shit". It is just good to know when trying to relate to someone else. I am more of an analytical/amiable personality type. I like to think things through. Driver personalities (such as Jorge) often get fed up with those of my personality types...we seem to be slow thinkers. This is because analytical types like to think of all possibilities...we come to decisions way after driver types have made up their minds and are ready to move on.

I think it is helpful to know ones general personality type...one's strengths and weaknesses and how one relates to those of other personality types. I tend to be a procrastinator (drives my wife, who is also a driver personality, crazy.) This is because as an analytical type, I prefer to know all I can know about how to do a project before I start it. Knowing this, I can see my procrastination, the reason behind it, and force myself just to go for it -- without waiting for all the facts. And generally, I find that all goes well and that I learn what I need to know as I go.

But since both my wife and I know each other's personality style, we can work with each other better...she knows that I just need a little more time to think of the possibilities, and I know how to deal with her quick, seemingly not-thought-out decisions.

Knowing this sort of stuff is very helpful in office situations. For example, someone who is a strong amiable type hates to make waves, wants everyone to be happy and has a hard time saying "no" to anyone. So if cornered, they will say "yes" to make everything seem okay -- even if they have no intention of doing anything. What may seem as flacky or even passive-aggressive, is just their personality style. So when dealing with an amiable type, make sure that they have the possibility to say "no" without feeling pressured to say "yes"...it cuts down one aggravation when they seem to be dragging their feet and not doing what they said they would do.

So while he has me shaking my head sometimes, I think Jorge is probably an alright guy. His personality style is probably even stronger on-line than face-to-face, as we all are dealing with electronic posts, not real people. The best way to deal with him is to smile, mentally pat him on the head, and let him have the last word.

Vaughn

PS...I'd better get to those enlargers!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The best way to deal with him is to smile, mentally pat him on the head

Funny, how condescending behavior comes from those who try to make up for their defiencise with "explanations", personality "analysis" when they ar enot even qualified. You seem to be a frustrated wannabe psycologist, if anybody is going to pat you in the head is me....at least I achieved my goals... ;)

[jetcode]

my comment is an observation for everyone to consider including myself

[Vaughn]

my comment is an observation for everyone to consider including myself

Point taken, thank you.

vaughn

[paulr]

Others seem to prefer to express their opinion, which essentially equates to an argument that goes something like: "I am not familiar with him, I don't like that kind of work, so he must be irrelevant to the history of the medium." Rather arrogant, but of course no-one really cares about such a vacuous \

Raving anti-intellectualism and the repetition of logical falacies seem almost as popular with some people as Ansel's late landscapes. Don't ask me why.

[BrianShaw]

Is it over yet?

[sanking]

Is it over yet?

Do you hear a rotund diva singing?

[BrianShaw]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/aal0027l.jpg

[Marko]

I am more of an analytical/amiable personality type. I like to think things through. Driver personalities (such as Jorge) often get fed up with those of my personality types...we seem to be slow thinkers.

I will respectfully disagree here - slow to speak is definitely not the same as slow to think. If anything, those two qualities are complementary and it seems to me that the basic characteristic of what you call the driver personalities is exactly that they are fast to speak. ;)


So while he has me shaking my head sometimes, I think Jorge is probably an alright guy. His personality style is probably even stronger on-line than face-to-face, as we all are dealing with electronic posts, not real people. The best way to deal with him is to smile, mentally pat him on the head, and let him have the last word.

You know, I' am not going to disagree with you here. He is actually pretty alright with me too, especially since he took permanent residence on my ignore list, along with a select few other characters.

The only problem with the ignore list is that it lets the quotes through. Maybe the moderators can find a way to fix that?

[lee\c]

I have photographed with Jorge and eating his food and drank his coffee at his house. I like Jorge. I think he has a low fool tolerance.

lee\c

[Gordon Moat]

He who laughs last thinks slowest. :cool: :D

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah I think Jorge is having fun provoking us. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of large format photography.

(as long as I can still be Ann Coulter...)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah I think Jorge is having fun provoking us. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of large format photography.

(as long as I can still be Ann Coulter...)

Careful there bubba, your right wing slip is showing.. :)

[jetcode]

(as long as I can still be Ann Coulter...)

what's her latest book?

if dipshits had brains they'd be dipshits?

[Vaughn]

Pat, pat ;)

Vaughn

[sanking]

Yeah I think Jorge is having fun provoking us. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of large format photography.

(as long as I can still be Ann Coulter...)

Only if you have long legs, small boobs, and a really firm ass.

[alanps]

Chipping in a bit late here but.......

As a Brit who lives in the US - I often have to remind people to be a little careful with the word 'World'....

Meyerowitz is an important figure in US photography - and for me Cape Light was a breakthrough in modern color photography....

Internationally though he is less well known - in time that might change, but as of now in Europe for example the work of Paul Graham, Thomas Joshua Cooper (oddly enough an American by birth), John Blakemore etc are much better known...

In the World of Photography - there is clearly a league who have historical status such as Atget, Talbot, Brandt etc along with many US photographers such as Steichen, Weston etc etc

My point is that - all work that is of value an importance has its place - its not a competition (or shouldn't be) - Meyerowitz may well take his place with the greats in time...

[LFdelux]

there are too many others to say that he was the most influential in the past 50 years.

[paulr]

there are too many others to say that he was the most influential in the past 50 years.

Did anyone say he was? I'd agree that there are quite a few who have been more influential. But he's up there. Especially among color photographers, and especially especially among color landscape and cityscape photographers.

To everyone saying, "well he didn't influence ME," so what? He didn't influence me either, at least not directly (though he might have had I known about him earlier). The issue is the number of people who are shaping the state of contemporary photography who cite him as an influence. I think you'll find a lot.