B&W landscape photography

[paulr]

Frank, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you mean. Are you talking about technical quality or artistic quality?
If you're saying anyone can learn to make an exquisite print (at least in terms of conforming to some established set of academic standards) then that's one thing, and I think it's an easy one to agree with. The implication is that being able to make a finely crafted thing does not make a person a great artist ... and that's something that a lot of people could be reminded of every so often.

But if you're saying anyone can become the level of artist of Ansel with a couple of years of study, then I'd say that this is either a dig against Ansel (which is a totally different conversation) or a suggestion that the average person can become at least a high level artist (implying a deep, clear, and developed vision) with a couple of years of study and practice. If this is the case, then where are all these good artists? The schools should be pumping them out by the hundreds every year (easily ... because students in MFA or even BFA programs didn't start out as beginners--they had to have impressive enough portfolios to beat out dozens of other applicants just to get in).

Anyway, I sure don't see it. The best MFA programs (like Yale) seem to produce someone really remarkable every year or two. But it's a far cry from showing that an average beginner (these programs don't accept average beginners, not by a long shot) can reliably be turned into an exceptional artist in a couple of years.

These programs (even good undergrad programs) can certainly teach people to be competent. They can teach a repertoire of revelent techniques, they can teach a lot of history and theory, they can teach people to have a potent critical vocabulary for judging their own and other people's work, they can teach people to pursue and refine their vision through a body of work, they can teach people to edit and sequence and present work in a professional manner, etc.. Maybe this is what Callahan and Siskind were talking about?? These are all serious skills, but by themselves they don't add up to being a great or even a good artist ... just a competent one.

[paulr]

oh, and a more on-topic reply ...
i recently discovered the work of Andrew Borowiec.
his photographs in the book "Along the Ohio" are absolutely stunning.
could be called urban, suburban, and industrial landscapes ... maybe in the walker evans tradition.

[Scott Rosenberg]

aside from a passing reference, i'm surprised to see such little support for one of my favorites... Bruce Barnbaum. i'd include him on my top 5 list for sure.

[Chris Gittins]

Several other people who do very good work but haven't gotten mention so far:

William Clift, Ron Rosenstock, and Dodo Jin Ming for her "Free Element" series

[Bill_1856]

Brett Weston is the only photographer in recent years that I would consider to be in the same league as AA in print quality.

[Gary Samson]

My favorite landscape photographer is Carleton E. Watkins. Watkins invented the western American landscape photograph aestheic in the 19th century and was a true genius combining sometimes abstract compostional elemements with technical perfection. His major landscape work was done with an 18x22 inch view camera utilizing the wet-plate process for negatives and the albumen printing process for finished prints. Interestingly Ansel Adams never acknowledged Carleton Watkins influence on his own work ( he was well aware of Watkins' work; Watkins studio was located in San Francisco but unfortunately destroyed during the great earthquake) and once you review Watkins' work you will realize that there would not be an Ansel Adams without Watkins. Make every effort to see the best of original Watkins prints - they are a visual treat that will redefine your appreciation and understanding of the landscape photograph.

[Frank Petronio]

Paul, I mean that a newcomer can produce prints that rival anyones' - Ansel's, Weston, whomever - on whatever grounds - print quality or artistic merit - given enthusiasm, good materials, and some talent. Especially if we compare print for print. Of course you can't compare reputations or entire bodies of work - but if you covered up the signatures, why couldn't some newbie armed with a Crown Graphic and No. 25 Red filter crank out as dramatic and "nice" a print as Ansel? If anything, our modern equipment is better - so what's to stop him or her?

Jeez, isn't there somebody in Yosemite at this very minute trying to recreate Ansel's shots? Or some neebish guy searching tidepools at Carmel? And side by side, given the right paper and developer and some hard work in the darkroom, why wouldn't their prints look at least as good as the masters? It would be totally subjective wouldn't it? Especially if you hid the print info from the viewer.

Also, in reference to competitive MFA programs, com'on - they aren't exactly turning anybody with cash away anymore... they need ever warm body they can get.

Oh, my other favorites are William Clift for traditonal stuff. He is a subtle printer. Most of those guys - Sexton, Barnbaum, etc. are heavy handed.

I'm going to duck now.

[paulr]

If learning to copy someone else's vision after studying their work counts as equalling them, then I grant you that there are quite a lot of people who could equal the work of just about anyone, at least on a sometime, hit or miss kind of level. But I don't think that this in any way means that they have done anything significant. It doesn't mean that they have somehow equalled the art or the accomplishment of the person they're copying, and it certainly doesn't tell me anything about how democratic the medium is. Hell, I bet that after a year of studying painting I could do a pretty good copy of a late Mondrian, but so what? Do I prove anything by copying someone's vision other than my own lack of imagination? Ditto all those people trying to plant their tripods in the same holes left by weston and anel adams.

The ability to produce a print that someone would confuse for a print by _________ (insert name of mighty famous big shot here) would demonstrate good technical skills, and good skills at esthetic mimicry. But these certainly don't make someone a good artist.

It is true, I suspect, that in photography it's possible for anyone to produce an ocasional great photograph, regardless of their talent or how well developed their vision is. This is why anyone checking you out wants to see at least a dozen prints in your portfolio. A photograph is a relatively small work (like a poem, a short story, or a song) so the vision of the artist (and the scope and depth of that vision) needs the context of a larger body of work to evaluate it--a collection, an album, or a portfolio ...

On the MFA programs not turning away anyone with cash ... well, I don't know which ones you've looked at. The good ones often turn away 25 to over 100 applicants for every one they accept. I was looking at them over ten years ago, and they've only gotten more competitve since then.

I agree with you on William Clift. Has he done anything lately? I mostly know hs work from the 70s and 80s.

[Frank Petronio]

I know RIT and VSW pretty well, here in Rochester. Basic functional humans can get in, I don't know about their pets.

I've haven't seen anything by Clift recently either, but his book and postcard reproductions are amongst the best I've ever seen. All Meridan Stinehour on Mohawk Superfine using a very fine screen.

I agree that copying work doesn't make anyone a good photographer beyond the skill required. But at the same time, I see a lot of photobloggers doing wonderful images without any (real) photo backgrounds.

http://www.slower.net/

Maybe not a large formatter's cup of tea. But the guy produces a lot of excellent photos.

I attended a Linda Conner workshop a long time ago, and she had first rate early work (first year - 8x10 contact prints - still life). I think Jan Groover did the same thing. William Wegman went from performance art to photography without missing a beat, as did Chuck Close going from painting to Polaroid 20x24. And Robert Frank only shot for a year or two before the Americans...

These are all extremely dedicated people though - photography took over their lives.

[paulr]

The artists you mentioned are all people of exceptional ability* ... as well as being extremely dedicated, as you mentioned. You can find similar stories of people skyrocketing to the top in just about any medium. The fact that Mozart was writing symphonies when he was barely out of diapers does not indicated to me that writing music is easily learned, or that I should be able to do great composition simply because I study and practice for a few years. There are always prodigies ... I'm just not sure what their unusual learning curves imply about the mediums that they work in.

It seems to me that people like that are relatively rare .. and that the experience is of plodding along slowly before finding a strong voice is more common (and plodding along slowly before finding not much of anything is more common still).

One thing I do see in a lot of people who rise to the top very fast: their vision tends to be powerful and crystal clear. They are not driven by camera fetishes or by the desire to make work that looks like someone else's. They are almost always driven the burning desire to say what they have to say.

Thanks for linking to slower.net, by the way. I enjoyed it. He's obviously a very talented photographer. I think he's actually someone who would benefit from some instruction (or at least some coaching) in terms of editing and sequencing. Right now at least in the portfolios on his site there's very little sense of what his body of work is about. This I think he could learn easily with the right kind of input.

*I'm not sure I'm convinced by Wegman, but the directors of the Whitney Biennial picked him and not me, so what can I say ...