Creative, twisted, but creative. Novelty is what gives rise to a fad, the filed negative holder border, ther slective focused photograph, etc. None here would have thought of doing what he does, and do it as well. I may not like what he does and how he does it, but you gotta give the guy his due, he "makes" a photograph and even without all the bullshit explanations his work stands on its own.....Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
have you seen this body of work?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...7700720&sr=8-1
i saw witkin give a talk a couple of years ago. the guy is pretty scary! but for the same reasons i think he's genuine. he believes so strongly in what he's doing it's like he's possessed. he has no trouble getting people to pose for him (or lend him things, or let him in places) because he's so absolutely convinced that what he's doing is vital.
whatver anyone thinks of his work, that kind of energy and conviction is pretty inspiring, and leaves no doubt in my mind that he's a real creative force.
Kirk, my landlady went to school with you and witkin ... she might have overlapped with you.
i have a gigantic wooden table in my loft right now that belongs to her; i have dinner parties sitting around it, and she tells me that it was used for nude models to pose on at UNM.
i'm wondering if witkin ever used it ... and i'm hoping all the models were living.
I compare it to music - competency is playing in tune and on time - knowing your scales and chords. Creativity is using this base to make something musical.
As for Adams, I didn't fully appreciate him until I saw a show at the University of Florida a few years ago. It was a private collection that had never been on public display before, and the collector had mostly vintage prints. In it are some of Adams famous negatives, but instead of being printed 16x20 and on Grade 4 paper, many of these were printed 8x10 or smaller on a normal contrast grade. The difference in artistic interpretation from what we are used to seeing was striking. I believe Adams began with a much more subtle and unusual artistic vision - but later in his career he discovered the Wagnerian way of printing that we have become used to seeing.
juan
The historical perspective is so often overlooked. When Adams and crew were doing what they did it was groundbreaking. Now it seems cliched to some who may not realize that the cliche is in the mind of the beholder and placed there by a lack of appreciation of or an ignorance of history.
A century ago people might have run out of their homes to see an automobile drive by. Nowdays we've seen just about every manifestation of car imaginable to the point that they are a huge bother to many. Cars are ubiquitous, who'd want to see another car?
And compare the utter crudeness of a 1907 automobile to a 2007 model. What were they thinking? Where was the air conditioner? And where is the electric starter? To a naive person it could seem that the early car makers weren't very sharp. Certainly not as competent as today's. No where near as capable or smart or innovative..........
Its important to remember that we build on the shoulders of those who came before us. And while we may have cars with built in GPS and smart locks that read our fingerprints the original incarnations of the car were a hell of a leap and the innovators/designers/makers/creators of those first vehicles deserve being remembered and perhaps memorialized for their contributions. And so it goes for photography.
Nope, and if the pic atherton posted is another take of the same shot then it just goes to show that even the best don't always hit a home run.... This is not the work he is best known for, and it is obvious why... of course, to a curator or a high brow photographer I am sure it is wornderful.......
Paul, I've never been a big fan of Friedlander, I think his early work had merit but I just don't get the new stuff, it seems pointless. I think if you took his name off the work and sent it to museums and galleries it never would have been noticed and would have been blown off.
JE as for Ansel's prints getting contrastier, well as we age our eyes lose contrast and over time we tend to print with greater and greater contrast. If you look at prints of the smae AA image, but done many years apart you'll see AA got contrastier.
Henry, I agree with you. Today's innovator is tomorrow's cliche.
All you say also is true for Carleton Watkins and a few others of his his generation who captured the same and in some instances even more breathtaking images. Did it on 11x14 glass plates and did it much of it 35-40 years before Adams was born Watkins first Yosemite photographs date to 1861).
Without taking away from the f64 group, it is more appropriate to note that they rediscovered what those that came several generations before them had discovered. Watkins and a few others, working only a few decades after the dawn of the discovery of photography made some images that are truely amazing and awe inspiring. Watkins, and his work that was shown to Congress by John Muir, was an important part of the creation of the National Park system.
Jorge, look again at what Atherton posted. Do you see Friedlander looking you right in the eyes?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks