The image or its meaning?

[Dick Hilker]

Ansel Adams and Minor White were iconic, yet approached their art from quite different perspectives. Whereas Adams sought to create the perfect print, it was a picture of an object or scene that he wanted to depict in his own certain way.

Though similarly devoted to perfection, the more spiritually-oriented White sought to have his images represent the meaning he saw behind them, rather than merely glorify the subject.

Inasmuch as LF photographers are generally more thoughtful and deliberate in their approach to the making of a picture than those who work in other formats, do you feel they're more apt to follow in White's footsteps or Adams'? How do you feel about your own work?

[Ash]

I don't think about that. I've only been taking photo's for a couple years. I'm still young and haven't found direction. I don't know whether I would go for either of your mentioned photographers.

[Frank Petronio]

Geez I wouldn't want to follow in either's. And that is probably an question for the last generation -- White and Adams were in the prime fifty years ago. Nowadays it might be more appropriate to ask about Eagleston versus some German dude.

[John Kasaian]

I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams would recommend finding your own path rather than copycatting anyone else!

[Walter Calahan]

And nobody follow me, please, I ain't German, and I don't know where I'm going, I'm prone to drop things and then back-up suddenly.

Anyway, with size 14 feet I can't follow in these guys footprints 'cause my feet's too big. Ha ha ha.

Be yourself, not some guy with a crooked nose, or that other moody fellow.

[cobalt]

Seen a lot of "perfect prints" that are crap, artistically speaking. Consider this:
Are you...

a. an Artist who uses a camera to make art?
b. a photographer who makes pictures?
c. a photographer who makes art?

I strive for inclusion in the 'a' camp. But I've been making images for a long, long time with many, many a device ( pen, pencil, ink, oils, acrylics, watercolor, to name a few). Don't care about diffraction, multicoating, characteristic curves, reciprocity or any of that other bs...just want a pretty picture, to sum things up.

Not in awe of Minor; think Ansel was in camp b (and very likely a far better technician than I will ever be).

Now...Roy DeCarava...Herman Leonard...Sally Mann...these people have made images that move me. Pretty. Art. Their work inspires me..makes me spend money...practice...perfect...hone...practice...spend more money...practice....

[Ken Lee]

Part of us likes literal detail, while the other part responds to abstractions of tone, shape, and contour. Large format gives you lots of detail, so you can play with lots of abstraction too, if you like.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/ansel.jpg

Like many of us, Ansel Adams waited a long time for mediocre weather and lighting to go away - so that he could capture his subjects under "ideal" circumstances. In that sense, his photos, no matter how clear and literal, are often very subjective. In the photo above, the words "Lone Pine Airport", carved into the mountainside in large white letters, have to be spot-toned away for every print.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/minor.jpg

Minor White explored, as he put it: "Things for what else they are" - the curious ground that lies closer to dreams and abstraction, and further away from literal realism.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/edward.jpg

In many of their images, Edward Weston (and son Brett) found their way somewhere in the middle-ground between waking realism and dreaming abstraction.

Using large format equipment lets you create lots of literal detail. If you want to balance that with lots of abstraction, it's up to you.

You're free to place each image where it belongs - at its own unique point along the spectrum.

[Lazybones]

Geez I wouldn't want to follow in either's. And that is probably an question for the last generation -- White and Adams were in the prime fifty years ago. Nowadays it might be more appropriate to ask about Eagleston versus some German dude.

I'm with Frank, 100%.

[Frank Petronio]

And even Eagleston is near ancient...

[MIke Sherck]

Hmm.

I've often thought about that, or something similar to it, anyway. The problem is, I'm not all that perceptive and not noted for deep thought. For instance, in his Daybooks Edward Weston repeatedly said that this or that picture was "important". I have no idea what he meant. Important to whom? One would think the obvious answer to be "himself" but that's not what I get from the context. To me, when Weston said that a particular picture was "important" he meant in some larger sense, to some aspect of the world beyond himself. I have no idea what, though, and it's confused me for years.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding photographers such as Minor White, who seem to me to be striving to evoke some sort of universal meaning in his photographs. The trouble I have is that meaning is, to me, relative to one's own experiences, beliefs, thoughts, mood. Does White (for example,) mean that I'm supposed to feel whatever emotion he felt when he tripped the shutter? Adams said much the same thing yet is accepted as a different sort of photographer. In any case, my life is very different from White's (or Adam's.) Even the cultural icons I've grown up with are different, which implies that White felt there to be some kind of mysterious universal common ground he was trying to evoke. How can we ever be sure that we "get" an image in the way he meant or assumed we would?

Over the years I've found that a particular photographer's photographs make the most sense to me when I've studied the photographer and his or her world. I seem to need to have some understanding of the photographer before I can make any sense of their work. From what I've seen, this attitude might be anathema to mmodern artists, which possibly explains why "modern" artists such as Jackson Pollock just confuse the heck out of me.

I guess that puts me more or less in the "photograph as object of art" camp, although as with most things in life the lines are a bit blurred. I've seen (and made!) my share of emotionally empty photographs which satisfied no one. I've also fallen in love with prints made somewhat less than perfectly, purely based on the content.

Maybe the best answer to the original question is, "something of both." I use large format in part because with a larger negative I can make a print which is, to me, more satisfying technically. I also like the deliberate nature of a view camera, which gives me opportunity to think about what is in front of me and wonder what about it has drawn my attention.

That's just me, I guess. Waffling to the end!

Mike

[John Kasaian]

Hmm.

I've often thought about that, or something similar to it, anyway. The problem is, I'm not all that perceptive and not noted for deep thought. For instance, in his Daybooks Edward Weston repeatedly said that this or that picture was "important". I have no idea what he meant. Important to whom? One would think the obvious answer to be "himself" but that's not what I get from the context. To me, when Weston said that a particular picture was "important" he meant in some larger sense, to some aspect of the world beyond himself. I have no idea what, though, and it's confused me for years.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding photographers such as Minor White, who seem to me to be striving to evoke some sort of universal meaning in his photographs. The trouble I have is that meaning is, to me, relative to one's own experiences, beliefs, thoughts, mood. Does White (for example,) mean that I'm supposed to feel whatever emotion he felt when he tripped the shutter? Adams said much the same thing yet is accepted as a different sort of photographer. In any case, my life is very different from White's (or Adam's.) Even the cultural icons I've grown up with are different, which implies that White felt there to be some kind of mysterious universal common ground he was trying to evoke. How can we ever be sure that we "get" an image in the way he meant or assumed we would?

Over the years I've found that a particular photographer's photographs make the most sense to me when I've studied the photographer and his or her world. I seem to need to have some understanding of the photographer before I can make any sense of their work. From what I've seen, this attitude might be anathema to mmodern artists, which possibly explains why "modern" artists such as Jackson Pollock just confuse the heck out of me.

I guess that puts me more or less in the "photograph as object of art" camp, although as with most things in life the lines are a bit blurred. I've seen (and made!) my share of emotionally empty photographs which satisfied no one. I've also fallen in love with prints made somewhat less than perfectly, purely based on the content.

Maybe the best answer to the original question is, "something of both." I use large format in part because with a larger negative I can make a print which is, to me, more satisfying technically. I also like the deliberate nature of a view camera, which gives me opportunity to think about what is in front of me and wonder what about it has drawn my attention.

That's just me, I guess. Waffling to the end!

Mike


Mike,

What do you perceive about your own photographs?:)

Launch out of the post modernist waffle shop before you schiz out and go make some photos! ;)

[domenico Foschi]

Beautiful thread, Dick.

I don't see Adams or White iconic figures in photography in any way.
Before you throw stones at me, read what I want to say.:)
Artists are just people who contribute in this world with their vision: is nothing different from being a baker or a teacher.

My work has been influenced by many photographers, by painters, musicians, persons(not necessarily artists in the traditional sense), by many other things, and experiences of my life.
I see the work of other photographers as starting point, as a gathering of ideas and inspiration, as a wealth of examples that should help me to find my own voice.
The work that has been done is there to show me what is possible to do with the camera but more than else is there to show me that in order to do good work, I have to be corageous in giving voice to my individuality at the risk of being rejected.
Ken has posted examples of three major figures in American photography that lived in the same period but that had a unique vision.
Adams has never resonated deeply in me although many of his images are indeed masterful. Adams sensitivity I found is more tuned to awe of nature and sometime to an introspective intrpretation of Nature.

White has been described as a spiritual photographer, which in my opinion is not entirely correct. I see a lot of cerebral exercise in his work, to me is an attempt to reach the spiritual realm through reasoning, which is in many cases the route that religion takes. I would call him a religious photographer in the broader sense of the word.
In fact I think his most spiritual work are the portraits he took of men ( I don't know if they were his students or lovers) where he shows a wonderful sensitivity to beauty. I believe this work comes from a place that encompasses reason.

Weston is the photographer that will never stop to amaze me.
More I see of his work and more I realize that his best work is the lesser known.
Weston in my opinion is an artist that had almost constantly the door open in a spirirtual realm.
This man's images move me like no other's: recently I was at photo LA where I saw one of his kelp images that really stunned me, not just for the printing skills but mainly because it challenged the notion of reality as I usually perceive it and I know the man was telling the truth in this work because mine wasn't a superficial reaction but it had involved my all being.
Some other time I saw one of his nudes in a gallery, that I had never seen in any publication or book, that just brought me to tears.
This is what I intend as spirituality in Art, the capacity of reavealing the highest form of beauty and the evidence that reality is not a fixed notion.
When that happens, I believe the Artist has captured God in the silver emulsion and that energy is there for anybody who is ready to receive it.

[Struan Gray]

Widgeon
For Paul Muldoon


It had been badly shot.
While he was plucking it
he found, he says, the voice box –

like a flute stop
in the broken windpipe –

and blew upon it
unexpectedly
his own small widgeon cries.

Seamus Heaney.

[Struan Gray]

Domenico:

"The work that has been done is there to show me what is possible to do with the camera but more than else is there to show me that in order to do good work, I have to be corageous in giving voice to my individuality at the risk of being rejected."

For me, this is the key.

Most of my favourite, 'influential' photographers take or took pictures that are very different from mine. The inspire by daring to be themselves, for seeing the difference between status and value.

Adams and White are similar in one important but now highly suspect way: their use of drama. Sincere dramatic presentation is a sure way to get passed over these days. Make the irony obvious enough and you might get away with it, but in general, for now, it's best to avoid open enthusiasm about your subject.

[MIke Sherck]

Mike,

What do you perceive about your own photographs?:)

Launch out of the post modernist waffle shop before you schiz out and go make some photos! ;)

I think that they lack emotion. They're too intellectual and not particularly satisfying, for the most part. I'm trying to understand why. Occasionally...

I think that your advice is right: I need to photograph more. "Once again, with feeling!

Mike

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Nice post.

I hope that I follow my own path but I realize that I am influenced by many, many photographers.

I tend to disagree that Ansel did not print emotion in his images. While he was of course a brilliant technician, when he photographed what he loved ( the Sierra, Yosemite, etc.) I can see a lot of emotion in his work. Is is cold? Perhaps to some but not to me. In many ways, I think Ansel was just as emotional as Minor, he just didn't wear it on his sleeve.

Also, I like much of the work of Minor White and I find it sad that he has sort of fallen out of grace since his death in 1976. Much of his work is stunning and he was a great technician as well ( remember he wrote one of the first Zone System books). I think what Minor wanted people to understand is that an image can act as a spring board to a persons emotions. He did not intend the viewer to understand HIS emotion, but insted to use an image to explore their own emotions. This can be done with any image. He wanted the viewer to use a photograph to learn something about who they are.

Each photographer left a great legacy that continues to impact photography today. Look no further than people like Paul Caponigro, Ron Rosenstock, George DeWolf, John Sexton, Alan Ross, Ted Orland, Don Worth, etc. to understand the legacy these men left.

To get emotion into a photograph is not an easy thing to do in my opinion. But, if you photograph what you love, and you do it a lot, then eventually you will make images that speak to you on a deeper level.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Oh, I almost forgot.

I don't think LF photographers are more inclined to follow one or the other. Both of Ansel and Minor were LF photographers and LFers tend to come in all shapes and sizes, so I don't think that the format has any thing to do with which "camp" one will find a home in. We just are who we are.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think this is more an issue of how one approaches making the image, the why much more than the what or how or what with...

The current fashion of the art world shouldn't be important. I know it is to those who are trying to make a buck or a name there, but they've lost the inner game already...

We seem so caught up in the current trend, what gets the shows and the sales. But an Atget is still an Atget, a W. Gene Smith is still a W. Gene Smith, no matter the style of the day...

If all we see in others is a picture or a style to copy, all we will generate is copies. But if we can see in someone why they made those photographs, where they come from, maybe that could inspire something inside us towards our own work, give our own muse a little kick in the tush...

For me, lately, it's Sudek. Just work simply, from the heart...

Sorry, I had a few pre-post cocktails...

[Brian C. Miller]

"I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose name, location, and musical ability are unknown." -- Ashleigh Brilliant

While I learned how to photograph from reading AA's books, the why of photography rests within me.

This week I discovered Ray Bradbury's, Zen in the Art of Writing. I thought that he might as well have been writing about photography. Substituting photography for writing: "... if you are photographing without zest, without gusto, without love, without fun, you are only half a photographer. It means you are so busy keeping one eye on the commercial market, or one ear peeled for the avant-garde coterie, that you are not being yourself. You don't even know yourself. For the first thing a photographer should be is -- excited. He should be a thing of fevers and enthusiasms. Without such vigor, he might as well be out picking peaches or digging ditches; God knows it'd be better for his health."

Later, Bradbury relates a letter he received from B. Berenson:
"Dear Mr. Bradbury:
In 89 years of life, this is the first fan letter I have written. It is to tell you that I have just read your article in The Nation -- "Day After Tomorrow." It is the first time I have encountered the statement by an artist in any field, that to work creatively he must put flesh into it, and enjoy it as a lark, or as a fascinating adventure.
How different from the workers in the heavy industry that professional writing has become!
If you ever touch Florence, come to see me.
Sincerely yours. B. Berenson."

Therefore I know in my heart that it is not merely image or meaning or process, it is joy!! I shall sally forth with gusto and fervor, I shall see what I shall see, and photograph as I must. For I have no muse, but a creative moose instead. And I can never ignore an imaginary 1200-pound animal!

[Dick Hilker]

Thanks for the inspiration, Brian! It comes at a time when it's sorely needed. I've long enjoyed Bradbury's tales, but haven't read this book (yet).

Curious, isn't it, how many parallels can be drawn amongst the various creative activities. Sometimes, we have to step aside from our well-trodden paths to see where we're headed.

As you sally forth, know that you're not alone.

[dbriannelson]

Very good thread. And a question that I've been asking myself as well.

I am moving into LF specifically to change my process and to become more deliberate. A side effect is that I expect to change topic of my work as well. I consider myself an aesthete, but have no taste for landscapes or architecture by themselves, because while I can appreciate composition and am sometimes left breathless by good examples, they don't have "meaning" in a way I care about.

The real problem with "meaning" is that it's difficult to create without becoming too obvious and losing nuance. There is a perfect balance point where the meaning of the photograph is decided by the viewer or critic with just a bit of guidance from the photographer. It will likely not be the "meaning" expected by the photographer at all. Sometimes it's interesting to hear what people think you meant - sometimes they are right but you didn't know it when you made the piece.

Of the two examples I'd want to be more like White, but rather than try to load a photograph with my own "meaning," I'd like to load it with enough cues that others can assign their own meanings to it.

-Don

[roteague]

I consider myself an aesthete, but have no taste for landscapes or architecture by themselves, because while I can appreciate composition and am sometimes left breathless by good examples, they don't have "meaning" in a way I care about.

Good points Don. We all need to be aware that not everyone looks at an image the same way, or gets the same thing out of one.

In my case, I only do landscapes. The only meaning that I expect my landscapes to impart is that they inspire others to want to visit the location, or that they enhance a person's living environment. I have no interest in social statements, other than the need to save and protect the environment. I understand that not everyone cares about the outdoors or nature, and accept that my work may not mean anything to them.

[Dick Hilker]

The only meaning that I expect my landscapes to impart is that they inspire others to want to visit the location, or that they enhance a person's living environment. I have no interest in social statements, other than the need to save and protect the environment.

I imagine Adams would be very comfortable with that position.

[Dick Hilker]

Some artists, Don, feel it's sufficient to make a statement with their art and let it fly without concern for how it's going to be interpreted or understood. Somehow, I can't imagine them feeding themselves with their art with that attitude!

However, I've found that when I make a picture for a particular show and its jurors, or to conform to someone else's expectations, it stops being "my" picture and becomes theirs. It's not necessarily a bad picture, but I sense a dilution of my artistic integrity.

As you said, perhaps a balance is the answer. How to achieve it is the question I'm still working on.

[ageorge]

The only meaning that I expect my landscapes to impart is that they inspire others to want to visit the location, or that they enhance a person's living environment.

This seems a very modest objective.

[paulr]

I don't think Ansel and Minor had such different goals. Minor was more of a philosopher than Ansel, and certainly dwelled much more in the intellectual/metaphorical aspect of the work than Ansel did. But both did work that mixed a modernist esthetic with a romantic sensibility.

Ansel's romanticism was arguably more superficial ... he basically inherited the traditions and vocabulary of romantic landscape painting (most notably Thomas Moran), so it's questionable how much he really thought about the deeper implications of what he was doing (deeper than "look at this ... this is worth preserving and experiencing," that is).

Minor, however, was a full blown symbolist. His esthetic was more modern than Ansel's, while his romantic sensibilities more carefully considered. He was immersed in the theosophist teachings of Gurdjieff and other fusions of ancient mysticism/modern individualism. He taught ideas as well as photography, and saw them as deeply connected.

So really, I see the difference between their ideas and images more in terms of depth than category.

[ageorge]

I don't think Ansel and Minor had such different goals. Minor was more of a philosopher than Ansel, and certainly dwelled much more in the intellectual/metaphorical aspect of the work than Ansel did. But both did work that mixed a modernist esthetic with a romantic sensibility.

Ansel's romanticism was arguably more superficial ... he basically inherited the traditions and vocabulary of romantic landscape painting (most notably Thomas Moran), so it's questionable how much he really thought about the deeper implications of what he was doing (deeper than "look at this ... this is worth preserving and experiencing," that is).

Minor, however, was a full blown symbolist. His esthetic was more modern than Ansel's, while his romantic sensibilities more carefully considered. He was immersed in the theosophist teachings of Gurdjieff and other fusions of ancient mysticism/modern individualism. He taught ideas as well as photography, and saw them as deeply connected.

So really, I see the difference between their ideas and images more in terms of depth than category.

You could take it a bit further with the inclusion of Wynn Bullock. His concepts of photography bordered on the weird. bla, bla, space and time, bla, bla. Don't get me wrong, I deeply admire his aesthetic and am influenced by it a great deal, but when I read him talking about his photography, I must admit, I don't quite get it.

[paulr]

You could take it a bit further with the inclusion of Wynn Bullock. His concepts of photography bordered on the weird. bla, bla, space and time, bla, bla. Don't get me wrong, I deeply admire his aesthetic and am influenced by it a great deal, but when I read him talking about his photography, I must admit, I don't quite get it.

That's ok ... there's probably a reason he became a photographer and not an essayist.
Some people are better with images than words. Some ideas lend themselves better to images than words.

The list of visual artists who could talk profoundly and clearly about their work is a short one.