Speaking of Caponigro...

[Mark Sawyer]

The latest edition of View Camera arrived a couple of days ago, and featured a small portfolio of Paul Caponigro's recent work. His photographs seem to have a wide appeal to people with very different philosophical approaches to photography. I see them as having considerable near-metaphysical qualities, trying to see beyond the surface of the object into a more contemplative world, and a zen-like (resorting to an over-used metaphor) beauty of simplicity. But other people on this forum who eschew such talk (and maybe justifiably so) as meaningless "art-speak" and "psycho-babble" (see the recent Walker Evans thread) respond to his work strongly too. (Are you reading this, Jorge?)

I really want to know; what is it in Caponigro's work that you all respond to?

[Armin Seeholzer]

For me:
He's technical perfection which creates an impact on me.

[Oren Grad]

A reminder to those interested in this topic, who happen to be withing hailing distance of Santa Fe: as mentioned in View Camera, a show of Paul Caponigro's recent still lifes opened yesterday, at the Andrew Smith Gallery:

www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/paulcaponigro/stilllifes/paulcaponigro.htm (http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/paulcaponigro/stilllifes/paulcaponigro.htm)

[Bill_1856]

My library contains four of Caponigro's books, and I much prefer his very early work. It was so free and...lyrical...especially the simple woods and water images. I have never been there, but I know those places -- they are as real to me as the Tennessee countyside where I grew up. For the past few years he seems to be striving for something ethereal without finding it. His images have become more cerebral but less visually intuitive. Technically his ability is superb; my print of Stonehenge almost gives me goosebumps.

[Oren Grad]

Guess I should try to answer the question Mark actually asked, too.

In fact, although I do tend to like quiet, understated photographs, Caponigro's work usually doesn't do that much for me. On the other hand, the work of William Clift, another photographer often included by "art-speak"ers in an imagined school of "metaphysical photography", often does. Go figure.

I could try to cite aspects of their respective compositional and printing styles, and I'm sure that's part of it. But really, I don't entirely understand why one often works for me and the other typically doesn't. I doubt that all the factors that contribute to emotional resonance are available to introspection.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

(Are you reading this, Jorge?)



Yeah I am reading it, so, when do you go back on your meds?... :-)

His technique as well as composition is flawless, but I must admit I am not to keen on the samples shown in the link provided by Oren. Someone posted he had knee surgery and I imagine this is the reason he presented still life. I always thought his still life was not as good as his landscape (of course with a few exceptions)

In any case is good to see he is getting back on the horse, which I imagine at his age is not small feat. I wish him much success and sales with his new work.

[Alec Jones]

Technically, he's as good as anybody printing today. Metaphysically speaking, I find his current work dull. I guess his linear clock and mine just aren't in the same timezone.

I respond to photographs that interest me. His don't anymore.

[Alan Davenport]

I'll confess that I'm not familiar with Caponigro's work, and the portfolio in the magazine is the first I've seen.

That admitted, while his subject matter doesn't particularly excite me, I'd love to see some of his prints. To reproduce this well in a magazine, the originals must be something.

[Barry Trabitz]

I first saw some of Caponegro's prints in the middle 60's in a gallery in Stockbridge, MA. One in particular, I found riviting. It was the image of a waterfall. In the area behind the waterfall was a darkness that just sucked me in. I stared at that for perhaps 30 minutes finally convinced that something was there. At the time I believed there was an image of a nude hiding in the shadows. Twenty years later I saw the same photograph in Lil Farber's house. I mentioned to here that when I first viewed the print I saw a nude. Lil laughed, and said that it was Caponegro's wife.

For me, the sense of mystery that is present in the shadows is the essence of his best work.

The print in Stockbridge that afternoon was for sale for $100. I did not buy it. Two young daughters, and a third on the way , a mortgage, and a very young practice convinced me that it was prudent to save the $100. Not my smartest decision.

[jerry brodkey]

I like his old stuff like the Stonehenge series and "the white running deer" is really unique.
The current work is too formal for my tastes - too symmetric and structured
with no real content. What does it mean?

[Aaron_5037]

Intimacy.

[Hans Berkhout]

Inner calm and peace. About 30 years ago Mr. Caponigro gave me one of his prints (Death Valley) in exchange for one of mine. I felt very honoured, much later I understood that his generous gesture was meant as an encouragement for me, to keep on working. It still gives me inspiration and tremendous moral support when I am involved with the art and craft of photography.
I now give the occasional print to youngsters who are at the beginning of their photographic path and I hope this will give them some direction into a lifelong love for photography.

[Jon Shiu]

This is one of the most beautiful prints I have seen:
pair (http://www.artnet.com/artwork/423899424/_Paul_Caponigro_Pair_Cushing_Maine.html)

but the other still life pictures are not so interesting.

[Mark Sawyer]

One of the things about Caponigro's work I find fascinating is watching his changes through the years. His more recent photographs seem more quiet and introspective; perhaps that comes with his stage in life...

His current body work also seems a bit more formulaic when seen as a whole, which is often seen as a negative for artists, but in his case, it seems more deliberate and conscious decision to work that way, and I can respect that. Sort of watching him work through the process of still life, working towards an end he hasn't quite yet achieved, but the steps along the way are thoughtful and beautiful, better than most ever attain.

I'm interested in the thought that his musical background has influenced his photography; he certainly isn't the only major photographer with this connection to music, and I wonder just how the grounding in one influences the art of the other, especially in the conception and composition of the image.

That he can suggest the ethereal or metaphysical in something so grounded in the sciences of chemistry, optics, and industrial technology as photography is captivating for me.

I respond to his work. Others do, but with a different response. And some do not respond strongly, or at all. It could just be my misperception, but this disparity in response seems fairly pronounced regarding his work, more than for most photographers'. Could be that I'm over-analizing, (I do that.) Or maybe Jorge is right- I'll go take a pill now...

[Aaron_5037]

Sense of space.

[Leonard Metcalf]

Stillness...

[Henry Friedman]

Just as on might marvel at a singer's or musician's ability to hit a note, I am astounded by Paul Caponigro's ability to render tones magnificantly. The highlights are never harsh, and one can just see into the deepest shadows...

[Brian Ellis]

I generally like his photographs and admire his technical ability but I've never gotten all the metaphysical/art-speak stuff others say they see in his work. Which isn't a criticism of those who see it, I just don't. I also was kind of let-down when I leanred that his most famous photograph, the white running deer, was actually a set up situation. It probably shouldn't have an impact, a great photograph is a great photograph regardless of how it was obtained, but somehow knowing that those deer weren't really out there running in the wild does reduce the emotional impact of the photograph (to me, maybe not to others).

[Chris Gittins]

>I also was kind of let-down when I leanred that his most famous photograph, the white running deer, was actually a set up situation.

Where did you hear that story?

[Percy]

Reminds me of an exhibit I saw at the Detroit Institute of Arts recently...Scheeler was the name of the photographer, I believe. Reminicent because I have the same reaction to both photographers' respective works: fantastic print quality, but quite dull subject matter. I appreciate them because they help to stoke the desire to work with big film. In short: I don't see the artistry. Speaks to the subjectivity with respect to viewing art.

[tim atherton]

"While in Ireland, Paul came across a herd of over 30 stark white deer. He was anxious to photograph the eye-capturing animals, but the task seemed impossible due to their disorganization. He approached the herder and asked to use the sheepdog to gather the deer and lead them. Paul was not sure whether or not the dog could handle the tasks, and if so, in which direction it would send the herd. Paul set up his view camera in some bushes across from a bountiful tree. He waited patiently. "I thought, well here I am in the middle of nowhere, let's see what the fairies give me." As luck, or magic, would have it, the deer sprinted practically in single file format right into his view. As soon as they hit the edge of his view camera, he shot the image"

So what? It's a lovely photograph.

[Chris Gittins]

>"While in Ireland, Paul came across a herd of over 30 stark white deer...

Kind of an interesting in the context of his still lives - trying to set up a dynamic scene vs constructing a static one. I shoot a lot of moving water and I can relate to wanting to coax something out of the scene - not something I'm able to do, but I have on occassion wished I could do it. In lieu of control, I wait for what I want. Sometimes I stand there for half an hour ready to trip the shutter and it never happens. There's a lot of "Let's see what the [ocean] give[s] me." I have a general sense of what to expect based on the tides, weather and season but, as with Caponigro photographing the deer, the images aren't ones you can script or predict in any detail.

Chris

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I also was kind of let-down when I leanred that his most famous photograph, the white running deer, was actually a set up situation.



Oh c'mon Brian, anybody that has seen that photograph has to know it was a set up. The chances of him setting up his camera and then having a herd of deer run in front of it randomly are infenitiesimal. I think even as a set up the print is great because he "saw" the potential photograph.

[Mark Sawyer]

Oh, now I suppose you guys are gonna tell me he actually *arranged* those rocks and shells and leaves in his recent still-lifes...

"I generally like his photographs and admire his technical ability but I've never gotten all the metaphysical/art-speak stuff others say they see in his work. Which isn't a criticism of those who see it, I just don't."

I can only catch glimpses and suggestions of it, Brian, which is part of the fascination, maybe. We're already so ham-strung trying to discuss meaning in photographs. It's a purely visual language, and doesn't translate well into words. "Bunch of blurry running white deer in front of dark foliage, really well-printed" might describe what the photograph is of, but do you respond at all to those words nearly the same as you do to the photograph?

Photography can be hard to talk about, art-speak is frustrating, and in the modern world, anything ethereal is always dubious and nebulous. It's encouraging that people can sense things as abstract as the stillness, serenity, silence, the lyrical or musical. Maybe some of us confuse these in looking too hard, but I don't think so. At least, not right now.

And then there's those stupid photo-fairies...

[Mark Sawyer]

(okay, maybe I'm thinking about this too much...)

So, is there any value, any validity in trying to capture some trace of the ethereal in photography? By its very nature, it seems a losing proposition... We really have no physical scientific evidence of anything metaphysical, be it God or magic or an afterlife or anything spiritual. And we're not going to get any real answers from any guru or book or artwork or nature. So why try?

Since so much of the world believes in religion, maybe it's just some inate, nonsensical condition of the human psyche; it's comforting to think there's more to the universe, that after death we don't just wink out of existence. Or maybe in art/photography some of us become to ambitious in our work, trying to tackle the grandest ideas which we don't, can't, have any real knowledge about. Maybe this is the crap that sells in the marketplace. Maybe a rock is just a rock.

Does that mean everyone should just not think about it? Ain't gonna be no answers, so don't ask no questions? Minor White, you wasted our time, it's just a stupid picture of a stupid reflection under a stupid window.

There was another story about cutting-edge physics in the paper a few days ago, some new evidence that 70% of the universe is composed of some mysterious "dark matter" that no one can identify. I've been thinking about it and I think I figured out what it is. It's stupidity.

I'll shut up for a while now...

[Oren Grad]

Mark -
I don't think there's anything strange about looking for a little something extra from taking or viewing photographs - pursuit of same is an important reason why I bother with the whole business myself. But when taking or viewing a picture elicits some kind of emotional resonance for me, I don't therefore conclude that I've stumbled on to some Deeper Meaning about the universe. It's a personal and private thing. It's possible (never guaranteed) that I will make some good pictures while I'm in that sort of psychological groove, and if one of those pictures "works" for a viewer, it may be that they respond to some of the same things that I do. On the other hand, their experience of viewing it may be entirely different from mine. So it goes. A rock is a rock, though a particular depiction of a particular rock may elicit all sorts of responses depending on what we bring to it.

Cheers...

[Brian Ellis]

"Where did you hear that story?"

Tillman Crane, who lives near Mr. Caponigro and is a good friend and some-time assistant. .

Maybe the odds of it being a spontaneous event are small Jorge but stranger things have happened and been caught on film.

[Bill_1856]

Caponigro gives a cogent first person account of making "Running Deer" in the Lustrum Press book "Landscape."

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

"But other people on this forum who eschew such talk (and maybe justifiably so) as meaningless "art-speak" and "psycho-babble" (see the recent Walker Evans thread) respond to his work strongly too."

I enjoy looking at his pictures but as soon as I read any of the accompanying text the effect is lost. The same thing happened after I went to a talk by Freeman Patterson. I can't even look at his pictures now.

[Ellis Vener]

Jorge wrote:

I think even as a set up the print is great because he "saw" the potential photograph.

To which I reply; EXACTLY!

[Mark Sawyer]

And to think I've wasted all these years with my view camera set up, just waiting for a herd of white deer to run by. Got some pigeons once...

Maybe the only lesson to be learned from this thread (and the Walker Evans one) is "don't talk or write about meaning your photography." It seems to spoil it for a lot of viewers when your intents, philosophies, and perceptions don't match theirs. And really, why devalue what someone finds in your work because you meant it to be something else.

Maybe one of the great potentials in a photograph is that it can have different meanings to different people.

[Oren Grad]

Maybe the only lesson to be learned from this thread (and the Walker Evans one) is "don't talk or write about meaning your photography."

No, it's "when you talk or write about meaning in your photography don't presume that you've discovered the Only Truth". That's all.

And really, why devalue what someone finds in your work because you meant it to be something else. Maybe one of the great potentials in a photograph is that it can have different meanings to different people.

Yes!

[Bill_1856]

A discussion of the motovational conditions, both physical and philosophical, involved in making a photograph isn't the same as ascribing a meaning to the image. (For instance, St. Ansel's "Examples.") I don't recall reading that Walker Evans ever discussed the meaning of his work, not even from the "Famous Men" book, or "Walker Evans at Work". Could you please provide a reference? Thanks.

[tim atherton]

"I don't recall reading that Walker Evans ever discussed the meaning of his work, not even from the "Famous Men" book, or "Walker Evans at Work". "

There used to be a small paperback book available of the trnscripts of his lectures (I think it was rivately pubblished) - mainly at Yale.

In them talked a lot about his work and that of others, and at length

[Jerry Flynn]

Several individuals in this thread have mentiond liking Caponigro's "older" images better. I have no quarrel with that at all.

However, when I first saw some of these still-lifes for the first time in New York 8 or 9 years ago, I though they harkened back to some of his earlier Boston and New York work: dolls sitting on a hobby horse, apples on a cutting board, thistle in a window sill, etc. Those (an several of his sunflower images) appeared to be arranged. So, these images did not seem to be so much a departure as a return to a certain thread that has always existed to some extent in his work.

I agree with the comments on quiet, calm and an apparent ability to see into things. They are certainly not bombastic or obvious in any way.

Finally, for me, to look at technique alone misses the point. I think what he demonstrates is a magical integration of content and technique that are inseparable from one another.

[Mark Sawyer]

Jerry- nicely said.

[Steve_5343]

Paul's early work has a lyrical, magical quality that feels unforced. The new work is ponderous. I wonder if it would get nearly the attention, not to mention the Steve Simmons accolades, if it were done by someone else. The fact that Steve feels the need to editorialize, and urge the readers to look more deeply, usually means that there's really not much "there" there.
It feels like the emporer's new clothes, and does nothing to enhance the credibility of the magazine.

Images like the white deer, or several from the Connecticut woods are iconic and memorable; the new work is so much more cerebral and forgettable; it could have been done by John Paul Caponigro.0