The pillars of photography and the rest of us

[blueribbontea]

A question for discussion: What lays behind the enduring status of the “pillars of Photography?” I have read heated discussions about the significance of various photographers from 50, 75, 100 years ago; Is Adams better than Weston? who is better, Brett or Edward? The names of Stieglitz and Strand get thrown around almost as often.
On the other hand, I have seen dozens of photos on the various threads of this site that are technically and aesthetically as strong as works of Adams, the Westons, Strand etc… When Edward Weston and Paul Strand began working, photography was only about 75 years old. Already it had practitioners from the hyper realists to fuzzy wuzzys and in the early decades of the 20th century Modernist art was coming into its own.

My suggestion is that the placement in time meant that creative workers like Strand and Weston would play a big role in transforming expectation about what artistic photography could do, what it could photograph, and how it might impact the world of modern art overall. Thus their status as pillars.

For those of us doing large format film photography the times are very different. The cultural revolution now is the digital/social media revolution and our work is in some manner counter-intuitive to that. I love the work of these pillars of photography but I wonder too whether putting so much effort and thought into reflection on these photographers of the past is misplaced energy. I don’t want my work to be an exercise in nostalgia nor to be a regurgitation of past revolutions and accomplishments. As you can tell, I don’t have a personally satisfying answer to this and I put it out as a question.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Who was 'better' is perfectly bound to time for reasons that should be obvious.

[jp]

I like photo history, so I don't think studying "old pillars" is wasted energy unless you are focused singularly on those people. It would be useful to study folks who were great photographers but weren't written into the history books, because of lack of space or different tastes of the writers. e.g. Newhall's photo history is sort of like a DJ's pick of music to play; lots of great stuff didn't get picked and is still exciting.

I'm not more than casually interested in the current cultural revolution of Internet social media. I'm in the business, but not the creative aspect of it. The old styles and tech can be great stuff and rather than nostalgia, be just another otherwise rusty tool that can do a great job at communicating what you want as a photographer. Sort of like old books don't go out of style even with new stuff published all the time.

[Jody_S]

I also find it useful to study photographic history, and give due reverence when I think appropriate. But the name isn't everything, the 'pillars' that we know are simply representatives of given schools, or perhaps the founders of said schools or movements. In most cases, the masters have been surpassed by their students.


While I am not an art historian by any means, I find it useful in my particular area (both artistic and geographical) to study painting and social movements as well; all of this together helps to create a more cohesive narrative of the different movements. But because photography has not been studied academically as has painting, it is much harder to research horizontally and find different practitioners who follow the different movements. One is left with a trillion photos on Flickr grouped rather haphazardly, and with no means to search by style or quality. Or you can spend your life buying books and going to galleries without ever being able to see more than 1/10,000th of what is out there.

[blueribbontea]

Who was or is better is not a legitimate question in photography or the arts at the level of folks lie Strand and Weston as each worker brings his or her own contributions. Nor is that the focus of my question. Pillars of a field are those that we tend to measure our work against. We live in a revolutionary time but it is certainly a different time than that of Strand and Adams etc. How is our large format work a response to the revolution we live within? Does too much focus on those "pillars' from the first half of the 20th century hinder us somehow in our responses? That's what I am pondering.

[Drew Wiley]

It can be inspiring to look at the prints of past masters, but it's counterproductive to overthink all this nonsense. And ya gotta remember that quite a few superstars
of photography had come and gone before the names you might recognize were ever born. And most of today's alleged heroes will probably be totally forgotten in
another generation or two. Yeah, new art forms will arise from the newer technology, which is fine in its own right. I don't give a damn. I photograph for myself.
If someone else happens to like it (and quite a few apparently do), that's nice. But that's not why I do it. People who are addicted to hero worship in the arts tend
to be wannabees. Sooner or later you have to develop your own vision.

[Mark Sawyer]

For those of us doing large format film photography the times are very different. The cultural revolution now is the digital/social media revolution and our work is in some manner counter-intuitive to that...

For anyone interested in being in on whatever revolution is going on, the times are always different and counter-intuitive to whatever went before. That much has stayed the same.

The "pillars" are usually the early influential photographers in a movement that takes hold enough to have an importance. People today are working in every conceivable direction and jumping on whatever bandwagon shows any momentum, so it's hard to define movements. As Harry Nilsson pointed out, "a point in every direction is the same as no point at all." It would be curious to know who, in a hundred years' time, will be the "pillars" of today's photography, or if there will be any. I suppose they'll have to find someone to justify this mess... :confused:

[Merg Ross]

Does too much focus on those "pillars' from the first half of the 20th century hinder us somehow in our responses? That's what I am pondering.

Too much focus would surely be a hinderance. However, a knowledge of the work done by our predecessors might provide the inspiration for a personal vision. That should be the goal.

[Kirk Gittings]

Too much focus would surely be a hinderance. However, a knowledge of the work done by our predecessors might provide the inspiration for a personal vision. That should be the goal.

ditto. Also consciously knowing what "has been done" can aid one in absorbing it but not repeating it and developing a truly unique personal vision (the art school argument for studying art history which in IMHO has some limited validity). Having said that I think the first question that should be asked of new work in a traditional idiom is "is it any good?". Not "is it new?". In a very real sense all work builds on previous work and to a degree is inherently derivative. But the world we photograph is constantly changing so in that sense photography is always "new". So new, well executed, work in a well worn traditional path always has potential even in a "contemporary" venue.

[DrTang]

When I get in a 'funk'..I'll got to my photobooks and start browsing..maybe I get something..maybe I combine two or three things..maybe it is just a prop or backdrop idea

I don't wanna do what Strand or *Sander or Avedon has already done..I'm not gonna make people jump like Penn.. but I might be inspired by something in the photographs

It happens







*okay..maybe Sander..a bit

[Merg Ross]

I think the first question that should be asked of new work in a traditional idiom is "is it any good?". Not "is it new?". In a very real sense all work builds on previous work and to a degree is inherently derivative.

There is truth to this. I sometimes think of the work that Edward Weston did at Point Lobos over a period of twenty years and hundreds of visits. Was there anything left to photograph? Of course. Take a look at the Point Lobos work done by Wynn Bullock, Lucien Clergue, Minor White and Richard Garrod, years after Edward died. Same location, same large format cameras, very different results. It is all about personal vision.

[Drew Wiley]

Because I have family in the neighborhood, I traipsed around Pt Lobos on quite a few rainy winter days, when the crowds weren't around. I don't think I ever took
a picture even resembling any of the above, even though EW, and specifically his Lobos work, was unquestionably my first serious photographic influence.

[Leszek Vogt]

Although the 'pillars' were an influence of sorts....and I also credit whole gamut of visual artists (not just photographers) from glass blowers, to woodworkers, painters to cinematographers, etc. as my 'pillars'. I went on and created my own little shtick (cocoon, if you will)....and never look at the subject through the eyes of others.

Les

[Jac@stafford.net]

Although the 'pillars' were an influence of sorts ...

Pillars is an interesting choice of word. It is a handy metaphor used in cognitive psychology and linguistics - two tightly coupled disciplines. Proper art history and criticism does not cast concrete around its favorites because it is fluid and considers nearby (recently past and near future) in its attention. What is concrete in 1919 is a 'was', not an 'is'.

[paulr]

This is really a question about the canon ... a concept that has been challenged a lot over the last half century, not just in photography.

I think it's human nature to priviledge certain historical narratives over others. We sometimes do it thoughtfully, sometimes selfishly, and sometimes completely unconsciously. There's always an arbitrariness to a canon. This isn't to say that Edward Weston and Alfred Stieglitz are unworthy ... just that they weren't the only choices for the roles we've assigned them. There are others who may have filled those roles, who, for reasons of politics, zeitgeist, or just historical accident, have been swept aside.

It's always interesting to look at the history of the canon itself. You can do this by looking at old histories. The artists/writers/composers we think of as representing a decade were often minor figures during that decade and the ones immediately after. The historical story is always getting revised.

But at the same time it's self-perpetuating, because being canonized makes someone's work more likely to influence future generations.

[Drew Wiley]

Influence has always been about being at the right time and place in history. .. and quite often, especially in photography, about who your clients were, who you
hung out with, etc. ... and luck. And you can't be influenced by work you've never seen, no matter how good it might have hypothetically been. In the case of some of these well-known names above, they were quite influential in getting twentieth century photography accepted as an art form to begin with. Others certainly did this before them; but it seems that the concept has to be reinvented in quantum leaps from time to time. And people like AA made a huge footprint with his photography in terms of the emerging Natl Parks movement; so his influence was likewise tied to some very public happenings. Same with Eliot Porter and the budding wilderness movement per se. Nothing is fair in art or ever will be. So what.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This is really a question about the canon ... a concept that has been challenged a lot over the last half century, not just in photography.

I think it's human nature to priviledge certain historical narratives over others. We sometimes do it thoughtfully, sometimes selfishly, and sometimes completely unconsciously. There's always an arbitrariness to a canon. This isn't to say that Edward Weston and Alfred Stieglitz are unworthy ... just that they weren't the only choices for the roles we've assigned them. There are others who may have filled those roles, who, for reasons of politics, zeitgeist, or just historical accident, have been swept aside.

It's always interesting to look at the history of the canon itself. You can do this by looking at old histories. The artists/writers/composers we think of as representing a decade were often minor figures during that decade and the ones immediately after. The historical story is always getting revised.

But at the same time it's self-perpetuating, because being canonized makes someone's work more likely to influence future generations.

IMHO Paul's post above should be cast in stone.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Too much focus would surely be a hinderance. However, a knowledge of the work done by our predecessors might provide the inspiration for a personal vision. That should be the goal.

I will 100% agree with this as well.

I am not a photographer by trade but a creative director in the world of advertising. I use photography to be my personal outlet from the creative limitations that having clients often dictates. As has been frequently stated by many others, I make photographs for me and I consider myself very fortunate to be able to have that freedom.

In regard to the "pillars", personally, I often look at work of others, both old and new in all genre's of the creative world with a completely open mind and just take in as many things as possible. I look at my mind as a bank. The more deposits I make the more opportunity I have for withdrawals when I need them. I have no desire to copy previously done work or perspectives but I also have much to learn from our predecessors who have had to learn the hard ways of expensive mistakes as well as happy accidents. Having this perspective assists me in life as well being open to seeing things in a different way, continuously learning, even if is what I DON'T want to do. I want to be inspired, creative, curious, evolving and always willing to see things differently as I grow as a creative soul. This inspires me. Photography feeds me.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I study the past to be inspired for the future, I study the current to appreciate the past.

For me, the "pillars" that influence and inspire me change over time. In college, we spent a great deal of time looking at images those in the academic world considered important and I can recall them now 25 years later like it was yesterday. Those images, and many others, are burned into my brain in a sort of catalog that I draw on from time to time when I am out working. Sometimes I can recognize the influence when I am making the image, other times I don't notice it until I study the contact. No one really works in a vacuum, we are all inspired by the work of others. A personal vision is really taking a bit here and a bit there from other styles that have influenced you.

I tend to follow my intuition when I am out working, but I know my intuition is a result of many years spent looking at the work of other photographers I admire. That collective catalog stored in my head helps me recognize a potential image, it helps alert me to something that might be of interest.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Oh heck, I was writing and didn't see Tim's post - so ditto!

[Kirk Gittings]

I study the past to be inspired for the future, I study the current to appreciate the past.

For me, the "pillars" that influence and inspire me change over time. In college, we spent a great deal of time looking at images those in the academic world considered important and I can recall them now 25 years later like it was yesterday. Those images, and many others, are burned into my brain in a sort of catalog that I draw on from time to time when I am out working. Sometimes I can recognize the influence when I am making the image, other times I don't notice it until I study the contact. No one really works in a vacuum, we are all inspired by the work of others. A personal vision is really taking a bit here and a bit there from other styles that have influenced you.

I tend to follow my intuition when I am out working, but I know my intuition is a result of many years spent looking at the work of other photographers I admire. That collective catalog stored in my head helps me recognize a potential image, it helps alert me to something that might be of interest.

[Jody_S]

Those images, and many others, are burned into my brain in a sort of catalog that I draw on from time to time when I am out working. Sometimes I can recognize the influence when I am making the image, other times I don't notice it until I study the contact. No one really works in a vacuum, we are all inspired by the work of others. A personal vision is really taking a bit here and a bit there from other styles that have influenced you.

I tend to follow my intuition when I am out working, but I know my intuition is a result of many years spent looking at the work of other photographers I admire. That collective catalog stored in my head helps me recognize a potential image, it helps alert me to something that might be of interest.

This inner catalog may help us recognize a potential image, but I think the first effect it has on us is upon our style. By extension, if we want to learn a new style, we can start by spending days or months searching out images in 'our' new style, analyzing or critiquing them, or just admiring them long enough until they are burned into our memory. This process is not in any way limited to photography, I found it useful in much more technical fields when I wanted to approach a problem from a new angle.

This is one of the reasons I admire this forum so much, I have the opportunity to see images in a variety of styles, some new, some old, but in a congenial atmosphere where one can ask questions and see others' reactions.

[blueribbontea]

I like this inner catalog idea. I used to explain to my students that we create "templates" in the brain by studying the work of classic photographers that will kick in when we are out shooting. This is especially helpful as we have to translate a full color world to black and white and gray. Studying the great work of others expands our sense of how black and white film reads the world.

[Drew Wiley]

I certainly have an inner catalog of all those wonderful prints I've seen over the years by many other photographer, but this all seems to be in an entirely different
department than what causes me to photograph something personally. There are obviously going to be coincidences from time to time, or "what if" experiments.
And I can instantly switch between black and white and color modes of shooting without compromising either. ... maybe too many voices in my head.

[Jim collum]

i've had discussions with a couple of friends who know absolutely nothing about the history of photography.. and refuse to look at the work of other photographers (besides the exposure that you can't get around in normal life). They've heard of Adams, only know the name Weston because they've heard of a gallery with that name. The reason is they don't want to corrupt their vision with the work of other photographers. I've likened it to an author who's never read books before.. but they've insisted. One makes his living as a photographer, and a teacher of photography. The discussion usually ended after a few minutes, and the topic changed to their work.

it made for very brief talks about photography (other than cameras.. but that gets old as well).

[Drew Wiley]

Even if one isn't specifically influenced by either the personal style or working methodology, or even the subject-matter of others, there is still plenty of room for
inspiration in the larger sense - admiring their commitment and craft, and the end result. One doesn't have to mimic any of this simply to appreciate it. But as a
yardstick of quality, the work of certain individuals can certainly humble someone who doesn't understand what the game is all about yet. Some smartass passed
me on the trail the other day with the 8x10 set up, and asked if I was the next "Ansel Adams". At least he recognized what an 8x10 was, and was really just trying
to strike up a conversation. But the answer was a simple, "No. I don't want to be Ansel Adams". ... doesn't mean I'm deliberately trying to be something else. I just
see things differently most of the time. It's inherent. I can keep my appreciation for these forerunners in one side of my brain, and my own sense of composition in
another. I don't see any contradiction with that.

[paulr]

I like this inner catalog idea. I used to explain to my students that we create "templates" in the brain by studying the work of classic photographers that will kick in when we are out shooting.

Being aware of a template can also help you kick it aside! A lot of templates are so well-worn it's hard to do anything at with them, except to remind people of older icons. In order to avoid this trap it helps to know what those templates are.

[Bernice Loui]

No on the "Inner catalog" idea.

When I first began this journey into image making (photography) much time was spent on looking at many, many works by the Pillars of Photography, Painters, and much more.. This was many, many years ago. Since that time, my conclusion on this has developed into an appreciation of these artist and their work as really an extension of who they are, their personalities, their interest, their passions, their skill of craft in producing a work or body of work to share with others. Admiring, trying to copy or reproduce the work of others early on in one's artistic journey is common. This can or usually involves gathering the instruments or tools (camera, lens, film and such) of the target image the apprentice is trying to reproduce or copy and working towards that goal. This almost always results in dismal failure unless the image maker is the artist who made the original image, for their personalities and many other factors are simply not the same.

In time, if the passion continues and skills develop and grow, this individual may grow into their unique way of seeing, working, tools/instruments used, image producing process and interest. At this point in their image making journey, the artist's work becomes an extension of who they are.. in very much the same ways as those "Pillars of Photography."

There are numerous examples of this on LFF. The flare ups over digital -vs- film, which is the "superior lens", which is the superior camera, who's images are "better" than the others and etc... It is all a matter of where one is on this life's journey. Setting all this aside, there is much we can learn from each other.

The images each of us produces are the sum of who we are, our passions and interest in life and the skills of using a specific set of image making tools at a specific point in this journey.

The other part of this question lies in the audience for images produced. Images produced to meet the needs of a client can be extremely different than those produced as a means of personal expression not driven by economic need.

There is very much a marketing aspect to the art world and how art is marketed and sold. It is worth noting that Ansel Adams became widely known and economically successful after an association with a student who was an MBA. Marketing alters the public perception of any product.

Many times artist do not gain great wealth from their work, it is the art dealers, collectors and such who place an economic value on any specific work, they are the ones who reap the greatest economic benefits from these works (even if they may have little to no real appreciation of the specific work of art). Look at the current market value of original prints from the Pillars of Photography today.....
How many paintings did Van Gogh sell during his lifetime and what are his paintings worth today..




Bernice

[MDR]

The inner catalogue works at the subcountious level and we use it for our work without our active knowledge. I also believe we use it much more for pattern or scene recognition than actual staging of a work.

[tgtaylor]

It’s the photographic syntax employed that I find inspiring. For example Reeds in the Moonlight, Lake Biwa by Japanese Pictorialist Suizan Kurokawa makes me want to learn that syntax not to print everything in that syntax but for those special images for which it is a perfect match.

Thomas

[Lenny Eiger]

DrTang. If you like jumping photographs, check out Philipe Halsman's Jump Book. This guy was a good friend of my Father's. Book is hilarious.

As to the question I would say this: You can't build a house from the roof down. You must start with a foundation. Everything that has been done is within a genre, and someone else started that genre. Most great artists have said that they're standing on the shoulders of giants. Everything comes from what has come before.

That said, you are correct to understand today's world. Everything is a commodity, everyone's a photographer, and the intellectual component is more and more important. Still, those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it and this is certainly the case.

I wish I had an answer for what kind of photography will come out of this. As a child of the 60's, I did not imagine a world in which bankers would rip everyone off, where congressional leaders would be utterly useless and where we would lose all the humanity of our culture. I don't know what that will look like photographically.

I had actually hoped for a backlash, maybe where people would value a photographer like Lewis Hine, or Dorothea Lange, that actually cared about people. I don't see this happening, at least not yet.

Lenny

[John Olsen]

And how do you know someone is a "giant"? I was strolling through the last room in a show at the Tokyo Photography Museum last May, really just searching for the exit after exhausting myself on the annual show in the earlier rooms. A casual glance to one side and I was riveted! On inspection of the title sheet, it was an Ansel Adams print that I don't think I'd ever seen before. That's one way to know a giant - able to stop a weary viewer at four paces. There are other measures of excellence, perhaps more nuanced than Adam's drama, but the great ones really do stand out.
Just ordered more film - must try again!
John O

[ScottPhotoCo]

I have been pondering this thread and the thought behind it for a few days now. It all began last week when I went gallery hopping here in LA...

First stop was a big exhibition of Richard Avedon's work at the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills. A huge exhibition of prints ranging from actual 6x6 contact prints to 15+ foot prints of some of his most famous images. I spent a good 2 hours looking and plan to return before the exhibition ends in January. So much better in person than any book I've ever seen. An I have a LOT of books. :)

The second stop was Fahey/Klein Gallery on La Brea in LA to see the Von Unwerth exhibition. Her exhibition was good. I am a fan of hers but I felt that the work shown was good but not, in my opinion, her best work. The printing was solid but it didn't knock my socks off. HOWEVER, in a side room right next to her exhibition was photographic heaven. There were original prints from so many incredible masters that it was easily the most incredible photographic experience I have ever had. They had original works from Newton, Ritts, Bassman, Horst and so many more. Including a signed edition 1 of 14 from his Around the Clock series. Wow. Just wow. "Pillars"?

I was thinking about this thread and the sentiment herein while in the car (Sitting in traffic in LA. Good time for thinking.) and I discovered a few things that make this clearer for me.

1. "Pillars" or "masters" is a relative term based on your personal perspective. Some of the traditional "pillars" I find inspiration in and others I don't. I can often find just as much inspiration on Flickr as I can at a gallery show. It just depends on the images.

2. I personally don't look at others work as a "catalogue" but rather a chance to learn. I see images that I like and I try to determine why. I look at light, composition, subject, process and any other detail that I can determine and take away something that I may be able to "see" in the future and have that learning and knowledge as I'm planning or making images of my own. The foundations of great images are the same, light, subject, composition, content, etc., but it is the way that they're put together that creates greatness. I also strive to have an element that facilitates an emotional response to me as I make them. All of these tools help me see things and hopefully also help with my continuing education of the ART of photography.

3. "Greatness" to me is seeing work that makes me want to shoot. That keeps me up at night with a vision forming or project to begin. Images that make me see things in a way I hadn't previously. Not all great photographers are great all of the time. Some are great more often than others. Some are really great but nobody has noticed them yet. That, to me, is the true beauty of photography. To be consistently great is one of the hardest tasks of all. To be original and creative in your perspective is also a big challenge.

4. All of this comes to the idea of WHY you make photographs. Do you photograph for commercial gain? Do you photograph for your own personal edification or inspiration? There are so many variables to this question to the point that there is no hard and firm answer. Photography is what you want it to be. Photographs are what you make them. Photographs are WHY you make them.

There is a great quote attributed to Jay Maisel that was his reply to a young photographer about advice he has for getting into photography. He said "Quit...if you can".

I can't. This feeds me. Pushes my buttons. Makes me think. Inspires me. All of this began with those before us who made good photographs, bad photographs, depressing photographs, inspirational photographs. We all have our road and find the drive and inspiration to travel down that road in different places for different reasons.

"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." Henri Cartier-Bresson

I have a long way to go...


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Heroique]

...I wonder too whether putting so much effort and thought into reflection on these photographers of the past is misplaced energy. I don’t want my work to be an exercise in nostalgia nor to be a regurgitation of past revolutions and accomplishments...

I think there's an assumption here that studying the past can only prepare you to repeat it.

But the greatest artists, I think, are like Janus.

(The Roman God with two faces, looking at past and future at once.)

Mahler worshipped Mozart, his dying words praised him.

[Kirk Gittings]

Heroique. That's what I get from some here too. Like it is some kind of irresistible drug that one will not be able to break free of. Of course there is the other POV-study history so that you are conscious of what's been done and therefore can avoid repeating it.

The fact is that no one approach works for everyone. Some people can avoid the gravity of studying history and some may need to avoid it altogether. But avoiding it is not necessarily a solution either.

I have to say though in all honesty. I feel that young photographers generally do not seriously study art history (as I was required to do at UNM back in the day) and naively oftentimes think they are doing something fresh and unique when in fact they are largely repeating earlier work and simply not aware of it.

Whether one studies the history of a medium or not, no one is really immune from the influence of history as it is present in our culture in advertising etc..

[NancyP]

I think that there is something to be learned from studying the historical "high art" photographic images with respect to the available technology at the time of creation. It is also worthwhile studying "popular" photographic images contemporaneous to the "high art" images of interest. I tend to be interested in a lot of subjects, however, and I don't consider it wasted time to visit art museums, contemporary galleries, view graphics annuals, etc. I am an amateur, though.

Photojournalism has gone by the wayside largely due to the conglomeratization of media companies, with the expectation that news should have a profit margin similar to the printing of grocery store crossword puzzle books and romance novels. Publicly traded newsmedia companies are more beholden to the stock holders than to the public at large. Showing American poor people is bad for attracting advertising. There will be no new Lewis Hine.

[Bruce Barlow]

I tried to imitate the masters. Went out and really tried to make pictures like theirs, and did so recently, when I was researching my book on composition.

I failed, miserably. I kept creeping into the pictures, so that they became mine, rather than merely some cheesy imitation. Therefore, it was a really wonderful thing to do. My own pictures. Not as good, but my own.

I also tried to learn how to do minimalist compositions. Again, I failed. I love complex compositions, and I could not strip away enough, or complexity crept in. Either way, not minimalist.

The Pillars are the Pillars because they are that good. To suppose that anyone here is making stuff as good as Weston's Point Lobos stuff is hubris on a grand scale. The Cardinal Sin of Pride. It just ain't so.

That said, imitation is a powerful tool for learning and developing one's own voice (or is it eye?). You can try to be Strand, but you won't escape yourself, and that's a good thing.

[Jac@stafford.net]

NancyP expressed the Way it is, as much as I regret it.

I believe there is a revival of photojournalism to become for the same reasons from which it arose. People want presence, personal immersion with great talent from the photographer.

The current iPhone stuff will become weary crap and people will eventually demand more.