"movement" Now Official

[Keith Fleming]

Tillman Crane's December newsletter lists an upcoming workshop entitled "Soft Focus and the New Pictorialism." Surely that makes the movement official--and surely Jim Galli can claim to be either the father or the godfather of this movement in photography.

Keith

[Kirk Gittings]

I love Tillman's work, and bow to the epic influence of Guru Galli, but I'm not sure that a workshop edifies a new "movement". To me a show by that theme at a major museum or a book maybe..........

[Jay DeFehr]

I'm not an art critic, but I am interested in how those who claim to work in a "New Pictorialist" style define that style, and what they feel it means in contemporary terms. As I understand the original Pictorialist movement, it was closely tied to the painting of its time, in composition, lighting and subject matter, and in the surface qualities of the prints.

I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way. Whatever Jim Galli is doing, I certainly wouldn't call it pictorialism, unless the use of a soft focus lens automatically confers the title. It seems to me Jim's passion for photographing junk cars, decrepit buildings, etc., has more in common with calendar art than pictorialism, and I mean no disrespect in saying so. I think Jim might have as much fun, or more than just about any photographer I know, and I respect that kind of sincerity, even if the work leaves me cold.

Surely, a "movement" must be based on something more substantial than the choice of lens. If the "New Pictorialists" are just reinterpreting the work of the f64 Group using soft focus lenses, then "New Pictorialism" isn't much of a movement, in my estimation. If I were to label someone's work Pictorialist, it would be Gandolfi's,not Galli's. Gandolfi's use of classical lighting reminiscent of the Dutch masters, his use of studio props to adorn his models, and his printing techniques all combine to make a case for his being an artistic descendent of the original Pictorialists.

There is one important difference between Gandolfi's work and that of the original Pictorialists; the original Pictorialists were not engaged in a nostalgic recreation of an earlier style. The original Pictorialists were engaged in a translation of media. They were essentially saying, "There's nothing painting can do that photography can't", and by implication, they added, "Only better". In contrast, the "New Pictorialism" seems like nothing more than sentimental nostalgia, and I see no reason to take it seriously as a new movement.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my non- authoritative opinion. I truly enjoy Gandolfi's work, and in no way mean to impugn or diminish it, and my remarks are intended to encourage discussion, not to offer a definitive analysis.

[Ramiro Elena]

The fun in "new isms" is not found in repeating what others did then, but in taking some of its components and throwing them towards a new direction.

I don't think a "movement" can be defined while it is alive but some time after. There is definitely a trend though. You can see that easily thanks to the Internet. The word Bokeh is present in almost every image in Flickr, micro 4/3 cameras are many times used with adapters for vintage lenses, eBay prices on Petzvals and soft focus lenses are higher every minute...

[Mark Sawyer]

Soft lenses were in, then they were out, now they're back in... whether that constitutes a defineable "movement" in the fine arts, I have my doubts. The work and interests are quite diverse, although the same could be said of the earlier pictorialists. Our common ground seems to be a simple love of the optics; their history and what they can do aesthetically. And driving up the prices on ebay.

The current resurgence in Petzvals is a different thing, though there's some overlap...

This would be a novel new movement, though, in that most new art movements are begun by young artists. Considering the median age of the practitioners of the "New Pictorialism", even terming it "Middle-Aged Pictorialism" seems a bit optimistic! :D

[goamules]

The "movement" I see is about standing out from digital, using antique processes and equipment, and trying to somehow be unique and different. There are a variety of ways and subjects being used. Soft focus, accentuated aberrations, flaws in wetplate, fake film borders, a lot is sentimentalism or a desire to try things that have been almost forgotten. Pictorialism was just one period, and one that happened to strive for a veiled, surreal or impressionistic look. So that aspect is the same, but the underlying goal and driving factors are different. If I were to make a judgment call about value, I'd have to say it's better than any other "movement" I've seen recently. But it's a subjective thing.

[jp]

Yes, the "movement" is most accurately what Garrett says; a movement away from digital's perfection and constraints. Soft focus/pictorialism is just a portion of this. retro, lomo, silver & alt prints, rangefinders, etc.. are all other ways of standing out from digital. The perfection of f64 is easily correlated with digital due to the clean realistic look, so that's a valid use of film that's a little different than digital (larger dynamic range, etc..), but the other aspects of the movement away from digital go further and are thus more appealing to some. I like it all, sort of like people can't make up their mind on which {sport,women,food,beverage} is best.

I would suggest the older median age common to the stereotype of the "new pictorialist" photographers is for two reasons. They know the technology basics from their original photo training or knew photographers first hand that had done pictorialism in a previous generation. Two, they can more easily afford and have time for the lenses, workshops, experimentation compared to a fresh graduate looking for a job in this economy or raising a family. I'm not totally BS'ing on these observations as I attended Tillman's soft focus/pictorialism workshop last year and intend to sign up for this next one. I'm a younger aberration on the age curve though. Many of those participating had many years of experience with soft focus and wanted to build on that. Everyone had different favorite artists of early 20th century, but no participants were trying to copy the old artists, e.g. we weren't into using allegorical/classical props, nude boys, etc... I think the new subject matter is more interesting; galli's trucks and cars, female models, and the timeless subject e.g. landscape and abstract closeups.

There is something cool about using the exact same gear as the masters of 80-100 years ago, even if you have little else in common with those dead photographers. I'm stocking up on old lenses now before the bigger movement gathers more steam.


Also, don't judge Soft focus/pictorialism solely on what a few people are posting to the web. Many of the participants aren't into needlessly scanning things, and the output has qualities that don't always show up on nicely on a <1000 pixel scanned image. The choices of output medium are also old-school and creative, and once in a while it looks nice on the web.

[Jay DeFehr]

If any of Garret's or jp's characterizations of the "movement" are accurate, it's not a movement at all, but a reactionary aesthetic. The idea that using a SF lens somehow distinguishes a film photographer from digital photographers is obviously ridiculous. See Ramiro's post, or check out Bruce Hemingway's website. Neither does such subject matter as old cars, women, landscapes or abstracts make for any kind of distinction. If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad, and I think I'll sell my Verito before it's too late.

[Jim Galli]

Tillman Crane's December newsletter lists an upcoming workshop entitled "Soft Focus and the New Pictorialism." Surely that makes the movement official--and surely Jim Galli can claim to be either the father or the godfather of this movement in photography.

Keith

Thanks Keith. Just to be mentioned in the same paragraph with Tillman is a nice salutation. I've never claimed to be a pictorialist, nor have I studied the 'rules'. Just a fellow having a good time on my own terms at my own speed with no delusions of being remembered in 20 years. I do identify with the purpose of pushing back against the bajillions of perfect sharp digital photos with a few real ones with dirt spots to prove it. I'm pleasing an audience of........one.

[Brian C. Miller]

Considering the median age of the practitioners of the "New Pictorialism", even terming it "Middle-Aged Pictorialism" seems a bit optimistic! :D

Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement? :eek: :D :eek:

I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.


... I attended Tillman's soft focus/pictorialism workshop last year and intend to sign up for this next one.

What sorts of things did you learn in the workshop? What made it better than some books on the subject?

[Paul_C]

...it's not a movement at all, but a reactionary aesthetic.

Sorta off topic, but how would you define a movement as distinct from a reactionary aesthetic? Are the two mutually exclusive? Which would f/64 fall into, if either?

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

Like I said, I'm not an art critic, but to me, a movement implies a cohesive aesthetic standard; something more than, "not like X". While I think the f64 group was reacting to the Pictorialists, I also think the alternative they offered was more than "Not Pictorialist", although I do believe that was the impetus for their movement.

[Paul_C]

Understood. Thanks for elaborating on that, Jay.

Cheers,
Paul

[Ramiro Elena]

But there is a trend of analog photography trying to balance out the world.
We see more and more posts with the title "newbie wanting to get into large format" everyday.
A movement has always been a reaction against the previous, [with a cohesive aesthetic standard.]
Same thing happens in the world of electronic music. Analog synthesizers are coming back strong after a period where everything was done with software. At the end, software and hardware meet happily.

[goamules]

... The idea that using a SF lens somehow distinguishes a film photographer from digital photographers is obviously ridiculous. .... If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad, and I think I'll sell my Verito before it's too late.

So you would only keep your Soft Focus lens if there was a bona fid, acclaimed, Movement? Well, you are free to sell, and hunt for what you need to join whatever "real" movement. I'm not sure most of us care about the difference between a fad and a Movement, but you added the modifier "insipid" so we know your opinion.

[jp]

Are you sure it isn't the, "Let's Hide Behind Soft Focus Because We Can't See The Glass Anymore" movement? :eek: :D :eek:

I'd like to see one of the lens makers reintroduce a modern Petzval lens. Considering what they are going for, it seems reasonable.



What sorts of things did you learn in the workshop? What made it better than some books on the subject?

It would be ridiculously simple for a lens company to build an old design soft focus lens or series of them. Bonus points if it works with a large and common shutter like a copal3. Without a shutter though it could still be used with dslrs, speed graphics, packards, etc...

I got out of the workshop:
* hands on access or experience with a larger variety of soft focus lenses than I had time or film to test.
* being a SF newbie, I got to meet some cool people who some have had decades of SF experience; they are not reactionaries as much as lifelong traditional oriented enthusiasts, friendlier than curmudgeon. Some of them can't be called reactionary because they never did digital much to turn away from it.
* Russ Young, who did his doctoral thesis on soft focus lenses provided some history and physics background.
* spent a good part of the day at the Olson house testing SF lenses on models (clothed) in a variety of lighting situations. Multiple other outdoor sites for testing SF lenses.
* cyanotype printing with Russ and Tillman. Russ was the author of the cyanotype chapter of a popular alt process book, and Tillman has a nice darkroom setup for professional alt printing as he does lots of pt/pd. Their advice far transcended the basics.

The next workshop is at Russ's not Tillmans, so it's likely to be slightly different.

[goamules]

Man, that sounds like quite an experience and a great workshop. I refer to Dr. Young's thesis all the time.

[jnantz]

i didn't realize that using an old lens was the hallmark or the pictorialist movement .
i always thought pictorialism was more than just using a soft focus lens,
it seemed more like photography painting and the arts/crafts movement all rolled into one.
there was an anti-machine-age-aesthetic, and photographs of soul
( romantic portraits, landscapes, and objects/still lives ) but it was the other stuff too.

lensbaby makes a imagon for small format users ... so it isn't
hard for someone with a small camera , or a computer based camera to make
romantic pictorialist photographs. i guess if they output a digital negative
and make a hybrid image ( bromoil, pt/pd, silver gel, carbon &C ) from it
it would be just as pictorial as anything else.

it isn't a hard to make your own soft focus lenses
it just takes a call to the surplus shed and a barrel, slow film or paper
and a lens cap.

YMMV

[Scott Davis]

The hesitation I would have with a modern petzval in a Copal 3 shutter would be just that- the Copal 3 shutter, and more precisely the aperture. A big part of the aesthetic of soft-focus and other vintage optics is the multi-bladed aperture iris yielding a near-circular aperture. A pentagram/hexagonal aperture is going to give you harsh, unpleasant bokeh and funky little specular highlights. And a modern petzval limited by the constraint of fitting a Copal 3 would have severe limits on its' application - you wouldn't be able to shoot it on anything much bigger than a 5x7.

[Jay DeFehr]

Garett,

I didn't mean to offend you, or anyone else with my amateur opinions about trends/fads vs movements. Insipid is just the modifier I intended, but in conjunction with another one you seem to have missed...."if", as in; If this is really about a reaction to digital photography, it's just an insipid fad. I would also add quixotic and misconceived as further modifiers, because nothing mentioned by anyone claiming that Pictorialism is a way to distinguish film photographers from digital photographers does so. I would venture to predict that if something like a New Pictorialist movement does develop, it will be led by young people using digital cameras; perhaps the cine lenses on 4/3 cameras Ramiro mentioned. This is the only context in which such a movement makes any sense at all, and my impression is that digital photography is much better suited to a pictorialist-type movement than film photography is. It would be more than ironic if film photographers, in an attempt to define themselves as photographers, rejected everything the f64 group stood for. I other words, this question was settled, as far as the art world is concerned; how does the advent of digital photography change the original debate about Pictorialsim vs straight photography?

All I meant by mentioning I should sell my Verito before it's too late, is that there might never be a better time, because I believe this whole SF aesthetic is a fad and like all fads, will soon pass away. When it does, I could buy my beloved Verito back, if I wanted to, but for the time being, I don't want to be associated with any "New Pictorialist Movement".

I've been using SF lenses, and fast lenses shot wide open, for many years, but never meant my photos to be any kind of statement about film photography vs digital photography, or Pictorialism vs straight photography. I make my photos the way I do because I like the qualities of the images, and I feel no need to compare them to those made by anyone else, whatever equipment or processes they might use. Photography for me is neither competitive, nor commercial, and I have no stake in either film or digital photography, but it seems no photographer can completely avoid the film vs digital debate.

In my opinion, "New Pictorialism", as practiced by film photographers, is the consequence of film photography being abandoned by forward looking artists, and left to hobbyists with sentimental ties to their equipment, materials and processes. If the idea is to distinguish film photographers from digital photographers (a misguided notion, in my opinion), Pictorialism is 180 degrees from a fruitful path to doing so. If the question is; what can film photography do that digital can't?, or what does film photography do better than digital?, the tenets of Pictorialism lie at the opposite end of the spectrum of possible answers to those questions. Pictorialism is a pretty good answer to the opposite question; what can digital photography do better than film photography? It seems to me the methods of this "movement" are inherently at odds with its stated goals. If you want to find a place where film photography is superior to digital photography, Pictorialism is the wrong neighborhood in which to look, and I think anyone who honestly looks at the problem will find it's not really a problem at all, and should accept that there is nothing film photography can do that digital can't also do, from an artistic standpoint. We have one group here who make chemical prints from digital negatives, and another who make digital prints from film negatives,and both groups retain a claim to being "traditional", but it requires no great leap of imagination to see that similar work to either group could be produced, perhaps even better, by digital capture for an all-digital workflow in the case of the digital printers, or a hybrid workflow in the case of the digital negative contact printers. The idea that the use of a SF lens makes any of these workers non-digital is patently ridiculous.

I guess my point boils down to; be careful what you wish for. If you want to suggest that the ideals of Pictorialism best represent photography as an art form, don't be surprised when digital photographers beat you at your own game.

[Armin Seeholzer]

It is a movement in my opinion, there was also a SF movement in the ADs with Imagons in the late 70s and early 80s in EU!
If it will create a new art form I don't think so, but it could recreate an old one and give a more brood acceptance to the old ones to.

Cheers Armin

[Brian C. Miller]

The hesitation I would have with a modern petzval in a Copal 3 shutter would be just that- the Copal 3 shutter, and more precisely the aperture.

Well, the lens could have an aperture insert mounted on the front. Since the Petzval is used as a soft-focus lens, I don't see that mount as something that would really detract from the image. The Copal 3 shutter has a maximum inner diameter of appx 40mm, and seven blades for the iris. It isn't as "chunky" as the smaller five-bladed Copals.

[John Kasaian]

High fiber is one way of starting a movement. :D

[eddie]

I'm pleasing an audience of........one.

Two!



It would be ridiculously simple for a lens company to build an old design soft focus lens or series of them. Bonus points if it works with a large and common shutter like a copal3.

cooke did just that.

it is the PS945....and it is in a copal 3. get them new while they last. that "fad" has run out and i hear they are not going to make more new ones once these sell out......oh! and it is coated!

[csant]

Two!

Three ;)


cooke did just that.

it is the PS945....

Well, they are nice… or should I say "they really seem to be nice"? I'd love to give it a try - but I doubt I'll ever buy one, given that I am perfectly happy with my Veritos and Petzvals… Those aren't coated, though ("who cares?").

[jp]

Two!




cooke did just that.

it is the PS945....and it is in a copal 3. get them new while they last. that "fad" has run out and i hear they are not going to make more new ones once these sell out......oh! and it is coated!

I suspect they are still available because they are >$3k. Knock a zero off and sell it "in barrel" and it will sell out. A beat up "donor lens" for a copal 3 could be had for $200-300 and a new copal3 for $600, so it's not the shutter that's the reason for the cost. I'm thinking <$1000, not "zeiss isn't exclusive enough" pricing.

[Jim Galli]

I suspect they are still available because they are >$3k. Knock a zero off and sell it "in barrel" and it will sell out. A beat up "donor lens" for a copal 3 could be had for $200-300 and a new copal3 for $600, so it's not the shutter that's the reason for the cost. I'm thinking <$1000, not "zeiss isn't exclusive enough" pricing.

Great idea jp. You should do it and make yourself some $$$.

[Richard K.]

I love Tillman's work, and bow to the epic influence of Guru Galli, but I'm not sure that a workshop edifies a new "movement".


To me a show by that theme at a major museum or a book maybe..........

Does thatwonderful book and travelling exhibit "Truth Beauty" qualify? :)

[Emil Schildt]

I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way. Whatever Jim Galli is doing, I certainly wouldn't call it pictorialism, unless the use of a soft focus lens automatically confers the title. It seems to me Jim's passion for photographing junk cars, decrepit buildings, etc., has more in common with calendar art than pictorialism, and I mean no disrespect in saying so. I think Jim might have as much fun, or more than just about any photographer I know, and I respect that kind of sincerity, even if the work leaves me cold.

Surely, a "movement" must be based on something more substantial than the choice of lens. If the "New Pictorialists" are just reinterpreting the work of the f64 Group using soft focus lenses, then "New Pictorialism" isn't much of a movement, in my estimation. If I were to label someone's work Pictorialist, it would be Gandolfi's,not Galli's. Gandolfi's use of classical lighting reminiscent of the Dutch masters, his use of studio props to adorn his models, and his printing techniques all combine to make a case for his being an artistic descendent of the original Pictorialists.

There is one important difference between Gandolfi's work and that of the original Pictorialists; the original Pictorialists were not engaged in a nostalgic recreation of an earlier style. The original Pictorialists were engaged in a translation of media. They were essentially saying, "There's nothing painting can do that photography can't", and by implication, they added, "Only better". In contrast, the "New Pictorialism" seems like nothing more than sentimental nostalgia, and I see no reason to take it seriously as a new movement.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my non- authoritative opinion. I truly enjoy Gandolfi's work, and in no way mean to impugn or diminish it, and my remarks are intended to encourage discussion, not to offer a definitive analysis.

not offended, but just to try to clarify:

I might look like a pictorialist - I proberly am... BUT what I think is more important (for me) is, that I don't even consider my self a photographer...

I make images - I have done so for 30 years, and I am more and more concerned about which technique - that might be in the taking (SF lenses - lighting or otherwise) or in the printing process.

I struggle.
And I make more mistakes than perfect images. But it is a process.

You say: "..I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way."

you're actually wrong here. I actually have done that. It of course depends on what kind of painting you're referring to...

Bromoil prints give me that option.

I see my self as an image maker, that by chance has a camera or two to start the process with.

The words "sentimental nostalgia" is exactely the kind of words I get from digital photographers.
It is not so. At least for me.

[jb7]

New Pictorialists or f64, what relevance to today?

Is this our equivalent of a garden shed; would we be just as happy wood-turning?

The world is a pretty unhappy place, in general -
still lots of famine, disease, poverty, anti-social behavior -
you name it, it's probably going to be more relevant than a big sunset, a pretty young person, a wooly waterfall -
but still we choose to represent beauty.
Sharp or blurry, it's a construct to distance ourselves from the world, rather than engage with it.

I think...

Does this, more than anything else, make large format photography an irrelevance?

Jay, a valuable dissertation, it helped me put it all in perspective, thank you-


j

[Jay DeFehr]

Gandolfi,

Thank you for viewing my remarks in the spirit they were intended, and for your thoughtful reply.


You say: "..I don't see any "New Pictorialists" emulating the painting of today, in any way."

you're actually wrong here. I actually have done that. It of course depends on what kind of painting you're referring to...

I apologize for not being more clear. I meant to say that the original Pictorialists emulated the painting of their time, that is to say, contemporary painting. I don't see any photographers emulating contemporary painting, like that of Gerhard Richter, or Jasper Johns, for instance. The best way to emulate Richter's painting might be to use very low resolution digital capture, with big, chunky pixels, but I don't see anyone doing that.

The phrase sentimental nostalgia might seem derogatory, depending on one's intentions and perspective, but I think it's accurate here, and also I suspect when coming from digital photographers commenting on the rationales of most film photographers. I don't mean to imply the use of digital equipment automatically modernizes the work of any photographer, or that digital photographers are immune to sentimentality or nostalgia, but the adoration for things antique is quite prevalent among film photographers in general, and large format film photographers in particular.

None of the above diminishes my appreciation of your fine work.

Joe,

Thank you.

[Jim Noel]

Pictorialism is more than the use of a soft focus approach. It had to to do with subject matter in many cases. Many of the pictorialist images were a strong attempt to tell a story like had been done for centuries in painting. There were also those who depicted scenes from mythology, etc. Then, of course, one has to add in the printing materials and techniques, manipulation on the negative, etc.

[Thebes]

Some thoughts...

If a New Pictorialism is to imitate the art of today, it would be in color- probably vibrant color, but it would make important use of color. Yet others in this thread have suggested that it is instead a means of setting one's work apart from digital. With a few notable exceptions most color photo work is being done with digital giclee prints- the print choice of most dslr users. So that becomes self contradictory unless alternative process color prints or C prints are the end result, and I do not see a movement in this direction.

I do see a movement, though, as a reaction to the digital trends. Lets remember that the Photo Secession was largely a reaction to the vernacularization of photography with Kodak's roll film and cameras available to all interested parties for a few dollars. Kodak put the ability to take a photo into the hands of virtually everyone, skill aside. The digital trend has increased accessibility to self sufficient controls, and I now routinely hear "everyone is a photographer these days"- this is a similar societal change to what occurred just before pictorialism. It makes some sense that a movement will follow as a reaction among some of those who use their cameras to make photographic art (vs taking vernacular pictures).

As for a movement having lesser validity because its a reaction?!?! It seems to me that most movements were a reaction to something. Not just with photography, eg the f64 movement, the Photo Secession, etc, but even with Pre-Raphaelism and many other fine art movements since the Renaissance. It seems to me as if even fashion, music and culture are largely reactionary.

Depictions of mythological scenes are common to many art movements, eg Pre-Raphaelism which I mentioned above. Secessionist Anne Brigman reference mythology but so do some modern photographers and in the UK several photographers copied elements of the Pre-Raphaelites before Steiglitz picked up a camera. So I can't see mythological references as being inherently pictorialist any more than a soft focus lens is.


What makes a movement? Certainly not a single workshop. If there is really a New Pictorialism where's the journal or whatever for it? A large pictorialist forum even might show me that is what this emerging new movement is... I don't see it, nor important neo-pictorialist exhibitions or other signs of the pictorialist intellectual cross-fertalization. I would say at this point any movement is non-specific and not yet fully formed, certainly its too early to say there is a New Pictorialist movement.

[letchhausen]

I apologize for not being more clear. I meant to say that the original Pictorialists emulated the painting of their time, that is to say, contemporary painting. I don't see any photographers emulating contemporary painting, like that of Gerhard Richter, or Jasper Johns, for instance. The best way to emulate Richter's painting might be to use very low resolution digital capture, with big, chunky pixels, but I don't see anyone doing that.



And it's interesting that you chose Gerhard Richter since he's a painter who's work is heavily based on photography. So photography to painting to photography would be a nice elliptical trajectory there. I guess if Thomas Ruff had decided to take paintings and reproduce them in big chunky pixels the way that he did with found photographs from the web in his JPEG's book, that would be along the lines you mention.....

[mdm]

Magazine covers?
http://stocklandmartelblog.com/2010/12/20/industry-news-agency-of-the-year-mag-covers-of-the-year-and-more/