Re: "movement" Now Official
I love Tillman's work, and bow to the epic influence of Guru Galli, but I'm not sure that a workshop edifies a new "movement". To me a show by that theme at a major museum or a book maybe..........
Re: "movement" Now Official
I'm not an art critic, but I am interested in how those who claim to work in a "New Pictorialist" style define that style, and what they feel it means in contemporary terms. As I understand the original Pictorialist movement, it was closely tied to the painting of its time, in composition, lighting and subject matter, and in the surface qualities of the prints.
I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way. Whatever Jim Galli is doing, I certainly wouldn't call it pictorialism, unless the use of a soft focus lens automatically confers the title. It seems to me Jim's passion for photographing junk cars, decrepit buildings, etc., has more in common with calendar art than pictorialism, and I mean no disrespect in saying so. I think Jim might have as much fun, or more than just about any photographer I know, and I respect that kind of sincerity, even if the work leaves me cold.
Surely, a "movement" must be based on something more substantial than the choice of lens. If the "New Pictorialists" are just reinterpreting the work of the f64 Group using soft focus lenses, then "New Pictorialism" isn't much of a movement, in my estimation. If I were to label someone's work Pictorialist, it would be Gandolfi's,not Galli's. Gandolfi's use of classical lighting reminiscent of the Dutch masters, his use of studio props to adorn his models, and his printing techniques all combine to make a case for his being an artistic descendent of the original Pictorialists.
There is one important difference between Gandolfi's work and that of the original Pictorialists; the original Pictorialists were not engaged in a nostalgic recreation of an earlier style. The original Pictorialists were engaged in a translation of media. They were essentially saying, "There's nothing painting can do that photography can't", and by implication, they added, "Only better". In contrast, the "New Pictorialism" seems like nothing more than sentimental nostalgia, and I see no reason to take it seriously as a new movement.
I hope I haven't offended anyone with my non- authoritative opinion. I truly enjoy Gandolfi's work, and in no way mean to impugn or diminish it, and my remarks are intended to encourage discussion, not to offer a definitive analysis.
Re: "movement" Now Official
The fun in "new isms" is not found in repeating what others did then, but in taking some of its components and throwing them towards a new direction.
I don't think a "movement" can be defined while it is alive but some time after. There is definitely a trend though. You can see that easily thanks to the Internet. The word Bokeh is present in almost every image in Flickr, micro 4/3 cameras are many times used with adapters for vintage lenses, eBay prices on Petzvals and soft focus lenses are higher every minute...
Re: "movement" Now Official
Soft lenses were in, then they were out, now they're back in... whether that constitutes a defineable "movement" in the fine arts, I have my doubts. The work and interests are quite diverse, although the same could be said of the earlier pictorialists. Our common ground seems to be a simple love of the optics; their history and what they can do aesthetically. And driving up the prices on ebay.
The current resurgence in Petzvals is a different thing, though there's some overlap...
This would be a novel new movement, though, in that most new art movements are begun by young artists. Considering the median age of the practitioners of the "New Pictorialism", even terming it "Middle-Aged Pictorialism" seems a bit optimistic! :D
Re: "movement" Now Official
The "movement" I see is about standing out from digital, using antique processes and equipment, and trying to somehow be unique and different. There are a variety of ways and subjects being used. Soft focus, accentuated aberrations, flaws in wetplate, fake film borders, a lot is sentimentalism or a desire to try things that have been almost forgotten. Pictorialism was just one period, and one that happened to strive for a veiled, surreal or impressionistic look. So that aspect is the same, but the underlying goal and driving factors are different. If I were to make a judgment call about value, I'd have to say it's better than any other "movement" I've seen recently. But it's a subjective thing.
Re: "movement" Now Official
Yes, the "movement" is most accurately what Garrett says; a movement away from digital's perfection and constraints. Soft focus/pictorialism is just a portion of this. retro, lomo, silver & alt prints, rangefinders, etc.. are all other ways of standing out from digital. The perfection of f64 is easily correlated with digital due to the clean realistic look, so that's a valid use of film that's a little different than digital (larger dynamic range, etc..), but the other aspects of the movement away from digital go further and are thus more appealing to some. I like it all, sort of like people can't make up their mind on which {sport,women,food,beverage} is best.
I would suggest the older median age common to the stereotype of the "new pictorialist" photographers is for two reasons. They know the technology basics from their original photo training or knew photographers first hand that had done pictorialism in a previous generation. Two, they can more easily afford and have time for the lenses, workshops, experimentation compared to a fresh graduate looking for a job in this economy or raising a family. I'm not totally BS'ing on these observations as I attended Tillman's soft focus/pictorialism workshop last year and intend to sign up for this next one. I'm a younger aberration on the age curve though. Many of those participating had many years of experience with soft focus and wanted to build on that. Everyone had different favorite artists of early 20th century, but no participants were trying to copy the old artists, e.g. we weren't into using allegorical/classical props, nude boys, etc... I think the new subject matter is more interesting; galli's trucks and cars, female models, and the timeless subject e.g. landscape and abstract closeups.
There is something cool about using the exact same gear as the masters of 80-100 years ago, even if you have little else in common with those dead photographers. I'm stocking up on old lenses now before the bigger movement gathers more steam.
Also, don't judge Soft focus/pictorialism solely on what a few people are posting to the web. Many of the participants aren't into needlessly scanning things, and the output has qualities that don't always show up on nicely on a <1000 pixel scanned image. The choices of output medium are also old-school and creative, and once in a while it looks nice on the web.
Re: "movement" Now Official
If any of Garret's or jp's characterizations of the "movement" are accurate, it's not a movement at all, but a reactionary aesthetic. The idea that using a SF lens somehow distinguishes a film photographer from digital photographers is obviously ridiculous. See Ramiro's post, or check out Bruce Hemingway's website. Neither does such subject matter as old cars, women, landscapes or abstracts make for any kind of distinction. If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad, and I think I'll sell my Verito before it's too late.
Re: "movement" Now Official
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Keith Fleming
Tillman Crane's December newsletter lists an upcoming workshop entitled "Soft Focus and the New Pictorialism." Surely that makes the movement official--and surely Jim Galli can claim to be either the father or the godfather of this movement in photography.
Keith
Thanks Keith. Just to be mentioned in the same paragraph with Tillman is a nice salutation. I've never claimed to be a pictorialist, nor have I studied the 'rules'. Just a fellow having a good time on my own terms at my own speed with no delusions of being remembered in 20 years. I do identify with the purpose of pushing back against the bajillions of perfect sharp digital photos with a few real ones with dirt spots to prove it. I'm pleasing an audience of........one.
Re: "movement" Now Official
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Sawyer
Considering the median age of the practitioners of the "New Pictorialism", even terming it "Middle-Aged Pictorialism" seems a bit optimistic! :D
Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement? :eek: :D :eek:
I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jp498
... I attended Tillman's soft focus/pictorialism workshop last year and intend to sign up for this next one.
What sorts of things did you learn in the workshop? What made it better than some books on the subject?