Walter Lippmann once said: Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
It's like a quest to see other peoples views, to travel and learn; participating on an Internet forum is like that too perhaps in a more narrow fashion. It's the exchange of ideas and thoughts that bring people together.
It's realy a pity this thread turned into a troll.
I think there was food for thoughts here.
I had noticed that this forum is mostly american before, and I was strucked by how diferent europeans and americans are regarding to LF photography.
For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...
I can't remember in what thread it was, but a US member once mentioned Cartier Bresson as a street photographer. Not that this is untrue, but here in europe I believe we would rather mention Winogrand or Meyerowitz...
Also, why is Cartier Bresson mentioned so often, and Robert Franck so scarcely?
It's understood that Franck's "The American" was disliked by the US audience when it first came out 50 years ago, but what about now? Is he still not recognised as one of the most influencial photographers?
Nothing on asian, african, or south american photographers, i didn't perceive any specific trend among those members... maybe there's too few of them.
Lately, there was a discussion called "the parallel world of "art photography" and the rest of us", why did mostly US members contribute to this thread?
And finaly, among the members who shoot old/odd lenses like Verito or petzval, it seems like it's 95% americans. Why is that?
Maybe i'm confused, i've only been reading this forum for a year, and i don't read each and evry thread... But my feeling is that US members of this forum seem to be more interested in the distant past of the medium, and maybe connect LF photography to the first half of the 20th century while europeans seem to be more "contemporary".
What do you think?
Last edited by lenicolas; 19-Nov-2010 at 07:50. Reason: spelling
"I am a reflection photographing other reflections within a reflection. To photograph reality is to photograph nothing." Duane Michals
That's an easy question as a none US member who is part of the "parallel world of art photography" I don't see all members of this forum as outside that world but often most of the replies are from those that are outside.Originally Posted by lenicolas
So in threads like this there's over simplification, These subjects need longer, illustrated replies to raw us in.
It's about contextualising work which is something most artists learn to do while at University/Art College etc, but you can learn to do this on workshops as well. Quite frequently you initially write critical essays on someone else's body of work before writing about your own work, which is not easy to do but quite liberating.
Ian
There are many possibilities for the questions you ask, and for the question I have asked. One is that perhaps American large-format photographers who frequent this forum are older and more interested in the traditional roots of the medium. This group might be a block of members distinguishable from younger members who are more evenly distributed around the world. Perhaps the younger Americans are not so much different from the younger non-Americans. This could easily be the result of large-format photography being a popular hobby among amateurs in the U.S. in ways that it is not in Europe. We've already had some discussion that large-format equipment was given up much sooner in Europe than in America for various reasons.
There are certainly photographers in Europe who produce work that I, for one, completely resonate with. Nana Sousa Dias is one example, and there are others. His work certainly manages to find the natural scene sans the influence of man, in the way that I have wondered if it tended American. Thus, his work is a counter-example to what I'm asking about. And it is a counter-example to what you are asking about as well. But he may be the exception that demonstrates the rule.
So, do the (different) trends that you and I have asked about reflect a different way of seeing, or merely a different demographic mix as represented in the forum's membership? I think the only way to explore that possibility is to get away from statistical characterizations (informal or otherwise) and talk about how we see things, and how that seeing might be different. But I've just about given up that there is a way to tease that discussion out of the emotion that seems to surround this whole topic.
I suspect that C-B gets mentioned more often because so many of we amateurs have had much more exposure to him. But though I'm more likely to mention him than some other European photographers, that does not mean that I think my own way of seeing is much like his. His work is trying to capture a human element that I see to always want to avoid. Many of the famous European photographers seem, from my amateur perspective, to demonstrate the notion that if people aren't the subject, it isn't art.
Rick "probably not much more familiar with contemporary American photographers as with contemporary European photographers, except (in both cases) those who are represented on this forum" Denney
I heard Ansel Adams was better than most photographers at marketing himself and creating a brand for himself. I wonder if that marketing/branding was more effective within U.S. than outside U.S.
...Mike
Adams wrote a series of instruction books, and of course people read those books. Some people actually got into photography because of Adams. Myself, I got into photography because of moonlit nights, and read Adams' books after I had read other instructional books. Adams was a very good writer, so of course people quote what has been written. Other photographers didn't do so much writing, or else they just gave an interview or two. I like reading Bill Jay's stuff, but he hasn't written as much as Adams. Other people write about photography, but they aren't photographers.
Can't follow something when you don't know about it. Some number of years ago I read about a South American photographer who made beautiful iconic street photography-type images. Turned out that he had organized all of them. So what? They were beautiful. Personally, I'd love to see more images from outside the US. So where are they? Maybe we don't see them online due to lack of computer access.
Look at who buys Holgas. Mostly US, right? I guess we're just weird that way. The real point to the old lenses is that they have certain effects to them, which of course are lacking in modern lenses. I have Fuji and Nikon lenses for my 8x10, but I also have old lenses. The Japanese lenses are of course modern and fantastically sharp. But what if I want a special kind of softness? Where can I get a filter that products "swirlies" like a Petzval?
If a photographer is staging everything to look like Victorian England, then I'd say the person is living in the past. But if the person is using old equipment to create a specific effect, then I say it's just using appropriate equipment. If a person is using old equipment to create a certain atmosphere in the studio, then that's just show biz, and that's fine. If a person is using old equipment because it's dirt cheap, that's fine, too. Use what you have to create what you want.
Now, do US LF photographers spend more time with "wide open spaces" than European photographers? I think so, mainly because we have more of them, and the landscape in general is more varied than in Europe. I live in Washington state, and it is more like two states in one. One side is wet with rain forests, and the other is dry with deserts. There isn't too much of a drive that seperates the two. Europeans have a lot of nifty architecture. Over here old buildings get torn down, as they weren't that historical in the first place.
Who does more LF street photography? Europe or US? Outside of news photographers, no prominent names come to my mind. Most "candid" photography has been done with 35mm.
Very interesting comments and questions. I think your observations match what I see.
I do believe that the demographics are important in understanding things. The "distant past" is not so distant for some of the US members. Many of them have been alive for quite a while. One source of demographic information is the thread here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ead.php?t=8129
which shows age, and with some effort you could see if there is a correlation between location and age. I expect there might be.
I can't speak for other countries, but for the past few decades it seems that large format landscape photography has been an old man's game. Fairly expensive equipment, substantial time commitment, space for darkroom ... these are things that are in short supply in the time of life when you are just raising a family. In fact I think there might be a curve like the back of a Bactrian Camel with youthful perhaps student photographers at one hump and the older photographers at the hump. This would also explain the references by second hump photographers to photographers that were in vogue when they were sitting on the first hump (same as the persistance of so-called "classic rock").
Whether this is a function of Nation is unknown to me, but I would expect that many US photographers have been influenced most directly by US photographers and so the traditions started by Adams, Weston, etc. continue. The choice of subject matter IS tied to location. If you are in the desert South West, your choice of subjects is between rocks, sand, cactus and cow skulls mainly because that is what is there. Miles and miles and miles of it.
I avoided this thread for a while, but it turns out there's some really interesting stuff here. Some random thoughts on out-of-context quotes below:
Hey, many of us *do* make an effort to peak at a globe to see where other countries are... after we start bombing them.You might think I'm being sensitive, I might think that Americans are too limited in their knowledge of the world
There is a persistent myth in America that Man, and the artifacts of Man, are somehow separate from nature. I don't know if this is distinctly American, but it is pervasive here.
But expression is greatly influenced by culture. This is evident in the evolution of languages themselves. There is nothing fundamental to photography that immunizes against it.
I think our definition of "free" has certainly changed. Then again it was never really pure (whatever that would mean) and has been changing since the beginning. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse. I don't expect that to... change, any time soon.
If you figure this out at all I'd very much like to better understand myself. (read that any way you want)
A photography club near me disqualifies photo submissions that include people or man-made object from its landscape category. So no, you're not alone.
We are all unique and special, exactly the same as everyone else.
This is an interesting idea on a number of levels. For one, we do look at photographs today of, say, Evans's work for the FSA with a completely different cultural perspective than people did at the time the work was made. A large part of that I think is the disconnection of looking at something "historic."
How our photos are viewed in 20 or 50 years will be interesting.
Do you worry that you're leaving out your experience of other people in the process? (aside from the ignoring part, of course)
Another person's experience you're dealing with is the viewer's. Even when that viewer is you, it's not the same you that took the photograph.
(I hope this doesn't come off as combative, I'm genuinely curious.)
I'm American and on the young side of old (or vice versa, whatever 31 is), and only used Evans above to illustrate a point with a prototypical example I thought most people would understand. I'm also a huge fan of Shore, and the evolution of photography from its historical and traditional roots up through the present day.There are many possibilities for the questions you ask, and for the question I have asked. One is that perhaps American large-format photographers who frequent this forum are older and more interested in the traditional roots of the medium. This group might be a block of members distinguishable from younger members who are more evenly distributed around the world. Perhaps the younger Americans are not so much different from the younger non-Americans.
I don't know if my interests align with others in my age group, but it wouldn't surprise me either way.
A lot of this came from a kind of rebellion against all the "perfect" imagery we were otherwise bombarded with. A desire to stand out and be different (in the end, just like everyone else.)
...and then came the rebellion against Holgas, ad absurdum.
"Out of country." *rolls eyes*
Who else than an american could even think about saying something like that in the context of the internet. Dude, it is the i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t.
And why is it always americans that (on the net) says stuff like "it only cost me 50." And the rest of the world goes "50 what?". Get a grip yankees!
Sheesh. I thought we'd already gotten past this."Out of country." *rolls eyes*
Who else than an american could even think about saying something like that in the context of the internet. Dude, it is the i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t.
And why is it always americans that (on the net) says stuff like "it only cost me 50." And the rest of the world goes "50 what?". Get a grip yankees!
Rick "who has to remind himself to read a whole thread before responding to part of it" Denney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks