Thank you Bill. Kind of you to say. That photograph was rather serendipitous. And it is serendipity which shows itself time and time again in photography (in my photography) and which does provide a certain impetus to pursue this medium.
I thank everybody for their input to this thread. I don't consider it closed at all. In fact, this is a perennial and almost perpetual topic and worth revisiting time and time again as our (at least, my) enthusiasm rises and ebbs, accordingly.
To be remembered.
Garrett
flickr galleries
It keeps me from drinking.
It keeps me drinking.
I drink LF.
One stout beer a day for my health.
Since the "thread starter" was triggered by a failure to find customers at a crafts show, a number of things I have been reading and thinking about myself seem relevant. The first relates to the NJ Photographers Forum annual show, which this year had 155 submissions with 42 prints selected by the jury. I didn't submit this year, for some of the reasons you will read in the following excerpt. The NJPF is more-or-less chaired by Nancy Ori, a professional photographer and educator, who sent out what I thought was an excellent commentary on the judging for the show, and from which I will print the section most relevant to many of us:
"...One of the jurors is a gallery director and her focus was on how a piece would look in a gallery show so she was looking at impact, strong composition, and uniqueness (so get rid of all those Ansel Adams-type images....they would definitely be out for this juror who was looking for something beyond the typical tourist shot at National Parks....especially the slot canyons.....yes, I know they are all beautiful, but they have all been done many times before. They are basically old news for a fine art jury.)
Flowers are a bit old hat as well unless they are really stunning, large and sharp."
There was an article which to me dealt with the same theme in The Online Photographer, titled "Are Classic Photographs Still Relevant?": http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...-relevant.html
Which brings me back to the OP and this thread. First, I photograph simply because it gives me enjoyment; I am not defined by my photography as some of our members are, for me it is a lifetime enjoyable hobby that i have kept up for roughly 55 of my 70 years. I also view myself as a competent craftsman, rather than as an artist. And my favorite camera is my 4x5 because I enjoy the process.
But that said, the question I think about is whether, to use TOP's phrasing, "Are View Camera Photographs Still Relevant?" at least as art as opposed to craft? In Nancy's commentary about the show judging, she dismisses Ansel Adams-type images, typical tourist shots of National Parks, slot canyons, and flower images, which I think make up a large proportion of the images we all post on this site. There are very many really fine images, but with the exception of very few (Alex from Holland, with his combination of wet plate and surrealism comes to mind) we all have seen the images before.
In the comments Mike printed following his TOP article, this piece caught my eye: ""Far too much old photography was admired for the craft, not the content. This is largely because it was difficult. Digital has removed the constraints."
So with apologies for being long-winded, I am wrestling with the question of whether the constraints of LF cameras (large, relatively heavy, stationary, slow, and mostly B&W) which many of us value, in fact limit their ability to produce images that would be considered "current art?" Is our enjoyment with the process of making LF photographs and prints disguising the fact that artistically we are largely "dinosaurs?" I buy and hang LF prints, but that is largely because I enjoy work made in the same manner that I work, but I am not a typical, nor young, consumer.
Hello Will!
Early on I framed a large show for the Nevada State Library in Carson City and it's popularity was such that when it was time to take it down there, the State Railroad Museum asked if they could have it for an equal time. The theme was Industrial Archeology and it was partly medium format Velvia and part large format black and white.
This all within just a few years, less than 10 serious in the hobby. I figured I was launched. But then like you, it dawned on me that I had spent a ton of money and personal effort for zero sales. Everybody loved the show. Nobody wanted the pictures, and my prices are err on the low side.
My brother in law owned a gas station when we were very young bucks. He'd get too busy on some Saturdays and beg me to come over and do the oil changes. He knew I was bright enough not to cross thread the oil pan plugs and that I would reliably tighten the oil filters. The first time I did it he offered me $5 bucks an hour. I told him that I would preserve my dignity by working for free.
I feel the pictures are similar. I know what the true intrinsic value is. And since I can't seem to get 10 cents on the dollar, I prefer to maintain my dignity by giving them away. I buy mat board in bulk and cut it myself. I buy decent frames at yard sales. If someone sees a picture and is ga ga over it, I tell them to take it home and enjoy it.
But ultimately after years of that, the wind has kind of gone out of the sails. I confess that these days for 98% of the images, a scan on the epson and a view on a screen seems to be as far as it goes. Sometimes I'll spit out a print on the Epson just to tape it on the wall and see how well it wears on me over a bit of time. Shame. But the fact that the work isn't valued or appreciated does have a long term effect.
I have other goals to accomplish. I don't have the tenacity of an Imogen Cunningham or Ansel Adams so that when I'm 92, the money starts to roll in.
Last week I was in Oregon and I built a dining room table that my middle daughter envisioned. Iron age industrial legs. A 4X8 center beam. I welded the platform and built the cedar top. I'll admit that creative process was just about as satisfying as the pictures have been. A legacy.
But why do I keep all the stuff? And I've got quite a collection of it. I think I enjoy the potential. If I wanted to I could be an "important" photographic artist. I just have to huckster the pics daily and live into my 90's. Or not.
Thank you Peter for sharing your thoughts. I have been thinking a lot similarly about "art" as it pertains to my photography.
I will say though that these types of statements/viewpoints make me mildly angry. The judgement here is that any landscape, no matter how good, how tight the composition, how nice the light, how well it fits together, would be acceptable because it's not what's "in vogue" right now. It's also casting aspersions towards anyone who makes landscape images.Originally Posted by Peter Lewin
Yes we have all seen Half Dome, we've seen the slot canyons, we've seen a myriad number of landscapes, but that doesn't mean that one can't express new ideas and feelings from a landscape image. Sure, tourist shots from the same overlook of Yosemite Valley aren't on their face visually interesting since everyone has taken the same shot, but at a different angle, time of day/year, weather, etc., could one not make an image that stands out?
Worse in my mind she follows that up with a statement that flowers are boring too, but maybe not if they are large and sharp?! As if that alone makes it a good photograph??? I am dumbfounded at the call-out against Ansel Adams style images but flowers are okay if they are printed real big?
Now you mention Alex from Holland's wetplates. This is an interesting comparison IMO because it is a shift from landscape to people. I don't have a prejudice against images of people but they aren't my subject of choice usually - however I wouldn't judge a portrait negatively just because it is a picture of a person. I mean, I see people everyday. There are 7.5 billion out there, after all. But there's plenty a photographer can do with their subject. It bugs me that there seems to be a bias right now in the "art" world for photographs of people over anything else. Do you see the same?
As for craft vs. art, it seems to me that some consider them to be mutually exclusive. In researching MFA programs last year I was surprised at how many portfolios from professors at major art institutions had so little craft involved. It seemed to be more about what was written about the photographs, not the photographs themselves. In this case by "craft" I am talking about basic photographic elements, like some semblance of composition, thought, and execution, not some arbitrary sharpness measurement (though that was not evident either). On the other hand, I see some dismiss images that have a high craft element as automatically "beneath" what is considered "art." I can understand this to a degree. There's plenty of technically excellent images that are boring and say nothing about anything. I make plenty. I strive for more than that, while still practicing my craft.
Why do I photograph? I ask myself that constantly and I figure if I knew why definitively I wouldn't have to struggle so much. It's a learning process. That said, I try to make photographs of landscapes that give a sense of "place." Not just what it looks like, but how it felt to be there and experience it. I'm not sure I could do that with other mediums so MF/LF/ULF it is. I want my images to evoke the same feeling and sense of "being there" as the viewer. While I enjoy the act of photography I also have an innate need to share it. I know entirely too many younger people my age who very rarely, if ever, go out and experience nature. Perhaps they go to a local park or a run in the neighborhood, but not arduous hikes for miles on the AT. Not sure if I succeed but I'll keep trying.
I am interested in more thoughts on this thread. I haven't been able to collect my thoughts on it and I just kinda rambled (this is more of a topic I prefer discussing over a nice cup of espresso but I tried).
Hi Jim,
Well said.
Your reply here recalls a thread you started about a decade ago on this forum. Remember the "parallel universe?" I think some of the comments made back then are appropriate to Will's post, and answer why some of us continue to make photographs.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...allel+universe
By the way, beautiful table; I can sense your satisfaction!
Hope all goes well.
Best,
Merg
This is a very important thread...and what can be a very difficult, but also necessary and productive discussion. I will chime in again soon when I have more time...but for now - let me share, without comment (but with cognizance of above commentary), the two images which continue to be, at least at the nine-day arts/crafts fair to which I'd referred in my first post in this thread, my best sellers:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks