Consequences of Fatali incident

Fatali is a mediocre photog with incredibly bad taste.Richard Misrach

has shot the same type of subject matter and has a far more

interesting take on it. I think the real discussion should be which

is worse his prose or his titles?-J

Pardon if this goes on to long. Probably belongs in another thread...

<p>

's far 's I'm concerned, "Art" is a guy who lives behind the bowling

alley.

<p>

And to paraphrase the heck out of something Dave Jenkins wrote on the

Phil of Phot Phorum:

<p>

"... only history can judge whether our work is art. To call oneself

an artist is the sure sign of a "wannabe."...Sic transit gloria

mundi -- "So passes the glory of this world."...Ultimately it doesn't

matter what you or I think of ourselves or our work. Only the work

matters, and if it is good it will endure...In our culture many want

to be "artists" because "artists" have status...To those who say to

themselves, "Hot dog! I did an art! I'm an artist!" I would ask one

question: is the work any better because you call it art?"

<p>

And this is so good and so relevant I have to pass it on:

<p>

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/website.htm

<p>

*Below is an entertaining word exercise (which actually can be done

for any field of endeavor). To achieve the usual jargon used in these

landscape photographer artist's statements, place any three words in

the table together, placing a word from the first row first, one from

the second row second and one from the third row last.

<p>

universal all-encompassing transcendent mystical deepening glowing

unchanging

<p>

photographic visionary luminous spiritual life-affirming artistic

intrinsic

<p>

insight reality perception experience concept unveiling realization

Burning the rock may be the only interesting thing that Fatali ever

did. The marks on the rock can not be as unappealing as the over

saturated and over dramatic photos and writing that I have seen.

Sour Grapes, the lot of ye. You'd criticize Ansel because "Clearing

Winter Storm" wasn't made at noon on the 4th of July.

Well here we go again. A bunch of wannabe photographers with

apparently no inkling of what a good color landscape photogragraph is

about. For those(it seems most of the subscribers here) who don't know

much about color printing, Michael doesn't use filtration in the

exposing of the film. He doesn't have to. All of this beautiful color

work is done in the darkroom. Just like most color printers. And what

most of you fail to realize is that these images were taken at the

most advantageous moments when the light was already incredible.

The shot of the maze district is not an ariel but taken from Dead

Horse Point on the Island in the Sky. Over saturated? I and many

others say beautiful. Mr. Fatali is a very accomplished photographer.

Few are his equal. Misrach doesn't take this type of image. He hasn't

been to these places and shot these types of images. His Cantos

series are very different from Fatali's work. He uses a pastel

theme in his work. His use of color is quite different. The only thing

these two artists have in common is their love of the land and their

printing techniques. It is quite appearent that most of you know

little or nothing about Michael Fatali, the man. Or you wouldn't write

what you do. Michael runs a bussiness. Plain and simple. He has a

marketing strategy. Who are you to judge his bussiness practices? His

writing? It's how he feels. It's how he learned to express himself. He

made a mistake trying to simulate the light that the native american

indians saw The Arch by when they camped in the bowl over thousands of

years. He took every precaution but failed to realize the was tracking

the ash from the logs onto the slickrock. You can't find a trace of

the damage now. The damage wasn't permanent. So quit harping on

something you apparently know little about. James

I do not dispute that Michael Fatali is a highly skilled maker of

picturesque and decorative images that apparently appeal to many,

that he accomplishes what few others can, and that he has developed a

marketing strategy that seems to have achieved success by aiming at a

certain new-age sensibility. I agree, therefore, that anyone who

says that Fatali is just pointing his camera and taking what is there-

-as if no skill or work was involved--is talking nonsense. None of

that puts Fatali beyond criticism. Fatali is not a school child

whose work should be greeted only with affirmation. He has put his

images and prose into public view and has marketed them, and

therefore has surrendered his immunity from criticism.

"Michael runs a bussiness. Plain and simple."

could not have said it better myself.

<p>

as for the comparison to Misrach they are similar they both shoot

color landscapes of the west.the differnce is Misrach is good and

does not need the gimmicky hyper saturation that is inherent to

Fatalis work.-J

Josh, I can't but tell you that your way of comparing one photographer to another is rather

childish. We, the human

race, were not made all out of the same mold. And this is why there is such a broad and rich

diversity in the

creative expression. Should we like it all? not at all! We take what we like and leave the rest for

others who like it.

<p>

I am not a cultivated musician but to take an example, just because I love Bach and don't like

Beethoven doesn't allow me to say the second is hopeless, does it? I would soon be confronted to

people who think differently. Where does all that dirty hatred between races and religions come

from? Should we let the world be teared apart by all that "one is superior to the other" shit?

Giving lessons of moral is the last thing I should be doing and I hope you can bear with me.

Photography is now recognized as an art and we all should consider ourselves as artists, and not

merely goods producers or art consumers. Now, what definition would we give to the word artist? I

will give my own: Someone who has developed skills to express to others a part of the personal

heritage he has received in the way he perceives the world in and around him. Why do we do so?

Maybe because we love the world and believe that putting in common our personal note will

produce at the end a symphony that will please everyone (again, my own interpretation).

See, I admire the work of Misrach, who

by the way uses sometimes artificial lighting techniques. He is a very good photographer and I am

glad some as you like his pictures. But, if I recognize his talent which is far above mine as a

photographer, his pictures do not make me vibrate personally. It dosen't touch my fiber. As I said

earlier it's a Bach against Beethoven type of comparison.

<p>

We could stick to more down to earth

comparisons: how would you like choosing a car if the only choice was a russian car? Or even if the

only choice was a Chevy? Everyone having your car wouldn't make it pleasant to own, would it? By

the way, this is perhaps were the cold war originated: The Russians didn't like the kitsch and over

saturated look of the Yankee's Chevies and the Yankees had disregard for the purely functional

Russian cars. Maybe we could divide this forum in two sections: one for the Fatali type worshippers and the other for

the Misrach type unconditionals. I'm sure this would make the two photographers laugh. Diversity is the distinctive

particularity of our Blue Planet and that's why life is still beautiful. Let's not forget it!

Perhaps I overstated earlier about Fatali's work. I commend anyone

who is trying different things. Trying to light the arch in a

different way was an interesting idea that apparently backfired.

I just feel that most of what I have seen has been unsuccessful.

Rather than the use of color complementing the work it only seems

to distract. Now exaggerating colors has worked well in painting

(Van Gogh, Gaugin, Kandinsky....) the list goes on and on. I'm sure

this can be done successfully in photography I have just seen very

few examples of it. The best thing about B&W photography is that very

quickly the photos become about shapes and textures as well as the

subject matter. In my opinion the color photographer has to be

extremely careful to use color in such a way that adds to rather than

takes away from the picture.

The issue of the difficulty of what Fatali is doing isn't a valid

point. There are many technically superior musicians and painters

that accomplish nothing more than exersizes. Sometimes the most

simple thing is much stronger than the most comlicated. Just being

hard doesn't make you a good lover.

Paul I was about to respond to your post but its not even worth it,

because it does not make any sense. but I will say this just as Bach

and Beethoven are both classical composer and can be compared in that

they both are in the same genre of music. I would consider Misrach

and Fatali to be in the same genre that was the basis of my

comparsion. Also I think we can have a discussion without calling

someones opinions "childish" or insulting their views. I disagree

with you but I dont need to insult you to show that.-J

Josh, I'm sorry if I called you names and insulted your opinions. But by saying F. is a mediocre photographer with

incredibly bad taste, you should be prepared to get overreaction from guys who think differently, and who maybe

feel insulted themselves in their own perception of photography. If Fatali's work is mediocre, then there are many

well known and unknown photographers out there who should not even call themselves photographers any more. As

for my post not being worth the reply, I'm glad you changed your mind.

Paul, let Josh call fatali a calendar pimp if he wants to... this

stoopid PC "oh, let's do get along" crap is making me nauseaous... if

Josh doesn't like it let him express himself in the most vitriolic way

he can .... and you can bash Misrach if it pleases you, just don't let

it pull your "fiber" out of tune...

<p>

and that rot about something "touching your fiber"? Please!!! what

the hell is that? Can't you get it surgically removed? I know I

would if it vibrated everytime I saw a fatali photo.

I agree, this discussion is leading nowhere. Let's take a day out together pooring our sweat on mountain tracks, get

to know each other, have fun and possibly take a few pictures but just for the fun of it. Sorry for talking bullshit.

Emil,

<p>

Sorry, just saw yours... and in order to rebutt I'll need your

definitions of "homogeneity and constancy of... yadda yadda" and of

course the beautifully turned frag, "distilling abstract harmony"....

so on and so forth...

<p>

thanks Lumberjack... I can deal with that..

<p>

love,

<p>

trib

Hey Trib

<p>

Thanks. May I share your barf bag?

<p>

Love

<p>

Erik

I am not a photographer so I cannot comment on Michael�s �technical�

abilities. But I am a close friend and I can comment on Michael the

man and I do know how Michael makes his photographs, having been in

the field with him many times. Michael does NOT use artificial

light, he has always said he doesn�t have to, that there is nothing

that can improve what God has created. Michael packs an 80-90lb.

pack into the most remote places, then he waits, sometimes days, or

he returns over and over and over again. He is intimate with the

places he photographs, he knows them through all the seasons, he

loves them deeply. And that is what he is trying to portray, the

magnificence of the land and how it touches his soul. Yes,

Michael �runs� a business, but he doesn�t care about the money, what

he does care about is sharing his passion. This is not just hype,

this is the absolute truth. I worked for Michael last fall in his

gallery in Springdale and even I was amazed at the impact his

photographs had on the people who walked into his gallery. Because

of the proximity to Zion Nat�l Park, people from all over the world

visited the gallery, many had heard of Michael, but I would say most

just discovered him for the first time. No one was untouched. All

you have to do is stand in front of one of his images and you can see

his soul. He has nothing to hide. He writes what he feels- no, he

is not an accomplished author, he never went to school to learn to

write, all he can do is express what is in his heart. He is totally

honest, totally real, he doesn�t know how to be any other way. The

incident at Arches has devastated him. He is the last person who

would intentionally damage the land, the mission of his life is to

preserve and protect and to share. From the very beginning he has

taken total responsibility for his actions, he has spent hours with

the NPS answering questions, trying to work with them to rectify what

happened. I don�t understand all this negative energy that is

directed at him, especially by people who don�t know him. Why is it

that some people need to tear others down to feel good about

themselves. Michael has never attacked another photographer, never

criticized their work, and especially never attacked them

personally. All he wants to do is let his work speak for him, and it

does, straight to your heart if you�re willing to listen.

<I>"From the very beginning he has taken total responsibility for

his actions, he has spent hours with the NPS answering

questions, trying to work with them to rectify what happened. I

don�t understand all this negative energy that is directed at him,

especially by people who don�t know him."</I>Kai Reed <P>

Well Kai, he wasn't exactly honest or took "total responsibility"

with Steve Simmons of "View Camera" now did he? <P>This is

the crux of the problem: By setting himself up as a purist and

then doing something incredibly stupid and artificial he is the

one who has done the most damage to himself and his

credibility. I have no doubt of the power of the guy's work or of his

general integrity and well meaning asperations, but as Oscar

Wilde put it: "the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never

simple".

Thank you, Kai, for these words from your heart. As you suggest, many who have had harsh words and quick reaction

did so because they did not know the man, nor the exact circumstances. It's sad that a sensible man like Michael was

exposed to public condemnation and treated the way he was. There have been days I was shamed to be part of this

forum, and not me only but many of us have always had much sympathy for him and wish him now courage to get

over this sad story and keep doing his wonderful work and share his cheerful nature the way he has always done.