Jump to content

Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.


Recommended Posts

<p>There are many links to these great photographers--and I could have named others instead. I will only offer the Wikipedia links in order to get the discussion started. Please scroll down the pages a ways to find the galleries:</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_K%C3%A4sebier" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_K%C3%A4sebier</a></p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz</a></p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Steichen" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Steichen</a></p>

<p>I am deliberately not going to try to refine the question, preferring to let individuals make of it what they will.</p>

<p>(This question is <em>not</em> about gear or technology. Starting chronologically with Käsebier was an entirely arbitrary decision.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>With regard to an artist's vision in portraying a straightforward representation (as opposed to a non-straightforward mode of vision like "Impressionism" or "Cubism"), you could as well ask the question "has there been progress in art since the discovery of perspective?"<br>

You could argue that artists today are "seeing" their world no better than artists saw their world 500 years ago.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There has certainly been change - this can be seen by the career of one of the people you mention, Edward Steichen, who in the course of a very long life moved from the painting-like images of the pre-WWi era (made in an attempt to convince the public that photographs could be art) through to the studio portraiture of the 1920s and 1930s, with Steichen finally curating the very influential "Family of Man" exhibition at MOMA in the 1950s (and nominating John Szarkowksi to be his successor as Director of the Department of Photography - JS then ushered in the era of William Eggleston et alia). Inevitably, technology influenced the look of images and the range of subjects photography could handle - arguably the level of artistic expression of the best photography has been equally high throughout the existence of the medium.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There has certainly been change. . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, not only has there been change, but I get the sense that artists/photographers sometimes think that their artistic vision has improved with such changes. Change there always is, but the question always remains as to which vision is superior.</p>

<p>I guess that my fundamental problem lies in defining "progress" in this context.</p>

<p>Here is one made in 1902 by Stieglitz:</p>

<p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Stieglitz-SpringShowers.jpg</p>

<p>I wonder if he thought that he "progressed" in any meaningful sense from this stage of his work.</p>

<p>Here is an even earlier one (1893), but still from pretty much the same epoch, I suppose:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stieglitz-Winter.jpg</p>

<p>How did he look back upon these works later, and how have art critics and historians tended to view the overall "trajectory" of his work? Did he (or have they) tended to speak in terms that suggested "progress" or merely "change"? I wonder how he placed these works in his own mind compared to the works he produced after he met and photographed Georgia O'Keeffe.</p>

<p>Further complicating all of this was Stieglitz's avoidance of the word "art," but, whether "art" or "aesthetic expression," it would seem that the essential question of defining "progress" in photography remains.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>Change there always is, but the question always remains as to which vision is superior."</p>

<p>Superior? Do you mean like pricing baseball cards? Hall of Fame hierarchy? The podium at a Grand Prix? Gold and silver medals?I intensely dislike the notion, particularly the (somewhat Fascist sounding to me) "superior" word.</p>

<p>For me, artists and their work (ideas, machines, literature, etc) have timespace coordinates. They exist in a series of overlays that form a web that involves many aspects. But to judge them hierarchically (which I find at best an impractical exercise) with people from other eras and cultures? To what end?</p>

<p>Yes, photography (and the societies it lives in) has not been in a state of stasis. I would say more like flux. It's not so much that the equipment changed (though that, too is part of it), but that the culture did, and photographers were along for the ride.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It struck me the other day that photographers like John Sexton, and the Westons, carry on the realistic photography most famed by Adams and f/64, for a reason. Photographic art not only changes, but is so indelibly linked to the science of chemistry and physics, that it cannot be mastered in a single generation, by a single photographer.</p>

<p>I quit going to my local photo club because there was nothing new. The same people bragging about their landscape photographs, going on and on about whether it was National G material. They were more interested in Photoshopping out a tree here, and talking about the right shade of border used for the image, than the content or artistic character of their "work".</p>

<p>Consider contemporary photographers, like Holly Andres, who does amazing "melodramas", (hollyandres.com). Or Nan Goldin, Hiroshi Sugimoto, or Adam Fuss (who forgoes the camera, using just light sensitive materials). There is some very solid, innovative movements in photography right now.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie,<br>

While the question is intriguing, it seems to me a classic dog-chases-own-tail question. The answer is going to be what you want it to be.<br>

First of all, any type of art evolves. Has painting improved with a stronger tendency towards the abstract? Scupltures with more available materials? Architecture with new construction methods? Is dodecaphony an improvement over chromatic music? Has photography really <em>progressed</em>?<br>

Next, you seem to impose an arbitrary (*) limit: "This question is <em>not</em> about gear or technology". An analogy. Mozart wrote his pianosonatas for a rather different instrument than Beethoven did. This changed their ability to express themselves substantially. Orchestral sound changed likewise, and this changed music. I doubt whether there are musicologists who really want to leave this out of the discussion when comparing merits of one versus the other. So why would we when talking photography? You cannot leave out technology if you are looking at how photography evolved - it's silliness to dismiss it.</p>

<p>Finally, your question asked whether it progressed. Above I intentionally chose the word evolved instead, but I assume you also chose your words carefully. If so, however, you largely invalidated the question. Progress means a higher valuation of the current state than the previous state. Getting better. That's asking for taste. Do you like the older great photographers better than current ones? Fine if you do, fine if we all do - does that mean photography has been on the decline since it started? I doubt so.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I get the sense that artists/photographers sometimes think that their artistic vision has improved with such changes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they feel it's better, else they would not do it. But the artist's opinion does not have to be yours.</p>

<p>Sorry to sound overly critical, but I find your question unanswerable. You seem to feel that in the more pioneering days of photography, better things have happened than in current days. That's well possible, I also happen to like quite a lot from those times. But that does not mean that ever since things are going downhill. As with many arts, photography has grown wider as an expressive medium (a lot of which is technology driven!), and the wider variety of photographic art we continue to find is equally exciting. It means there is more to dislike, more to like but most of all more to discover.<br>

__________<br>

(*) Maybe not so arbitrary given how this forum has rules to counteract gear talk, but if that was the reason to leave it out, well, I think the rules have a spirit more than a letter.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There has been progress in terms of ability to tackle a wider range of subject matter, and access to a wider range of techniques. Also in making photography more accessible to more people, not neccesarily with greater artistic or technical value, but with a vastly greater range of subjects recorded. And photography is now more practical as a means of communication, whether in business, science, or private life.</p>

<p>But I clearly have a difficulty separating the technology from the content, as much of this progress results from developments in the technology, assisted perhaps by innovative marketing of the George Eastman variety.</p>

<p>As for photographs per se, perhaps my favourite photographer would be Julia Margaret Cameron, so it could be said, in my own mind, there has been no progress in photography since about 1860; except I don't think, in this context, progress is a very meaningful word.</p>

<p>Suppose we appreciate the works of Raphael, and also those of more recent painters. Are the new works itrinsically better because of progress ? I don't see the works of past artists being downgraded, far from it. We can see progress in the life and work of an individual, and perhaps from generation to generation we can see new ideas and techniques developed and added to the vocabulary. But much of the new technique is technology based, as in new pigments, chemicals, etc. So we might trace an evolution in painting, or in photography, in cultural terms, and in subject choice for example, but it would be difficult to divorce that from devolopments in technology.</p>

<p>Thanks for introducing me to Gertrude Käsebier.<br>

Mrs Cameron can be found at<br>

<a href="http://www.victoriaspast.com/JuiliaMCameron/juliacameron.htm">http://www.victoriaspast.com/JuiliaMCameron/juliacameron.htm</a></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>[Y]ou seem to impose an arbitrary (*) limit: "This question is <em>not</em> about gear or technology".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, I feared a wave of posts related to technical progress pure and simple--"gearhead" stuff. I wanted to keep the emphasis on the aesthetic or artistic side, in spite of the fact that some would consider it <em>prima facie </em>obvious that the great works are timeless, others that new ground is being broken today that makes older styles passé. I did not want to rule out all allusions to new media or equipment as they affect aesthetic or artistic outcomes. For example, would Stieglitz's works have looked the same with modern equipment? In what particular way might they look different, if they would, if taken with newer technology? (The subtext is indeed to what extent our improvements in technology have also changed styles. I was afraid to lead off with that.)</p>

<p>I personally like great photographs regardless of epoch or genre, but some who consider themselves to be "avant garde" (or who identify strongly with new currents) might have a preference for the merely new.</p>

<p><strong>I see nothing wrong with romanticism as opposed to realism, for example. I like both. I am not sure to what extent others see things that way. I have heard some speak, for example, as if realism were an "improvement" over romanticism.</strong></p>

<p>The question might well be flawed, but you are right that I deliberately chose the word "progress" in spite of its possible equation with taste--although I have to say that I was more concerned with those who might reduce everything's value to what is merely f<em>ashionable</em>.</p>

<p>Just because something is not the rage or wave of the moment is no reason to disparage it in my book, for what that is worth. Although that seems obvious, I am not sure how others think--especially those who have a better sense of the history of photography than I do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You seem to feel that in the more pioneering days of photography, better things have happened than in current days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, it is not so much that I think that the works were better then than now as that I think that they are in no general sense worse or "out of date."</p>

<p>What lies behind my question is a general aversion to the view that the new or the fashionable is necessarily better. That is about as far as I could go in explaining my own "bias." I get rather tired of hearing insinuations in my own field of study (political philosophy, not photography) that new thinking is necessarily better. I like to think of the progress of ideas in political philosophy, for example, but I have grave doubts as to how much that is viewed as progress really is progress. There really are new insights, but there are many more old views which are (to my mind) simply being rehashed in new intellectual jargon, in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie, many thanks, that adds a lot of perspective. If my post felt too much like putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry; in the spur of the moment I might have been a bit hard-edged, and its how I perceived your post. I'm glad you came back as you did, I think what you raise is a worthwhile noting.<br>

First off, though, sure I can understand not wanting a gearheaded discussion; there is plenty of that and it won't add a thing. But it is a fair question you raise, what if Steichen had a pin-sharp flare-resistant, contrasty lens - would the Pond have been sold for the same amount, look as dreamy - or would it be an ordinary picture of a pond for most? It's an unanswerable pondering, though it does help me remind that technicalities really are just a part of the story.</p>

<p>I agree with what you say on the fashionable things, and how it causes some items to be overrated at the cost of others. I find it a strange disconnected view on things, regarding events as unique isolated moments. It seems to disregard how one develops from the other. Even if it's a counter-reaction, it still needed the "old" to counter against. The old adagium of standing on the shoulders of giants, looking further. Real revolutions are rare, trace their origins and they're all evolutions. Well, in short, I think we agree.<br>

It seems many people just use 'progress' when they mean 'change'. Newer doesn't mean better, it just means newer. Western society is very hung up on progressive-ness, though, strong influence from Christianity when it comes to seeing the times as slowly working towards the finest moment of all times. So to accept new just means new, might rub a bit against our cultural reflexes.<br>

In my limited experience though, photography is not that extremely sensitive to fashionable expressions. Sure, there are some and if I look around flickr, the oversaturated look with a wide angle for near every situation still scores a lot, but somehow in photography I find a lot of individual expression. It might be because my vision on photography is still developing strong, but less than with painting, music I fail to see big strong "streams" or "groups" with a similar style and expression. I might well be wrong, but I also hope people show a lot of examples in the process of proving me wrong then :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The history of photography and all art seems to <em>evolve</em>.</p>

<p>The individuals involved at any given time seem to <em>progress</em>.</p>

<p>I see <em>progress</em> in my work since I first started shooting and I'm glad I do.</p>

<p>I don't see that same kind of progress historically because it's not like the beginnings of photography are similar to my inexperienced beginnings personally. What we mostly see from the early days are the fine-tuned, studied, well-crafted photos and paintings and musical works that have lasted through time. What I see when I look back at some of my own work are naive, unstudied, not-so-well-crafted, but nevertheless genuine photos.</p>

<p>I think there are <em>some</em> analogies between art or photo history and the individual. And some things about them are not at all analogous. I expect an individual who works hard to progress (if by progress we mean to some extent, "get better") over time. I don't expect art to progress (get better), though I do expect it to change and evolve.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter, you've made many good points in both your posts. The one thing I'd question is this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course they feel it's better, else they would not do it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know that artists do things because they think it's better. I think they often do things because they are compelled to. Artists often respond to their historical predecessors' work in order to have a dialogue with them, to pay homage to them, to further an exploration along similar lines, etc. I don't necessarily think they are motivated out of trying to do it better. I may not be quite getting what you meant by this, however.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>As for technology, I know a lot of long-time, experienced photographers who don't (yet) like working with digital as much as they did film (or don't like the photos produced as much). Yet many of them are exploring digital. They do this not because they think it's better (in many cases they think it's worse). I think many see it as a challenge, which is a respectable motivation. I also think some of them feel it's not better yet because no one has really mined its potential. So it's more about possibilities in the new medium than whether it's better or not. In fact, some want to make new technologies better than they currently are (realizing more potential), not better than a previous technology.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photography is an interesting medium. Unlike most other forms of graphic artistic expression literally anyone can do it. Now every phone even has a camera built into it. A blind person can take a photograph. Photographs are used for a myriad of purposes, art being one of them. Because of this ubiquity and the fact that most people taking pictures are not even aware of the history of artistic photography, it is interesting for me to see the wide variety of expression in Facebook and in Flickr for instance. I wouldn’t say this is artistic progress, but I do think it may be expanding our inner templates of what interesting or artistic photographic images can be.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Lannie: "</strong>Change there always is, but the question always remains as to which vision is superior."</p>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> Superior? Do you mean like pricing baseball cards? Hall of Fame hierarchy? The podium at a Grand Prix? Gold and silver medals?I intensely dislike the notion, particularly the (somewhat Fascist sounding to me) "superior" word.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand, Luis--if not fascist, at the very least elitist, or bespeaking some kind of cultural elitism or imperialism. My entire quote was as follows:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I get the sense that artists/photographers sometimes think that their artistic vision has improved with such changes. Change there always is, but the question always remains as to which vision is superior.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At first I meant superior in their own minds, not according to some objective standard--and typically by way of being critical of their own early work, perhaps even to the point of repudiating their early work, or seeing it as some phase that they had to work through. I don't know much about what actual artists/photographers have had to say, but I think that even Weston's embracing of realism was viewed by him as an improvement over his earlier work, although by what standard I do not know. Picasso comes to mind as well, since he was a very gifted painter even in the conventional tradition before he began his radical experiments. I wondered how he looked back at his more realistic portrayals after his experiments with cubism.</p>

<p>"Superior according to some exterior or external criterion" might perhaps, however, be the bait that I am indeed dangling out there to see if anyone takes it--not as a trap but in hopes that someone can actually give me REASONS for their comparative evaluations, reasons that might even make sense to me. If someone thinks that Stieglitz's work is not merely in the past but somehow inferior to what has been done since, then I want to hear about it--and hear the rationale for adjudging one as inferior to the other.</p>

<p>I was actually looking at Steichen, not Stieglitz, when I started thinking of a possible thread. We all have our preferences, I suppose, and I knew that Stieglitz's work had always touched me emotionally--but I could not get past works like this by Steichen:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steichen_flatiron.jpg</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Steichen-Experiment.jpg</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steichen_-_wind_fire_-_Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_Duncan_on_the_Acropolis,_1921.jpg</p>

<p>So, even by a subjective standard, I could not decide whose work was "superior" even subjectively to me, which is to say more "powerful" to me, more "emotionally evocative" for me, etc.</p>

<p>That kind of problem in my own mind impelled me to throw the question out there in a form that might encourage others to reveal their own preferences, but also to to give reasons for their preferences, if they had them.</p>

<p>Indeed, I began to wonder if there were any objective criteria by which such powerful works were to be judged and compared to one another. In other words, was "progress' (like "quality") only a subjective thing, or might there be some kind of presumably external or objective criteria by which persons' works might be evaluated? Beginners often think that their works are "just as good" as great works, after all. What do they learn along the way to having the capacity to be humbled in the face of genius?</p>

<p>The entire set of questions left my head spinning, and so I decided that I would get the opinions of others. I have my preferences, sure, but perhaps there are those who can give reasons for their preferences. Then again, maybe not. . . .</p>

<p>I know that this is treacherous terrain, but surely someone will face it head-on. Fred is usually out on the point, willing to take the first bullets, but Fred has taken a lot of bullets of late, and so I hate to ask him to risk too much again right away. Is anyone out there so willing to risk their tender psyches as to offer reasons for their preferences or judgments of relative worth implicit in the term "progress"? I am not laying a trap here. I don't know enough to do that.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The individuals involved at any given time seem to <em>progress</em>.</p>

<p>I see <em>progress</em> in my work since I first started shooting and I'm glad I do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Fred. Maybe I should have started with "How would you evaluate progress in your own photography?" Perhaps persons are more willing to risk an answer to that than to try to offer evaluations of the works of others.</p>

<p>Luis, is it safe to say that Stieglitz's work was/is <strong><em>superior</em></strong> to mine? (C'mon, don't be shy.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Lannie baited me thusly - "</strong>Luis, is it safe to say that Stieglitz's work was/is <strong><em>superior</em></strong> to mine? (C'mon, don't be shy.)"</p>

<p>Nice try, Lannie, but I'm not doing a parallel-world version of the PN rating system. :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The point, Luis, is that we make claims of superiority or inferiority all the time--although making them across epochs is admittedly a bit problematic. I don't see how to avoid making all value judgments, although one certainly wants to avoid ethnocentrism, cultural imperialism, fascism, etc. when so doing.</p>

<p>I will be the first to admit, however, that "progress" can be a very loaded word, and it makes me gun-shy, too.</p>

<p>Note: The "parallel-world" phrase you use is interesting. There is the land of great photographers, and there is the parallel world of Photo.net, with all of its amateurs and wannabees. Some comparisons are admittedly a bit vacuous, and it is true that I do not live in the world that Stieglitz, <em>et al.</em> inhabited--which is precisely my point. They were <em>superior</em> to me.</p>

<p>This is not to say that there are no great photographers on Photo.net. I do not see the comparison as a matter of "parallel worlds" so much, however, as matters of degree.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>There is the land of great photographers, and there is the parallel world of Photo.net, with all of its amateurs and wannabees.</em><br>

Careful with that ax, Eugene! Photo.net is home to a vast spectrum of people who in one way or another are interested in photography. In photo.net as in real life, the largest group is composed of amateurs - not necessarily wannabees, which suggest people with unrealistic pretensions who are too deluded to see that they cannot become what they would like to be. There are some on photo.net, but not nearly as many as you might think. I personally am a trained professional photographer and former technical author for Ilford Ltd., now semi-retired. and there are plenty of people here who know more in specific areas than I do (and plenty of other pros). Distance lends enchantment to the view - the "great" photographers are mostly from the past and worked at a time when still photography was a major public visual communication medium. Today the significance of photography is, I believe, more as a medium for personal self-expression, an area in which amateurs have equal or better chances than professionals, since they can choose when and if they want to work and what kind of work they do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with others that are fairly reluctant to speak of progress when it comes to photography, outside the technical field. Aesthetics change over time and with that market demands (what is demanded by those that are ready to pay for photos). None of that can with much sense, as far as can see, be described as "progress" however.</p>

<p>However, maybe in one area, many, but not all I'm convinced, would accept using the term of progress, an area that touches what we see as acceptable in the field of photography.<br /> If you look at one of the most renown shots of Käsebier, you see a theme and a symbolism that could be shot in the beginning of last century, but which probably would not be accepted in todays world. Take the shot of <a href="http://kihm2.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/evelyn-nesbit-19031.jpg">Evelyn Nesbit</a>, who was sixteen when Kasebier shot it and who here is presented as an erotic toy with all the symbolism needed to make the point - a role she actually played to the full already at that age, in 1901. (to make it more acceptable for todays viewers the date of the shot is often changed and has become 1903, making the lady adult by a stroke!)<br /> Such photos could be shut, and paintings painted, in those days. I don't think I need to provide other examples (Klimt, Courbet just to name two and preventing to be accused of name-dropping) . It is problably not possible or acceptable to shoot such photos or at least to show them in todays world of increase puritanism, especially in America. If this is progress in art, can be discussed, but for many, I'm sure it comes near to it.</p>

<p>There is another way of discussing "progress" which I would think is more widely accepted. It is linked to what art is (sorry to come back!).<br /> If, in our understand of "art" we can agree that it includes some kind of "creativity", then repetition and copying of what already has been made, can only be characterized as anachronistic and maybe even "regression" - the inverse of progress. Progress in photography is then the continuation of ever new creative forms of expression and surely not something that can be measured like "progress of economics".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred,<br>

You are right to question that statement on artists (your post sept. 7, 7:28PM). It was a bit simple as I put it, mainly to stir the argument. 'Feeling compelled to do so' is indeed a better way to describe it. I think we both have the same underlying thought: the artist changes on purpose, because (s)he feels driven to it. It's not about creating something superior by definition, but rather explore new grounds and grow, seek new options or ways to epxress.<br>

___<br>

My point to say that, though, was more because of "our" judgements; for example I much like Picasso's early pen drawings. Even if I find them superiour to his later works, that does not mean I have to (or can!) judge the artist Picasso for making changes - I may judge the works based on my personal preferences, but as an artist, he did what he felt he should do. One should not mistake his own taste for what an artist should do or have done. Likewise, I do not need to agree with or like an artist, to like his/her work(s).<br>

__________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is anyone out there so willing to risk their tender psyches as to offer reasons for their preferences or judgments of relative worth implicit in the term "progress"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The psyche is not that tender, Lannie, no worries.<br>

The moment a work grabs me (emotionally), it grabs me. At that moment, there is no immediate realisation where it fits in the development of art, of the medium, which timeframe it fits. It either touches me deeply, or it doesn't. This is not a highly cognitive process, but rather subconscious.<br>

From there on, I want to learn, and will look up information, learn where to place the work in terms of historical value and so on. So, its 'superiority' is attribute to the work, not to its place in history. From there on, one work may lead me to others, but the fascination stays with the work itself.<br>

Surely, I see enough work that does not grab me, and there a much more conscious process kicks in, but even then I am usually studying the work for what it is. I regard the place, time when a work was made, the epoch, the state of technology and all that can influence how the result looks, sounds or feels like as background information. And background information comes second. Background information can make me sympathise, accept a limitation or flaw - but it hardly ever will replace admiration.<br>

<br>

Unintentionally, this circumvents the whole discussion on superiority based on anything else but the work itself.<br>

Progress, as Luis hinted, is something I do use to consider my own photography. Since I know my own targets, intentions and hopes, I can measure myself against that yardstick. I cannot do that for others, since I can only guess. Yes, this is avoiding to judge, in a hope to stay open minded enough for different approaches and ideas from mine. Surely, I frequently fail at doing so.</p>

<p>Following that same line of thoughts, I do strongly disagree with the use of the word 'wannabe' in this context. And the same goes for proclaiming somebody a great photographer. Many people will not see the value of the work like that of <a href="http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston18.jpeg">William Eggleston</a>, and think <a href="http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2009/04/annegeddes.jpg">Anne Geddes </a>is a much bigger photographer. I don't think many here will agree, but can we honestly say the other people are wrong and we are right?<br>

A Dutch saying says you cannot argue over taste. I think that's rubbish. You sure can. You just have to be ready to agree to disagree.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie: There is the land of great photographers, and there is the parallel world of Photo.net, with all of its amateurs and wannabees.<br>

<br /> David: Careful with that ax, Eugene! Photo.net is home to a vast spectrum of people who in one way or another are interested in photography. In photo.net as in real life, the largest group is composed of amateurs - not necessarily wannabees, which suggest people with unrealistic pretensions who are too deluded to see that they cannot become what they would like to be. . . . <em> </em>I personally am a trained professional photographer and former technical author for Ilford Ltd., now semi-retired. and there are plenty of people here who know more in specific areas than I do (and plenty of other pros).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>David, that is precisely why I followed up in the same post with this: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is not to say that there are no great photographers on Photo.net. I do not see the comparison as a matter of "parallel worlds" so much, however, as<strong> matters of degree.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is, when it comes to actual accomplishment as photographers, it is a matter not of being either "great" or "amateurish," rather<strong> a matter of degree of greatness. </strong>There is indeed a spectrum, as you say, even a continuum, in terms of photographic quality. <strong> </strong></p>

<p>Unfortunately, some very knowledgeable persons on technical matters cannot and have not made truly memorable photographs. The skill that I am concerned with is very much a matter of actually having had an idea and having brought it to completion often enough to have produced a body of photographic work that is truly memorable. How can we measure photographers across various epochs in terms of "progress" unless we have some criteria as to what makes for a <em>great</em> photo?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Distance lends enchantment to the view - the "great" photographers are mostly from the past and worked at a time when still photography was a major public visual communication medium.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is precisely the view that I want to challenge, David. I do think that there are still great photographers, and some are no doubt here on Photo.net. Some might be those who frequent the forums and write more than they post photos, but, when I have seen their work upon occasion (such as on the "No Words" forum), I have been very impressed with the quality of their work.</p>

<p>It is true that photography has become a very democratic medium and primarily (for most persons) a means of self-expression. This does not mean that some truly great works are not being produced. Some persons are perhaps "one-shot wonders," and I am not sure that I would call them great in the same way that Stieglitz (or whoever) was "great"--on the other hand, I can still call the photograph a "great" photograph. People who can produce such photos on a regular enough basis I would call "great photographers."</p>

<p>I do not see the medium of still photography going away anytime soon simply because it is now accessible to more and more persons, or simply because rank amateurs are from time to time going to produce some truly remarkably good shots.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...