Pictoralism and Tody's Alternative Photography

[tgtaylor]

What do you see to be the driving force(s) in commonality between the 19th Century Pictoralism movement and the 21st Century revival of the historical photographic processes now denoted as "Alternative Photography"? Or is there any commonality beyond the individual processes ?

Thomas

[Bill Burk]

I would have predicted that we would see a lot of Pictorial use of Alternative Processes, but am surprised to see that the processes are being used to make all kinds of photographs.

It's as if the photographer picks up on a process out of historical interest or desire to follow the footsteps of those who have gone before... But not when it comes to subject matter or style. Here each photographer follows his or her own path and makes their own work.

[jcoldslabs]

19th century Pictorialism was, in part, a way for photography to gain artistic acceptance by emulating what people expected from the predominant visual medium at the time: painting. Straight photography was not seen as art but rather "stealing from nature," so to speak. (Fox Talbot's early book of calotypes from 1844 was called, "The Pencil of Nature," a telling title that suggests the photographer is a mere transcriber of the natural world.)

No longer needing to establish its legitimacy, 21st century neo-Pictorialism (if it can be called that) seems to be motivated by a desire to differentiate itself from the fetishized perfectionism that has dominated photography for the past seventy years, off and on. It also has to do with the rediscovery of antique photographic processes; although, as Bill points out, not necessarily used in the same way the 19th century practitioners did.

If there is commonality between the 19th and 21st century Pictorialist ideals, other than method, I'm not sure what it is.

/$.02

Jonathan

[Bernice Loui]

Pictorialism appears to be an extension of French Impressionism which was an established and accepted visual art form from that time.

What is curious today, the value of soft focus lenses have increased at an amazing rate. It would be interesting to know how many of these specialty optics are creating images -vs- sitting in a collection.

Alternative optics can be another version of the magic image creating widget.


Bernice

[goamules]

Pictorialism seemed to concentrate mostly on composition. Trying to emulate the classical poses and landscapes at times. The lenses and process were not as much the focus of the movement as they are in alternative processes today.

However, if you think about it, both were rebelling against the clinically exact photographs, ("captures" today) that were the norm, and trying to make their photography more artistic.

[jp]

Interest in photo history is where alt process and pictorialism meet for most people. A few actually combine them. Tillman Crane does only alt process with his pictorialism. (but does other types of shooting as well). Most of my pictorialism stuff ends up in the scanner or sometimes a silver print, but sometimes a toned cyanotype as well. If I had no interest in history and hands-on craft, I'd do the output with photoshop.



What is curious today, the value of soft focus lenses have increased at an amazing rate. It would be interesting to know how many of these specialty optics are creating images -vs- sitting in a collection.
Bernice

I've got a few, but can only use one at a time. I've got three that I use and others sitting around waiting for me to work them hard. Strangely, I mostly use the contemporary plastic and glass reinhold wollaston meniscus. I think a spencer port-land or struss pictorial would do a slightly better job (having actually used them in comparisons at a workshop), but would not do a $2000 better job.

I bet lack of shutter options are a major impediment to more widespread use of old lenses. I use a speed graphic for it's FP shutter, but most people generally prefer other cameras for sometimes valid reasons. Imagons and Kodak 305's are popular because they are usually shuttered.

The other impediment to use is a steep learning curve. Half a stop of aperture makes a 100% different image. I really think you need a hundred sheets of film and at least ten outings to predict in your mind how a lens is going to behave. Few have the patience or free time to do as much of this as they'd like. I've only done this extent for one lens so far.

I bet in small format, a soft focus is pretty hot with the relative popularity of lensbabies.

[Jim Noel]

I began photographing w/large format cameras as Pictorialism was phasing out in favor of more realism or reportage during the 30's. An important point which is rarely discussed is that Pictorialist usually either illustrated a myth or legend, or attempted to tell a story in a single image. Processes other than silver gelatin were not an important part of the movement, although many were used. A large percentage of images were toned in an attempt to more clearly tell the story. It was not uncommon to se images which were toned red, blue and even green. My memory tells me that selenium was made popular with Ansel Adams publication of his first series of books.

What I am trying to say is that using soft focus lenses and making platinum, VDB or cyanotype prints does not make it Pictorialism.

[uphereinmytree]

I've been reading 'an american lens' about Stieglitz succession and am interested to know where old lenses fit into today's art market. I have a few soft focus lenses and they are used regularly. Before discovering old lenses, I actually took new lenses apart to introduce distortion. here is an example of a 75mm nikon lens without it's rear lens set. It's very holga. In classes and a photo group, soft focus isn't popular, but holga and petzval lens images are art regardless of subject matter.

[Ironage]

For me it is not so much visual effect as in pictoralism, but about the hands on craft and the creation of an object, vise an image.

With alternative processes there is a loss of precision which also adds a roughness which I am looking for to add more natural realism as opposed to idealism into the object.

[tgtaylor]

Pictorialism seemed to concentrate mostly on composition. Trying to emulate the classical poses and landscapes at times. The lenses and process were not as much the focus of the movement as they are in alternative processes today.

However, if you think about it, both were rebelling against the clinically exact photographs, ("captures" today) that were the norm, and trying to make their photography more artistic.

While the process may not have been a "focus" of the Pictoralists, it certainly was a necessary ingredient in rendering a "painterly" image with the camera which they achieved admirably. And while they were rebelling against "clinically exact" photography, they were also rebelling against the "snap shooters" of the time that were armed with the new Kodak cameras. They were, at once, raising photography to the recognized status of an art, as defined in those days, and differenting their images from those of the masses with the new Kodaks. I suspect the latter resonates with photographers working in the alternative prosesses today who look to differentiate their work from both the "straight" photographer and the digital masses.

Thomas

[Michael W]

19th century Pictorialism was, in part, a way for photography to gain artistic acceptance by emulating what people expected from the predominant visual medium at the time: painting. Straight photography was not seen as art but rather "stealing from nature," so to speak. (Fox Talbot's early book of calotypes from 1844 was called, "The Pencil of Nature," a telling title that suggests the photographer is a mere transcriber of the natural world.)

No longer needing to establish its legitimacy, 21st century neo-Pictorialism (if it can be called that) seems to be motivated by a desire to differentiate itself from the fetishized perfectionism that has dominated photography for the past seventy years, off and on. It also has to do with the rediscovery of antique photographic processes; although, as Bill points out, not necessarily used in the same way the 19th century practitioners did.

If there is commonality between the 19th and 21st century Pictorialist ideals, other than method, I'm not sure what it is.

/$.02

Jonathan
I think the contemporary interest in alternative processes is partly (not wholly!) a reaction to digital processing. For many people these days photography is something that is done on a computer, in between checking emails and watching Youtube. It is convenient, but there is something detached and un-involved about it. I think the people getting into alternative processes like the engaged and hands-on aspects, the unpredictability of the hand made, and even the slowness of the processes.

[jnantz]

in 1800s or 1900s there needed to be a distinction between photography and painting
these days it is a distinction between chemical photography ( and "snoapshots" ) and electronic photography ( and "snapshots" ) ..

[sanking]

I think the contemporary interest in alternative processes is partly (not wholly!) a reaction to digital processing. For many people these days photography is something that is done on a computer, in between checking emails and watching Youtube. It is convenient, but there is something detached and un-involved about it. I think the people getting into alternative processes like the engaged and hands-on aspects, the unpredictability of the hand made, and even the slowness of the processes.


I agree that part of the attraction of alternative print making is an attraction for the hand made.

And while some of the contemporary interest in alternative print making seems definitely to be a reaction to digital processing it should be mentioned that the revival of alternative processes really began in the 1970s as a reaction against silver gelatin printing. In fact, in the early days of digital it was embraced by many in the alternative photography community as an "alternative" process.

One commonality between Pictorialism and much of contemporary alternative photography is an appreciation for the print itself as object, i.e. for its surface, texture, tone and color.

Sandy

PS
Sh*t! While writing this I forgot about a 12X18" carbon transfer print that was being developed in warm water. It would have been a very nice green tone print on sized Canson art paper of marsh grasses on Ossabaw Island, but I left it too long in the warm water and the result is a print that is too light by about 1/2 stop, now destined for the garbage can. If I could kick myself in the ass I would do so right now!

[Mark Barendt]

Sorry to here that Sandy.

Been there, done that, at least metaphorically, not with a carbon print yet though.

[Tim Meisburger]

I enjoyed Jim's comment about pictoralism illustrating a myth or legend, or attempting to tell a story in a single image. That seems to make sense to me. Soft focus seems like it was used primarily to convey a sense of timelessness, or provide a misty view into the past (what you might see looking into a crystal ball). I think a form of pictoralism prevalent today can be seen in the advertising world, in motion and still photography. Instead of a focus on classical myths and legends, which were a universal part of ordinary vocabulary in the 19th century, modern pictoralists tend to focus on common modern myths, or stereotypical aspects of human nature. In both cases for the metaphors and visual allusions to be understood by the greatest number of people the picture had to illustrate something well-know. Soft focus is still used in such work to convey dreams, but often modern pictoralism is perfectly sharp.

By the way, I think some of Christopher Broadbent's work is pictoralist.

Okay, enough rambling about something I know nothing about (its too early...)

[j.e.simmons]

I got into alt process printing because every time I would settle on a printing paper, the manufacturer would quit making it. I have file drawers filled with negatives tuned to Kodabromide, Azo, Zone VI Brilliant, Portriga, Brovira, Ilfobrome, Kentona, and various Forte papers.
juan

[Jac@stafford.net]

An oversimplification - pictoralism was about making images rather than taking them.

Today the alternative materials photographers I know do it for the sake of hand-making something, and like J.E. Simmons, to have an absolute standard, and perhaps intentional limits which are very important to some, or me in particular (although I do not do alternate material work.)

An aside: Long ago I read about a town fair during the tin-type age. There would always be some tin-type photographers offering portraits, and after a fair one would see plates discarded by customers scattered all over the site. That might speak to the popular attitude regarding taking pictures rather than making them.