Positivism Vs. Pictorialism

I'm currently writting an essay on the above topic. However I keep drawing

blanks. If anyone can offer me any tips on where to go next, please let me

know. This is what I've got so far...

 

Over the span of the 18th and 19th century, theoretical perspectives on

photography, changed dramatically. Originally a form of capturing the objects

presented before the photographer, just as when the photographic process was

created by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1826, photography would go on to open

the minds of art critics and the world of art.

 

?In 1824, Niépce, set up a camera obscura, placed within it a polished pewter

plate coated with bitumen of Judea, and uncapped the lens. After an exposure

of around eight hours, the plate was removed and the latent image of the view

from the window was rendered visible by washing it with a mixture of oil of

lavender and white petroleum?- Roy Flukinger, Senior Curator, HRHRC [1]

 

This early form of photography would lead onto the world?s first

daguerreotype. Created by Louis Daguerre in collaboration with Joseph

Nicéphore Niépce in 1839, the daguerreotype used a form of photo-sensitive

halide, along with exposure to a scene or image through a lens to form a

negative or latent image. This would then go on to be placed in a heated batch

of mercury, to develop the image [2]. This could be construed as the earliest

form of documentary photography, in the way that the aim at this time was to

capture the objects presented, to be shown to a viewer, as it was.

 

In the very late 18th to early 19th century however, artists began to question

their own and others art in the search of scientific knowledge. Although, not

as intense as the renaissance, spanning the 14th and 16th century [3]. This

period would help photographers establish their art in their own way. Around

this time there were photographers who would celebrate the qualities of a

theory known as ?Positivism? or ?Straight Photography?. These photographers

were interested in photography?s ability to provide the viewer with an almost

accurate record of the visual world or the object presented in front of them.

 

In 1932, a group of photographers, bound by the same theoretical perspective

of photography, organised a group, where the emphasis was on ?Pure?

or ?Straight Photography?. This would mean sharp images, large depth of field,

and other unique qualities of the photographic process. This group would be

known as ?Group f/64?, and was founded by some of the lead canon of

photographers, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Willard Van Dyke, and Imogen

Cunningham. With contributions from John Paul Edwards, Consuelo Kanaga, Sonya

Noskowiak, and Henry Swift. The ?f/64? part of the groups name is in reference

to the smallest aperture the lens of a large format camera will drop to.

Because of this unusually small aperture, the images produced would have a

fantastic depth of field [4].

 

This leads me on to ?Modernism? which was a reaction to the renaissance I

mentioned earlier. Photographers such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were

the specialists of this movement. These ?Modernist? photographers believed the

photo didn?t need to be touched up or changed, because it is a loyal

representation of the artist?s vision. Photography was at the forefront

of ?Modernism? and helped carry and shape its ideas. Modernist Photography

helped undermine the linear structure of the predictable narrative [5].

Look at: Yochelson, Bonnie & Erwin, Kathleen "Pictorialism into Modernism: The Clarence H. White School Of Photography" Rizzoli 1996

 

It covers that period.

"Positivism Vs. Pictorialism"

 

How indepth must you go?

 

Flesh out the two "ism" seperately; what they mean to you and then compare.

 

What would be your summation as to these two "isms?"

 

A suggestion, get a copy of Susan Sontag's book; "On Photography." Curl up with this short book, pen, paper and online ability close at hand. After you complete her effort, you'll be in much better shape to answer your question because you'll understand the history of photography much better then your writings show.

 

Hope the above helps.

FTF Jack, Don't squirl away your time expecting some kind of real feed back from these assholes. just get U sum good books on who shot what, when, look real hard at what b good. there U R MAN, it ought 2 take u someplace else, these ARSEs ant worth the query. and ugly aperaCE ..Hayes

I've never heard of a photography movement being called the Positivism movement. I thought Positivism was more of an idea, of observation leading to theories and theories made or broken by confirmable repeatable observations....in other words the scientific method. (I read a lot of physics)

 

If your paper is to compare the movements I think you need to focus less on repeating facts of photography's development and more directly on the two movements and how they lead to one another. It might come in three parts...

 

First, from what I understand, photography was thought of as an industrial process to begin with. Its uses primarily in documentation, like portraits, pyramids, and factories. (Is this what you are calling the positivist movement?)

 

second, Pictorialism came about when people realized photography's potential as an art form of expression or narrative. They began immitating paitings of the period, like Turner and Whistler, or even Japanese prints....they simulated foggy, hazy, unclear, dark paintings by using altered photography in order to look "Pictoral" Photography kind of leaned on Painting like it had a broken leg and needed a cane.

 

then, the straight photography movement wiped off the vasaline coated lenses and looked at the world directly once again. (Back to a Positivist mode??) Only now this directness was approached with artistic intent rather then the intent to document. I think Stieglitz was one of the first to "convert" by photographing manhattan landscapes exactly as they were, but intentionally leaving out any tree, blade of grass, or anything natural, to convey a thought with a new and unique artistic medium able to now stand on its own.

 

The rift still kindof exsts today maybe? I think of my own work in more of a pictoral sense, (afterall, I print in a primary medium from the time period) and all around pictorialism seems to be coming back into vouge...?

 

hope that helps

You are looking way back here and are not mentioning anything about our current "renaissance" involving the advent of digital to photography.

 

So, how do your professor's two isms fit into the struggle of today between photography (straight, depicting by light) and digital illustration (high infusion of photoshop, images of bird from one shot, pasted, put into evening sky of another shot, clouds made purple and green for effect etc ..., I hope you understand what I mean ..)

 

Then you might have something relevant today, no need to curl up with half the library (dusty) in your lap and it might be fun to see the old vaseline covered lens resurrected in ps. Hint: Just survey the ratings around here. If it is oversaturated and completely unnatural, and does not exist in the world, cannot be photographed in this form or shape ever on earth, it will carry highest marks on phnet. The allure of the "new", haha ... a current form of arty "positivism" so to speak. Where is pictorialism today, though, you/one might wonder.

 

How about that? Good luck!

Thanks for your help guys. Without actually telling me what to write, you have given me plenty of ideas of which direction to head in. Is there anyway to delete this forum thread now? Because when I hand my essay in, the lecturer might think this is plagerism?

 

By the way, this is Sean Bradley, not Jeremy Budd, I was just using his account to post this =p

 

Thanks again folks.

" ... Without actually telling me what to write, you have given me plenty of ideas of which direction to head in. Is there anyway to delete this forum thread now? Because when I hand my essay in, the lecturer might think this is plagerism? ... "

Thanks for the compliments!

 

Dear Sean, what a weird coincidence: first you use someone else's account, then you ask for ideas, which are given to you graciously. And now you wonder about the originality of what will come out in your paper.

 

Intellectually honest it would be to quote these suggestions, with where/how found and gotten etc, in an acknowledgement in the paper.

 

I assume you will go well beyond the ideas here, but you asking for a deletion of these ideas, lest the instructor will call you on plagiarism, is odd, to say the least.

 

Plagiarism is a not honest, maybe it is even a crime, you know. And to ask us and the monitor to become accessory to one of those dishonest no-nos is - well - a bit tacky. Would you not agree.

 

Scum to you, bud.

 

And to our monitor, please preserve this thread intact for the record on Sean B and for that lone instructor to find. Thanks!

 

Honesty lasts forever, Sean; so embrace it sooner rather than later, please. For your own good and growth as a man. Good luck on your journey!

To be honest, I'm more worried about my original post showing up, not the ideas people have posted on here. My original post is taken directly from my essay, therefore when it goes through the filter, this page will most likely pull up.

 

You have completly misunderstood my aims. My aim wasn't to ask for help, then steal people's ideas and take them for my own. What do you take me for?

 

I know all about plagiarism, so please do not try to lecture me on it. Last year I wrote two 2,000 word essays which were both pulled up and had to be re-written because of apparent plagiarism. (Which was actually down to poor referencing).

 

I find it hard to approach my lecturer, for reasons I won't go into on a public forum.

 

I felt I needed reasurance that I was heading the right direction, which one or two posters here have given me. Although sadly I have been unable to use any of the information people have posted. Not because it's useless, but it doesn't directly get to the points I'm trying to make.

 

As for the account? It's simply quicker to use my friends account than get loaded up with junk mail in my inbox and creating a new account.

Sean, access to photo.net puts you in touch with a community of intelligent, well-read and generous people (I don't claim this accolade for myself), and you seem to be exploiting this resource shamelessly. As it happens I don't know squat about positivism or pictorialism or any other ism, so you don't get any free potted insights out of me. But I'd like to see you approach this forum for help in a more open and honest way.

I have to take Modernism in the arts, and particularly photography to be the cousin of Positivism. So about Modernism and the challenger we can call the Pictorial or Romantic approach?

<p>

If we presume there was a Modernist photography movement, then there is a certain commonality between it and Pictorials that should be shown: each chose to affect their work with techniques which "worked" to the outcomes each fostered, but with different rationales.

<p>

Modernists gave certain authority to hard metrics, a scientific way to view the universe and judge things by that which worked before, repeatedly. Their cultural platform was to foster the technology that grew from a scientific method so that an esthetic was given particular credence when it evinced the virtue of the technology, for example the mastery of conventional photographic technique.

<p>

Pictoralist photographers chose to exploit visual presentations that were known to evoke certain impressions, or experiences that had worked previously in various art media but they chose to work intuitively evincing "certain somethings" which they posited as transcending scientific rationale. (Still today in the subject of the hard question of consciousness we have a very strong argument for experience over abstraction.)

<p>

So it seems clear that each movement had this commonality: each proceeded from successful outcomes in previous visual art to produce more. Neither camp was interested in considering a common ground. (Agreement would have broken both.)

<p>

I would not worry about placing either group in a particular time, unless your professor has his mind all made up. The definition of various movements becomes clear only after a consensus of historians makes certain defining boundaries, but the two cultures existed simultaneously at times since the Ancient Greeks.

"Sean, access to photo.net puts you in touch with a community of intelligent, well-read and generous people (I don't claim this accolade for myself), and you seem to be exploiting this resource shamelessly. As it happens I don't know squat about positivism or pictorialism or any other ism, so you don't get any free potted insights out of me. But I'd like to see you approach this forum for help in a more open and honest way."

 

Brain, (and Frank) how much more honest would you like me to be? I made a post to ask for people for general help in which direction to go next. I've read some good posts, although sadly none of them really go in the direction I'd like to have gone with my essay.

 

To be honest Frank (and Brian), you're blowing this whole situation out of proportion, and adding more stress on my shoulders than I need right now. I also found your little "schpeil" you gave me quite degrading. If I had used any ideas on this forum then I would of course credited the person behind the idea.

 

The simple fact of me asking for deletion of this thread was because my original post is under my friends name, which might give my lecturer the impression the first part of the essay was written by him and I'd taken it from this site (Which obviously isn't the case at all), not to steal peoples' ideas.

 

I've finished my essay now. I didn't use any of the things suggested on this forum. This doesn't mean the ideas on this board were useless though. Once I hand my essay in later today, I will post it in full on here after it has been marked for you all to read, and for you to stop fabricating this idea of me coming on here to steal everyones amazing ideas and pass them off as my own.

 

Sean Bradley

your dates arent really right either...where you say 18th and 19th century you actually mean

19th and 20th

Jeremy,

 

Just trust your own intentions, learn the lesson, let it rest, and get back to work on your essay. All the best with it.

 

John

Positivism vs. Pictorialism?

 

Why not Horizontal vs Green?

 

Why "?Modernism?".

 

The characterization of modernism is very peculiar in terms of the names given. Have you READ the Negative and other works by Adams? "Didn't need to be touched up or changed" does not characterize Adam's extreme manipulation of the print to an extent that pales many Photoshoppers.

<p>I don't think fine art photography is ready to enter a whole new 21st century which started during the last 7 (or so) years ago...<br />Modern photography and Pictorialism are things of the past...</p>