How many of these names do you know?

[Darin Boville]

Don't cheat and google. Just confess.

1. Henry Swift

2. John Paul Edwards

3. Imogen Cunningham

4. Willard Van Dyke

5. Edward Weston

6. Sonya Noskowiak

7. Ansel Easton Adams

8. Alma Lavenson

9. Brett Weston

10. Consuela Kanaga

11. Preston Holder

[djdister]

Don't cheat and google. Just confess.

1. Henry Swift

2. John Paul Edwards

3. Imogen Cunningham

4. Willard Van Dyke

5. Edward Weston

6. Sonya Noskowiak

7. Ansel Easton Adams

8. Alma Lavenson

9. Brett Weston

10. Consuela Kanaga

11. Preston Holder

Numbers 3, 5, 7 and 9.

[cowanw]

All 64 of them

[Old-N-Feeble]

All 64 of them

:D

[Drew Wiley]

It's kinda hard to read the list due to the diffraction-limited resolution of that small f-stop.

[Darin Boville]

O.K., I'll play my own game.

I didn't know 1 (Swift), 2 (Edwards), and 10 (Kanaga).

Play the game!

--Darin

[Old-N-Feeble]

Okay... I didn't know 2, 6, 8, 10 and 11.

[ic-racer]

Nice list, thanks for sharing. Lets keep that going with:

12) Walter Rosenblum

13) Frances Benjamin Johnston

14) Sid Grossman

15) Ben Shahn

[Peter Lewin]

I've seen works by numbers 3 through 10. Similar to Darin above, I'm not familiar with Swift, Edwards, or Holder.

[cowanw]

[QUOTE=Darin Boville;Play the game!--Darin[/QUOTE]
O.K. I never heard of Preston Holder.

[Jerry Bodine]

3,5,7,9.
I was delighted to meet Imogen (at one of Ansel's workshops) and see her eyes twinkle with fond memories of her days in Seattle when I introduced myself to her over lunch as a Seattle-ite. Yes, the wee little woman with the big camera, age ~88 at that time, and I felt as if I were looking up to her.

[Tin Can]

I know the guy above the list.

Darin!

but seriously about 1/2

Point?

[Jim Noel]

I know all the names, but I only knew 3,7, and 9.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I knew approximately half of them so I guess that's about f/32 (numerically, not ISL).

[Jim Galli]

8 of 11. Don't know of 1,2,or 11. Have books by or about 6 of the 11

[Darin Boville]

O.K., the game can continue but I'll tell what some people already know. This list is, in the same order they were exhibited in, the photographers represented at the famous deYoung "Group f/64" show in the early 1930s. I don't think membership in the group was ever really defined very well and I don't think any additional shows, so this exhibit has sort of gained a little "creation myth" status.

I confess I was a little surprised I didn't know everyone on the list...

--Darin

[Tin Can]

I am too busy with Mortensen to care about these stuffed shirts.

[Harold_4074]

Have books by or about 6 of the 11

But if you get a copy of Mary Alinder's recent book, you can read--lots!--about all of them in one place :)

[Tim Meisburger]

3, 5, 7, and 9

[Bill_1856]

I know all those names, because this weekend I just happened to run across "Seeing Straight (group f.64)," just as I finished reading a biography of Willard Van Dyke. What a self-centered jerk he must have been. ( I have been trying to restructure my vocabulary lately, by substituting "jerk" for my usual lifelong characterization, "asshole.")
Frankly, except for a few of the well-know images such as Pepper #30, and some of St. Ansels, and Imogenes, most of it was VERY amateurish! They are well forgotten!

[Darin Boville]

OTE=Bill_1856;1190190]I know all those names, because this weekend I just happened to run across "Seeing Straight (group f.64)," ...
Frankly, except for a few of the well-know images such as Pepper #30, and some of St. Ansels, and Imogenes, most of it was VERY amateurish! They are well forgotten![/QUOTE]

Hey! You are getting ahead of me! :) Yes, I'm working from a copy pf Seeing Straight as well (purchased on the advice of Merg Ross)...very interesting book for a lot of reasons.

But the game continues!

In this new phase you have to match up the photo with the photographer. I picked one per photographer from the book. Quick picts from the book with a cell phone but you'll get the idea--all of the glare is on my end, not in the photo. No googling!

To make this less awkward I'll give each picture a letter and a name.

Here we go, the first four:

A. Pole with wires
125370

B. Jagged wood
125373

C. Man taping hands
125372

D. Little girl smelling flowers
125371

[Darin Boville]

The next four:

E. Dark leaf vegetation
125375

F. Young girl, smiling
125377

G. A woods
125376

H. Leafy plants from rear
125374

[Darin Boville]

And the final three:

I. Ship with chains
125380

J. Triangular wooden object
125378

K. Rounded industrial forms
125379

[Darin Boville]

And just to recap, here are the names again.

1. Henry Swift

2. John Paul Edwards

3. Imogen Cunningham

4. Willard Van Dyke

5. Edward Weston

6. Sonya Noskowiak

7. Ansel Easton Adams

8. Alma Lavenson

9. Brett Weston

10. Consuela Kanaga

11. Preston Holder


So, answers might take the form of

A = Swift

B = Edwards

etc

[Bruce Watson]

I have been trying to restructure my vocabulary lately, by substituting "jerk" for my usual lifelong characterization, "asshole."

Why not give the Shakespearean insult "varlot" a try?

[Bill_1856]

Why not give the Shakespearean insult "varlot" a try?

"Varlet" is a little sissy for me, but "Varmint" (from my youthful days in Tennessee) wouldn't be a bad second choice. However, it's very difficult to give up "asshole" for Yankee drivers invading our Florida roads and streets. You have NO idea!

[Bill Burk]

Had you asked me two weeks ago, I'd only have known the same as most of us.

Now I feel like it'd be cheating since I met Mary Street Alinder, heard her talk... Saw many of these photographs... Been reading about many of these photographers.

[Merg Ross]

Familiar with all of them, knew five personally. Henry Swift is a somewhat forgotten member of the group as he only photographed for a short time. He was a family friend, so I know a bit about him, although the historians give him little mention. He was married to Florence Alston (Swift) who was a very good artist and friends with Dorothea and Imogen. Henry devoted most of his time to his business; photography was more of a hobby. He lived here in Berkeley, had a very nice darkroom and used a 4x5 Graflex during the f:64 period. I wrote a bit about him in my autobiography, perhaps I should give thought to getting it published!

For those local and interested, Mary Alinder will have another book signing, this time at Scott Nichols Gallery on Dec. 6, 1-4 pm. 49 Geary St., S.F. --- Scott will have an exhibition up of the Group f:64 participants.

[Lenny Eiger]

Frankly, except for a few of the well-know images such as Pepper #30, and some of St. Ansels, and Imogenes, most of it was VERY amateurish! They are well forgotten!

As to being assholes, yes, it's a total disappointment that assholes can sometimes make good art. It ought to be that to make something exquisite that it would take an exquisite person. It ought to be true, but it isn't. Walker Evans is another example. I read his biography a couple of years ago. What a jerk.

However, I think f64 was a very rich time in Photographic History (I also love the PhotoSecession.) and I think dismissal is too harsh. There are issues. You have people choosing works for the books that may have no idea what they are doing. (I'm burning my negs before I die...so that some idiot grad student doesn't decide who I was.) Then you have the problem of just how many great, and lasting, images anyone can make.

How many of AA's images were actually that good? A dozen? Not so many. Weston had far more, he was able to work continuously for quite some time, and just deal with the poverty that doing art in our art-less culture leads one to. For most of us, we may even take a great image worthy of history, but because no one knows we're here, or the "right" people don't know, the image is lost to people anyone our family. I have an image from Morty Strauss, a good friend of my Dad's from the Inwood Camera Club, back in the days when they had Clubs. It was taken at Lake George, and it is just gorgeous. On the back they are 10 different patches from where is was exhibited, won awards, etc. But the fellow was an "amateur" and there is no mention of him at all on the search engines.

I just pulled up an image by Alma Leveson of some eucalyptus leaves, and its beautiful. I wouldn't dismiss them all.... you'd miss out.

Lenny

[Darin Boville]

O.K., let's revive the game with easier rules.

Merg Ross and Bill Burk aren't allowed to guess since they have inside knowledge!

The new rules: Just pick out the photos by Ansel, Weston, and Brett Weston.

--Darin

[Bill_1856]

As to being assholes, yes, it's a total disappointment that assholes can sometimes make good art. It ought to be that to make something exquisite that it would take an exquisite person. It ought to be true, but it isn't. Walker Evans is another example. I read his biography a couple of years ago. What a jerk.

However, I think f64 was a very rich time in Photographic History (I also love the PhotoSecession.) and I think dismissal is too harsh. There are issues. You have people choosing works for the books that may have no idea what they are doing. (I'm burning my negs before I die...so that some idiot grad student doesn't decide who I was.) Then you have the problem of just how many great, and lasting, images anyone can make.

How many of AA's images were actually that good? A dozen? Not so many. Weston had far more, he was able to work continuously for quite some time, and just deal with the poverty that doing art in our art-less culture leads one to. For most of us, we may even take a great image worthy of history, but because no one knows we're here, or the "right" people don't know, the image is lost to people anyone our family. I have an image from Morty Strauss, a good friend of my Dad's from the Inwood Camera Club, back in the days when they had Clubs. It was taken at Lake George, and it is just gorgeous. On the back they are 10 different patches from where is was exhibited, won awards, etc. But the fellow was an "amateur" and there is no mention of him at all on the search engines.

I just pulled up an image by Alma Leveson of some eucalyptus leaves, and its beautiful. I wouldn't dismiss them all.... you'd miss out.

Lenny
Well spoken, but remember that this was a major photography exhibition at a major museum, and IMO they didn't serve the public well by showing most of these images as examples of good photography.

[bigdog]

I know all those names, because this weekend I just happened to run across "Seeing Straight (group f.64)," ...
Frankly, except for a few of the well-know images such as Pepper #30, and some of St. Ansels, and Imogenes, most of it was VERY amateurish! They are well forgotten!


... remember that this was a major photography exhibition at a major museum, and IMO they didn't serve the public well by showing most of these images as examples of good photography.

Respectfully disagree.

Please read the book "Seeing Straight" again, pay attention to the commentary, and place the work in context of the time and what else was - and was not - going in in photography. This exhibition was ground-breaking in it's own way. It may be to photography what the "Armory Show" was to modern painting.

Putting aside an aversion for a particular artist based on their personality shortcomings (that would be a lot of people ...) one can be more objective about the importance of the work. I also hope that you are not basing your evaluation of the quality of the work based on the book. As usual, the reproductions lack a good bit. Many of us were lucky to see the re-creation of this exhibition put on several years ago by the Center of Creative Photography at the University of Arizona. Many of the prints were breath-taking. Some were not. But taken as a body of work, and in context of the time, it was a once in a lifetime experience for many of us, as I'm sure it was for some folks in the 1930s at the original show.

[Merg Ross]

Merg Ross and Bill Burk aren't allowed to guess since they have inside knowledge!

--Darin

Okay, Darin, I won't spoil your game!

If you want to carry your Group f:64 research a bit further, look for the book, "The Letters Between Willard Van Dyke and Edward Weston". Maybe get a copy for Wilhelm also, might change or reinforce his opinion of Willard!

[Doug Howk]

Before reading Alinder's newer book - "Group f.64" - I wasn't aware of Swift,Edwards,Lavenson, Kanaga & Holder. Since then, I picked up a copy of Consuelo Kanaga's "An American Photographer". Very impressive work especially the portraits.

[sun of sand]

In another thread someone asks how many of ansels photographs were great
They thought maybe 10.

My favorite of his is a very intimate snow scene
One that Most people wouldn't be able identify as being his
And it is clearly great.

So is it 10
11
Or maybe people just have a hard time seeing it.

Flash is easy to see as awesome
seeing what makes 2 very similar things different is the real challenge and in the case of the seemingly simple
the truth

I believe people have a good idea of what's good and maybe great when presented to them
Individually

But deciding between a mix especially
and people become clueless and steer toward the familiar and easy

[chad23]

To be honest I've heard about 1,4,8.10,11.
Shame on me)

[Wayne]

3 through 10, except for 8





Don't cheat and google. Just confess.

1. Henry Swift

2. John Paul Edwards

3. Imogen Cunningham

4. Willard Van Dyke

5. Edward Weston

6. Sonya Noskowiak

7. Ansel Easton Adams

8. Alma Lavenson

9. Brett Weston

10. Consuela Kanaga

11. Preston Holder

[Ray Heath]

G'day all
I've previously heard of or read about 7 of these photographers.

As a non-American I have to ask why is/was that exhibition/group considered so important?

My understanding is that they all knew each other, lived and worked close by and made very similar images. So, why so revered?

[bigdog]

As a non-American I have to ask why is/was that exhibition/group considered so important?

My understanding is that they all knew each other, lived and worked close by and made very similar images. So, why so revered?


... place the work in context of the time and what else was - and was not - going in in photography. This exhibition was ground-breaking in it's own way. It may be to photography what the "Armory Show" was to modern painting.

Many of us were lucky to see the re-creation of this exhibition put on several years ago by the Center of Creative Photography at the University of Arizona. Many of the prints were breath-taking. Some were not. But taken as a body of work, and in context of the time, it was a once in a lifetime experience for many of us, as I'm sure it was for some folks in the 1930s at the original show.

I am particularly appreciative of Group f.64, because of what they were trying to say as a “movement”. A bit over 80 years ago, Group f.64 was a reaction against “Pictorialism”, a prevalent (at the time) style of photography in which the photographer would heavily manipulate a photograph, feeling that this was necessary to make photography an art form. Group f.64 believed that the art of photography must develop along the lines defined by the actualities and the limitations of the medium. Rather than trying to imitate paintings, the members of the group made images that emphasized the look obtained with a camera.

Compared to current photography, the photographs seem a bit dated and ordinary to a lot of people. At the time, it was much more "edgy". This is why they must be placed in historical context to understand the significance of Group f.64.

[Wayne]

G'day all
I've previously heard of or read about 7 of these photographers.

As a non-American I have to ask why is/was that exhibition/group considered so important?

My understanding is that they all knew each other, lived and worked close by and made very similar images. So, why so revered?

Because there were two Westons one Adams and a Cunningham. I really doubt you'd still be hearing about them 80 years later otherwise.