Art is like foliage sprouting from the cultural landscape. There are many varieties, some live longer than others, some are popular, some are not, and whatever form they take you can't really say that they are going any place in particular.
Art just is.
FWIW, isn't the process of making "art" as much of an art as the "art" that is produced?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Again, poping up to defend pictorialists, someone, anyone, look at a print from one. One by John Vanderpant caused an asthma atack. Don't take thoes kinds of pictures if you don't like them, but don't compare to a 2 year old please -- a 2 year old with a auto-everything camera can also take a clear photo. Also, folks, if you don't understand conceptual art and think Yoko Ono's only contribution to the 20th century was breaking up the Beatles, then learn more befor speaking, or just go out and take they photo's you take. I'm sure I'd like them if I saw them.
As for the back and forth, there isn't any anymore -- the Academy is dead -- Derrida killed it. Mead said we are in a constant fight with our artistic fathers, but as fatherhood seems dead, we all got to learn from our siblings here (too much Bly?). So let's all just learn from each other, and stop using thoes evil dead fuzzies as a bugbear. Or the gummies or the grainies.
Even St.A admits the pictorialits knew how to use light. He learned that from them. If you realy hate them, just search out a good print and look at it. Dean
Dean Lastoria
There is a continuing desire for picture of landscape. the difference of course is that the techology to do them is evolving and the public is saturated with the same images. The "dead horse" is the lack of new environments and ways of seeing. Ansel if I recall never added a nude to the landscape as Weston did or Bullock did. Eugene Smith dis landscape with people and of course Galen does 35 mm landscape . So is it dead? No. ou have to add and keep going. The old 8x10 can be used in many places and not just from the roof of a 1937 suburban. But you have to get outthere and sweat and experiment.
Art is defined as a leap of the imagination. In photography it may be a razor sharp or soft image. As Ellis said, the camera is only a tool, it is what is in your heart and mind that one will put on film. Some of my images fall into each category and I don't feel I have to create it a certain way someone says it should be unless I have been commissioned by them. At that point, it may be called art by them but it is just work by me.
THIS is a terrific post.It really touchs the thread of what motivates any of our photographs. You shoot to sell to someone and the picture should be for the customer. You shoot for art and the picture is for the critic. If you are lucky you shoot some stuff for yourself and the result should be something you personally go back to over time and care about. I am selfish about the stuff for myself and I confess I hope some of it could be art, but it is not the prime mover determining the time I take printing and caring for these photos. So what about the Mono lake shots? Weston is everyones favorite to cite. There are famous pictures by Weston (Edward), Adams, Weston (Brett) and a host of others and while it took me a long time to really appreciate the differences, I am struck by the beauty of Brett Weston's versions of these overdone(?) scenes of a really beautiful place (I am only trying to contrast three different photographers here.) Brett clearly has value added over both Edward and Ansel..really beautiful images that really are different. Same place, straight photography, same tools...in some cases THE exact same tools and yet profoundly different. A different view of a place and not a copy and not fuzzy or distorted. Ansel was motivated to MARKET his stuff. He WANTED to make a living from what he shot and did a great job. A very great teacher, photographer and marketer. He admired Weston for his purity and in fact he recognized Weston gave up a LOT to be who he was..which is one of the reasons we love him. I asked Kipton Kumler (back in the 70's) why he didn't dedicate himself to being a photographer and his response was that he was used to living a middle class life and did not want to live in a garret. He was (is?) an excellent photographer and an upcoming star in the fine art photo world .
Dead horse...that was the question. If you want to be on the leading edge, you should be working digital. Combine it with your LF negative s and subtly elevate the THING. Seriously study some art, learn to draw, visit the art museums and learn from the early masters...Weston did that..and use the new medium in combination with the old. A whole open field. Make digital negatives cause the ink printers still don't have it yet.
You are going after the thing itself, the essence.
But in the end, your own photography should be to please yourself. Don't worry if you don't make it to a dedicated issue of View Camera or Black and White. Life is short
Photography, as much as people would like it to be, is not rocket science. We see a subject that speaks to us and we use the tools and techniques we have learned and put the image to paper. We hope we have created something that will resonate in others and convey a little something of ourselves. If ultra sharp total control gets you there great. I think people who get hung up on one format (especially LF) cheat themselves out of a lot of creative opportunities with the medium.
Their was a wonderful interview with Gordon Hutchings in the Nov/Dec 99 View Camera magazine where he talked about how he felt his work was getting to formulaic and static. He put the view camera away and shot 645 and 35mm for awhile. He talked of an "explosion of vision in all directions...I was able to do things visually that you can't do with a view camera. I loved it". Hutchings returned to the view camera with a "fresh eye", using a wider variety of lenses and subjcet matter.
He also said in the interview, "The interesting thing about the view camera it that because it is physically demanding, we slowly and subconsciously begin to play it safe. I think the images over time if you don't watch it, become classic and conservative. The photographer has to watch out for this entropic slide toward a static, repetitive formula. You've got to be on constant gaurd against it"
Would it not be refreshing, to worry less if a landscape photograph in the style of Adams, was more or less "artistic" than a soft focus version of the same. Surely we should strive for originality, even if we fail. I loved the Gordon Hutchings quotes above!
Keith
I've found I can do anything I want, except something completely new and different.
After thought,
One thing about a dead horse, they don't buck when you beat it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks