David Muench moves from LF to MFT (?)

[Drew Wiley]

Well, he was prolific, and did in fact publish quite a bit of 35mm work. But in the
heyday of his and his father's sucess, 4x5 was the norm for published stock nature
photography. But to this day, I consider him a snapshooter, even with a view camera, and an addict to sticky-sweet easily marketable stereotypes. That whole
gooey mentality has now gone overboard, with super-saturated digital make-believe
concoctions starting to dominate the scenic genre, and making even people like
Meunch look tasteful. I had just come down from Sabrina basin with my backpacking
friend the other day (who shoots digital), and of course, at the intersection one runs
into the Mtn Light Gallery. My friend, who is just a beginner photographer, looked at
just three big prints and stated, "Man, this stuff looks fake. How do they get away
with it?" One of the image was conspicuously a composite. Muench, at least, knew
how to make natural color look natural, even if his compositions were so predictable
that they could make Lawrence Welk snore.

[Kirk Gittings]

Drew, He is unabashedly a stock photographer.....but I have learned a lesson over the years perhaps you could benefit from. Criticizing photographers far more successful than I always looks like petty jealousy on my part.

[Drew Wiley]

Not jealous at all, Kirk. I don't want to be David Muench. Life is too short, and I'd hate myself if I had to pander to that market. I'd rather make most of my living some other way and shoot and print whatever I please. Maybe he does deserve a lot of credit as a successful business man and for his work ethic. And he did get around and saw a lot of interesting places. But putting him on an artistic pedestal, as if his
hypothetical abandonment of LF meant anything at all to the rest of us??? I don't see
anything sacred about his work, or why he should be any more of a role model than
a hundred other people on this very forum.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE]But putting him on an artistic pedestal, as if his
hypothetical abandonment of LF meant anything at all to the rest of us??? I don't see
anything sacred about his work, or why he should be any more of a role model than
a hundred other people on this very forum./QUOTE]

Hmmmm.......are you referring to my statements? Where did I say anything remotely like that?

In response to a statement that he used a VC because he thought he was supposed to, I said he was the most prolific LF photographer I had ever known. Then I said he was unabashedly a stock photographer..............? Where are you getting all this?

[Oren Grad]

Thanks - your google-fu is stronger than mine.

Mine comes and goes.

[Drew Wiley]

Just putting pieces together, Kirk, not directly aimed at your remarks. Sometimes
sacred cows deserve to be cooked. Nothing against Muench personally or his right to
make a decent living. But why should the photography of the West be defined by the
equipment needs of someone like that, just because he was prolific? Denneys is prolific, but does that mean I have to eat there? Why not bring up some real role
models of SW photography who did outstanding work before anyone ever heard of
the Muench dynasty, like Laura Gilpin, for example?

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE]Why not bring up some real role
models of SW photography who did outstanding work before anyone ever heard of
the Muench dynasty, like Laura Gilpin, for example?/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what thread you are reading? Who said Muench was a role model? Why talk about Muench? Because he is the topic of this thread maybe.......?

As per Laura Gilpin? She did some interesting work-a few images that are genuine classics. She also did allot of mediocre commercial work to pay the bills. I showed with her once in a two person show in '74-nice lady with a rich history and great stories.

[Mike Anderson]

He's achieved a level of skill so that he doesn't need to rely on gimmicks like large film and camera movements.

...Mike

[Drew Wiley]

I was drawing a contrast, Kirk. Laura had a real sensitivity to the land and people.
Muench always seemed to have in the back of his head some postcardy stereotype that Arizona Highways or some calendar publisher could use. Yeah, Laura was an art
photographer who had to make ends meet, but probably never her heart in commercial work. Neither did Edward Weston. I think a few people can do both well and at the same time recognize the distinction between personal and client
priorities. But what I find so silly is the kind of notion that if Ansel wears a Stetson,
every Ansel wannabee needs a Stetson, if Muench has figured out that stock shot
royalties are no longer worth the cost or quality of film, that should mean a hill of
beans to anyone outside those specific commercial parameters ...

[Vaughn]

If I may interrupt Drew's and Kirk's discussion, I found the article strangely written. The tone of the piece I found to be awkward and a bit apologetic. Things like interjecting that he still carries a tripod (one sentence thrown in between non-related thoughts), or the use of "more spontaneous" (twice) -- I figure one is either spontaneous or not, and not a matter of being less or more.

But in the end, it sounds like he is tired of carrying around and using a 4x5 -- not too surprising considering the amount he has hauled one around -- and he is happy to find that an alternative that is expanding his personal vision, and that is easier to use, too.

Good for him! Other than that, I do not think there is much to the article, though I did appreciate his writing about his feelings about the landscape in relationship to his photography.