"I am not trying to say to lie to each other , but being constructive and supportive."
Fuzzy-Wuzzy artsy looking stuff...... that statement reveals ignorance and superficiality...."
So, domenico, in your statement to me there, are you being constructive and supportive, or judgmental and critical? In other words, how about practicing what you preach?
Criticism and opinions are worth exactly what you pay for them. Accept then or reject as you like. It is of no consequence. However, consider the source. Good source usually equalls constructive criticism. Poor source equalls nothing.
You say your are "the exceptional photographer that I am now, before being able to harness my incredible talent". I'd like to see that talent. My photo teacher used to tell me, "Don't tell me how good you are - - - SHOW ME." Do you have your work available to view on-line? You show me yours and I'll show you mine. Let others critique. I've seen cj's site. He's hard to beat. IMHO.
You further say, "When students show me their work, i don't tell them that is artsy -wuzzy crappy thingy , .....i just........leave. You are a teacher! Teach your students the basics first. Permit them the knowledge to understand the craft, art and physical techniques. Critique their efforts objectively at first and subjectively only after they master the basics.
Don't..........just..........leave.
That's an insult to the student.
But, of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
ha! well, actually i wasn't saying any specific photographer's work is "fuzzy wuzzy artsy"; i was just applying that judgment to a whole genre, and i definitely stick to my guns in that department. i have strongly-held opinions, and that's one of them: i don't like vacuous images hidden behind pictorialist veils of edge-effects, printing tricks, and cutesy matting and framing (like tiny prints in huge aluminum frames with industrial-sized bolts, etc.); to me that whole category of work misses the point of art; it makes the medium the message, and misses out on the real communicative potential. It's Kenny G with all his reverbs and digital effects, instead of Coltrane on stage in a small club, up-close and raggedy. It's the wizard of Oz-- all ego and smoke and mirrors with no real magic to back it up.
now i don't say that stuff except in academic discussions about art in general-- i'd NEVER put down anyone's work to them in person like that, because it wouldn't help them grow as an artist. when i see a show of someone's work that i don't like, i have two words that i always use when talking to the artist: "compelling" and "evocative". Those are great noodling terms while sipping wine and looking at a show of out-of-focus junk!! HA!! And, on the rare occasions when someone asks me for advice on how to grow as an artist, I always recommend listening to Bach fugues.
cheers, and Steve thanks for your kind and inspiring comment.
When iwas talking of my incredible talent......when i was talking of my harnessing etc. etc., i was hoping people would recognize my wonderful and subtle humor(!)........ instead.
C'mon people lighten up!!
When i was talking about leaving at the view of students work, that too was also a joke!
I want to apologize to eck Wheeler for being in part responsible of the silliness that has led his question in part unnoticed.
Chris, i am not trying to make you change your mind, but i want to tell you that in many images that you might find offensive because of their out of focus nature, their creators spend a lot of time in controlling that effect. Have you ever heard of "bokeh?
I also am envious of how you have finally figured out the formula by which you decide if a piece s good or not , i am sure it took a lot of sensitivity.
"I don't know that it is "pictorialism", since that was an attempt to mimic impressionistic paintings." Steve, that was one Pictorialist's version of what it its. It is the photography of light, not detail -- that's what it's about. I think these discussions of "fuzzy wuzzy" are as profitable as the silver/digital conversations.
And as to the original question, from my readings of the original pictorialists, Mann could join the club -- don't know if she'd want to join -- but she'd be welcome. Dean
OK, I stand corrected. It is about light and shadow. Still, some of it "pleases me" and some doesn't. Please don't ask why because I don't know why, it just does or doesn't.
Classifications mean nothing, a beautiful woman, a favorite spot at the beach, a classic movie, a classic car, your favorite tools, conversation with a great pal, it's like Art, certain things never stop giving you satifacton.
Nobody gets into Photography who doesn't love or get inspired by the imagination that went into the crafting of a well done image. How did you do that?....It doesn't make any difference if it's you asking or being asked those magic words about an image, it's what everybody lives for.
A picture is good for me because I never get tired of looking at it. If it's good it stays forever, everything else fades away.
Within this conversation lays the beauty of photography. We all have our own likes and dislikes. It makes for a very broad landscape of ideas. I, for one, love the pictorial works. And being a landscape photographer in the Adams vein I love the tack sharp works of Adams, Bond, and Barnbaum. Then there is the photography of Robert Parke-Harrison which I find extremely creative. And all the different photojournalistic genre from the past century. It is this breadth of works that makes photography so interesting and the dialog that goes along with it. So let's start really seeing beyond our own preconceived notions of what is good or bad, as I did when I first started on my photographic journey, and embrace all that is photography as practiced today. To do less is to rob yourself of knowlege and the widening of your own boundries.
These days pictorialists are mostly seen as the guys black hats who were rightly hunted down by the f64 posse. The original aims of the pictorialists were to free photography of an over-technical dogma about what made a good photograph, and that is still relevant today.
I have an old edition of the Encyclopeadia Britannica (the 11th) in which Holman-Hunt makes a reasoned case for pictorialism. The language gives it away, but the sentiment is very modern, essentially arguing that the techniques of pictorialism expand the photographers expressive range beyond the merely literal.
The debate goes on. There is a gulf of incomprehension between fine-art photographers and artists who use photography. The two camps have very different ideas of what makes a photograph worth looking at, and seem to be just as polarised as the pictorialists and f64 group.
To me, this is sad. My own photography follows fairly well-worn tracks, but I enjoy viewing a vast range of styles and see no point in artificially restricting my enjoyment by insisting on a single, simplistic definition of what photography really is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks