Pictorialism - Soft focus and alternate processes

[MDR]

Those are interesting examples, but architecture is a somewhat different story. The revivalists selected retro features then synthesized them with modern construction materials and uses (e.g. railroad stations). Some of the results are remarkably beautiful, but the real progress was made by architects who used it as a jumping off point for a new creativity. Louis Sulivan's riff on renaissance skyscrapers, Frank Furness' creative use of Romanesque masses and Gaudi's wild take on Gothic are the most striking.

As for what you call "modern pictorialism", please bring out some examples.......

I consider Joyce Tenneson to be one or at least to be heavily influenced by them, the same applies to Susan Burnstine, I agree with you pure imitation without thought is worthless as art (can still make nice decoration though), but to use a certain aesthetics and thoughts as jumping points is perfectly valid. Renaissance artists used antique statues as jumping point and created something different, I expect the same from people who use the pictoralists as starting point, they might start out with something simple like using soft focus lens and will find their own voice in the future at least some of them.

[mdarnton]

Artistic styles, like fashion find there way back to the main stream. Pictoralism is alive and well and incorporating itself into our modern time. Check out the amazingly beautiful game LIMBO and the wonderful photographs of Rocky Schenck.

Actually, I went and checked Rocky Schenck's work. In his commercial work, if his images look familiar, it's probably because some of them are--there's one, for instance, of two people sitting with their backs to the camera in bathing suits that could be out-takes from this Horst P. Horst shoot: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...117e99dc8b.jpg
I'm not sure I think of this as a positive thing regarding the current discussion.

[jp]

I like Rocky's landscapes. That looks pictorialism. The commercial stuff is high quality and admirable but certainly derivative. To make a landscape like he has, he to be able to see and translate scenes into pictorialism.

Modern pictorialism can go two ways. first and most common is the a step below derivative which is sappy kitsch lacking, to quote MDR "missing the philosophical approach the original pictoralist had".
Less common is people who study the original approach and then take pictorialism in new directions. Pictorialism was so narrow in subject it left out many contemporary themes and became less relevant. They could do mythology like Pan in the woods well but could do not hard hitting relevant subjects like social issues of the day or co-opt modernism. F Holland Day personally helped immigrants and his family provided some philanthropy in those areas but such people were generally not subjects of pictorialism. Clarence White's NY models were also philanthropers of immigrant issues which never made it into photos either (see Rose Pastor Stokes). These masters simply did not expand the subject matter for pictorialism.

It's up to those of us with interest, an understanding of the philosophy of old pictorialism and a hindsight of modernism, to make a new pictorialism.

[Randy]

Well, I just google'd Joyce Tenneson, Susan Burnstine, and Rocky Schenck and I am captivated. I am not sure why, but when I see images like theirs, which I don't see very often, my first thought is almost always - please don't be digital. I desperately want their images to be the product of some traditional process...but that's another topic.

I would like to understand why I am so captivated by such images. When I first became interested in photography, the work of Ansel Adams was it for me - large, sharp B&W prints was what I wanted to produce. And I still like those, but the feeling I get when seeing the images from these photographers is quite different.

[SergeiR]

Well, I just google'd Joyce Tenneson, Susan Burnstine, and Rocky Schenck and I am captivated. I am not sure why, but when I see images like theirs, which I don't see very often, my first thought is almost always - please don't be digital. I desperately want their images to be the product of some traditional process...but that's another topic.

I would like to understand why I am so captivated by such images. When I first became interested in photography, the work of Ansel Adams was it for me - large, sharp B&W prints was what I wanted to produce. And I still like those, but the feeling I get when seeing the images from these photographers is quite different.

we getting older, eyes weaker.. This is how normal humans see world around , in dreamy state.

[Paul Metcalf]

My only "official" training into the world of Pictorialism (ok, I actually have no official training in anything photography LOL) is from Arthur Hammond's 1946 text on Pictorial Composition in Photography. No mention of softness or the like at all that I recall but clearly a prominent focus (no pun) on line, mass and tone in any pictorial composition, "so that the lines are decorative and pleasing and so that the shapes of the masses bounded by these lines are interesting in form and tone... the picture maker must do something besides setting up his camera and letting it photograph just what happens to be before it." I guess this is the modern form of pictorialism because it doesn't necessarily include the use of any source of image diffusion (soft focus or alternate processes).

[LeeSimmons]

This post has been an education experience.

I would like to understand why I am so captivated by such images. When I first became interested in photography, the work of Ansel Adams was it for me - large, sharp B&W prints was what I wanted to produce. And I still like those, but the feeling I get when seeing the images from these photographers is quite different.

Randy Agreed. That is what drove the initial post. I also for whatever reason also feel the please don't be digital feeling as well. I guess I personally value the digital craftsmanship less than the analogue craftsmanship.

No mention of softness or the like at all that I recall but clearly a prominent focus (no pun) on line, mass and tone in any pictorial composition, "so that the lines are decorative and pleasing and so that the shapes of the masses bounded by these lines are interesting in form and tone

With this definition the minimalist work of Michael Kenna would be modern pictorialist. I also checked out Rocky Schenck's landscapes and very much enjoyed them.

I'm thinking "inspired by the pictorialist movement" as a jumping off point.

[Tin Can]

Rolling Stone quote, David Bowie's music, "...Blackstar is a ricochet of textural eccentricity and pictorial-shrapnel writing."

Caught my eye.