Hello, I came across this article here http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...-tray-by-tray/ of a young man of 31 described as a master printer who photographed developing trays of famous photographers in the article.
I feel there are few true "master printers" around, and nearly impossible to be one at early age of 31.
Agree or disagree?
If you call yourself a "Master Printer", than you are one.
There are no criteria in printing, no degrees to acquire.
Interesting though I've found the best printers I know call themselves... "printers".
I guess it's like when a city or event calls itself "A World Class City" or "A World Class Event".
This happens in cities like Toronto, Detroit and Vancouver all the time yet doesn't seem to happen in cities like Paris, London or New York.
You might attend the Canadian Tennis Open, which they call "A World Class Event" while the French Open is called a tennis tournament.
Of course it's hard to know if he considers himself a Master Printer or if the journalist tagged him that way.
I interpreted the article as saying he was photographing the work spaces of some he considered as master printers.
I've called myself "printer" on IRS returns my whole life.
When I left high-school I though of myself as a master.
But now I don't consider myself master, at best "journeyman".
P.S. The tray in the photograph is Bill Burke's not mine.
Peter Lik is a "master photographer", maybe he can answer this. He never wears a shirt so that's a starting point. I'm on my way at the age of 35 since my darkroom is pretty warm and I work shirtless and barefoot. Age has nothing to do with it.
I doubt that there's a definition. My guess is it's like photographers who say on their web sites that their photographs are "fine art." If you have to say your photographs are "fine art" or that you're a "master printer" it probably isn't and you're probably not.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Age has little to do with it, and an artist's own claim to masterliness little more. Franz Schubert is a yet underappreciated master, and he died at 31. Photography has been more competative than musical composition since the days of "You press the button,we do the rest." Social networking has lowered the standards of photography even more. At least John Cyr has created an imaginative niche, however trivial.
Michealangelo sculpted "David" before he was thirty, and I could list innumerable other master-level accomplishments of people aged less than thirty. Why should printing be different?
I disagree that age is required, maybe agreeing that the title 'master' is overused everywhere. Never the less saying so or not is up for debate. In any art form the level of craft expertise is determined by lots of factors and those doing the assessment is one. If you surveyed 100 people and they all agreed then maybe, Yet truth betold if those 100 were taken from the same limited field of reference the results come back as non relative. To then take 1,000 opinions that had wider, less limited assessment skills say folks that had art appreciation versus say a degree in accounting. If to the 1,000 you say Joseph Sudek was a master photographer some would agree just by the merit of his unique style. If you say he was a Master, and then it was found out he had only one arm- most people - I think would agree. But again there always those squirrels thinking he could have done better.
Last edited by Greg Blank; 3-Jul-2012 at 08:28. Reason: better syntax
"Great things are accomplished by talented people who believe they will
accomplish them."
Warren G. Bennis
www.gbphotoworks.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks