Interesting question. My personal belief is that there's a lot of fuzzy-wuzzy arty-looking stuff going on in photography right now, most of which falls right into Edward Weston's description of pictorialism: "Pretty stories, poorly told."
People are using a whole cadre of "effects" such as film-edges showing in prints, out-of-focus, heavily sepia-toned, printed on textured watercolor paper, heavily vignetted corners, using a Holga or other plastic camera for Atget-like look, deliberately damaging or scratching the film for an "old" look, etc. etc.
To me, those things are great if they are used deliberately to create a particular effect that goes with the meaning and artistic intention behind the image. But, unfortunately (in my opinion) many of those effects are being used as a substitute for substance, and so, yeh, here we are back in pictorialism again.
To address your question specifically, I have no opinion about whether either of those photographers' work is "modern pictorialism;" my comments go more generally to general themes I'm seeing in current photography.
I agree with you. Technique for it's own sake tells me nothing about the subject of the photo. However, Tech-pan used to show the extreme detail in small nature objects is showing the art in nature. Infra-red film used to show the glowing beauty in the forest shows the art that is possible.
If I may paraphrase you, Technique is no substitute for substance.
Seen in a gallery in No. Calif. about 15 years ago was a well composed, well lighted, well printed studio full length nude of a yound lady covered in surgical clamps. This was (I'd say) a case of a bad story, well told. Never figured out what the heck the maker was trying to say.
My photo instructor, H. Warren King, would say (and still does), "Keep it simple stupid". "KISS IT."
A simple image, simply stated, says more than any technique alone.
Hi Eck , i concurr with you about the definition you give of Sally Mann"s work.
About the comment of the previous post the same could be told about the too many times sterile photography of the "purists", who get lost in the "tack sharp " images, "perfect rendition of values" and "owe for nature's wonders".
Give space to people to find their way, stop being self-righteous, having the presumption to be the right judge for other people's work.
nobody needs destructive criticism. We are artists and many of us know that expecially amongst ourselves we need to support each other...
I am not trying to say to lie to each other , but being constructive and supportive.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy artsy looking stuff...... that statement reveals ignorance and superficiality....
Before being the exceptional photographer thar i am now,before being able to harness my incredible talent , i have gone through the struggle to find myself as an artist , to find my voice( That's artsy ...artsy crap,damned!) , and along the road i have done stuff that i would like to forget i did.
If people do what they do, if they scratch their negatives, if they burn the edges of their prints if their images are out of focus and the content is ....lacking , let's incourage them to go deeper. That is where they want to go , but sometime is a scary place to be.
When students show me their work, i don't tell them that is artsy -wuzzy crappy thingy , .....i just........leave.
I don't know that it is "pictorialism", since that was an attempt to mimic impressionstic paintings. I think of it as just a way to give people a feeling of something. Is it the fuzzy wuzzies, or just the warm fuzzies? Who knows. Who even cares, so long as it works for that picture. I don't know Meeks' work that well, but for Mann it WORKS.
" I don't know Meeks' work that well, but for Mann it WORKS." Doesn't work for me. I have had a hard time understanding the accolades... to me they're just snapshots with an 8x10.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks