"movement" Now Official

**Jay DeFehr** · 6-Dec-2010, 18:12

Gandolfi,

Thank you for viewing my remarks in the spirit they were intended, and for your thoughtful reply.

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...

I apologize for not being more clear. I meant to say that the original Pictorialists emulated the painting of their time, that is to say, contemporary painting. I don't see any photographers emulating contemporary painting, like that of Gerhard Richter, or Jasper Johns, for instance. The best way to emulate Richter's painting might be to use very low resolution digital capture, with big, chunky pixels, but I don't see anyone doing that.

The phrase sentimental nostalgia might seem derogatory, depending on one's intentions and perspective, but I think it's accurate here, and also I suspect when coming from digital photographers commenting on the rationales of most film photographers. I don't mean to imply the use of digital equipment automatically modernizes the work of any photographer, or that digital photographers are immune to sentimentality or nostalgia, but the adoration for things antique is quite prevalent among film photographers in general, and large format film photographers in particular.

None of the above diminishes my appreciation of your fine work.

Joe,

Thank you.

**Jim Noel** · 7-Dec-2010, 12:00

Pictorialism is more than the use of a soft focus approach. It had to to do with subject matter in many cases. Many of the pictorialist images were a strong attempt to tell a story like had been done for centuries in painting. There were also those who depicted scenes from mythology, etc. Then, of course, one has to add in the printing materials and techniques, manipulation on the negative, etc.

**Thebes** · 16-Dec-2010, 18:13

Some thoughts...

If a New Pictorialism is to imitate the art of today, it would be in color- probably vibrant color, but it would make important use of color. Yet others in this thread have suggested that it is instead a means of setting one's work apart from digital. With a few notable exceptions most color photo work is being done with digital giclee prints- the print choice of most dslr users. So that becomes self contradictory unless alternative process color prints or C prints are the end result, and I do not see a movement in this direction.

I do see a movement, though, as a reaction to the digital trends. Lets remember that the Photo Secession was largely a reaction to the vernacularization of photography with Kodak's roll film and cameras available to all interested parties for a few dollars. Kodak put the ability to take a photo into the hands of virtually everyone, skill aside. The digital trend has increased accessibility to self sufficient controls, and I now routinely hear "everyone is a photographer these days"- this is a similar societal change to what occurred just before pictorialism. It makes some sense that a movement will follow as a reaction among some of those who use their cameras to make photographic art (vs taking vernacular pictures).

As for a movement having lesser validity because its a reaction?!?! It seems to me that most movements were a reaction to something. Not just with photography, eg the f64 movement, the Photo Secession, etc, but even with Pre-Raphaelism and many other fine art movements since the Renaissance. It seems to me as if even fashion, music and culture are largely reactionary.

Depictions of mythological scenes are common to many art movements, eg Pre-Raphaelism which I mentioned above. Secessionist Anne Brigman reference mythology but so do some modern photographers and in the UK several photographers copied elements of the Pre-Raphaelites before Steiglitz picked up a camera. So I can't see mythological references as being inherently pictorialist any more than a soft focus lens is.

What makes a movement? Certainly not a single workshop. If there is really a New Pictorialism where's the journal or whatever for it? A large pictorialist forum even might show me that is what this emerging new movement is... I don't see it, nor important neo-pictorialist exhibitions or other signs of the pictorialist intellectual cross-fertalization. I would say at this point any movement is non-specific and not yet fully formed, certainly its too early to say there is a New Pictorialist movement.

**letchhausen** · 26-Dec-2010, 22:26

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

I apologize for not being more clear. I meant to say that the original Pictorialists emulated the painting of their time, that is to say, contemporary painting. I don't see any photographers emulating contemporary painting, like that of Gerhard Richter, or Jasper Johns, for instance. The best way to emulate Richter's painting might be to use very low resolution digital capture, with big, chunky pixels, but I don't see anyone doing that.

And it's interesting that you chose Gerhard Richter since he's a painter who's work is heavily based on photography. So photography to painting to photography would be a nice elliptical trajectory there. I guess if Thomas Ruff had decided to take paintings and reproduce them in big chunky pixels the way that he did with found photographs from the web in his JPEG's book, that would be along the lines you mention.....