Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
As to artists being real artists only if they make their living doing it, well, I hope I'm never asked to defend that thesis. I can think of too many contradicting examples and I don't think it can hold up to scrutiny. That does not mean, of course, that academic credentials by themselves qualify one as an artist. Some undeniable artists have courted commercial success, and some have not. We can't judge art or artists on the basis of commercial popularity; if we do, then the commercially successful dilettantes become legitimized as artists.
Rick "a real bad artist" Denney
My notion of the "real" artist is simply a view that is mine alone. It does mean that you are a good or bad artist, but rather implies that you embrace the power of commercialism to help define your work. Being a "real" artist is different then being a commercial photographer because commercialism is not the only influence that is used to guide the development of your work. There can be many other influences as well including other artist works and of course the artists own personal experiences.
The beauty of commercialism or the production of salable images is that your audience becomes a bigger circle then just yourself. There is a big difference when one votes with his pocket book verses cheap commentary from the critics. Commercialism keeps you grounded in the esthetic values of the community that your work sells to. It is brutally honest in nature, and many artist shrink from that kind of exposure and challenge.
Yes, there are artist who do achieve fame and recognition through just the sheer number of venues that they exhibit such as university galleries or contemporary museums without ever selling any of their work until at some point there is a belief that they have name recognition. At that point what sells is not the work itself, but rather the name. Strip the name from the work and the art then becomes worthless.
What follows is my view of the journey of becoming a "real" artist.
A "real" artist will never bother to exhibit his work in a place that is not a serious commercial venue driven soley by sales. He will develop the skills to find a market that his work will sell to and then exhibit his work in real commercial venues that can reach his market. It is important to realize that the art and market must be compatible with one another for this to work. At first he may not even be accepted by such venues until his work improves enough such that he is accepted. Even then once his work is excepted nothing may sell until one day his work further improves enough so that a sale is realized. However, most often the initial sale is for to little money, and certainly not enough for him to put food on the table. So he continues to struggle to improve until one day his work begins to sell well at respectable prices. It makes no difference whether he signs the art or not. It just sells. The art now begins to resinate with the esthetic values of its market, and people vote readily for the art with their hard earned dollars.
The process of becoming a "real" artist is iterative in nature and can take years to perfect. It is all about a human struggle of discovery and improvement. It is my belief that when one becomes a "real" artist, I can assure you his work is profound and distinctive nature independent of its form and style.
Please note that I am making broad generalities, and there will always be many exceptions. However, it is my belief that there are two basic categories for photography. One is influenced by commercialism and the production of salable of art that I call “real” art, and in retrospect, a better name might be “real life” art. The other category is about the evolution of art in the absence of commercialism.
It is my personal belief that the later lacks “real” accountability and corrupts the very nature of the artist and his work. I also believe that the the power of “real” artist lies not in his art as most would think, but rather with the intimate dialogue he has developed with his patrons. This dialogue dose not exist for those who are not “real life” artist and the lack of such a dialogue can in itself question the relevancy of such art.
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
In my mind, "a real artist" would not change his vision to sell a print.
That would be selling out.
Once you start making images with the intent to market them to specific venues, you have become a Craftsman.
Not that there is anything wrong with that....:)
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stephen Willard
The magnitude of changes that AA exacted from this negative is concerning to me...
He also changed the negative -- by selenium toning the bottom half.
Vaughn -- happy to be an artist, real or just in my own mind, does not matter.
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
He also changed the negative -- by selenium toning the bottom half.
Was it selenium toner that he used or chromium intensifier?
According to him, he didn't do it to change his visualization, but rather to make it easier to print that visualization.
Rick "a minor curiosity" Denney
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
Was it selenium toner that he used or chromium intensifier?
According to him, he didn't do it to change his visualization, but rather to make it easier to print that visualization.
Rick "a minor curiosity" Denney
Kodak IN-5 Intensifier, to make it easier to print. Or so he says in "Examples."
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Thanks, Brian. I was going on an old memory from back in the Ansel Adams Workshop days. Based on that faulty memory I once selenium toned half of a 4x10 negative to make it easier to print (as a carbon print) -- fortunately it worked great...and a little simplier than the IN-5.
Vaughn
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KJ Smith
In my mind, "a real artist" would not change his vision to sell a print. That would be selling out.
OTOH, suppose I took a photo of an old house, as part of my "abandoned ruins" series (we've all done some of those). But the gallery is having a retrospective on local Victorian architecture and wants my print as an example. Would I be selling out by showing that print in a different context than my original intent? Or is the resulting image bigger than my little vision?
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Heroique, I've been a photographer since 1947, and was acquainted with Ansel from 1957/58 until his death. My company (Original Calumet) "sponsored" his first book on large format photography which is why some photographs with him have 4x5 Calumets shown. I always considered myself to be an excellent b/w printer, however in this matter Ansel was the master, easily the best projection printer ever. I say that because Edward Weston was easily the best contact printer ever.
Ansel always tried to create the best negatives for his purposes, but for him the negative was simply a device to create the print that he visualized. His style varied over his career but his prints were always superb. He even did soft focus impressionist style, terrific old buildings, stylistic theatrical type portraits. Many who studied his work, especially when he was mostly doing mountains, felt he did photographs at an "eye level" position, some thought that, especially in earlier times he would hike to the mountains and shoot down into the valleys or across from the higher elevations. Some felt that at his later very best positions he would shoot from a lower position to exaggerate the power of the mountains. Ansel would probably have laughed at those evaluations, especially with a couple of glasses of wine. However is you really love landscapes, these thoughts are worthy of evaluation.
I remember Ansel the pianist before rheumatoid arthritis, and the man who always had a great sense of humor, as well as the great photographer.
Lynn
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Real artists like Franz Schubert and Emily Dickenson were commercial failures, but the World is richer for their genius.
Re: What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Robert Hughes
OTOH, suppose I took a photo of an old house, as part of my "abandoned ruins" series (we've all done some of those). But the gallery is having a retrospective on local Victorian architecture and wants my print as an example. Would I be selling out by showing that print in a different context than my original intent? Or is the resulting image bigger than my little vision?
I don't see how. It really has little to do with the venue, more to do with your intent.
Maybe I didn't say what I meant very well.
When it gets to the point where you are changing the way you would shoot or print a subject *just* to make it more commercially viable, I think you have crossed the line from "Artist" to "Craftsman".
IMHO, YMMV.
