History of Photography

Any one that has ever been in an art museum, art gallery, read Life, Look or National Geographic magazines, watched cable specials on the lives of Ansel Adams, Sebastiao Salgado etc., looked at an Audubon calendar, etc., etc. has studied some photographic history whether they realize it or not.

I am not sure if it is the same book or not, but I have "The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present Day", the ouside seems to indicate the that author is "The Museum of Modern Art", but the inside says "Beaumont Newhall". In any case, it is copyright 1949, so when it says "present day" that is what it means.

 

I find it a very interesting book, as what happened since 1949 is described in enough other books.

 

My favorite is the description of the first photographs of Yellowstone and Old Faithful, in 1872 on 20x24 inch glass negatives, that were used to convince congress to create the first national park. There is one shown of Old Faithful, exposure short enough to see the geyser.

Any one that has ever been in an art museum, art gallery, read Life, Look or National Geographic magazines, watched cable specials on the lives of Ansel Adams, Sebastiao Salgado etc., looked at an Audubon calendar, etc., etc. has studied some photographic history whether they realize it or not.

 

Yeah but I think you have to consciously study art history if you don't want to just recapitulate it passively in your own work, by exposure.

 

Outsider art is still a thing I suppose but just barely going forward (1.2 trillion photos were uploaded in 2017.)

I am not sure if it is the same book

Yup, might be a newer version - latest date on this one 1955.

I suspect most people who are in tune with the history of photography and even study it know that it’s not necessarily so they can copy or emulate.

 

I agree. If watching other people’s works can influence you enough to turn you into a copycat (as Alan suggested), then you don’t have any vision of your own or are incapable of developing one yourself. In that case, not seeing anybody’s work wouldn’t help either.

As I recall, he also told two women fighting over a baby to cut it in half.....

Nothing like a half truth.....

Tell us the rest of the story, so the image will be clear.......

 

All developer and no fixer....;)

Edited September 23, 2018 by Moving On

I agree. If watching other people’s works can influence you enough to turn you into a copycat (as Alan suggested), then you don’t have any vision of your own or are incapable of developing one yourself. In that case, not seeing anybody’s work wouldn’t help either.

Indeed.

Ignorance does not develop genius.

It strikes me as a bit odd, this circumstance, that someone so adamant about isolation from the opinion and influence others to protect the integrity of their photographs, would spend so much time and effort on the World Wide Web.

 

But the irony of it is very nicely done.....

Edited September 23, 2018 by Moving On

While I think I understand what you're saying and your philosophy is as valid as anyone else's, Tim, it seems contrary to your own profile statement that your "...philosophy on photography can be expressed with one single image...always reminding me of the fragile and fleeting life I have on this miracle planet that I cherish and savor every minute of my existence." Cassini's not human, but the choice and presentation of that image were made by humans based on their syntheses of their own perceptions, experiences etc.

 

You certainly don't "...know everything on how [Cassini's] work was created". And despite your stated belief that you are "...more interesting than what I see published in a book or any one else in history", the simple fact remains that you didn't create the image that best expresses your philosophy on photography. I find it hard to believe that you've managed to completely ignore so profound an effect on you. That photo is history, and it has to have influenced your own approach. I suspect you bring at least one or two other historical influences to bear on your own aesthetic. If you look hard, you'll probably find many. :)

The Cassini photo has nothing to do with my not wanting to have other folk's preconceived ideas and pictures in my mind when I seek scenes I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is a symbol of my perspective and philosophy on life and how I make my decisions on what I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is never in my head as a preconceived image to aspire to make. I don't think your reply to me was thought through very carefully.

 

You also based your reply from the first lines of my comment out of context of my entire response.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Tim_Lookingbill

What do you all learn from looking at other people's photographs posted online, in museums and in books on the history of photography? Or maybe you all just like looking at pictures made by other people? Nothing more.

Tim - every structure must have a foundation. Knowingly or unknowingly, every time we pick up a camera, pen. paintbrush, musical instrument or even sit down at the keyboard, we are building on the work of those who preceded us. No one lives in a vacuum. It would be the same for the apocryphal child raised by wolves on entering human society. Just using the tools others developed makes that fact. If one were able to come up with an entirely new artform which employed previously unused and self invented media, there would still be resonances of the past - part of being human. I appreciate your wish to have it be otherwise.

I think this is a case where it’s helpful to get specific and look at the output while considering the input. This is a photo site after all. In that spirit, I just looked through a bunch of photos of those who’ve contributed here and I’d say, for the most part, you reap what you sow. Look at the photos. Then draw some conclusions about the worthiness of historical background.

That’s the crux of it. To imitate suggests already having knowledge of that what you’re imitating (Tarantino, for example, draws heavily from his extensive nerd like knowledge of film history, and while some may call it imitation he’s also paying homage to his predecessors while putting his own creative stamp and vision on it). If you have no knowledge at all of what came before, then you may end up thinking that what you’re doing is the most original thing ever created while in fact, it's not, and which is arguably a much worse position to be in than imitating someone or something.

 

Phil, imitation - in my opinion - doesn't necessarily presuppose prior knowledge of what's been imitated. It may happen accidentally. Moreover, it's not up to me to draw any conclusions about the alleged originality of any of my photographs; that's furnished by observers (e.g., a ccritique on PN).

Actually imitation involves a conscious effort to replicate. It operates in concert with observation.

Moreover, it's not up to me to draw any conclusions about the alleged originality of any of my photographs; that's furnished by observers (e.g., a ccritique on PN).

 

With a knowledge of others’ photos and history, you could be able to assess the originality of your own work. It may not be possible for you to do, given your current circumstances, but you could, only if you want, change those circumstances so a good deal of assessing your own originality would be up to you.

 

I focus on the personal expression of photos more than originality. A lot of people have made similar photos, but the ones that stand out to me are the ones that seem to come from an authentic and personal place. Of course, I look at journalistic and forensic photos differently.

 

So, even if I had no knowledge of history, I’d be able to assess whether my photos seemed genuine and personal. Others’ assessments might help me see some things I may miss, but I’d see a lot, especially when standing back and being honest about my work.

 

Where history comes in for me is in being able to feel and understand the myriad different ways others show authenticity and the ability to express THEMSELVES. That both teaches me and inspires me. It doesn’t teach me exactly what my feelings are, of course, but it does teach me ways photography can be self expressive. I don’t think of learning as cheating. I don’t need to prove that I did it alone. I’m happy to be part of something bigger than me.

 

Knowing history allows me to respond, in my own way, to what photographers have done in the past, because I see photography and art as links from past to future in an ongoing dialogue. While I think of art as personal, I don’t think of art or photography as taking place in a vacuum or in isolation. For me, personal includes cultural, historical, and my place among others. Art and photography are shareable endeavors, in the creating and in the viewing.

Edited September 23, 2018 by The Shadow

I have no problem being influenced by other photographers. I suppose Ansel Adams had the most influence on me. I'm so glad I learned the Zone System of exposure. So yes, I think of how I'm going to expose every B&W frame I shoot, always inspired by Adams.

 

I also shoot a lot in William Eggleston's style. I like the interplay of mundane objects within the frame. Actually, I started shoot like Eggleston before I knew of his photographs. I guess I'm just ahead of my time :D.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Vincent Peri

It strikes me as ironic, this claim of originality in capturing reflections.

community of other artists.

 

Sandy, this phrase reinforces what I previously stated about PN members. I also must add, to deflect impressions that I am lacking substance when it comes to examining my own work or that of others, that I indeed have read about some of the great photographers, e.g., Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Weston, Avedon, Adams, Bourke-White, et. al. This does not mean that I can compare their styles, explain why a certain image resembles so-and-so's work. At this stage in my life, I either can spend my time studying the history of photography or actually engaging in the process of photography. I choose the latter.

Actually imitation involves a conscious effort to replicate. It operates in concert with observation.

 

The terms "imitate" and "duplicate" do not have the same meaning. I see no compelling reason for stating that imitation can't happen accidentally, unlike an act of duplication which requires intention on the part of the person engaged in the action.

I also must add, to deflect impressions that I am lacking substance when it comes to examining my own work or that of others

Michael - speaking for myself, this not in issue. Clearly, you add a lot of value to PN. No question, as the decades pass, any kind of deliberate program of study that gets in the way of "doing" is likely counterproductive. That said, I plan to learn, one way or another, as long as I live, but the sand is running through the glass faster every day. My first birthday was longer ago than I care to think about!

 

I see no compelling reason for stating that imitation can't happen accidentally

An Art Prof I valued in college felt that imitation, taken to a slightly / very different place was valuable.

The terms "imitate" and "duplicate" do not have the same meaning. I see no compelling reason for stating that imitation can't happen accidentally, unlike an act of duplication which requires intention on the part of the person engaged in the action.

 

 

 

Methinks you have it backwards......

The terms "imitate" and "duplicate" do not have the same meaning. I see no compelling reason for stating that imitation can't happen accidentally, unlike an act of duplication which requires intention on the part of the person engaged in the action.

 

 

 

Methinks you have it backwards......

 

For now, can we agree to disagree?

It appears we must.....

Actually imitation involves a conscious effort to replicate. It operates in concert with observation.

 

The etymology persuades me to agree strongly: “imitate” has its roots in the Latin ‘imitare’ to later become 'imitat' (‘to copy’ / 'copied') and is related to the Latin ‘imago’ (image).

 

The Shorter Oxford references ‘imitate’ was formed in the 16th Century and as their current short definition: ‘to copy’.

 

Merriam Webster is less definitive in their current short definition: ‘to follow as a pattern’.

 

In either case, it is obvious that ‘observation’ and 'cognitive action' are intrinsically involved; so the dictionary definitions also persuade me to agree.

 

A quick three telephone calls to friends who work in English Faculties, (to establish an anecdotal case for ‘common usage’ – acknowledging that meaning in Language is a moving entity), found that ‘to copy’ is the predominate current usage meaning, ergo observation and cognitive action are involved.

 

It’s only a small point, but, the discussion relies somewhat upon using key words, accurately, and in this case, important enough to make comment, even if only to highlight the fact that another is using this particular word to mean something which is out of kilter with its mainstream meaning.

 

WW

Tim - every structure must have a foundation. Knowingly or unknowingly, every time we pick up a camera, pen. paintbrush, musical instrument or even sit down at the keyboard, we are building on the work of those who preceded us. No one lives in a vacuum. It would be the same for the apocryphal child raised by wolves on entering human society. Just using the tools others developed makes that fact. If one were able to come up with an entirely new artform which employed previously unused and self invented media, there would still be resonances of the past - part of being human. I appreciate your wish to have it be otherwise.

Nothing that you said, Sandy, is a fact. You're repeating what you've read in the past. It doesn't make it a fact. And you may appreciate my wish to do the opposite of what you espouse to be as fact. You don't understand why I choose to do the opposite.

 

And that is made fact by you not wanting to know why by asking further questions. You are dug in thinking your response is new information to me and that I need to be told that. Did you feel like you taught me something new? If not, why did you tell me something you know I already know? It's good to feel like you're an authority on a subject whether it's necessary or not.

 

I gave new information that wasn't taken as valuable or useful because it goes against established authority of what most think is factual information when it is just what someone writes in a book. Because that author is automatically taken as an authority, no one questions the validity of their information.

 

Lot's of folks who don't question authority soon pay dearly for it into the future. That has been proven as FACT!

An entity unto itself.

 

 

Except when it needs the internet.....

;)