Edward Weston? What am I missing? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Michael Heald

2-Aug-2006, 16:53

Hello! OK, I'm going to open myself up a bit for a tongue lashing, but I've got to ask folks what they see in Edward Weston's work. I purchased the book The Last Years in Carmel to try and appreciate his work as one of the founding father's of American photography.
I was puzzled by much of what I saw. I have two approaches to looking at photos - analytical (what is it saying to me, how, etc.) and one emotional (would I want to have this print hanging on my wall?).
For many of the photos, I went from an initial impression that "the works were trivial/pointless", to "I just didn't like them", to (what is probably a truer reflection of what I ws experiencing) "I just didn't understand the image".
For me, form/texture in the abscence of context to give meaning is trivial. I don't mean that I expect photographs to be documentary. Rather, I expect a photograph to have a theme even if the composition is abstract. Many of Weston's images just seemed bland to me even though they were abstract in the sense that form/texture seemed to be prominent elements in the composition.
I don't understand what Edward Weston was trying to say with his art and I don't understand the context that gives his works meaning.
What do other folks find alluring in his work? Best regards.

Mike

clay harmon

2-Aug-2006, 17:06

Ralph Barker

2-Aug-2006, 17:09

As with many other photographers, some people like Weston's work, and others don't. I think this sort of situation is particularly true in cases where the work is considered outside the context of the time period (along with all of the associated social and artistic issues) in which the work was done.

Chris Strobel

2-Aug-2006, 17:16

I think it was Minor White who commented on a photo of a tree stump by Ansel Adams and asked Him "what does it mean" and Ansel replied "nothing, its just a picture of a tree stump" :D I like Weston's Nautilus shell photo a lot, to me it doesn't mean anything mystical or really say anything, I just like the tonal qualities and form.

(ps, if you don't like the book you can send it to me :))

paul stimac

2-Aug-2006, 17:19

Art is subjective - and argumentative. Not everyone likes Edward Weston's prints. Not everyone likes ice cream either. Why that is? Who knows. While we have influences it all boils down to subjectivity. No right, no wrong. That's what I like about photography/art the most.

EW got famous. That's a different issue. Maybe that's what's bothering you.

EW's stuff has never looked good to me in a book. His actual prints look amazing live and in person though. I live in a small town and we are lucky enough to have a museum that displays a perminant collection of his and AA's work. I go visit often. AA's looks better in a book but EW's looks better on a wall. That according to my subjective eye/mind. You decide for yourself.

Jim Jones

2-Aug-2006, 18:08

I also have The Last Years in Carmel and several other books of his photography and about him. In the context of this little library, The Last Years in Carmel is a touching requiem. As Weston matured as an artist, many of his later photos do not resonate with my limited intellect. This is also true of the writing of Michner, the music of Tchaikovsky, and the art of Van Gogh. However, as a long-time fan of Weston, I found the book quite moving. Perhaps that is the intent of the author; a tribute rather than "The Best of Weston."

paulr

2-Aug-2006, 18:28

I wasn't into Weston the first time I saw his work either. I was coming from a very different place, and hadn't assimilated the language of his kind of modernism. It took a while. And then I got fascinated and had to have more. Now I can't imagine my world with it.

The stuff I liked way back before I discovered Weston now seems obvious and trite to me.

He may never become your favorite photographer, but I suspect that with enough time and exposure, you'll grow to appreciate why some people love him so much.

Just curious--whose work do you like?

David A. Goldfarb

2-Aug-2006, 18:43

EW's stuff has never looked good to me in a book. His actual prints look amazing live and in person though.

I was always a bit ambivalent about Weston as well until I saw real prints. That's really what it's about.

Walter Calahan

2-Aug-2006, 18:57

;) Who doesn't like ice cream?

Is that in their personal record?

I am shooked, shooked.

kjsphotography

2-Aug-2006, 19:21

When I first seen Weston’s work I did not like it at all, even in person. After reading his daybooks and understanding what it was he was trying to accomplish, I now have an appreciation for the images he created..

Ken Lee

2-Aug-2006, 19:50

Innovation, fame, wealth: it's fairly rare for an artist to attain any of these. For one's work to endure the test of time, is even more rare.

scott_6029

2-Aug-2006, 21:22

Perhaps you should take a look at Edward Weston A Legacy book as you get a terrific feel for his 'range' of imagery. Taking into account that he was basically, the 'first' to shoot many of the images in a certain way makes it all the more impressive. I am not as familiar with the book you are referring too. I do find some photographers books more to my liking than others by the same photographer. But in the end its what floats your boat that counts. Thats what make this so interesting.

Merg Ross

2-Aug-2006, 21:38

John Louis

3-Aug-2006, 01:26

'. . . . and Ansel replied "nothing, its just a picture of a tree stump" . . . . '

I like many of Weston's frequently anthologised photographs in just that way too. Each is just picture of its subject, usually rendered with a range of delicate half-tones and always making good use of the picture-space.

I have not seen original prints of his only reproductions in books.

Shouldn't this thread be under Aesthetics?

Michael Heald

3-Aug-2006, 04:14

Hello! Thank you for the insight. Perhaps "Carmel" ismore of a tribute. I'll keep an eye out for another book as well as actual prints. Best regards.

Mike

Leonard Metcalf

3-Aug-2006, 04:25

I was particularly moved when I saw his Mexican work (originals) that he made while with Tina Modotti. One image struck me in particular of a view from a roof top, looking down onto other roof tops. The angles of the lines and shapes at first were awkward, then they seemed random or off the norm (the angle of an accident), then as I looked they suddenly made sense, and it was a photograph about these angles and lines. The more I looked at the photograph I realized that the more I wanted to have taken it. That was the start of a more serious exploration of his work.

Edward was a sensualist. He loved form among many things like love, beautiful women, life... His images sing with form and sensualism. Which is why l love them, he finds beauty in the shapes of his found objects (and landscapes), and captures these images in magical lighting to accentuate this form.

Well in my opinion anyway. Oh and I'd be lying if I said I loved all his work. I don't, just most of it. I can't say I know the work you mention, so I really can't comment on those images.

Len

Bill_1856

3-Aug-2006, 04:52

Well, I'm a great admirer of Edward Weston, and I don't care for his "Late Work" either. I think he got that "great artist" self-image that anything he photographed were great work, (sort of like Irving Penn's platinum prints of cigarette butts). I saw the show at Art Institute of Chicago with original prints, and it wasn't any better than the book.

Bruce Barlow

3-Aug-2006, 04:55

I would suggest reading The Daybooks.
I agree with all those who said that the prints look vastly better than the book reproductions.
It's also worth bearing in mind how poor Weston was, and how that translated into his craft. He rarely used a light meter for making exposures, and he contact printed with a light bulb in a dark room (barely worth calling a "darkroom"). In The Daybooks, he says that he rarely needed to expose a second sheet of paper...he got his final print right the first time! That we all should have such knowledge of our materials, and sensitivity to use them as well.
I think that Weston's pictures will grow on you with time. He demands a fair bit from his audience, and the more sophisticated a viewer I become, the more his work speaks to me.

Frank Petronio

3-Aug-2006, 05:11

I think Weston's later work was remarkably predictive of what would become fine art photography in the 60s and 70s. He was 30 or 40 years ahead of his contemporaries as he was failing healthwise.

Give it a couple of years. Look at a lot of work. Get back to me in 2010 or so ;-)

John Jarosz

3-Aug-2006, 05:38

Weston and many of the other in his era were doing things that were never done before. In today's constant barrage of images I think it's hard to maintain the perspective of how unique those people and thei images were. 99.9% of all photographers today are just redoing what has been done before.

And as for the "what does it mean?" question, Garry Winogrand said in one of his classes: "Whaddya mean?, What's it mean?, it's just light and shadow."

John

Michael Daily

3-Aug-2006, 07:15

Having had the opportunity of working with about 105 original Weston prints of images that did NOT become famous and seeing many originals of his that DID, I see that even the masters have off days and make mediocre images. I found that quite comforting to know that they, too, have feet of clay... That said, the original print of the "Pepper No. 30" printed by him is a standard of quality I aspire to with no real hope of getting there. I try in printing to make something that, if on the same wall as Adams or E. Weston, I would not be ashamed. I find Weston's earlier work from Mexico and the earlier Point Lobos stuff moving and the more modern stuff less so.
Michael

Inverse

3-Aug-2006, 08:45

I recently saw a platinum print of Weston's, I believe it was of a cabbage or something similar, at the MOMA. I have no idea how to make a cabbage so amazing to look at, or what drove him to do that. Nevertheless, it was pretty fascinating.

Martin D.

3-Aug-2006, 08:53

You are not missing anything at all. In my opinion, well executed photos of boring objects. He redid what was done before in painting; no originality or striking philosophy here. I guess books and calendars with his photos are easy to market therefore his art is being pushed by publishers and galleries. When they find an easier way to make money, they will switch to something else. He is a contemporary artist; whether he will withstand the test of time we will never find out, unless we live 200 years. There is usually almost no philosophy behind photos; usually people just talk loud and repeat what was said before; they just pretend that their photos are a fullfilment of some bright philosophy.

Can you name one of the winners of the Official salon during the Impressionist era? These guys made some decent money, had a nice life. In most cases they never found out that their art was dumped 10 years after they died. Although, it is even hard to say dumped, it was in 1880s, just 125 years ago, just a milisecond ago in terms of any reasonable time test.

If his prints do not survive in a decent state a few hunder years, he will not even get a chance to withstand something.

Colin Robertson

3-Aug-2006, 09:27

There's no obligation to like Weston, although I happen to think he was an extraordinary talent. Once, I hated Ansel Adams- I reckoned his work sterile and overly concerned with technique. Now, I'm kinda fond of him. Much as I hated Jimi Hendrix, but now find I've grown to enjoy him. Conversely I thought Terrence Mallick was astounding, but now see his films as a bit contrived. We all grow, we all change, as the course of our lives shapes our tastes.

Jan_6568

3-Aug-2006, 09:56

I was born and grew up in Poland. I remeber my father had a subscription to monthy journal Fotografia (Photography) for some few years. As a child I really liked this journal, just looking the images. One of my earliest memories realted to photograhy is a reproduction of Edward Weston's shells they published. I recall I was deeply moved. I had to be six or seven that days.
Now, some year ago I moved to Tucson, AZ and since then I am a frequent guest at CCP. Every week I go there to pick three boxes of prints to see and always one of them is Edward Weston's work. I do not choose particular images, I just want to see everything they have and this is a LOT. Some of the images are not superb some are deeply touching. Some are quite abstract and some do have deep meaning, mostly his portraiture, especially form his mexican days. What I see in his work is beauty. I stand in front of some of his images and just feel joy. This is similar reaction to listening to Bach's Die Kuns der Fuge.

regards,
Jan

Ron Marshall

3-Aug-2006, 10:31

I've seen many of the books of his work, I've also seen a few prints in museums.

Some of his images really make a strong impression on me, some do nothing for me.

Even with my favourite photographers I often don't enjoy many of their images.

paulr

3-Aug-2006, 10:52

You are not missing anything at all. In my opinion, well executed photos of boring objects ...

Troll!

but -10 points for lack of imagination and poor grasp of art history.

Brian Ellis

3-Aug-2006, 10:56

Part of the reason for your dislike might be the fact that he's been so imitated. Things he did that were novel in their time (e.g. the Armco steel factory photographs) have become cliches. Also, while I haven't seen the book you bought I'd assume from the title that it doesn't include images from what I think of as his strongest period, i.e. the 1920s-1930s. Still, there's no rule that says you have to like Edward Weston's work.

Brian Ellis

3-Aug-2006, 11:05

I should have mentioned that if you want to expand your knowledge of Weston's work (not that you have any duty to do so) I'd suggest that you check out "Edward Weston - Life Work" published by Lodima Press, Michael Smith's publishing venture. There you'll see a much broader selection of his photographs and the quality of the reproduction is about as good as it gets. Not cheap - around $100 I think - but very worthwhile for anyone interested in Weston.

reellis67

3-Aug-2006, 11:18

Another thing the Daybooks offer is a rare glimpse into the mind of a skilled photographer of that time period. It is amazing to read what he was thinking of when he made some of these images. I understood, or thought I did, about line, and movement, and so on, until I read the passage about the shells and how he was seeing not the shell itself, but the curvilinear lines they presented. I was looking only at the shell, but this opened my mind to the possability that there was more to see than the subject alone. Weston focused on the details, the core elements rather than the subjects themselves, which can be, in my opinion, difficult to follow or appreciate without the proper background in art and design.

I get into his work now because I spent time discussing these concepts with painters, who I found, had a much deeper understanding had of these concepts than the photographers I knew at the time. Understanding the a bit about these basic concepts gave me to the ability to appreciate Westons vision more, which in turn led to a deeper understanding of those concepts, which led to more appreciation, and so on. It hasn't stopped yet...

- Randy

reellis67

3-Aug-2006, 11:20

Even with my favourite photographers I often don't enjoy many of their images.

I can't name a single photographer, or other type of artist for that matter, whose work I don't feel the same way about. Some pieces resonate stronger than others and some don't resonate at all.

- Randy

Martin D.

3-Aug-2006, 11:40

Troll!

but -10 points for lack of imagination and poor grasp of art history.

If I just imagine how much time Weston spent looking for the right pepper... Imagination!? What imagination do you mean? The type that is being taught at universities right now or 100 years ago? How much of your imaginations is dictated by others and much is yours?

Btw, I find your response rude and it lacks argumentation.

Jan_6568

3-Aug-2006, 11:56

You are not missing anything at all. In my opinion, well executed photos of boring objects.
Is it object what makes a photograph?

regards,

Jan

Martin D.

3-Aug-2006, 12:22

Is it object what makes a photograph?

regards,

Jan

The ability to communicate feelings and emotions makes a photo for me. I am afraid, in this case the goal was to create an aesthetically and technically perfect photo of a pepper. I feel nothing looking at the photo. I do not know how the artist felt, I do not know that if considering the whole series of photos. Actually, my emotions are the same as when looking at one of these paintings with a dead animal with some vegetables around. And yes, some objects have a very limited ability to communicate emotions.

Jan_6568

3-Aug-2006, 13:16

Martin, I think I understand your point. To me, personally, photography is almost all about discovering something I have not seen before in simple, everyday objects. It is about seeing the beauty in ordinary world. Perhaps this is why pepper photograph is so moving me.

regards,

Jan

Bill_1856

3-Aug-2006, 19:34

Weston didn't look for the right pepper, himself. It was picked out and brought to him (along with the 30 odd others, and other fruits and veggies) by his assistant/lover, Sonya Unpronouncable. The shells were borrowed from the studio of his friend Henrietta Shore, the painter.

Jan_6568

3-Aug-2006, 19:43

Weston didn't look for the right pepper, himself. It was picked out and brought to him (along with the 30 odd others, and other fruits and veggies) by his assistant/lover, Sonya Unpronouncable.

Sonya Unpronouncable?:))))) She had to have polish roots. Her last name would translate "Littenose".

regards,

Jan

paulr

3-Aug-2006, 22:00

If I just imagine how much time Weston spent looking for the right pepper... Imagination!? What imagination do you mean? The type that is being taught at universities right now or 100 years ago? How much of your imaginations is dictated by others and much is yours?

Btw, I find your response rude and it lacks argumentation.

based on how intelligently you write, I assumed you were stating views that were beneath you, simply to annoy people. If I was wrong then I apologize.

I do find your reading of his images to be shallow. I don't know what your preference is in photograhy, but your fixation on Weston's subject matter tells me you haven't taken the time to learn what formal modernism is about. It's been around about 90 years now; in the time it's taken you express your dismissal of Weston's work you would have been able to catch up on learning something about it.

If the pictures themselves aren't informative enough, I would strongly recommend this little book: http://www.photoeye.com/templates/mShowDetailsbycat.cfm?Catalog=FP020

Amy Conger's and Paul Vanderbilt's essays are especially interesting ... they discuss among other things how a photograph of a pepper can be about a lot more than a pepper.

I don't think you're under any obligation to like his work, but it pushes my buttons when people dismiss things that they don't understand.

PhotoHistorian

3-Aug-2006, 22:10

Sonya Noskowiak (1900-1975) was actually German by birth (born in Leipzig). Although she did have Polish ancestry. And yes, she did supply Edward with all his vegetables and fruits for models. Most were purchased Espanola's Grocery in Carmel. She was known to barter an EW portrait sitting for a box of groceries. But she was more than just Edward's assistant and lover from 1929-1934. She was one of the best photographers of the period. A founding member of Group f/64, both Ansel Adams and Willard van Dyke considered her the best female photographer in America in 1934. After leaving Edward Weston, she moved to San Francisco and ran a successful photo studio into the mid 1960's.

Mark Sampson

4-Aug-2006, 06:27

Back to the beginning. If you want to 'get' Edward Weston, it would be helpful to look at the whole of his work, from the early pictorialism through to the late work. Original prints, yes, by all means! but there are many books available to show his growth and changes- which will go a long way toward 'explaining' why the images in "The Last Years at Carmel" look like they do. (It just occurred to me that it would be a great thing to be able to discover Weston for the first time, as I did when I was a teenager.)

Bill_1856

4-Aug-2006, 06:38

[QUOTEAnsel Adams and Willard van Dyke considered Sonya Noskowiak the best female photographer in America in 1934.[/QUOTE]

What about Dorothea Lange (also eventually a member of f:64) and Bourke-White?

Bruce Watson

4-Aug-2006, 10:25

What about Dorothea Lange (also eventually a member of f:64) and Bourke-White?
And Imogene Cunningnam?

Michael Daily

4-Aug-2006, 12:39

The famous pepper is number 30, but there were 29 before it and many after it. Imagination, persistance, and a clear vision of what he wanted resulted in this series of images--many not being "the one".According to Weston, in one of the Daybooks: "Composition is the strongest way of seeing." Weak vision and poor imagination must then be needed for someone not to see what millions of others have seen. Just like not understanding Bach's Fugues or the beauty in a cloud at sunset.

If I just imagine how much time Weston spent looking for the right pepper... Imagination!? What imagination do you mean? The type that is being taught at universities right now or 100 years ago? How much of your imaginations is dictated by others and much is yours?

Btw, I find your response rude and it lacks argumentation.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
John Keats, "Ode to a Grecian Urn"

darr

4-Aug-2006, 13:17

"Composition is the strongest way of seeing."

"A composition is in fact like an anecdote. If the raconteur places the different parts of his anecdote in a wrong sequence, the point is either entirely lost or marred; if he omits or adds, the result is likewise incomplete. A composition differs, therefore, from a scientific statement, in that it is not a matter of facts which can be stated in any way, and in any order, without destroying their truth, but it is a series of facts whose truth is purely dependent upon their special juxtaposition. Now, just why a series of facts, possibly commonplace enough in themselves, and entirely uninteresting in the combinations they are usually found in in nature, should suddenly become interesting when "composed," nobody knows. Why the same rocks, fields, trees, and sky seen from one point of view should look ordinary, but when looked at from another, should tell a story which affects to our innermost depths, is a mystery that has never been solved. ... Psychologists tell us that composition in some way appeals to the subconscious part of the brain, and that they are at work on the problem, but have not yet quite solved it. Philosophers inform us that somewhere within ourselves a sense of absolute order exists, and that when this sense perceives absolute order in nature it is pleased; but when it sees disorder it is displeased. Undoubtredly, the scientists and philosophers are right as far as they go; but, unfortunately, they take us no further than we were. Therefore, all we can say is, that to compose is to give order."

from "Is Photography A New Art?" Camera Work (1908), no. 21

PhotoHistorian

4-Aug-2006, 22:05

What about Dorothea Lange (also eventually a member of f:64) and Bourke-White?
I was just passing on what Ansel and Willard said about Sonya Noskowiak, not that I agree with their opinion. If I had to venture a guess, I would say they looked on Lange and Bourke-White as documentary photographers. And their view from a Group f/64 perspective would put Sonya more in a "creative" pigeonhole. But Imogen was a founding member of Group f/64 too, so why they would rank Sonya ahead of Imogen is very hard to figure.
As for "getting" Edward Weston, don't try. Like any photographer one can name, you either like what you see or you don't. Edward did not intellectualize about his work. He looked at the world and responded to things that passionately moved him. He didn't expect his viewers to "get it."
But if you want to try and understand Edward Weston, I strongly agree that one needs to look at his entire body of work from early pictorial work (1911-1919) to his final image at Point Lobos in 1948. No single book, to date, on Weston has shown it all. One needs to look at his early work in, "Margrethe Mather and Edward Weston: A Passionate Collaboration," by Beth Gates Warren and perhaps "Edward Weston: Forms of Passion" by Gilles Mora for his modernist, mature style.
Just respond to the work as it comes natual to you. Don't try to "get it," because "it" may not be there for you.

Walker Edmonson

Michael Heald

5-Aug-2006, 13:32

PhotoHistorian

5-Aug-2006, 20:35

Hello! As I was looking at the photos n the Carmel book, several images didn't seem like good compositions to me. So, I was wondering what I was missing, that others got, with reference to the compositional virtuoso that had been ascribed to Weston in these photographs.
As I've thought about this, it seems to me that the photos that work for me use tone more than line. For example, his untitled image of dried seaweed from 1938doesn't work for me since it concentrates more on line and less on tone and tonal contrast. However, I like "Wet Seaweed" from 1938. It is also a study in line, but includes more tone and tonal contrast. For example, I like Wynn Bullock's "Enchanted Landscape" because of this tonality, and the use of line and shape that seem to support the tonality.
I was particularly struck how David Travis, the author, described Weston's last photograph "Point Lobos" in 1948. The image lacked any "perspectival depth. . .(or) obvious center of interest. It expresses no obvious psychological mood. There is no sculptural, organic form, no active body of water to be seen. . . . What he (Weston) pictured, however, was something he could feel and see so well:the physical results of forces spent." The image seemed a type of opus or capstone of Weston's life's work for Travis because of the absence of the things he listed; to me it was a bland image exactly because of the absence of these things. So I wondered, could the image stand alone on its own merits, or did it have strength because it was Weston's last photograph in which others heard an echo of Weston's mood and heart at the time?
As others have suggested, to answer that question (as well as to gain further appreciation for Weston as a photographer), I'll have to examine his work from different periods of his life and consider the historical context of his work. Best regards.

Mike

Mike,
Just because you may not like the composition Edward Weston used in an image that others expounded upon does not mean they "got it" and you don't. Have faith in your own feelings and opinions on this. Right or wrong is not an issue.
You may get caught up in tone and tonal contrast as well as line in an image, and that is fine. But Edward Weston did not. He had no problem breaking any rule of compostion if the final image he previsualized on the groundglass worked for "him."
Was Edward's final image "Eroded Rocks, South Shore, Point Lobos, 1948" one of his master works? Probably not. Compare it to "Pepper No. 30, 1930" or "Shell, 1927" or the Dancing Nudes of Bertha Wardell in 1927, it does lack something. But compare it to some of the work being produced today that is called "Fine Art" photography and my vote still goes to the "Little Man with the Big Camera"..... Edward Weston.

Walker Edmonson

paulr

5-Aug-2006, 23:05

Hello! As I was looking at the photos n the Carmel book, several images didn't seem like good compositions to me.

Where do these standards of "good composition" come from? At their best they're generalizations made in retrospect, based on art work that we've previously thought of as good. But that work wasn't good because it followed any rigid standards. It was good because it showed us something about the world, or about a life, in a powerful way.

If you're judging work--particularly your own--using any kind of rule of composition, you're cheating yourself. You're dooming yourself to never appreciating or creating anything that falls outside of a fairly rigid box. On the other hand, if you follow your sense of what you want to say, you may well find yourself outside that box, composing things unconventionally.

The old rules of composition, as i've seen them proposed, were good for creating comfortable, balanced images. This a fine thing to be able to do, but you should be at liberty to compose images in an uncomfortable or even jarring way. If it serves your vision, then it's right.

Weston wasn't reading any rule books. Quite the contrary--a lot of the rules were drafted based on his work and the work of his fellow early modernists. Weston was concerned with the deeper picture. With the metaphor of form. Any artschool ideas like composition and line were just tools to be used in that greater pursuit.

John Flavell

6-Aug-2006, 04:15

"What am I Missing?"

Weston is one of the movers that help bring photography to its own. In his move from the "copy cat" compositions of painters to original compositions, he showed generations of photographers the way.

And, he did with materials and equipment we only read about.

Kirk Gittings

6-Aug-2006, 07:52

Bill_1856

6-Aug-2006, 09:57

Most "great" photographers are really known for a handful of stupendous images that early in their career get reproduced like lemings. Later, as curators etc. start searching for new ways to look at the work of an established artist, other lesser work gets resurrected and focused on. This process can confuse the aesthetic judgement of regular people looking at the history of the artist or the medium as a whole.
A good point, Kirk.
I once read somewhere that certain professions, Physics, Mathematics, Lyric Poetry, Photography, tend to peak at an early age, whereas others, Prose Writers, Painters, Sculpters, usually improve with aging. I'm not sure that this is true, as many photographers such as Weston and Adams peaked in middle age.

paulr

6-Aug-2006, 10:59

A good point, Kirk.
I once read somewhere that certain professions, Physics, Mathematics, Lyric Poetry, Photography, tend to peak at an early age, whereas others, Prose Writers, Painters, Sculpters, usually improve with aging. I'm not sure that this is true, as many photographers such as Weston and Adams peaked in middle age.

I see examples of both. There might be more photographers who peak early, but I don't think Weston is among them. In the middle years he did a lot of my least favorite work--stuff I might even call spectacularly failed experiments (nudes with gas mask, catscapes, the Walt Whitman illustrations, landscapes with hot babe, etc...). But I admire any artist who will take it out on a limb and risk failure after becoming established. And for me his very strongest work was done at the end ... the elegiac, brooding, formally complex pictures of point lobos.

Stieglitz is an example of someone who didn't even hit his stride until middle age.

Christopher Nisperos

6-Aug-2006, 11:16

Is it possible that massive exposure to Weston-esque images after his work was completed (these similar images by both imitators and admirers) has made you immune to the radical departure from the status quo that he represented when his work was au-courant?

I think that Clay has a good point. It's not even a question of seeing "Weston-esque" images (which I take alot of pleasure creating, myself!), but Weston's own creations . . . ad naseum.

The first time I saw a Weston photograph, the famous pepper #30, I was a child. The emotion was so strong that I remember where I was when I saw it ... similar to my memories of where I was when I heard about JFK's assasination or 9/11! Afterall, previous to that moment the best photographs I'd ever seen where photojournalistist (Life magazine). Clay used the term, "radical departure", and that's exactly how I first perceived that pepper. Today, however, after years and years of seeing and re-seeing several of Weston's images,—while I'm still in awe of the purity of his vision— it's hard to re-kindle that original magic feeling. This is not to say that Weston's work "no longer impresses me". It does. Not all of it, but —except for a Mozart or a daVinci— how many artists can put out 100% perfection or satisfy their public with each and every piece they create?

About this lost magic feeling, I experienced the same sort of phenomenon the very first time I saw the Mona Lisa. I was prepared to be impressed. When I was finally in front of the famous painting itself, I was disappointed that no special feeling came over me. Maybe this reflects a lack of culture on my part, I don't know. But later, in analysing this lack of sentiment, I realized that, "Hey, I'd already seen that painting a million times before!" By this, I meant of course all the reproductions you see of the Mona Lisa in books, magazines, posters, T-shirts, etc.

Therein, lies a certain crux: to be impressed —or moved— by something (art, news, nature, a book or film, ), I think we humans need to have an element of surprise ... or at least —even when told about something beforehand—, see it with our own eyes first, before seeing a photograph of it. The further away we are from this big-bang moment, I think the less impressed we are. The extreme version of this .. um, "syndrome"? .. is when we begin to fail to appreciate blatant beauty (not referring to Kirk!) I remember Reagan's quote about the ancient, giant California sequoia trees during a polemic about whether to cut them down or not, "If you've seen one tree, you've seen them all". Wow... lucky he never saw China's terracotta warriors. He'd probably want to use them as bowling pins!

I don't know if this is the gist of what Kirk means. But a last point is, sometimes it's simply a matter of "where your head is at, man".. as we used to say back in hippy times. For example, I used to not get why a Chagall or Pollack painting was so
popular. Rothko? Ha! A kid could do that! Now, can I stand in front of one of these paintings and visually "suck-in" all kinds of interesting nuaces. The same can be true for anything at all: visual art, music, food, et al. If you're not into it, you're not into it. That's all. Good ol' subjectivity. If it's not "art" for you, it can be for someone else —and vice-versa. No big. We, as visual artists, should be happy about that!

Christopher Nisperos

6-Aug-2006, 23:39

OOPS! .. I was confused. Twice in my post, above, I referred to "Kirk" when it should have been "Michael" (Heald), who started the thread.

Jim Jones

7-Aug-2006, 10:43

Knowing dozens of rules of composition is handy when entering competitions judged merely by rules. There are two more useful rules of composition. "When in doubt, follow every applicable rule." It's better to study the subject until one has little doubt. Finally, the Jim Jones universal rule of composition; "To **** with the rules!"

Tassajara1960

4-Oct-2007, 06:54

My own two cents: In my opinion EW was the finest artist using the medium of photography, and his photos remain unmatched for their structure, tonality, emotional impact, and as an expression of the artist's personal feelings. Perhaps more than any other great photographer EW overcame gizmos and obtained a direct relationship between the vision and final result. The great Westons, and particularly those from the Guggenheim period onward, capture the values, emotions, and humor of the artist to a degree that is largely unmatched, and, unfortunately largely unappreciated - certainly so by Ben Maddow and others with a superficial understanding of the artist. First, one should see original vintage prints because their tonal range and luminosity is critical - and unfortunately many of the CW prints are thin, while the BW prints are almost all murky. A book reproduction has never come close. Additionally, if you REALLY want to understand the photos, it is necessary to understand the person. Maddow and others have largely missed EW's incisive sense of humor and his appreciation of the absurd, but have to some degree addressed his depth of emotion and his tendency toward depression and deep self analyis. Read Charis Wilson in CA and the West and Through Another Lens to appreciate what EW was all about, and how his art relates directly to his emotions and state of mind of the moment. Even then, the late Point Lobos photos are extremely inaccessible until you have some appreciation for the artist. They reflect a personal complexity and time of great difficulty for the artist - and it shows in the work. I personally don't think these reflect an obsession with death. Rather, I suspect they, in part, more reflect the artist's realizations about his personal character limitations at a time of great personal tragedy and depression. From a structural standpoint, however, they are the absolute distillation of everything that was photographically important to EW. There is no excess in these images. Their tonal range and brilliance is possibly the best of his career. They are exquisitely composed. And they all make the point that a wonderful composition can be found anywhere at any time (remember, by the mid 1940s it was becoming more difficult for EW to get around). They take some effort to appreciate, but developing that appreciation is a wonderful adventure.

Daniel_Buck

4-Oct-2007, 09:20

I had the opportunity to view several rooms full of Weston's photographs at the Getty a few months back. Not knowing what to expect (since I don't dwell on other's work very often) I was actually kind of disappointed. Probably because I'm not to much into shooting the human form (which seemed to be the bulk of his work), but I didn't find a whole lot that I liked. I enjoyed several of them quite a bit, but as a whole I didn't find it a very good view. Maybe it was a bad selection of his work, I'm not sure. And maybe I was expecting alot more because I have always heard his name mentioned.

I don't have much sense of what photography was like before him, so I probably don't fully grasp what he was doing.

Chris Strobel

4-Oct-2007, 09:37

Michael Alpert

4-Oct-2007, 09:45

I don't have much sense of what photography was like before him, so I probably don't fully grasp what he was doing.

Daniel,

Yes, that's right. Without an historical understanding you are marooned on the little island of your own opinion. Your consciousness of that danger suggests that you are capable of a more rigorous way of thinking. From what you wrote, you also have not previously looked at very much of Weston's work; that is, the "human form" was not Weston's primary interest.

This has been a very good discussion of Weston's work and of various ways to look at photography in general. The oversight that I find in Michael Heald's original question is two-fold. (1) It is based on reproductions of a narrow area in Weston's total work. (2) The questioner did not first ask what WESTON's intentions were and whether or not Weston's work actually realized what he wanted to realize. When doing that, one must ask what the artist's intention was for his whole output. The late work should be seen as part of a whole and not as a completely separate entity. Bypassing that cognitive step, which is basic in aesthetic understanding, can lead a viewer into a kind of functional solipsism.

Tassajara1960

4-Oct-2007, 14:28

Hi Dan, I really wish that the "body parts" photographs would always be placed in their correct context. They - and the vegetables - are to a large degree experiments in the analysis of form. EW clearly articulates this in his daybooks, if you can make it through them. There are some real standouts from this period - my favorite being "Form Follows Function", the photograph of the bedpan. A vintage print hangs in our bedroom, and I always marvel at how such a simple object can present such a magnificently beautiful and luminous form. Unfortunately many of these "form" experiments don't work very well, and they really need to be examined as a group, along with some of Weston's more accomplished whole-body nudes. This is why I earlier emphasised the Guggenheim period and after - which, in my opinion, represents a far more accomplished phase in EW's career - when Weston had gotten this earlier "revolutionary" phase out of his system. Incidentally, I've always thought of the cats photographs - which many people consider substandard and inexplicable - as somewhat "revolutionary" in their own way, at least in the context of EW's amazing sense of humor. The idea of using CATS as static compositional elements is truly a Weston concept! Unfortunately so few vintage EW prints are available that it is very difficult to gather enough material to produce a comprehensive show. And because the Cole prints - which form the bulk of available Weston prints -include both accomplished and experimental photographs, and because so many of the Brett Weston project prints are muddy, it is increasingly difficult to a) get a sense of what a really good Weston looks like, and b) gain real insight into what EW himself considered truly great.

Michael Kadillak

4-Oct-2007, 15:19

Michael,
Might I suggest that you not judge Edward Weston's work by reproductions in a book, any book. In particular, the one you mention is not representative of his finest images. If possible, visit a museum with a collection of his original prints and spend several hours in contemplation. There is the chance you will make a return visit.

Amen! That is what it is all about.

I happened upon an exhibit of Edwards work in the early 1980's here in Denver and from that marvelous experience I knew that I wanted to use a view camera and make B&W prints. If they do not do it for you, move on and don't worry about it. Life goes on....

Cheers!

Kevin Crisp

4-Oct-2007, 17:03

Re: the "too dark" comments about the current Getty exhibit, I remember thinking it was the brightest EW display I had seen in a long time. If you wanted dark you should have tried to see the ones on display at the downtown library a few years back. I have made an effort to see his prints whenever I can and own many books of his photos; nevertheless more than half of the prints at the Getty were images I had never seen before.

Vaughn

4-Oct-2007, 18:35

Several years ago I stopped by the visitor center of Lava Beds National Monument (NE California) and they had an original EW on the wall.

Someone must have told them of its value and now their new visitor center has a real bad reproduction of the photo on the wall.

Vaughn

Randy H

4-Oct-2007, 19:06

We have two large retail bookstores within walking distance of home. I like to take a walk, sit in Starbucks and browse through the photo books. Both techs and collections. I believe it is like stated earlier. Every wotk is "subjective. What appeals to me, you may think stinks, and vice-versa. I have found that I do not care for any one photographer. I like a select few of AA's works, a select gew of Weston's et, etc, but not a lot of anybody's. But, my taste tends to run more in architectural as opposed to landscapes. Especially pre-20th century. Gothic bldg's. "Roaring 20's" Art Deco buildings. Probably not very many other's would give them a second look. I haunt Jim's site. IMHO, his works are exceedingly far and above AA or Weston. IN MY OPINION !! The heartfelt portraits and old buildings and equip really trip my trigger. Love Gittings works. The vibrancy of colours and composition. Would I buy a book of their collections if avilable? Sorry, but no. Just let me peruse and look at the ones that speak to me personally.

Difference in these photographers? Name recognition only

Michael A. Smith

4-Oct-2007, 19:38

Someone mentioned that the reproductions in Weston's books do not do the prints justice. And that is essentially correct. But the writer is unfamilair with the book Lodima Press published; Edward Weston: Life Work. The 600-line screen quadtones (and 600-line screen 5-color prints to match the exact color of his early platinum and early silver prints) are as close to Weston's original prints as it is possible to get. With most of the reproductions, though not all surely, they are identical to the originals. Every care was taken with reproduction quality. Weston's early photographs were printed on matte paper; we reproduced those on soft uncoated paper. With his prints on glossy paper, we reproduced them on a dull-coated paper (looks like glossy paper, without the hard reflections).

A true story: We know the collector who owns Edward Weston's own copy of Pepper #30. (Edward gave it to Brett, Brett gave it to an old friend, the friend sold it to this collector back in the early 1970s (too soon, too soon). According to Brett, Edward considered this print the best print of all of his Pepper #30s. When we showed the collector Edward Weston: Life Work, he brought down Pepper #30 and took it out of the frame. We placed it next to the reproduction. They were virtually indistinguishable. After about three minutes of intense looking and comparing, the collector's wife, who was also very knowledgeable about photography, said "I think I like the reproduction better."

So, buy a copy of Edward Weston: Life Work. Cut out the reproductions of those prints you like the best. Frame them. And few, if any, will ever be able to tell that you do not have an original EW on your wall.

Michael A. Smith

4-Oct-2007, 20:02

I finally made it back to the beginning of this thread. Michael Heald does not respond to the form/texture aspect of EW's photographs (unless they have a context). Edward Weston characterized his photographs best when we wrote that what he photographed was the "me of universal rhythms."

The function of art is to connect us to the world and to each other.

The reason so many respond so positively to Weston's photographs and the reason he has influenced so many photographers is that they feel these universal rhythms themselves--and the universal rhythms of Weston's photographs resonate with them--they connect. This is not intellectual. It is unconscious and intuitive.

scott_6029

4-Oct-2007, 20:21

Well, he did so many 'firsts'...and he was ahead of his time....and he influenced so many photographers. From nudes, to dunes, to abstracts, etc. he established a benchmark. Some of the books I have seen do NOT do his images any justice. There are some that do including the Lodima book which does an excellent job with the printing. There is an f64 exhibit vs. pictorialism at the Phoenix Art Museum that has some very nice Edward Westons...

David Karp

4-Oct-2007, 21:08

I can't talk about the art. A person's response to art is such a personal thing.

But, I had an interesting and pretty exciting experience today that is somewhat relevant to this thread. I got to hold ten EW prints in my own little hands. A few of them, I had never seen before. And one of them is now one of my favorite EW photos.

Well, it turns out that they were EW photos from his 50th anniversary portfolio, printed by Brett. Many may disagree, but they are some of the most beautifully printed EW photographs I have seen. Of course, this, again, is so personal. They are silver gelatin prints made in the 50's. A very different look than we see with same print of, for example, William Edmonson, sculptor, on display at the Getty, or even the the EW photograph printed by Brett at the same show at the Getty.

Even though these were not pure EWs, it was a wonderful experience. And sadly, the portfolio was missing two photographs, including Nude, 1936 (that spectacular photo of Charis), which were probably stolen years ago. These were once on permanent display at our college, and someone probably just lifted them off the wall. Can you imagine? Some mom or dad probably found the nude in their kid's room and dumped it in the trash!

Merg Ross

4-Oct-2007, 21:18

Michael, an interesting anecdote to Pepper #30, and a good plug for Lodima Press.

Best to you and Paula,

Merg

Greg Lockrey

4-Oct-2007, 22:10

Jim Ewins

4-Oct-2007, 22:24

Perhaps one may say an Aesthetic Illiterate would not appreciate his work. Thats OK I'm also a modern music illiterate ( anything after 1950). Who said he wore no clothes??

Daniel_Buck

4-Oct-2007, 23:29

Daniel,

Yes, that's right. Without an historical understanding you are marooned on the little island of your own opinion. Your consciousness of that danger suggests that you are capable of a more rigorous way of thinking. From what you wrote, you also have not previously looked at very much of Weston's work; that is, the "human form" was not Weston's primary interest.

I must try to see some more of his work then! There were a few images there that i really enjoyed :)

Christopher Nisperos

5-Oct-2007, 18:18

-I've got to ask folks what they see in Edward Weston's work...

-I purchased the book The Last Years in Carmel...I was puzzled by much of what I saw....For many of the photos, I went from an initial impression that "the works were trivial/pointless", to "I just didn't like them", to (what is probably a truer reflection of what I ws experiencing) "I just didn't understand the image".

-For me, form/texture in the abscence of context to give meaning is trivial.
I don't mean that I expect photographs to be documentary. Rather, I expect a photograph to have a theme even if the composition is abstract.

-Many of Weston's images just seemed bland to me even though they were abstract in the sense that form/texture seemed to be prominent elements in the composition.

-I don't understand what Edward Weston was trying to say with his art and I don't understand the context that gives his works meaning.

-What do other folks find alluring in his work? Best regards.

Mike

Mike,

It's true that it takes a certain frame of mind to appreciate abstractness. Judging from your question, I don't suppose that Jackson Pollack or Kadinsky are among your favorite painters, nor songs without lyrics among your preferred music.

To appreciate Weston is to have the capacity to delve into mood. It has more to do with this aspect than all the technical bs about light or dark prints, etc. Of course, this capacity will be difficult —but not impossible— to attain without already having an emotional reference stored in one's mind with which to associate that mood. When I see that "banal" Weston photo of curled-up kelp on the beach, I can almost smell the salty sea-air and sense the overcast sky above . . . because I've already been there.

In the end, no one is forcing you to like Weston. All the explanations and justifications and forum posts in the world won't help you to "see" as another person does. Only one's own life experience(s) and culture will do the job, if you're willing to —or interested in— expanding your world. I didn't like wine for a long time, so I know how you feel. However with time, my taste buds got used-to it (hic).

Best,

Christopher

...........

Joe Smigiel

5-Oct-2007, 19:24

... In most cases they never found out that their art was dumped 10 years after they died...

Which ones did find out? :D

I never attended to any photograph until I encountered Weston's Nude, 1934. It changed my life and sparked a curiosity about the medium of photography. It made me become a photographer. It remains one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life.

Immediate. Assimilatory. Epiphanic.

Doug Howk

6-Oct-2007, 02:15

Watched the Eloquent Nude last night. One of the DVDs extras includes a clip called The Project Prints. It contains some footage from a 1956 documentary - The Naked Eye, which shows Brett Weston working with Ed on the printing of the project prints. Does anyone know if The Naked Eye is available? Btw, the Eloquent Nude is an excellent movie.

Tassajara1960

6-Oct-2007, 04:36

Hi Christopher: It is good to see viewers concerned more about emotional content than technogarbage. This technical obsession has been the bane of photography. EW himself had little interest in gizmos: he used the same camera, same film, same developer, and same printing techniques for his entire career. Indeed, it is necessary to comment on someone's thread to add that EW's use of a lightbulb and contact prints was in no way primitive.... EW refined this simple darkroom technique continually over the years because it worked PERFECTLY for him, allowed him to dodge and burn where necessary, and allowed him to have a more direct interaction with his canvas.

There are some aspects of a great Weston that do follow from it's technical perfection: A "muddy" (read some of Brett's project and later prints) or "thin" (many CW prints, which unfortunately did not have the option of using the wonderful high silver content paper that was available to EW) loses much of the emotional impact that makes a Weston a Weston. Sure, these prints, and those found in a book, are exciting to see and provide a wonderful experience of their own; but the experience is similar to viewing the Mona Lisa in a reproduction - and I'll hazard to guess is largely the reason for this discussion topic in the first place. For many it might be adequate, but for a few the experience encourages a desire to see the real thing. I can promise you, Christopher, that seeing the sand dune nudes, or sand dunes themselves for that matter, Tina on the patio, Charis in the pool, or more to the point, the late Pt Lobos photos, in all their EW printed glory, on a wall by themselves, and in proper lighting is really something to treasure.

The experience was certainly enough to part me from what seemed in the late 70s to be a lot of money to purchase EW/EW photographs - including several of the late Pt. Lobos photos. I marvel at them every day for their impact as compositions, but also because even after 65 and more years, they still jump right off the wall. Detail and texture is apparent that is almost never visible in most prints by Cole and Brett - and these elements provide an essential component of the viewing experience. EW's obsession with finding the "perfect" lens, film, paper, and technique was all about providing the tonal range and crispness he demanded and the freedom from gizmos to obtain a more direct interaction with his subject. To ignore the importance of technical perfection in a Weston directly contradicts WESTON's view of his art - kind of like looking at a photo of a Monet. Today, of course, it is a lot more difficult to have an EW/EW placed on your wall. However, it is worth tracking down those museums fortunate enough to possess a real one. As with great paintings and sculptures one will probably visit these good friends over and over in order to see them as Weston intended, in all their printed perfection, then make due with books and EW/CW prints back at home!

Kevin Crisp

6-Oct-2007, 07:51

He seems unaware that he used the same camera his entire career.

Tassajara1960

6-Oct-2007, 08:58

He seems unaware that he used the same camera his entire career.

With the exception of a very short period in Mexico when he used that 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graflex. And, of course, for the early portrait period.

David Karp

6-Oct-2007, 09:02

The prints I saw recently by Brett were anything but "muddy." In fact, they sparkled.

Merg Ross

6-Oct-2007, 10:27

I am curious as to the comment, "muddy" Brett prints.

I owned the 50th Anniversary Portfolio of prints made by Brett from EW negatives. They had a glow to them and were surely not "muddy". In fact, I have the guide print, signed by Brett and approved by Edward used for the Iceberg Lake image in that portfolio. It is printed on Haloid Industro paper and is a beautiful image, in my opinion.

This opinion is based on viewing hundreds of EW prints over the past fifty years, many at his Wildcat Canyon home while he was alive.

Tassajara1960

6-Oct-2007, 11:02

"Muddy" is perhaps too harsh a word. Of the dozen or so Brett prints that I own, all but one are a bit too saturated on the dark end, although the bright whites still shine. This causes detail in the near black to be lost, and in my opinion gives the print a "heavier" (better word than "muddy"?) look. Of the literally hundreds of Brett prints that I've seen, both his own and his dad's, I do think that it is fair to say that he tended to print a bit darker than his dad did - and with a bit more contrast. I'm thinking of one example in particular - FFF (the bedpan). The Edward prints tend to preserve a good bit of detail in the foreground, while the two Brett prints I've seen of this image preserve (if I recall correctly) almost none. Actually, in this case some may prefer the darker image, and perhaps Brett did. And that brings up a good point: perhaps the slight difference in his prints reflect his own interpretation of what looked best. It's all a matter of preference, isn't it - and hence "muddy" with it's negative connotation is probably the wrong word to use.

John Kasaian

6-Oct-2007, 11:04

I haven't seen any original Weston prints so In can't comment on specifics, but I'm familiar with his photography through reproductions which admittedly vary in quality. I'd suspect that like Adams' prints, the originals are extraordinary compared along side the reproductions. As for what is in the image consider that. like Adams, the subject matter itself has been copied by other photographers for so long that for those just discovering E.W. it can likely be difficult to recognize the originality and genius behind Weston's photography. Weston IMHO was an innovator and remains an icon. Its well worth slogging through his "Day Books" because it gives the viewer a level of familiarity with E.W. that enhances the visual experience. When you get to know the artist, I think you'll find your criticism of the art---for better or worse---is likely more valid.

Merg Ross

6-Oct-2007, 11:20

There is no doubt that Brett printed with more contrast than did his father. And, I would agree that the prints he made from EW negatives were Brett's interpretation. Good point. Of course Edward approved the prints, but that is quite different from actually making the prints.

My point, poorly made perhaps, was that Brett made some very fine prints from EW negatives, and Cole also, but in neither case were they the prints that Edward would have made from those negatives. Materials aside, to quote Brett, "no one can print my negatives the way I do".

Hence the fire and the soaking when he turned eighty!

Tassajara1960

6-Oct-2007, 11:31

This is one of the most interesting and well informed internet discussions about EW I've ever had the opportunity to join. Thanks for the chance to discuss great photography with so many truly passionate lovers of the medium! Oh... and Michael, I hope all this answers your question! :>).

Michael Heald

6-Oct-2007, 12:42

Hello! I was surprised to see my thread resurrected. I appreciate all the comments. My original question reflected my desire to understand and appreciate Mr. Weston's art, not to belittle it, and I appreciate everyone's comments who have helped. Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

domenico Foschi

6-Oct-2007, 13:05

The first time a saw a Weston image, it punched me right in the stomach.
To me iwas a spiritual experience, truly. It was the beginning of photography for me, my eye was untrained and pepper # 30 showed me how it's possible to set foot in a different reality with a camera.
Then few years later I saw some Weston's nudes at the Weston Gallery in Carmel, and I still remember the emotion I felt looking at one particular nude.
He had an incredible capacity to transmit his experience at the moment of the picture taking stage.
In my opinion there is nothing to understand in a picture, it is not an intellectual experience, especially in Weston's work.
As I said before, that particular image of Weston hit me very strongly, others, especially his early work, softer and more contemplative lure me inside and I love to get lost in them.

David Karp

6-Oct-2007, 15:57

Merg is spot on. The prints in the 50th anniversary portfolio were not printed like many of Brett's photos that I have seen. Nor were they just like EW's. They were some of the nicest prints I have seen. They were printed on different materials than EW's older work, for sure. But not with the bias toward heavy blacks, as mentioned above.

Christopher Nisperos

6-Oct-2007, 18:12

-Hi Christopher: It is good to see viewers concerned more about emotional content than technogarbage . . .

-[Weston's actual] prints, and those found in a book, are exciting to see and provide a wonderful experience of their own; but the experience is similar to viewing the Mona Lisa in a reproduction - and I'll hazard to guess is largely the reason for this discussion topic in the first place. For many it might be adequate, but for a few the experience encourages a desire to see the real thing. I can promise you, Christopher, that seeing the [original Weston] photos, in all their EW printed glory, on a wall by themselves, and in proper lighting is really something to treasure.

Thanks, Tassajara ...

You post reminds me of an experience I had when I first saw a certain —very beautiful— black & white photograph on a gallery wall. It was signed Michael Kenna. "Wait a minute", I thought to myself, "In fact, I've seen this photograph before! Why didn't I recognized it right away?"

The reason was because I had previously only ever seen the photo as a reproduction. In-person, it looked different and a lot more beatiful. I think that this phenomonon —a visual communication breakdown— is responsible for a lot of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of certain photographers (evidenced —as you rightly point out— by the starter question on this thread or, for example, my French photographer-friends who may have only seen reproductions of Ansel Adams' work yet yawningly dismiss him and or similar photographers ..or a "Moonrise Hernandez.." as being banal. Heck, I've seen these and other "west coast" style prints right on my lap in Ansel's own livingroom, and I can tell you that a few of them just blew me away! Gagliani and Worth come to mind, as does Al Weber's "Wave" photo. "Moonrise" or "Pepper number-whatever" in a book or poster —versus as a photo, two feet in front of your face— is simply NOT the same damned thing!).

In the end, the more important question becomes: if reproductions of photographs aren't capable of transmitting the gist of a particular photo, why bother reproducing them in the first place? The answer I find concurs with the thought in your post: a reproduction is a sort of 'teaser' of the real thing. Hey! Perhaps —like cigarette package health warnings or the "objects are closer" warnings on convex side-view car mirrors— the viewing public should be notified in each book that "PHOTOS PRINTED IN THIS BOOK ACTUALLY LOOK BETTER IN-PERSON". Ok, I'm joking around a little, but Ansel in fact stated (and re-stated) this in his books!

While we're on the subject, ever see a French film called, "Diva"?

Best,

Christopher

. . . . . . . . . . .

Turner Reich

6-Oct-2007, 21:05

Seeing is believing, reading is understanding; read the "Daybooks" then go out and find the originals to view. After that you won't be missing his ideas, processes, and vision that has persisted though the years as the bedrock of a photographic giant.

Doug Howk

7-Oct-2007, 03:04

While we're on the subject, ever see a French film called, "Diva"?
One of my favorite movies. At one level it shows how a well-done analog/tape recording can capture the essence of an opera singer's performance. But it also suggests that a reproduction of the original performance, which enables the diva to hear herself for the 1st time, is almost as good. So not sure if this is an analogy to the lower quality of a book reproduction vs original print. Btw, some book reproductions are far superior than others, eg Lodima Press.

Ernest Purdum

7-Oct-2007, 09:03

Form, patterns, testure. I don't feel the need of a theme or "meaning" when someone with a discerning eye has recognized and perpetuated them.

I think I know what the artist was saying - "This is worth looking at."

Sylvester Graham

7-Oct-2007, 13:48

domenico Foschi

7-Oct-2007, 14:46

I just discovered something today... there are BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO AREN'T EDWARD WESTON OR ANSEL ADAMS. OH MY GOD.

BUT WHATEVER, LET'S KEEP UP THIS ENDLESSLY FUTILE CONVERSATION AND HOPE THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WILL EVENTUALLY SAY SOMETHING NEW. Oh no wait, THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

You can start it.

John Kasaian

7-Oct-2007, 20:33

Christopher Nisperos

8-Oct-2007, 03:56

One of my favorite movies. At one level it shows how a well-done analog/tape recording can capture the essence of an opera singer's performance. But it also suggests that a reproduction of the original performance, which enables the diva to hear herself for the 1st time, is almost as good. So not sure if this is an analogy to the lower quality of a book reproduction vs original print. Btw, some book reproductions are far superior than others, eg Lodima Press.

Good point, Doug. The only difference is that a photographer can see his final, interpreted work. My point was simply that a book printing (or postcard, or whatever), of a traitionally produced silver-based photograph is in fact already a secord- or third-generation reproduction of the original (neg>scan -or- neg>print>scan). In spite of the excellent quality of certain reproductions today, an original print will usually still win the visual contest (for those capable of judging!)

What are your thoughts on this?

Best,

Christopher

. . . . . .

Christopher Nisperos

8-Oct-2007, 04:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by amilne
I just discovered something today... there are BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO AREN'T EDWARD WESTON OR ANSEL ADAMS. OH MY GOD.

BUT WHATEVER, LET'S KEEP UP THIS ENDLESSLY FUTILE CONVERSATION AND HOPE THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WILL EVENTUALLY SAY SOMETHING NEW. Oh no wait, THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
========================
(in response to the above post) :

Huh? Like what's your problem? The OP asked a simple question and received a variety of thoughtful responses.

Don't have a cow, man!

LOL. Hilarious. I'd just like to add to John's comments that if one doesn't like a certain conversation, they are free to walk away . . . or, in the spirit of John's vernacular, "You're not wearing a seatbelt, man!"

But seriously, in photography —as in almost any domain at all— certain issues will be talked about forever. Hatfields and McCoys; who was the model for the Mona Lisa?; tubes amplifiers vs transistors; etc., etc., etc. Who cares? The people who are talking about these things. That's who. If you're not one of those people, no big. But really, there's no sense in sniping! You're free to go another thread and leave us here to have our fun!

Friendly regards (really),

Christopher

. . . . . . . .

Sylvester Graham

8-Oct-2007, 06:10

paulr

8-Oct-2007, 08:05

I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT IF I WRITE SOMETHING IN CAPS LOCK, 300% MORE PEOPLE GET ANGRY AT WHAT I SAID EVEN IF ITS NOT REALLY THAT OFFENSIVE.

same thing works in real life. try this: go into a biker bar, and in a normal voice say, "anyone want to dance?"

then repeat the experiment, screaming at the top of your lungs.

kindly report back with your results.

Tassajara1960

8-Oct-2007, 08:43

"LOUD NOISES!!!" Brick Tamlin in "Anchorman"

Sylvester Graham

8-Oct-2007, 10:37

kindly report back with your results.

Oh, so you want me dead.

Michael Alpert

8-Oct-2007, 11:17

amline,

In another thread you wrote, "I'm 18 (now nobody will take anything I say seriously, oh well) and the wet darkroom is my first love, I love it far more than digital, but circumstances often force me to..." Now, amline, this discussion was not about photography in general but about Edward Weston. It was (and is) also not about you and your impetuousness. If you have nothing to contribute to a thread, use restraint. When you are constructive and thoughtful, and only then, will others view what you write with the seriousness that you obviously would like.

Sylvester Graham

8-Oct-2007, 12:01

I apologize, your response is so overwhelmingly intelligent it blasts right over my head. I'm afraid my 18 year old mind is incapable of comprehending your vocabulary and logic. I bow low to your laurels, drink from the cup of knowledge at your feet, tremble at your ability to retrieve previous quotations of mine and use them to subvert my current posts.

So, let me get this straight. By choosing this particular quote of mine, besides demonstrating that you keep a suspiciously close eye on my posts, were you demonstrating that I'm young and therefore impetuous? (which may be true) I don't understand how pointing to that particular post, and then that this thread is about Edward Weston instead of general photography is relevant.

I was contributing my feelings on the excess attention given to Adams and Weston, albeit in a perhaps tasteless way, as I apologized for in my second to last post (which you may have been too impetuous to glance at.)

Sometimes I forget most of the people on here are over fifty and don't really understand internet humor. I was being 80% sarcastic/humorous and 20% serious. My serious dispenser is working quite up to par, thank you. The correct percentage was extruded. So no I "obviously" am not trying to be serious, nice try at reading my mind though.

You are quite correct about one thing, that my posts are diverting the objective of this thread.

And so I say good day sir…

P.S. Let’s see that quote in context shall we? It’s not like this is a presidential campaign… http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=275328#post275328

keith english

8-Oct-2007, 12:23

I was contributing my feelings on the excess attention given to Adams and Weston, albeit in a perhaps tasteless way, as I apologized for in my second to last post...

That's kind of like saying "excess attention is being paid to Elvis, The Beatles, Buddy Holly and The Rolling Stones", in a discussion of the history of rock-and-roll isn't it?

darr

8-Oct-2007, 12:27

That's kind of like saying "excess attention is being paid to Elvis, ... "

Please leave Elvis out of this! :p

Christopher Nisperos

9-Oct-2007, 01:42

But I love sniping. Also, I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT IF I WRITE SOMETHING IN CAPS LOCK, 300% MORE PEOPLE GET ANGRY AT WHAT I SAID EVEN IF ITS NOT REALLY THAT OFFENSIVE. IN FACT, RIGHT NOW I'M SITTING SILENTLY AT MY COMPUTER WITH AN ANGELIC LOOK ON MY FACE. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.

P.S. Maybe I was a bit too sarcastic, but I still get a little bit annoyed when people fight over Ansel and Weston, it seems like it never ends. (Ansel Adams Museum Exhibits also are never going to end, until his prints fade.)

Well, I guess that provocation is a certain way to have fun, too. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing. But, no judgements on my part! I'll admit that you at least stirred some reactions. Perhaps there are more positive ways to do it, though?

One word of friendly advice from a former stand-up comic (me): as humor can be cutting, sarcasm is one of the sharpest knives you can wield. Be careful with it (especially in printed word, where you have to be explicitly clear to avoid ambiguous intentions), or you may cut yourself!

Thanks for your response.

Best,

Christopher

. . . ..

Christopher Nisperos

9-Oct-2007, 01:55

Quote:
Originally Posted by amilne
I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT IF I WRITE SOMETHING IN CAPS LOCK, 300% MORE PEOPLE GET ANGRY AT WHAT I SAID EVEN IF ITS NOT REALLY THAT OFFENSIVE.

same thing works in real life. try this: go into a biker bar, and in a normal voice say, "anyone want to dance?"

then repeat the experiment, screaming at the top of your lungs.

kindly report back with your results.
__________________
(response to above quote) :

Oh, so you want me dead.

___________________

1. Who says a biker wouldn't dance with another guy?

2. How about we all cool-out now and get off of amilines back and get back to the thread starter question (What do you see in Weston?)

I think he's gotten the message that here, sling-shot attacks will suffer massive retaliation (joke!) (<-- see amiline? this is how you safely do it!)

Best,

Christopher

.......

Sylvester Graham

9-Oct-2007, 08:05

I said good day!

(Christopher, as much as I love you taking me under your wing, please don't take my silence as acquiescence...)

Christopher Nisperos

10-Oct-2007, 02:07

I said good day!

(Christopher, as much as I love you taking me under your wing, please don't take my silence as acquiescence...)

Hey, I won't say "I could less about you", but my main concern is for the thread!

paulr

10-Oct-2007, 06:10

1. Who says a biker wouldn't dance with another guy?

a fine point.

i'm not trying to kill anybody. i just value education, in all its forms.

marcojoe

22-Jun-2011, 07:33

Some of the Art Snobs always try to read into the photograph and try to give it meaning. Just appreciate the beauty and talent of the maker and quit going deeper. Would you analyze Michaelangelo ??

Gem Singer

22-Jun-2011, 07:42

Marv,

You finally responded to a four year old thread.

What took you so long?

paulr

22-Jun-2011, 08:11

Some of the Art Snobs always try to read into the photograph and try to give it meaning. Just appreciate the beauty and talent of the maker and quit going deeper. Would you analyze Michaelangelo ??

Yeah, the old "A poem should not mean but be" notion. Which in many cases has merit: not all work is about "meaning."

But I think we need to think more abour what meaning means, and what it doesn't. When you say a piece of art "means" something, the suggestion is generally that it has some message beyond what it describes literally.

Some art does and some doesn't. But even if you don't see a message, there are many other things to look at, to talk about, to analyze. Metaphor, in all its guises, is only rarely a message that can be paraphrased. Same with formal concerns: the manner in which the image is put together, what this says about the content, how it works on you as you look at the image. And there are historical implications, sometimes concerning the world photographed, sometimes concerning the history of the medium.

We can always talk in terms of what a work of art is about, or what it seems to be about. This is an open approach; it lets us talk around something without the presumptions of a specific meaning. I look at Weston's late work at Point Lobos, much like Stieglitz's poplar tree pictures at Lake George or Beethoven's late quartets ... they seem to be about death. This isn't an original observation; it's a common reaction. And it's loose—it doesn't derive a message or a meaning or particular allegory or syllogism. Simply, "this image seems to concern death." And any image may be about other unrelated things, simultaneously: light, a type of formal experiment, mood, affection for the subject, playfullness, coincidences and confluences, etc. etc. ... there are no limits here. Interesting work is generally interesting because it give us more to think about, ask about, talk about ...

As far as "would I anaylze Michelangelo," no .. T.S. Eliot made fun of the culturally effete people with this habit nearly a hundred years ago. But you'd better believe that art historians do. It's their job. A quick Google Scholar Search (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&biw=1127&bih=868&q=michelangelo%20criticism&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws) shows over 23 thousand books and critical essays on his work.

jnantz

22-Jun-2011, 08:15

cosmicexplosion

22-Jun-2011, 11:39

the police came and shut down Monte's exhibition at the turn of the century because it had a nude painting of a woman.
then it was looked after by armed guards....

his language of impressionism has come and gone and is as safe as old ladies, who i might ad, dont usually need armed guards.

art to me is often at the top of human evolution, as Freud said, wherever i have gone a poet has gone before me.

you are radical then passe

so my advice is dont be so left handed in your approach.

be a poet.

an image poet.

John Koehrer

22-Jun-2011, 14:51

For a very long time I really liked Adams work. Then after a long while evolved(devolved) and became bored with the grand landscape. Weston appealed to me because of the subject matter and distances at which a lot of his work was done.
I've also found that those closer distances make me prefer some current work over others.

If you look at your own work, you may find that some of your stronger images may be at a certain distance. Some see close, some at distance.

It's just an opinion, nothing more.

Ed Kelsey

22-Jun-2011, 16:33

His work is all Black and White ! What a pity, no color at all.

Frank Petronio

22-Jun-2011, 16:41

There was a book, Edward Weston - Color Photography. Kodak gave him early Kodachrome sheet film and the images are superb.

http://www.klsbooks.net/products/edward-weston-br-color-photography

If only all you bozos shooting postcards gave up after he did it so much better than anyone since... we could have saved millions of trees and toxic waste dumps from all that worthless color processing.

Darin Boville

22-Jun-2011, 17:46

There's a few color picts--nicely reproduced--at the back of one of the earlier monographs, too. Too lazy to go get the title.

But don't forget: Ansel color = evil bloodsuckers. Maybe with Weston, too.

--Darin

Tony Evans

22-Jun-2011, 18:00

If we all interpreted what we see and feel in exactly the same way, the human race would have become extinct millions of years ago.

paulr

22-Jun-2011, 20:44

If we all interpreted what we see and feel in exactly the same way, the human race would have become extinct millions of years ago.

I don't know about the human race, but internet forums would have become extinct millions of years ago. Maybe billions of years ago.

Merg Ross

22-Jun-2011, 21:26

When I visited Edward's house as a young lad there was a small card, with a printed quotation, inside the glass doors of his secretary desk. I was intrigued, but only years later did I fully understand and appreciate the wisdom of the words.

The card was a quotation from Louis Armstrong, and read: "Man, if you gotta ask what is it, you ain't never gonna know".

Satchmo was right.

paulr

22-Jun-2011, 22:36

I love Pops, but I think the "If you have to ask ..." business is snobbish, and it's wrong. Lots of people asked, listened, and learned how to swing.

Lots of people asked about Weston, looked, and got hooked. That was my experience, btw.

theBDT

22-Jun-2011, 23:06

Some of the Art Snobs always try to read into the photograph and try to give it meaning. Just appreciate the beauty and talent of the maker and quit going deeper. Would you analyze Michaelangelo ??

The unexamined life is not worth living. I always thought art existed mostly to help me more deeply appreciate the world around me. Furthermore, if art said nothing, how could it possibly inspire and influence the art of succeeding generations? This forum necromancy post is almost trolling; "art snob" straw men on one side, and pure innocent appreciation of "beauty and talent" on the other.

And yes, I would analyze Michelangelo; in fact I have already, I had to as part of my art history classes. He helped found the Renaissance in southern Europe, and eventually helped to begin the Rocco-co movement afterwards. His career arc was in itself interesting: when he painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling he was in a different place, spiritually and artistically, than when he painted "The Last Judgement."

Actually, I think it honors the artist to think deeply about a work, and to uncover its more mysterious messages. What was the point of resurrecting this thread again?

Bill Burk

23-Jun-2011, 07:36

There's a current show in Monterey some of us are nearby and can get to, so it's relevant again.

Maybe Sachmo's quote was simply a "dodge."

Certainly the unconscious mind plays an important role in creating art, so the artist may not even know consciously what is in it. The analysis, doesn't it try to uncover the unconscious motives? Maybe the artist has horribly ineffective verbal communication tools so they rely on the visual to get the point across.

paulr

23-Jun-2011, 07:58

The analysis, doesn't it try to uncover the unconscious motives? Maybe the artist has horribly ineffective verbal communication tools so they rely on the visual to get the point across.

That kind of analysis is very old fashioned. Most critics these days would consider it pretty suspect and presumptuous. How could we ever know what Weston's motives were?

I wouldn't ask a critic such a question. I might ask the artist, but I wouldn't trust the answer. Look at the motivations Stieglitz claimed for his Equivalents over the years. Over a half dozen different ones, most of them completely incompatible.

Art gives us a lot to think about without trying to guess why someone made it.

Merg Ross

23-Jun-2011, 08:26

Art gives us a lot to think about without trying to guess why someone made it.

Or what it is. Which is why Weston chose to place the Armstrong quote next to decades of his work. He was less concerned with the origin than with the message.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting anecdote and will leave further analysis to the pundits of this forum.

Sal Santamaura

23-Jun-2011, 08:32

...You finally responded to a four year old thread...What took you so long?In the first place, he didn't become a member here until two years after the thread was started. Second, he did exactly the right thing reviving the thread rather than starting a duplicate one. Finally he is to be applauded for searching and using this archive as the resource it was intended to be.

..."Man, if you gotta ask what is it, you ain't never gonna know"...Satchmo was right.In my experience, he sure was right. Many people analyze and then claim to intellectually appreciate different types of "art." In my opinion, "art," like religion, cannot be grasped intellectually. It can only be "felt."

Drew Wiley

23-Jun-2011, 08:43

Satchmo said more in one sentence than all these verbose art critics have explained
in thousands of pages of showing off to each other with their peacock vocabularies.

paulr

23-Jun-2011, 09:44

Except that he was proveably wrong, a million times over. He didn't give credit to all the people who have expanded their tastes, their worlds, the things they can appreciate and love. Hell, I didn't even like jazz when I was a kid. Now it runs through my veins.

I suspect he was really trying to say "I don't know how to explain it." I doubt he was trying to give fodder to snobs, anti-intellectuals, and those interested in nothing but reinforcing their own prejudices—which, unfortunately, he seems to have done.

tgtaylor

23-Jun-2011, 09:52

Another thing about Armstrong that isn't generally known is that he often closed his letters with

Red beans and ricely yours,

Which reminds me: I found some smoked ham hocks yesterday to put in my (red) beans and have been on the lookout for pickled pork. Anyone know where you can find it here in the SF Bay?

Red beans and ricely yours,

Thomas

theBDT

23-Jun-2011, 10:38

Gosh! All these horrible art snobs lurking about! I hope one doesn't come creeping out of a dark alley late at night, to clobber me with his peacock vocabulary! Articulate people are scary!

The number of straw men assembled in this thread could fuel the fire at Burning Man. What are we arguing against again? Criticism? Thought? Examining a photograph beyond the initial "wow, that's cool" phase? What?

theBDT

23-Jun-2011, 10:46

In the first place, he didn't become a member here until two years after the thread was started. Second, he did exactly the right thing reviving the thread rather than starting a duplicate one. Finally he is to be applauded for searching and using this archive as the resource it was intended to be.

Excuse me? He trundled in, dropped an inflammatory statement that had superficial relevance to the thread and absolutely NO thought or compelling argument behind it. He has yet to come back to defend his position, or to at least explain why he bothered to assert it in the first place. Some interesting discussion about the nature of art has arisen, but hardly because of him.

I think it would have been MUCH better for him to have started a fresh thread with a fully-realized argument/assertion. What he said has almost nothing to do with Weston specifically, and everything to do with art in general. Considering the time that has elapsed, and the fact that some of the original posters are no longer active here, I think resurrecting this thread was a mistake.

Drew Wiley

23-Jun-2011, 15:02

Articulate people don't annoy me - it's these career wordsmiths who use verbose
embellishment as a smokescreen for the fact they don't really see that much in the first place ... Weston's prints don't have to be explained to be moving. People have
eyes too.

Merg Ross

23-Jun-2011, 15:43

... Weston's prints don't have to be explained to be moving. People have
eyes too.

Exactly. And that is why Weston chose to put the quote beside his work. Edward put it there, not Satchmo.

Sal Santamaura

23-Jun-2011, 21:09

In the first place, he didn't become a member here until two years after the thread was started. Second, he did exactly the right thing reviving the thread rather than starting a duplicate one. Finally he is to be applauded for searching and using this archive as the resource it was intended to be...

Excuse me?...You're excused. :)

...He trundled in, dropped an inflammatory statement that had superficial relevance to the thread and absolutely NO thought or compelling argument behind it. He has yet to come back to defend his position...I think it would have been MUCH better for him to have started a fresh thread with a fully-realized argument/assertion...I think resurrecting this thread was a mistake.Marv's post consisted of an (accurate, in my opinion) observation, a suggestion and a rhetorical question. I can find nothing inherently inflamatory about it. Unless its perceptiveness hits a nerve. :) :)

Posters here are not required to present fully realized arguments/assertions. This is a forum, not an art history academic setting; opinions are perfectly acceptable.

Marv's post was entirely relevant to the thread's subject. He used the forum archive as its originator intended. He's not obligated to defend his opinion to anyone. In my opinion, those holding differing opinions who've responded since then are frustrated by his absence because they'd like to word-whip him into agreement. Opinions don't need to be defended; they stand on their own.

paulr

23-Jun-2011, 21:26

Opinions don't need to be defended; they stand on their own.

Opinions stated as fact, especially when they insult or negatively characterize whole groups of people, and especially when they're stupid, are very likely to get the kind of response this one got.

Sal Santamaura

23-Jun-2011, 21:52

Opinions stated as fact, especially when they insult or negatively characterize whole groups of people, and especially when they're stupid, are very likely to get the kind of response this one got.Marv may not have received sufficient legal advice to know he should have started with "in my opinion," but his post is clearly stating an opinion. His opinion does negatively charactierize one group of people; that is also clear. It's inherent in the opinion.

It's not so clear that his opinion is stupid or that he didn't anticipate the kind of response it got. :)

paulr

23-Jun-2011, 22:17

I don't know where the "legal advice" hyperbole comes from. If any rules have been broken, they concern good vs. bad rhetoric, and how to not sound like a jackass. You could get counsel on these matters from any decent midddle school teacher; the rates would cheap by any standards.

Darin Boville

23-Jun-2011, 23:16

theBDT

24-Jun-2011, 03:17

Marv's post was entirely relevant to the thread's subject. He used the forum archive as its originator intended. He's not obligated to defend his opinion to anyone.

Really? Because, at least in this thread, he seems like a common troll. And hey, well trolled, well trolled indeed...

Also, if you make statements and aren't prepared to explain (if not defend) them, why bother making those statements in the first place? At that point, you are being openly hostile: you're not inviting a healthy and lively forum discussion so much as you are making proclamations from a high horse...

I don't much care if he comes back to "defend" his point of view, frankly. He's been exposed for what he is...

paulr

24-Jun-2011, 06:21

Wow, Paul. Is that really you? The vibe of your posts the past few weeks (months) has really changed!

--Darin

I reread that post and it sounded more mean spirited than intended. When I said "you could get counsel" I meant "one could get counsel." I wasn't telling Sal to hire a middle school teacher. Ok. Off to get some kindergarten teacher counseling.

Sal Santamaura

24-Jun-2011, 07:55

I don't know where the "legal advice" hyperbole comes from...Note: I'm not a lawyer. :)

The legal advice comment -- not hyperbole -- comes from knowledge that, if stating an opinion with the explicit "in my opinion" phrase at its beginning, one is protected from claims of slander.

...Also, if you make statements and aren't prepared to explain (if not defend) them, why bother making those statements in the first place? At that point, you are being openly hostile: you're not inviting a healthy and lively forum discussion so much as you are making proclamations from a high horse...I have no special insight into Marv's motivation and can't recall ever interacting with him here or elsewhere. However, a possible answer to you question is that he might find those who disagree with him to be worthy of having their chain pulled. If so, it seems to have worked.

A second, simpler answer to your question could be "because he can." It's the Internet and I'm unaware of any forum rules here that preclude posting of controversial opinions.

...I wasn't telling Sal to hire a middle school teacher...That, too, was clear to me when reading your post.

My best advice after a dozen years here is for everyone is to relax. Unless something is ad hominem and pointed directly at you, don't take what others write personally.

paulr

24-Jun-2011, 08:30

Sal, I am so relaxed that if it weren't for the extra large coffee in front of me I'd be unconscious.

Which isn't to say I agree with you on whether or not certain kinds of posts should be challenged. Just as you (correctly) point out that there are no rules against posting opinions like the one in question, there are likewise no rules against taking those opinions to task.

theBDT

24-Jun-2011, 08:58

However, a possible answer to you question is that he might find those who disagree with him to be worthy of having their chain pulled. If so, it seems to have worked.

Like I said, he's a common troll. He's not interested in participating in a thoughtful, spirited community so much as he's interested in roiling up drama to entertain himself.

Am I trying to ban him? Say he mustn't be allowed to post here? Etc.? Nope. It's pretty clear I never said such a thing. I'm just calling a troll when I see one. Obviously, YOU are tickled pink by it. Maybe now we can all get into some pointless debate about film versus digital and dynamic range or something.

Sal Santamaura

24-Jun-2011, 12:31

...Which isn't to say I agree with you on whether or not certain kinds of posts should be challenged. Just as you (correctly) point out that there are no rules against posting opinions like the one in question, there are likewise no rules against taking those opinions to task.I simply advised that, if someone finds a post wrong-headed and (in the reader's opinion) designed to incite, it would in my opinion be best to just ignore the post. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys pounding their head against a wall attempting to change the poster's mind, there certainly no rules against that. Enjoy!

...He's not interested in participating in a thoughtful, spirited community so much as he's interested in roiling up drama to entertain himself...Obviously, YOU are tickled pink by it...I doubt you'll find anyone here more protective of this forum's community than I am.

I am NOT tickled, pink or any other color, by Marv's post. I was simply suggesting that those who hold differing opinions might find better ways to spend their energy than 'rebutting' an opinion. The chances of success changing the opinion-holder's mind are about as high as swaying political or religious convictions. Both those subjects are now banned in this forum; opinions are not. While not advocating for an "opinion ban," my opinion is that most opinion-based posts are best left to quietly fade unresponded to.

Put in other, more contemporary words, if you think it's a troll, don't feed it. :)

Sal Santamaura

24-Jun-2011, 21:49

...The solution isn't to attempt to "refute" Marv or any of the idiots who came to explicitly defend his opinion...Now that's a problem. You've just made an ad hominem attack on anyone who posted after Marv who agreed with his observation and/or suggestion by calling them idiots. Very bad form, unecessary and against the rules too.

...The solution is to grow one's forum ignore list...In all my time here, I've only found a need to use the Ignore function for a single member. All the others, whether I agree with them or not, have been easily dealt with.

Another point about the Ignore function. People have a tendency to quote posters who one is ignoring, thereby putting their annoying posts in one's face anyway. I suggest keeping one's list of ignored members as small as possible. :)

paulr

13-Jul-2011, 20:55

Now that's a problem. You've just made an ad hominem attack on anyone who posted after Marv who agreed with his observation and/or suggestion by calling them idiots. Very bad form, unecessary and against the rules too.

I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. And in the same spirit, I'll suggest that Marv's position is intrinsically an ad hominem attack.

Saying that "if you don't get it, you never will" is essentially saying that the problem is with who you are. Very different from saying you don't get it because of what you don't yet know, what you haven't yet seen, or what you haven't yet experienced and assimilated.

This kind of claim raises so much ire less because it's demonstrably false than because it's fundamentally an insult.

Sal Santamaura

14-Jul-2011, 08:18

...I'll suggest that Marv's position is intrinsically an ad hominem attack...I disagree with your suggestion.

"Art Snob" directly conveys the writer's perception that someone thinks he/she is expert in matters related to that nebulous concept art. Art is one of those words that means different things to different people and can't be unambiguously defined, no matter how many times it's attempted. In my opinion, "art" is about as useful a word as "archival." :)

"Idiots" is clearly an ad hominem attack.

CantikFotos

14-Jul-2011, 08:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0

paulr

14-Jul-2011, 08:56

"Art Snob" directly conveys the writer's perception that someone thinks he/she is expert in matters related to that nebulous concept art ...

"Idiots" is clearly an ad hominem attack.

Oh, I completely disagree. In this context "art snobs" is an ad hominem, a sweeping generalization, and most of all, a straw man.

But! I'm guilty too; the idea I was discussing above I falsely misattributed to Marv. I was attacking the notion, expressed by more than one person, that if you don't "get" Weston, you never will.

Christopher Nisperos

15-Jul-2011, 08:22

For some reason —probably because I intriqued by the title—, I "blitz-trolled" (peeked into) this thread a while back, then kinda shrugged it off, to be honest. I've been there before —many times— and I smelled sandtraps right away..(Now that I'm in France where "Weston" is better known as a shoe brand than a photographer, I'm re-living the nightmare..) Anyway, I've been regularly receiving updates of new posts. Wish I knew how to turn that off ... but that's another story.

The point is, from time to time I actually read the posts instead of automatically deleting them and ... whew ... am I glad I stayed out! Looks like a fat percentage of this thread is more about "who said what" than about addressing the initial question. Without trying to speak down to you, my dear colleagues ('cause, I duly recognize that I've been involved in online mug-slings, myself... but now, hopefully wiser) why don't you get back to the point and put the back-biting aside? The initial question deserves some well reflected and thoughtful answers for those who —a few years down the line—may stumble across this thread and be, as I was, intriqued. They may sincerely need a good understanding of the question. Imagine their disappointment when they see this playground fight? In the current "mood" of the thread, I realise that this comment, in itself, even risks to keep the thing off track.. so if you feel like replying to this, I've got two dares for you: to keep your reply to "I agree" or "I don't agree" ... and then to enrich the thread by getting back to the question.

In that spirit, I'll add my two cents: Re: Edward Weston? What am I missing?
I'll tell you a little story. Now that I live in France, the first time I went to see DaVinci's painting, Mona Lisa, I thought the same thing: "What am I missing?". After long reflection, I came to the conclusion that (a), either I hadn't sufficiently developed my art culture, or that (b) I was non-plussed simply because I'd seen so many reproductions of that painting before. Frankly, it was probably due a bit to both reasons ..but it's true that not only had I already seen Mona on everything from joint-smoking hippie posters to tea towels, I'd also seen many other paintings (or their reproductions) in the same style. I stood there in the Louvre staring at Mona, and she just stared right back at me.. smiling at my, "What's all the fuss about?" expression. I had expected to be thrilled, and I wasn't. This non-surprise captivated me for the whole day, and I ended up in a café, practicing a favorite French pass-time (and something I'm not famous for): thinking.

I realized that when the Mona Lisa was first unveiled, it was unusual. In fact, so unusual for its time that a myth developed around it. I think it's this myth which has in some way (for me) outlived the original magic of seeing this still magnificent painting. And, voila, a bit of that must now be true, for some, regarding seeing a Weston photograph.

To be sure, not all of Weston photographs are masterpieces (but several are!). The first time I saw a Weston photo was "traumatic" enough for me, that I still remember where I was, and when: I was 8 or 9 years old (and already printing in the darkroom) and I'd pulled "Daybooks" off the shelf of the Alameda County library on Redwood Road in Castro Valley, California. I was absolutely transfixed by the cover photo, "Pepper No. 30". I had no idea that a photograph could look, "like that". (I also remember where I was when I heard that Marilyn Monroe and JFK died ... on two different days, as I recall).

Another point of context to remember is that, at the time Edward Weston was creating some of his best images, "fuzzy" photos were the rule. He broke it, big time. But sharpness isn't only thing that makes his images stand out. I think that the best LFFA (large format fine art) images will withstand what I call, "the charcoal test", where you can easily imagine the same image as a charcoal sketch. This has helped me convince certain friends here in France to understand the concept of a photograph as something other than a simple reproduction of reality and, instead, a free-flying piece of art in and of itself. (Cartier-Bresson and the Xerox company really screwed-up their thinking!). Lastly, Weston's way of seeing. For example, it's rare for a photographer, even today, to see —and show— the "neck" of a toilet bowl as something sensual, as in his "Exusado" (one of my favorite Weston images).

There. See what happens when I stop lurking? Happy now? LOL

Best,

Christopher

Jim Cole

15-Jul-2011, 08:53

Well said, Christopher. I have to admit that I was also in the camp of "what am I missing?", but then learned to put his work in perspective for the time it was created. I am still not wowed by more than a couple of Edward's prints, but I have great respect for his place in photographic history. Besides, he gave us Brett who really broke the mold.

ImSoNegative

15-Jul-2011, 11:50

my wife thinks vincent van gogh's paintings suck! he is my favorite artist of all time, she thinks im crazy, it is true when you look at his paintings for the first time you may think "did a little kid do this?" but to appreciate his work you have to know who he is and all what he went through then his work makes sense and is beautiful.

Ed Kelsey

15-Jul-2011, 12:51

I guess when someone names you after a light meter you have an automatic reputation. :D

h2oman

15-Jul-2011, 13:19

My wife tells me I should drink red wine for my health, even though I can't stand the stuff. So once every few months I take a sip of hers to be sure my taste hasn't changed. I've been approaching Edward Weston the same way. Although I love Brett's work, I just can't get excited about Edward's, but I give it a serious look about twice a year. I do enjoy reading some of his writing more than looking at his images.

As Imsonegative said, at some point personal taste enters the equation. To paraphrase John Prine "you like what you like and you don't what you don't." Just go with it.

Scott Davis

15-Jul-2011, 13:29

I'm still a bit on-the-fence about his high modernist work, but that's in large part because I feel that way about most high modernist work. I've since discovered his early stuff which was a bridge between late Pictorialism and Modernism, and I like it better. I even like his Mexico work where he's beginning to get into the Modernist aesthetic. His nudes largely leave me cold, as has often been said before that his peppers are far more sensual and erotic than his nudes.

Nicholas Whitman

16-Jul-2011, 09:44

Why Weston matters to me.

This is purely subjective. As a viewer you have the right to connect with some aspects of a photographer's work but not necessarily all of it.

With Weston that’s the case for me. Some matters a lot, some doesn’t.

Some of the early soft work in platinum from Mexico is just great. Not all work in the pictorial realm is saccharin mush.

Even in his stopped down super sharp period he concurrently made softer (flattering) portraiture. A guy’s got to make a buck – who hasn’t been there?

Of all his subjects the shoreline views, tidal pools, kelp, dead bird, moving water really struck a cord. Still do - and with out qualifiers – such as innovative for the day.

As a photographer I admire expressive printmaking. I have studied his technique and deliberately imitated it by contact printing with azo/amidol. In our days at RIT in the early 70s we would visit the Eastman House archive and spread out prints by Weston and other masters. We’d compare them to each other and to our own prints. This is a wonderful way to experience the nuance possible in fine printing.

Complimenting the photographs are the Daybooks. These really illustrate what a life in photography can mean. The highs and lows and the whole process of what goes into the pursuit of art.

Now as much as I appreciate some Weston’s there are plenty of others that strike me a goofy (gas mask), or needing historical context, or which ought to have stayed in the family photo album.

A few of the peppers and shells rock – but most of the still lifes are cold
formalism.

Same with many of the nudes. I’ll give him points for getting the woman’s clothes off though – and don’t tell me he was only in it for the art!

Dead man in the desert – now there is a picture.

As for Brett – he took Dad’s cold formalism and amped it. Too bad - he rode the wrong coattail.

As I said in the beginning - art appreciation is subjective.

Nicholas Whitman
www.nwphoto.com

paulr

16-Jul-2011, 10:29

As I said in the beginning - art appreciation is subjective.

Depends on what you mean. Whether or not someone "likes" art is certainly subjective, and I don't think anyone should feel pressured by a herd to like or dislike anything.

But appreciation is a much broader concept, and it encompasses many aspects of art that go beyond the subjective. In my (subjective) opinion, these are generally the most interesting and valuable aspects. After all, who cares what I like? Why is my liking a particular Weston picture any more interesting than my liking a particular flavor of ice cream?

The OP, to his credit, asked a serious and thoughtful question—one that explicitely tries to go beyond the matter of what he likes and doesn't. He articulates an outline of the theory of art he subscribes to (what he looks for in a photograph), Identifies the elements of this that he can't find in Weston's work, and then asks what other people see in it.

All this strikes me as an attempt to get beyond the merely subjective. He may decide he "gets" Weston, especially if he gets some good answers and spends some more time with the pictures. And he may continue to be unmoved—which is fine. At least he'll know it's probably not because he's missing something.

paulr

16-Jul-2011, 10:41

I want to reiterate that my early experiences with Weston were similar to the OP's. I didn't get the work, either. It was partly from unfamiliarity with the visual language, and partly because I looked to photographs for other kinds of things.

But Weston ended up educating me. I discovered through his work there were deeper things that one could get from a photograph, and that they were often more subtle than what I'd previously cared about. Now it's hard for me to remember what it was like to not respond viscerally to that work.

My only point is that what you're capable of understanding, or even loving, is never engraved in stone. Although you can reliably shut down the possibility of expanding your world if you declare it impossible, and stop looking.

Dick Arentz

4-Aug-2011, 21:19

Merg Ross

4-Aug-2011, 22:26

Becoming acquainted with the work of Edward Weston marked the turning point of my photographic career. I had spent some time over a period of three years) with Ansel Adams. Then I discovered Weston through his writings and reproductions of his prints.

Prior to all that, I could have met Weston (he died in 1958) but, to my lasting regret, I was too young to know any better. I did, however, have the privilege of having dinner with Kim Weston on Wildcat Hill just next to his famous desk with the leaded glass bookcase on top (I duplicated that in my own office).

I suggest that you read his daybooks. Then pour yourself a scotch (or bourbon), put some Bach on your stereo, and LOOK at his photographs, not for seconds, but for minutes or more. You may find as I did, that as great as Adams was, his photographs were so iconic that it bred hundreds of imitators. It is possible to copy Weston, but when you do, you put yourself and your feelings into the image and therefore, you are not copying but seeing for yourself.

Dick Arentz

Well said.

Bourbon and Bach, it worked for the Weston's.

I have followed your work over the years, some really stunning images from Italy.

David Hedley

5-Aug-2011, 00:28

Becoming acquainted with the work of Edward Weston marked the turning point of my photographic career. I had spent some time over a period of three years) with Ansel Adams. Then I discovered Weston through his writings and reproductions of his prints.

Prior to all that, I could have met Weston (he died in 1958) but, to my lasting regret, I was too young to know any better. I did, however, have the privilege of having dinner with Kim Weston on Wildcat Hill just next to his famous desk with the leaded glass bookcase on top (I duplicated that in my own office).

I suggest that you read his daybooks. Then pour yourself a scotch (or bourbon), put some Bach on your stereo, and LOOK at his photographs, not for seconds, but for minutes or more. You may find as I did, that as great as Adams was, his photographs were so iconic that it bred hundreds of imitators. It is possible to copy Weston, but when you do, you put yourself and your feelings into the image and therefore, you are not copying but seeing for yourself.

Dick Arentz

I was too young to have ever had the opportunity to meet either Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, but my experience is similar. Adams' epic images drew me into photography, Weston's kept me there, and both endure as a source of inspiration. I remember looking at a reproduction of Pepper no. 30 for several hours when I first encountered it, unwilling to break away to do anything else.

I'd also second reading the Daybooks (listening to Bartok, perhaps); elegantly written, they offer a rare insight into the connection between an artist's mind and life.

Christopher Nisperos

5-Aug-2011, 05:27

I guess when someone names you after a light meter you have an automatic reputation. :D

Are you talking about Takahiro Sekonic? Or Bodo Gossen? Who's ever heard of them??

Bill_1856

5-Aug-2011, 05:40

I have followed your work over the years, some really stunning images from Italy.

Thanks for mentioning it. I wasn't previously familiar with his work -- it is GORGEOUS!

Christopher Nisperos

5-Aug-2011, 06:00

It is possible to copy Weston, but when you do, you put yourself and your feelings into the image and therefore, you are not copying but seeing for yourself.
Dick Arentz

Dick has really hit the nail on the head, here. As a young, budding photographer, I'd always avoided openly —or knowingly— copying another photographer —or had successfully fooled myself into thinking so (oh! that summer in Yosemite with my Yashica TLR)... which, by the way, opens a can of worms on another topic, to start elsewhere: why is it supposedly "wrong" for photography students to do this, when —in almost every other Fine Art— painting, sculpture, ceramics, glass blowing, etc.— learning 'at the master's knee' and out-and-out copying has been considered the way to pass down artistic techniques and knowledge for centuries?) As I said .. that's another topic..

Anyway, one fine day a few years ago a challenge was presented to me by a snotty French photojournalist, a café friend, who'd told me that Weston's photos "lacked humanity" and couldn't be reproduced today "because people have more 'soul' " He'd apparently never heard of James Brown ... but perhaps I'd missed his real point, because I immediately set out to prove him wrong and create a series of —among other vegetables— peppers.

The series, which I entitled, "Sexy Vegetables" was a pleasure to create, mainly because, as Dick so well stated, it caused me to see things for myself (which created some rather comic scenes in the supermarket and farmer's markets as I searched for vegetables based on their aesthetic qualities —holding them up to my eye as I turned them slowly to check a profile or shading them on different sides with my hand to see the effect of the light, etc. I got quite a few vendors telling me, "Sir, please put that down ... it's for eating!") My signature-image on APUG is from my "Sexy Vegatble" series.. it is NOT a Weston as many think... Fritz Gruber was given this image as a gift, and I was honored to receive a huge compliment from him .. he'd mistaken it for a Weston, too. In spite of this, I insist that it's not a "copy" but, as Dick said, the result of my seeing in a different way... ironically, because I'd been released and relieved from the very stigma of the accusation of copying.

Which brings another answer to the thread topic question (What am I missing?): Perhpas ...another way to see and think.

Best,

Christopher

:

Stephen Lumry

5-Aug-2011, 09:35

Jim Jones

5-Aug-2011, 12:10

I guess when someone names you after a light meter you have an automatic reputation. :D

I guess when a newly marketed light meter is known by the name of a photograher already admired among some discriminating people, the meter maker has clinched a few sales. By coincidence, the meter was developed by Edward Faraday Weston, son of the Dr. Edward Weston (no known relation to the photogrpaher) who founded the Weston Electrical Instrument Corporation shortly after the photographer was born. Some of the early Weston meters made in the 1930s are still working well.

Drew Wiley

5-Aug-2011, 16:14

I inherited an old Weston meter. It still works, but I never use it because I like spotmeters. I wonder if you could aim one better if it was Smith & Weston.

paulr

5-Aug-2011, 16:26

"I know this is not how it should be ..."

How could there be a wrong way to enjoy or appreciate art?

Seems to me that adding ways to appreciate it could only make you appreciate it more.

I suppose if in the course of your studies you discovered things that bothered you, that could be problematic, but that's also a different subject ...

It is possible to appreciate a Weston image without knowing anything about the artist, however, the more you read his books and about his life the more meaningful the images become. I know this is not how it should be, but in the case of Weston, the value proposition includes both his work and his approach to an artistic life.

Brian Ellis

5-Aug-2011, 17:58

It is possible to appreciate a Weston image without knowing anything about the artist, however, the more you read his books and about his life the more meaningful the images become. I know this is not how it should be, but in the case of Weston, the value proposition includes both his work and his approach to an artistic life.

Actually I think that's exactly how it should be. If we don't grow in our appreciation of art or a particular work of art by study and learning then we're left with postcards, things that evoke instantaneous "like" because the picture's so pretty.

Kevin J. Kolosky

6-Aug-2011, 19:30

rdenney

6-Aug-2011, 20:12

I think that over the years a lot of people get put up on a pedastal. But they are just men and women, like you and I.

I have looked at a lot of prints of negatives made in Yosemite that I think are much better than some made by Adams. But if you listed both prints on Ebay you could ask $5-6000 for the Adams print and you get it, but you might not get a bid on the other print even though its quality is very fine. Same with Weston, and many others.

Which is why art cannot be valued in dollars.

Art that demands a high price does so because of the fame of the artist, which ensures that the art can be sold by the buyer if it comes to it for some similar (or, more in line with expectations, some greater value. People may value it for purely artistic reasons and pay the price, but the reason the price got there in the first place was because the artist had become famous or praised by the right people.

Rick "who needs to study Weston's work more" Denney

cyrus

6-Aug-2011, 20:40

Christopher Nisperos

7-Aug-2011, 07:08

Uh, no - Analyze it. Opine on it. Argue over it. That's all a good thing. Art is not just decorative. It has a context.

Up to a certain point!

There is also a certain value to appreciating a visual work of art, um, visually. Being able to simply say, "Ah, that's nice", or "that's interesting" without having to necessarily invest something intellectually every time. In fact, to my mind, this is true for any art form (consider music). That's where art contributes to relaxation. This is not to be confused with being empty-headed because, anyway, one often ends-up with a kind of self-reflexion!

This is an argument which I, as a "West Coast" influenced photographer residing in the land of Cartier-Bresson have lived and breathed for almost twenty years now..so you've got me started! Sorry to beat this dead horse about, "here in France" ... but, here in France I've noticed that the cultural consciousness around "art photography" isn't very well developed yet, especially compared to an average cultivated (or photography-savvy) French person's knowlegde and appreciation of the classic beaux arts. The appreciation of a photographic print as simply an artistic object in-and-of-itself ... an abstraction of reality and not just a document .. is a concept that seems difficult for the French mind to wrap around. That's why photojournalism and people-based photography is so well accepted here, I think.
Adams, Weston and their ilk are relatively unknown here, notwithstanding that Adams out-and-out helped put the Arles festival on the map (this fact from the "horses mouths" of Lucien Clergue and Jean Dieuzaide).

Show a French person a painting and they'll expound on its qualities of texture, color, arrangement of visual elements, the fact that red was the favorite color of the painter's mother —whom he hated— and that's why there's so much blue, etc., etc.
Show the same person Gagliani's "White Door" (http://www.dawsonbooks.com/images/gallery/visual_dialogue/white_door.jpg)
and all they see is a construction site photo.

Brings to mind the infamous Cartier-Bresson reflection about the West Coast photographers (during, I believe, the war in Indochina in the 1950s), "The world is falling apart and all these guys can do is photograph rocks and trees". In 1999, I challenged him personally about this quote, which I find stupid. As though only photos showing war and misery ("content", if you will) are what matter most on this earth. There is bread, then .. there are roses. They each serve their purposes.

Surely, one can read meanings into just about any type of photograph (or other art form!), but to completely put simple visual appreciation aside as a trite or insignificant benefit of art viewing is, I think, an unfair and somewhat narrow view of things. I prefer a more balanced view: One can analyse, opine or argue about the painting, for example, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That's OK and valid. But not more "valid" than looking up at the magnificent work of art, being awed by it and simply saying, "wow".

Best,

Christopher

paulr

7-Aug-2011, 08:18

...but to completely put simple visual appreciation aside as a trite or insignificant benefit of art viewing is, I think, an unfair and somewhat narrow view of things.

I don't think you're contradicting anyone here. No one in this thread has said or implied that there's something wrong with appreciating visual pleasure.

The arguments in favor of thinking about the work have not been presented as alternatives to enjoyment, but as amplifiers of it.

If there's a reason that critics don't talk more about the simple sensory pleasures, it's that there's a limit to what can be said about them. Formal analysis is a kind of digging deep into what we respond to esthetically, but that kind of criticism quickly stops sounding like the discussion of enjoyment, even if that's precisely what inspired it. It's a bit like analyzing a good joke: it can be done, it can be interesting, but it's rarely funny.

The Cartier Bresson remark is well taken. This was a common sentiment at the time—maybe during a lot of times. I don't think he was arguing against simple pleasures in art generally, but about the political implications of doing work that he perceived as being about nothing but pleasure at a time when the world was going to pieces. I think he has a point, although I don't know how much I agree with it. I also don't agree that Weston's work is about nothing but simple pleasure.

Surely, one can read meanings into just about any type of photograph (or other art form!)

Sure, one can "read meanings" into anything. It's arguably what human beings do best. We've been inventing mythologies, religions, superstitions, and casual spiritualisms ("everything happens for a reason!") since the begnining of language.

But it's a giant straw man to say that this is what criticism is about. Especially in the visual arts. I think if you look at good criticism, you'll find that very little of it is about reductive notions of meaning.

Brian Ellis

7-Aug-2011, 09:20

Up to a certain point!

There is also a certain value to appreciating a visual work of art, um, visually. Being able to simply say, "Ah, that's nice", or "that's interesting" without having to necessarily invest something intellectually every time. In fact, to my mind, this is true for any art form (consider music). That's where art contributes to relaxation. This is not to be confused with being empty-headed because, anyway, one often ends-up with a kind of self-reflexion!

This is an argument which I, as a "West Coast" influenced photographer residing in the land of Cartier-Bresson have lived and breathed for almost twenty years now..so you've got me started! Sorry to beat this dead horse about, "here in France" ... but, here in France I've noticed that the cultural consciousness around "art photography" isn't very well developed yet, especially compared to an average cultivated (or photography-savvy) French person's knowlegde and appreciation of the classic beaux arts. The appreciation of a photographic print as simply an artistic object in-and-of-itself ... an abstraction of reality and not just a document .. is a concept that seems difficult for the French mind to wrap around. That's why photojournalism and people-based photography is so well accepted here, I think.
Adams, Weston and their ilk are relatively unknown here, notwithstanding that Adams out-and-out helped put the Arles festival on the map (this fact from the "horses mouths" of Lucien Clergue and Jean Dieuzaide).

Show a French person a painting and they'll expound on its qualities of texture, color, arrangement of visual elements, the fact that red was the favorite color of the painter's mother —whom he hated— and that's why there's so much blue, etc., etc.
Show the same person Gagliani's "White Door" (http://www.dawsonbooks.com/images/gallery/visual_dialogue/white_door.jpg)
and all they see is a construction site photo.

Brings to mind the infamous Cartier-Bresson reflection about the West Coast photographers (during, I believe, the war in Indochina in the 1950s), "The world is falling apart and all these guys can do is photograph rocks and trees". In 1999, I challenged him personally about this quote, which I find stupid. As though only photos showing war and misery ("content", if you will) are what matter most on this earth. There is bread, then .. there are roses. They each serve their purposes.

Surely, one can read meanings into just about any type of photograph (or other art form!), but to completely put simple visual appreciation aside as a trite or insignificant benefit of art viewing is, I think, an unfair and somewhat narrow view of things. I prefer a more balanced view: One can analyse, opine or argue about the painting, for example, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That's OK and valid. But not more "valid" than looking up at the magnificent work of art, being awed by it and simply saying, "wow".

Best,

Christopher

"Simple visual appreciation" can be a misnomer. There isn't necessarily anything "simple" about visual appreciation. To me visual appreciation comes from a little knowledge and learning. That's how I learn to appreciate. It doesn't mean I intellectualize every painting or photograph I see but if I appreciate it it's usually because I know something about it. If I know nothing there's only two reactions, "I like it" or "I don't like it." There's no room for "it's not immediately appealing but if I knew more about what the artist was doing and what's going on in the image I might like it."

Which doesn't mean I end up liking everything I learn about. But at least I'm not automatically dismissing everything that doesn't have instant appeal.

Jim Noel

7-Aug-2011, 09:38

You need to see original Edward Weston prints to fully apreciate what he accomplished. Prints in books are often over or under printed to suit the printer and always lack the subtleties of Edwards work.

paulr

7-Aug-2011, 11:23

"Simple visual appreciation" can be a misnomer. There isn't necessarily anything "simple" about visual appreciation.

Sure. Probably better to call it "apparently simple." Like most apparently simple things it's very complicated, because it depends on assumptions and habits and processes that generally lie outside of our awareness.

Christopher Nisperos

7-Aug-2011, 13:38

[QUOTE=paulr;760729]
I don't think you're contradicting anyone here. No one in this thread has said or implied that there's something wrong with appreciating visual pleasure.

MARCOJOE:
Some of the Art Snobs always try to read into the photograph and try to give it meaning. Just appreciate the beauty and talent of the maker and quit going deeper.
Would you analyze Michaelangelo ??
CYRUS:
Uh, no - Analyze it. Opine on it. Argue over it. That's all a good thing. Art is not just decorative. It has a context.

paulr:
The arguments in favor of thinking about the work have not been presented as alternatives to enjoyment, but as amplifiers of it.

chris:
I don't disagree that thinking about a piece of work can in some way enhance it, but Cyrus' comment clearly implies that one should do this type of thinking, in addition to just looking at a piece of work and enjoying it at its primary level (for what it is). If I'm wrong about this interpretation of the comment, Cyrus is very welcome to correct me!

paulr:
If there's a reason that critics don't talk more about the simple sensory pleasures, it's that there's a limit to what can be said about them.

chris:
Well, true. Sensory pleasure being subjective, if a critic were to transmit his sensorial impressions I imagine they'd be much more interesting to read if his domain were something like gastronomy or massage!

paulr:
Formal analysis is a kind of digging deep into what we respond to esthetically, but that kind of criticism quickly stops sounding like the discussion of enjoyment, even if that's precisely what inspired it. It's a bit like analyzing a good joke: it can be done, it can be interesting, but it's rarely funny.

chris:
Agreed. A critic obviously has to write about something other than, "it's a pretty photo and it makes me feel good". But this is beside my point.

paulr:
The Cartier Bresson remark is well taken. This was a common sentiment at the time—maybe during a lot of times. I don't think he was arguing against simple pleasures in art generally, but about the political implications of doing work that he perceived as being about nothing but pleasure at a time when the world was going to pieces. I think he has a point, although I don't know how much I agree with it. I also don't agree that Weston's work is about nothing but simple pleasure.

chris:
About this last sentence, I neither said nor implied this (On the contrary...re-read my comment about a 'balanced view'). However, I reiterate that —in my opinion— if someone wants to appreciate Weston (or any other photographer) on this level, why the heck not? That's all.

paulr:
Sure, one can "read meanings" into anything. It's arguably what human beings do best. We've been inventing mythologies, religions, superstitions, and casual spiritualisms ("everything happens for a reason!") since the begnining of language.

chris:
Well said.

paulr
But it's a giant straw man to say that this is what criticism is about. Especially in the visual arts. I think if you look at good criticism, you'll find that very little of it is about reductive notions of meaning.

chris:
About the first sentence, I didn't say this, either.

In summary, Paul —so that we don't get into a long, drawn out, point-for-point refutation, (especially since we seem to be mostly in agreement anyway!)— all I'm trying to get across is that if somebody looks at a work and doesn't want go deeper that "just" looking at it and liking it, that's ok (in my book!).

Best,

Christopher

paulr

7-Aug-2011, 13:46

[QUOTE=paulr;760729]if somebody looks at a work and doesn't want go deeper that "just" looking at it and liking it, that's ok (in my book!).

It's ok with me, too.

My arguments have been with the people who suggest it's not ok to be interested in anything beyond visual pleasure. Which strikes me as bizarre for more reasons than I even want to get into.

Christopher Nisperos

7-Aug-2011, 14:14

"Simple visual appreciation" can be a misnomer. There isn't necessarily anything "simple" about visual appreciation. To me visual appreciation comes from a little knowledge and learning. That's how I learn to appreciate. It doesn't mean I intellectualize every painting or photograph I see but if I appreciate it it's usually because I know something about it. If I know nothing there's only two reactions, "I like it" or "I don't like it." There's no room for "it's not immediately appealing but if I knew more about what the artist was doing and what's going on in the image I might like it."

Which doesn't mean I end up liking everything I learn about. But at least I'm not automatically dismissing everything that doesn't have instant appeal.

Hi Brian ...

It's true. People naturally —consciously or sub-consciously— associate a given sensorial experience with some corresponding previous experience ("Hey, this photo of a pepper looks like a couple, hugging"). However, I would add a third possibility to your two human reactions of "like" or "dislike": simple wonder or awe. To repeat my own experience when I first saw "Pepper No. 30" as a 8 or 9 year old kid ... I just stared in awe. I simply had no reference in my head (yet) to which the image could correspond!

But I think you know, when I say, "simple visual appreciation", I mean just looking and enjoying. Right?

Best,

Chris