tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I've recently come to the realisation that of truly great photographers since the invention of the medium, there are only four: Eugene AtgetAndre KerteszWalker EvansWilliam Eggleston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phong Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I am so happy to not see Ansel Adams on the list :-)I have his books and enjoy the Negative very much though.Cheers, - Phong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry_suryo Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Eggleston?? What about Strand and Weston? I think this is too vague a criteria to pick only four. Henry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 "What about Strand and Weston?" would their work stand as new and fresh if they were doing it today (well, Eggleston still is - still the one and only photographer who truly understands colour) - which was my main criteria. Personally, I don't think so. Weston's work, while somewhat innovative in photography was never really much more than painters had been doing for generations. Strand, I find, generally, just stodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_galea Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Margaret Bourke-White, Imogen Cunningham and Diane Arbus. Guess I'm partial to the ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_m Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Actually there are 5.... Kertesz,Evans,Bresson,Weston,White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicjoe Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 The idea that there are �Only four truly great photographers� is silly and ridiculous. There are scores of excellent photographers. To limit the list to four is not helpful. There is no fixed set of criteria as to greatness; quality is mostly in the eye of the beholder. The four mentioned did good work, but so did, and do many others. Why set a limit? Why not honor excellence wherever it is found? Tim may have one "realization," but the rest of the world may have their own equally valid realizations. Cheers, Joe Stephenson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikep Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I agree with Jope above, and will cut and paste it once more. "The idea that there are �Only four truly great photographers� is silly and ridiculous. There are scores of excellent photographers. To limit the list to four is not helpful. There is no fixed set of criteria as to greatness; quality is mostly in the eye of the beholder. The four mentioned did good work, but so did, and do many others. Why set a limit? Why not honor excellence wherever it is found?" well said. mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e_m1 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Doan, Why would anyone be happy NOT to see Ansel Adams name listed? Please don't give me that nonsense about "It's been done to death". Why do you think people still talk about Beethoven, Bach, etc... Ansel Adams has been "copied to death" but how many of these copy cats have that kind of power and drama in their work? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 Adams just copied the great romantic landscape painters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 "There are scores of excellent photographers" true, (and my "second string" is full of them) but very, very few truly original photographers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 "The idea that there are �Only four truly great photographers� is silly and ridiculous." But is it more interesting the "what model Linhof is this"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_barker Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I thought sure you were going to say you and me, Tim, so I was curious to read who the other two would be. (lol) While I don't dispute the four you mention deserve to be on a list of greats, I'd have to agree that limiting the list to four is too arbitrary, absent other qualifying criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 "While I don't dispute the four you mention deserve to be on a list of greats, I'd have to agree that limiting the list to four is too arbitrary, absent other qualifying criteria." Certainly arbitary - but the reason being, as soon as I went beyond four it balloned to 10 or 15 - so my "criteria" was, which of those 15+ REALLY stand out - hence the four... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 You forgot my hero, Paul Caponigro. Then again Michael Kenna has very original work and is contemporary. While Caponigro has a more classic style I think Kenna would give a run for their money to the ones mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Interesting choices. Can you amplify your thesis? How have these photographers changed the course of photography in ways others have not.<P> I am sure these kind of lists are all representative of one's personal taste. i agree pretty much with your assesment but would add a few others: Ansel Adams & Robert Adams for how they have defined and rdefined landscape photography, especially of the American West: Ansel for seeingthe West in such grand romatic & bold statements (his closest equivalent is beethoven in music) Robert Adams for his anger at seeingthat landscape pummelled and raped; Man Ray, mostly for just being Man Ray the prankster; Henri Cartier-Bresson for his ability to make even the most banal of situations into an explosive surrealist document; Richard Avedon -- for his fashion work and later his portraits; and lastly Robert Mapplethorpe for crisply analytical & unsparing vision which is a tthe same time lush and sensual and hardedged and completely honest (as in Portfolio X) , compositions and lighting mixed with his sense of humanity, sexuality and mortality -- often all three in one image.<P>As I said these additions reflect my personality and interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 Kenna's Le Notre's Garden is really just pure Atget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_driscoll2 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 bruce davidson, o winston link, elliot erwitt, gordon parks, eugene smith, eugene richards, ken light, robert maplethorpe, robert capa, larry burrows, george tice, bill hedrich, joseph kodulka(SIC), sebastian selgado, harry calahan, i could go on and on and on. I agree with you, that the 4 photographers you have mentioned are amazing, but to limit them as the only "great" photographers??? Maybe you should put away the cameras for a while, and hang out in the Photography section at the library for a wee bit. Even if you don't like AA, you have to give the guy credit for what he did for photography. Think of AA as the Beatles, everyone loves to bash them just as everyone loves to praise them......but what they did for rock music (and popular music in general ) can't be taken away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 <I>Adams just copied the great romantic landscape painters.</I><P> Tim I disageee. His way of seeing the landscape is very different in spirit and philosophy from the romanic painters ofthe previous century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_westbrook Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Not even Stieglitz? I think you should include him. I mean like these:: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_equivalent_1926.html http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_back_window.html http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_okeeffe_31.html http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_hands_and_thimble.html http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_equivalent_1929.html ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_smith4 Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 I agree with Joe. This is totally opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey_james Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Dizzy Gillespie said of Louis Armstrong, "No him, no me." The great people allow others to build on their achievement. Adams codified Weston's practice. Kertesz took the first great 35 mm photographs. "We owe him so much," said Cartier Bresson. Evans saw Atget's work in Paris as a young man and I think it scared him so much that he denied having seen it almost until the end of his life. With great respect, Michael Kenna came out of Bill Brandt; the same influence on the early Robert Frank. De gustibus nihil disputandis est: there is no arguing about taste. I would commend the new 7-volume set of August Sander's collective portrait of the German people . A steal at $195. Now, can anyone help me with the new Tri-X.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted June 13, 2003 Author Share Posted June 13, 2003 Even if "you don't like AA, you have to give the guy credit for what he did for photography. Think of AA as the Beatles, everyone loves to bash them just as everyone loves to praise them......but what they did for rock music (and popular music in general ) can't be taken away from them." Well, I guess the both had weird haircuts... :-) "Maybe you should put away the cameras for a while, and hang out in the Photography section at the library for a wee bit." All on your list are indeed in my libreary and were on my short list (okay - excepting bill hedrich) and Geoffrey's choice of Sander almost made it five... "I agree with Joe. This is totally opinion." Of course it is - couldn't be any other way. Byt then we are all photographers, and everyone of our photographs is an opinion - no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 My list has eight: Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Lange, Karsh, Gene Smith, Strand, and Weston. I may have to add a few (Avedon, Penn, Cosindas...?), and subtract some after some reflection. A few years ago Stieiglitz and Stiechen would have been on everyone's list, and their contributions to the art cannot be denied, even if their images are passe. "Everybody has his own preferences, he said, as he kissed the cow." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnanian Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 i agree with 3 of the 4 but would ditch eggelson, and add lazlo maholy-nagy instead. i guess we all have our opinions :) - john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now