close deceased influences

On another thread I suggested Fay Ray (passed 1995) had more influence on her

photographer than did Sontag on hers (passed 2004 http://www.slate.com/id/2111506/

 

My mother was a passionate photographer...when I was a boy she proved B&W was

the important form (and she'd processed prewar Agfachrome, which has aged

surprisingly well).

 

Many of us have close, deceased, photographic influences.

 

Do you?

No.

Steve, I think you're mistaken :-)

Though my mother was a formally trained painter, I discovered at an early age that I hadn't inherited her talents with a brush. Fortunately,I had better luck with a camera and feel that either her genes or influence have helped me to be something of an "artist with a camera."

 

More recently, a very close relationship with a young lady resulted in a rebirth of self-confidence and excitement about the (photographic) creative process. Though she's not deceased, the relationship has terminated, but her inspiration lives on.

I try not to be influenced by anyone, or, anything. But of course that is impossible as i'm surrounded by influences from birth to death. Influence, in the casual sense of the word, copying someone's style, or, being directly influenced in my own creativity....i try to avoid.

 

I like to use my own mind to see what it can come up with; i try to avoid it being polluted by another mind.

 

Inspiration is another story. I rather like Elliot Erwin; particularly his ability to "get under the skin" of his subjects. There are also some photographers on the street forum which also have similar abilities but in a different style.

A friend (Bob Hamel, of Beauport, Qc.) who on photo club safaris (shooting at any new

site) would get quite annoyed if someone else pushed in and hijacked the view that

he had found. I thoroughly agree with him, there are lots of other views for

imaginative minds.

 

A jovial Englishman (Peter) who walked and photographed Montreal streets in the

dead of winter without any more than an old blue blazer (he was a well insulated

man) and who allowed me to purchase my first RF camera (an S2) on installments,

and who introduced me to a very good RF photographer (Max, who has a number of

photos in the Canadian Gallery of Contemporary Photography in Ottawa) who showed

me what can be done with the medium.

 

In a much less direct apprenticeship, HC-B and Brandt, God bless them.

Erase my last line of response, John. I wish I had known Henri and Bill.

My dad, of course. I would bet that many people got involved in photography because they had a parent who was passionate about it. When I was 8 years old my dad took me to a darkroom at his lab, and I will never forget watching a piece of white paper develop into a print before my eyes. At that moment I became a photographer.

When I was a teenager, I had found dad's camera Beirette in the closet.

I have took my first photos with that camera in Vienna. But I don't know did he ever photographed.

My boyfriend likes to photograph. He likes that photo gear in general.

I like being under influences of better photographers which I understand and admire. But they are foreigners.

Allen makes an interesting distinction between "influenced by" and "inspiration".

To correct myself: I like being inspired by other photographers, only when I understand and feel their work. I have never experienced direct influence while I'm taking photographs, in that strictly creative work.

I am a creator of light of a given scenes.

Kristina--

 

Perhaps your meaning is different than the way I'm understanding it, but I would find it impossible that you have never been influenced, even in the most creative of works. There are so many influences working on us all the time. If you've ever gone to a museum, gallery, or bookstore and looked at the great masters' photos, I don't understand how you could not be influenced on various levels, conscious and unconscious. Which would not preclude the fact that you still could be extremely creative.

 

--Fred

Of course, again misunderstanding! Let me put it this way:

The great masters are inspiring me, Hollywood photographers too.

I meant, to be under influences of living artists, is different for me. I don't have such a strong influences from the living one. From someone who would closely cooperate with me in designing, creating, like in the movie production.

 

I am very much familiar with the art history. This was my major. I have been visiting museums, galleries from my age of 15-th. And I'm crazy about the movies.

John, to re-interpret your initial statement a little, there are a number of influences

that have become "deceased" to me. These include:

 

- The uninteresting films and TV programs that represent the majority of what

Hollywod, Bollywood, and many other popular culture media centres of the world are

producing or have produced (there are some good films from Hollywood, perhaps

only 1% of what is at the cinema). On the other hand, many smaller film companies

and producers (and actors) exist throughout the world (in Australia, Iran, Quebec,

Germany, Afghanistan, Japan, Rumania, and several other "remote" places) and which

are producving some great films, truly original, beautiful and thought-provoking. You

have to look for them as the mass media and "block-busters" crowd most of them out

of cinema space.

 

- The majority of best selling books, whether novels, documentary or monograph,

which like much modern art that is mindlessly praised, because some Guru has

adopted it and "discovered" it, or the advertising budget "makes" it.

 

- I think it was Cyril Connolly who stated that from an early age he had little truck

with anyone who had reached at least the mature age of 35 and yet had nothing new

to tell him.

 

He was no doubt refering to "influences" that bombard our conscious from day to

day, usurp our time, and which we are better off considering as "deceased", if only in

order to be able to move forward with some independence of spirit and intent, to be

able to produce, unhindered, whatever we might be capable of.

 

Many good artists and photographers I have the pleasure of knowing have long ago

learned to avoid most of the confusing world of unimportant "influences", and are

happily undertaking what THEY believe to be valuable to their medium of expression.

As adolescents we often try to distance ourselves from "influences."

 

Becoming adults, we may have developed enough strength of character to enjoy people and ideas that might once have made us uncomfortable.

 

On the other hand, I've read that the first commandment of a Hindu equivalent of the famous Ten, is "avoid stupid people."

Simply put, the making of great art (as opposed to producing currently popular art, or

commecial art, or decorative art) is a solitary experience, employing whatever thought

processes the indvidual (independent) mind is capable of, and being unaffected by

that which has gone before that moment (this is not to deny the importance of

education, but it requires ignoring the approaches or results of others, and the ability

to approach a challenge with an absolutely independent mindset).

Arthur--

 

Unfortunately, according to your narrow definition, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven did not produce great art.

Were they really influenced by others? Not much, I believe. Mozart re-defined opera,

Beethoven redefined the symphony and the works of JS have never been equalled

from a pure musical standpoint.

 

Perhaps Mozart was influenced by Papa Haydn, but Mozart, for one, was long dead

when Beethoven penned his first symphonies (No. 2 in 1802). Certainly these

gentlemen studied the works of the former greats as students, not unlike any other

educated person during his or her formative years.

 

Fred, no definition applies to every situation (unless perhaps some of those found in

the realm of physics). But I do believe that visual art that "changes things" (newness

and uniqueness of its visual communication) is most often produced by those who

have little ned of influence from others (other than that of their formative education)

and work in a solitary manner.

Arthur, I agree that no definition applies to every situation.

<p><p>

I do find your definition of art missing something.

<p><p>

I think the direct influence of art history and others on one's work is one of the amazing features of good art. Which is not to deny the simultaneous independence of thought and creativity. I think "solitary" is sometimes at play and sometimes not.

<p><p>

Scroll down this wikipedia entry and read about Mahler's influence on other great musicians. Doesn't take away from their creativity, just asserts their place in history and their response to previous practitioners of the language/medium they used to express themselves.

<p><p>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler

<p><p>

I think John's point about the difference between adolescent influences and adult influences is salient. I hope we are talking about adult influences and I think they are profound, even while allowing for the one influenced to make great changes.

Fred, I like what you said. "I think the direct influence of art history and others on one's work is one of the amazing features of good art. Which is not to deny the simultaneous independence of thought and creativity. I think "solitary" is sometimes at play and sometimes not."

 

It's true, from my point of view. As an adolescent, I remember, I have felt nothing special about great art works from the galleries and museums. It was just a feeling of admireing that pervaded me. And I was "small". I didn't like feeling of being "small". I knew I had to do something to change that feeling.

In a later years, when I have visited masterworks, I was feeling somehow completely. I was aware of such a great masters and their artworks. And the feeling of being "small" had disappeared.

Today, I understand why art historians likes to return "one more time" to the museums, just to look one more time at da Vinci's work. Because they always find something new on his particular painting.

 

So, I am more influenced and inspired by the great masters than ever before. The feeling is more profound, as you have said.

 

There is a movie about Mahler from the '70-s. I didn't watch it because its hard to find it. But I have found in one book a couple of photographs from the set. I like his music. He was very passionate musician.

I think the direct influence of art history and others on one's work is one of the amazing features of good art

 

I think most creative thinkers throughout history did their best to escape from direct influences. They might have dipped into the building blocks of Art and Science but used their own creativity to move forward. Indeed, they always challenged the mores of the time'

 

I think this time, Arthur, has got it right

Examples, Allen, examples.

How about Mr Renaissance man himself Mr Leonardo de Vinci

 

Leonardo was a classic example of a creative independent thinker without any direct influences. Indeed, who around at the time would have had the ability to directly influence him?

 

Leonardo's studies included ,as you are aware of, nature, flying machines, geometry, mechanics, municipal construction, canals and architecture.....

 

Hey, Leonardo, can you help me design a submarine, mate. I don't think so ;)

Read about the many influences on Leonardo about 1/4 of the way down the web site under the heading Relationships and Influences:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

Among the qualities that make Leonardo?s work unique are the innovative techniques that he used in laying on the paint, his detailed knowledge of anatomy, light, botany and geology, his interest in physiognomy and the way in which humans register emotion in expression and gesture, his innovative use of the human form in figurative composition and his use of the subtle gradation of tone. All these qualities come together in his most famous painted works, the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper and the Virgin of the Rocks.[39] Freds link.

 

Innovative, creative, using his own mind to develop independent thought. Of course he had influences,we

all have influences, but not direct influences in the sense he had to use others minds to achieve his own creativity.

 

He moved on from those influences,using them as stepping stones,to became his unique self..