"movement" Now Official

[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

[Kirk Gittings]

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..........

[Richard K.]

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..........

Does thatwonderful book and travelling exhibit "Truth Beauty" qualify?

[Jay DeFehr]

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.

[Emil Schildt]

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.

not offended, but just to try to clarify:

I might look like a pictorialist - I proberly am... BUT what I think is more important (for me) is, that I don't even consider my self a photographer...

I make images - I have done so for 30 years, and I am more and more concerned about which technique - that might be in the taking (SF lenses - lighting or otherwise) or in the printing process.

I struggle.
And I make more mistakes than perfect images. But it is a process.

You say: "..I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way."

you're actually wrong here. I actually have done that. It of course depends on what kind of painting you're referring to...

Bromoil prints give me that option.

I see my self as an image maker, that by chance has a camera or two to start the process with.

The words "sentimental nostalgia" is exactely the kind of words I get from digital photographers.
It is not so. At least for me.

[Ramiro Elena]

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...

[Mark Sawyer]

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!

[Brian C. Miller]

Considering the median age of the practitioners of the "New Pictorialism", even terming it "Middle-Aged Pictorialism" seems a bit optimistic!

Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement?

I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.

... 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?

[jp]

Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement?

I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.



What sorts of things did you learn in the workshop? What made it better than some books on the subject?

It would be ridiculously simple for a lens company to build an old design soft focus lens or series of them. Bonus points if it works with a large and common shutter like a copal3. Without a shutter though it could still be used with dslrs, speed graphics, packards, etc...

I got out of the workshop:
* hands on access or experience with a larger variety of soft focus lenses than I had time or film to test.
* being a SF newbie, I got to meet some cool people who some have had decades of SF experience; they are not reactionaries as much as lifelong traditional oriented enthusiasts, friendlier than curmudgeon. Some of them can't be called reactionary because they never did digital much to turn away from it.
* Russ Young, who did his doctoral thesis on soft focus lenses provided some history and physics background.
* spent a good part of the day at the Olson house testing SF lenses on models (clothed) in a variety of lighting situations. Multiple other outdoor sites for testing SF lenses.
* cyanotype printing with Russ and Tillman. Russ was the author of the cyanotype chapter of a popular alt process book, and Tillman has a nice darkroom setup for professional alt printing as he does lots of pt/pd. Their advice far transcended the basics.

The next workshop is at Russ's not Tillmans, so it's likely to be slightly different.

[goamules]

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.