Define your understanding of "Pictorial Photography"

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, do I sense that you're blaspheming Julia Margaret Cameron? I'll pretend I didn't read any of that ...

Oh, I love Julia! But I don't see her as conciously pioneering a pictorialist style so much as working without much regard for some of the stricter rules of photography, and coming up with an aesthetic that presaged and perhaps influenced the later self-declared, self-concious pictorialists who were as much concerned with "style" and status in the art-world as with the work itself.

[Pat Hilander]

Here are some on-line books containing many fine examples. For me to define what is pictorial would require considerable study on my part. I am currently of the opinion that the word "picturesque" may define traits I would expect to find in a photograph that is pictorial.

Pictorial Photography in America 1921
Pictorial Photography in America 1922

Opinions etc;
In Nature's Image: Chapters on Pictorial Photography By Washington Irving Lincoln Adams

Practical Pictorial Photography By Alfred Horsley Hinton

The Complete Photographer By Roger Child Bayley - Chapter XXIV

Enjoy.

Great links! Thanks for posting those.

[Jim Galli]

[QUOTE=DannL;351637] Some of these articles from that period tend to leave me bewildered as to what was actually considered pictorial photography.
QUOTE]

Really fun to read through some of these. I think the word pictorial is really akin to the word baptist in that it is like herding cats to ever get a definition while meanwhile the proponents in the group are fighting amongst themselves about what it is

White slugging it out with Steiglitz while meanwhile Struss goes off to Leavenworth prison......

[paulr]

[QUOTE=Jim Galli;351646]

I think the word pictorial is really akin to the word baptist in that it is like herding cats to ever get a definition while meanwhile the proponents in the group are fighting amongst themselves about what it is

I think those cats are easier to herd than the Modernist ones. Let's not even get started on Postmodern cats.

[Mark Sawyer]

Pictorialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictorialism was a photographic movement in vogue from around 1885 following the widespread introduction of the dry-plate process. It reached its height in the early years of the 20th century, and declined rapidly after 1914 after the widespread emergence of Modernism.

Sounds like this was written by a bonafide photo-historian! In modern photo-history books, Pictorialism "declined rapidly after 1914 after the widespread emergence of Modernism." In the real world, it was much more popular in the 1920's and 1930's, even though many of its early advocates had moved on to the next big style.

Similarly, even though historians have Impressionism pretty much over with by the 1880's, it was actually much more popular decades later.

Art history recognizes only the advent of a movement. If and when a style becomes popular, it's already over, regardless of how many people might be doing it.

[Darryl Baird]

Struss was truly abandoned by his NYC friends for his pro-German heritage and statements, his stint in the army (Leavenworth) was another dark chapter... but he surfaced and succeeded despite these trials... his lens designs were very popular in Hollywood (and beyond). My favorite is the multi-lens optics he developed for "The Fly."

[QUOTE=Jim Galli;351646]

White slugging it out with Steiglitz while meanwhile Struss goes off to Leavenworth prison......

[paulr]

Art history recognizes only the advent of a movement. If and when a style becomes popular, it's already over, regardless of how many people might be doing it.

It might be more fair to say that historians are interested in a style or movement for as long as it remains influential.

There are people today painting like renaissance painters, romantics, and impressionists, but they're doing little besides derrivative work within a tradition. They're not discovering, inventing, or evolving anything; they're not influencing any future generations. This kind of hanging on isn't historically relevent.

[Bruce Watson]

... but they're doing little besides derivative work within a tradition. They're not discovering, inventing, or evolving anything; they're not influencing any future generations. This kind of hanging on isn't historically relevant.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that they are using a set of proven tools to make their art.

I don't understand why the critics so often equate new art with new tools. There's nothing wrong with writing music in Sonata Form, or painting in an impressionistic style for example. The fact that the author uses an old known method doesn't invalidate the work. And it doesn't necessarily make it derivative. It's just not cutting edge, and it might not be "historically relevant" in that they aren't creating new tools. But that doesn't mean the resulting work is not good art.

[Jim Galli]

Good discussion and also why I am right in the middle of this type of art. It seems that to be leading edge now is to be dark or aberrrant or sinister. Never beautiful. I'll settle for derivative if that's the case.

[Mark Sawyer]

It might be more fair to say that historians are interested in a style or movement for as long as it remains influential.

There are people today painting like renaissance painters, romantics, and impressionists, but they're doing little besides derrivative work within a tradition. They're not discovering, inventing, or evolving anything; they're not influencing any future generations. This kind of hanging on isn't historically relevent.

Hard to say, hard to say...

Should we decide John Sexton or Paul Caponigro did little besides derrivative work because they followed Ansel Adams and Minor White?

To pin it within the confines of this forum, did the people who started working with old Petzvals, soft focus, and other "imperfect" lenses have no influence? Admittedly, any such work would be laughed out of Aperture or Pace-MacGill, but those venues are not the sole proprietors of thoughtful aesthetics.

My own take is that re-discovery, even exploration of the familiar, can be as valid as novelty. And I think the current trends in using soft/imperfect lenses might use some of the same tools as the original pictorialists, but the concerns and aesthetics are very different.

Sorry, Paul; I'm in an arguing mood today!