Something to think about

[aaron2]

There's an interesting issue pointed out in the book, "Art & Fear" and I'd like to bring it out to people here so as to help me find a deeper understanding to what I'm doing. Here it goes:-

 

<p>

 

"In the first third of this century, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and a few fellow travellers turned the then-prevailing work of soft-focus photographic art upside down. They did so by developing a visual philosphy that justified sharply-focs images, and introduced the natural landscape as a subject for photographic art. It took dacades for their point to filter into public consciousness, but it sure has now: pictures appearing in anything from cigarette ads to Sierra Club books owe their current acceptance to those once-controversial images. Indeed, that vision has so prevasively become ours that people photographing vacation scenery today often do so with the hope that if everything turns out just right, the result will not simply look like a landscape, it will look like an Ansel Adams photograph of the landscape.

 

<p>

 

This too will pass, of course. In fact, artistically speaking, it has passed. The unfolding over time of a great idea is like a growth of a fractal crystal, allowing details and refinements to multiply endlessly - but only in ever-decreasing scale. Eventually (perhaps by the early 1960's) those who stepped forward to carry the West Coast Landscape Photography banner were not producing art, so much as reproducing the history of art. Separated two or three generations from the forces that spawned the vision they championed, they were left making images of experiences they never quite had. If you find yourself caught in similiar circumstances, we modestly offer this bit of cowboy wisdom: When the horse dies, get off."

 

<p>

 

It would not be too far away to suggest that many of us (myself included) is still riding on a dead horse (or is the horse dead?). For those courageous enough to side-step this "sharply focus" path, have you found understanding, satisfaction and acceptance to your art? How far have you wandered off? Have you found your own vision? Or do you believe that f64 is still the better (the only truthful) way to go? Your contribution is appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

 

<p>

 

Aaron

 

<p>

 

PS: Hope this thread does not offend anyone.

[bj_rn_nilsson]

First, the development of art and photography as an art. In my

opinion, you have a greater freedom to artistically express yourself

these days than you had in e.g. the 30's. Looking at the art scene in

general, there are today many different ways of expression, where a

multitude of styles are accepted. This, still in my opinion, also

holds true to some extent in the photography area.

 

<p>

 

Second, and this could be offensive to some people, a trend that I

feel has become accepted in the last 20 or so years is that art has

nothing to do with being professional, it is just a matter of being

different. In artschools (at least here in Europe), most students

seems to abandon the classes on studying and drawing the human

figure. "That is out of fashion... I'll never do that anyhow..."

Many "artists" of today havn't got the patience to work the whole way

through a project, so many things seen in art galleries nowadays are

just the seeds of a final product.

 

<p>

 

Let's narrow down the subject again to photography. Aaron is correct

in saying that the f64 type of shots have been followed by other

trends. This still doesn't mean that a really good print a la A.

Adams et. al. isn't appreciated. But I'm sorry to say that I've

walked out of photography exhibitions and the only words that came to

mind was "Ehhh... blurry and gray?". Giving it a little longer

thought, the work reminded me of my very first attempts in the

darkroom some 30 years ago, except that I didn't put a $400 price tag

on the prints that I fed the dustbin with. Seriously though, I see

the same trend in photography as in general art. It is often more

important to be shocking and strange than being a professional artist

who knows his/her materials.

 

<p>

 

Photography as such have always been a moving platform. The technical

advancement in our field since the invention of photography some 165

years have been amazing. Most other classical art forms havn't had

much development for centuries. This technical advancement have to

some extent made many photographers focused on technique.

 

<p>

 

Trying to conclude this, I think that any professional artist,

knowing his tools, can produce high-grade art. What style he/she is

opting for doesn't really matter. Any good photographer who knows his

camera/film/darkroom tools have the potential to produce final

photographs which looks the way he/she intends. If the intention is a

blurry shot, the final product will probably be a good visualization

of that intention. I guess that most of the people in this forum are

able and are producing "sharp" photographs, but the skill you've

gained from learning that is also applicable to whatever idea you

get.

[todd_caudle]

The problem with this premise is the "either/or" factor. One can take

sharp, depth-to-infinity images AND gauzy, romantic images. And

anything in between. Neither one is new, neither will likely go away

anytime soon. It is possible to find your own style among many

variations.

[www.graemehird.com]

I LIKE sharp focus - my preferences are all that count for me!

Luckily, there are enough people around here who also like it and

keep me in film money!

 

<p>

 

Those people (like me) think soft focus / soft subject matter

indicate a lack of skill and/or discipline and do not qualify as

art. How can I admire a photograph that could be replicated

accidently by a drunkard or a two year old pushing the shutter

release as the camera is pulled from the camera bag? I'll stop now

before my rant becomes a tyrade ;-)

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[david_clark4]

Hi Aaron, might be interesting for you to send a week in the special

archives of the George Eastman House surveying the field. Ask to see

some early Imogen Cunningham soft focus. If that aint art, then I

don't know what is. Even with Ed Weston, compare some of his early

soft focus stuff with his later f/64 work before you decide which is

"art" and which isn't. Maybe he switched because he mastered the one

and decided he wanted to try something new. Look at some of Cameron's

portraits. Before you buy into all this sharp focus nonsense, go to

where you can view a variety of great soft focus art, and then ask

youself what's art and not art. Best, David

[doug_paramore]

Aaron: Weston, Adams, et al were more or less rebelling against the

soft focus photography that became popular in the early days as

photographers were trying to imitate painting. The art of photography

went from one extreme to the other with no middle ground left. There

is room in the art world for both types. I love a properly printed

sharp image as well as the next person, but I have seen some soft and

slightly soft images that were fantastic. It really depends upon the

subject. We tend to develop an "I'm right and you are wrong" approach

to our art form as we become more proficient in the craft side of

photography. When we finally learn to focus sharply and print sharply

with just the right contrast to bring out the best in an image, we

tend to look down our noses at the soft focus stuff for awhile.

Eventually, many photographers realize there is more to photography

than just sharpness, such as mood, feeling, and various other

intangiables that work together to make a good print. I love Adams'

statement about a "sharp image of a fuzzy concept". I fully expect to

see, in the not too distant future, a breaking away from the

blazingly sharp images obtainable from modern lenses. Art is trendy

at best.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[ellis_vener_photography]

If you want to make art, real art, true art: You have to do the

following: Bring your entire self into the work itself and test it

against what you know and feel and think and discard all that

you do not feel to be honest and all that you have to make

excuses or apologies for. Nothing else will survive the scrunity of

others.<P> Arnold Newman says it more eloquently:<I>"We

make art with our heads and with our hearts. Cameras are only

tools."</I>

[chris_ellinger]

I've strived for technical perfection for many years, but one of my

most satisfying images was a grab shot made with a handheld pinhole

camera on 35mm film. I don't think "art" either demands or rejects

technical perfection. Still, I don't think the "f/64 horse is dead".

Some subjects are best represented with sharp LF technology.

 

<p>

 

However, I do think that the technical standards are being lowered

with digital technology. I see many serious amateur photographers,

seduced by new gadgets and easy production, accepting digital work

that is "almost as good as film".

[james_chinn]

Aron,

 

<p>

 

Yea I stray from the path. I enjoy all formats, including using hand

held 35mm wide open at night and even a Holga on occaison. It all

depends on the subject matter and what camera is the best tool for

putting your vision on paper.

 

One thing I have always had a problem with is this idea that Adams,

Weston and the rest of the West Coast photographers took it upon

themselves to change the photographic landscape. They may have

popularized the F64 aestetic, but they were simply a product of the

times, not artistic geniuses. In the 20s and 30s the world was in

the middle of the 2nd industrial revolution. Science and technology

provided great advances in mass production, tool and die

manufacturing, precision optics, medicine, aviation, chemistry,

physics, mathamatics, philosophy, publishing, etc. Americans were

interested in the new astetic of precision and efficiency and only

sharply focused precison like photography would become acceptable.

The culmination came with two events: the celebration of the

possibilities of technology at the 1939 World's Fair, and the

application of that technology in WW2.

 

<p>

 

If Adams had been born 20yrs earlier he would have been an obscure

pictorialist. if the Technological revolution had occured 20yrs

earlier we would have had the same f64 type movement with different

names.

 

<p>

 

I am not denying that these photographer's were great talents and

that they created wonderful art. All I am arguing is that they owe

most of their popularity to "being in the right place at the right

time"

 

<p>

 

Ok, let me have it for my heresy against the gospel according to

ST.Adams.

[doug_gould]

Aaron,

 

<p>

 

How much of the dead horse can I get into the frame? What about this

horse is interesting to my eyes? Can I bring the detail of his ears

into Zone 4? Is there some quality about his being dead that I can

editorialize with a picture?

 

<p>

 

(my point is, sometimes the question leads you to your project, and

sometimes the project is the question mark)

 

<p>

 

Doug

[bruce_wehman]

Art is like foliage sprouting from the cultural landscape. There are

many varieties, some live longer than others, some are popular, some

are not, and whatever form they take you can't really say that they

are going any place in particular.

 

<p>

 

 

Art just is.

[john_kasaian2]

FWIW, isn't the process of making "art" as much of an art as

the "art" that is produced?

[ellis_vener_photography]

john, In my opinion , no, it is just work, not "art". But one should

take pride in one's work, in a job well done. The finished print or

image or poem or book or painting or drawing or sculpture is

"the thing."

[dean_lastoria]

Again, poping up to defend pictorialists, someone, anyone, look at a

print from one. One by John Vanderpant caused an asthma atack. Don't

take thoes kinds of pictures if you don't like them, but don't

compare to a 2 year old please -- a 2 year old with a auto-everything

camera can also take a clear photo. Also, folks, if you don't

understand conceptual art and think Yoko Ono's only contribution to

the 20th century was breaking up the Beatles, then learn more befor

speaking, or just go out and take they photo's you take. I'm sure I'd

like them if I saw them.

 

<p>

 

As for the back and forth, there isn't any anymore -- the Academy is

dead -- Derrida killed it. Mead said we are in a constant fight with

our artistic fathers, but as fatherhood seems dead, we all got to

learn from our siblings here (too much Bly?). So let's all just learn

from each other, and stop using thoes evil dead fuzzies as a bugbear.

Or the gummies or the grainies.

 

<p>

 

Even St.A admits the pictorialits knew how to use light. He learned

that from them. If you realy hate them, just search out a good print

and look at it.

Dean

[dan_smith]

While flattening prints I read this post. One part stands out to me.

 

<p>

 

"Eventually (perhaps by the early 1960's) those who stepped forward

to carry the West Coast Landscape Photography banner were not

producing art, so much as reproducing the history of art. Separated

two or three generations from the forces that spawned the vision they

championed, they were left making images of experiences they never

quite had."

[dan_smith]

While flattening prints I read this post. One part stands out to me.

 

<p>

 

"Eventually (perhaps by the early 1960's) those who stepped forward

to carry the West Coast Landscape Photography banner were not

producing art, so much as reproducing the history of art. Separated

two or three generations from the forces that spawned the vision they

championed, they were left making images of experiences they never

quite had."

 

<p>

 

What are these experiences we have never had? Experiencing

solitude with the cameras? Exploring new areas seldom visited? Honing

and refining technique so we don't have to consciously think

about 'the process' at the time of shooting and are free to

concentrate on the vision we hope to put on film?

 

<p>

 

While there are too many who don't get past the copying stage

there are also many who have no problem taking the lessons of fine

technique and applying it to their particular vision in producing

images that will stand the test of time. Whether contact printing in

silver, platinum or other alt processes or enlarging from 4x5, the

photographers vision is paramount for these workers. Technique is

refined, building on the lessons of the past. Vision is honed image

by image and presented to the world as a finished work.

 

<p>

 

These photographers present their world framed for the rest to

see. They are not the ones posting "I am going to XXX, what is the

best view?" questions. They go to places both new and heavily visited

& come away with their vision embodied in the negatives they shoot.

Yes, some will look familiar and be like older images whether they

knew of the older work or not. Others will be fresh, new and entirely

their own with future generations then 'copying' these now publicized

& revealed locations. Some are long time photographers continually

finding new & moving images in what are, to others, 'tired old

locations'. Others find new locations & images both.

 

<p>

 

Maybe if the writer finds the style old & dated & passe', he

needs to look within. Yes, many produce the 'same old stuff' year

after year. Same photo, different day & different location: we have

all seen them & it will never stop. Others produce new & excellent

images that are worthy of the efforts made in getting them on film.

These are the photographers who build on the past masters & produce

their own work. When they get an excellent image it is their own

image, not an attempt to mimic an Adams image.

 

<p>

 

As for the amateurs who go places hoping to produce something

worthy of what Ansel did, more power to them. At least they are out

trying & hoping rather than sitting at home making excuses. Once they

get to the point of getting 'Anselimages' on a regular basis maybe

they can build on it and use the experience to move on to their own

vision. One can always hope.

[pat_kearns1]

Art is defined as a leap of the imagination. In photography it may

be a razor sharp or soft image. As Ellis said, the camera is only a

tool, it is what is in your heart and mind that one will put on

film. Some of my images fall into each category and I don't feel I

have to create it a certain way someone says it should be unless I

have been commissioned by them. At that point, it may be called art

by them but it is just work by me.

[john_hicks3]

I can tell when I've gotten firmly astride that horse again by the usually-delayed acceptance that the photos I'm making "in the Adams tradition" are intensely, stultifyingly (is that a word?) _boring_.

 

<p>

 

What works for me is, as you cited, to get off that horse and make myself shoot a roll of Delta 3200 in handheld 35mm, shoot a roll in the little cheap Horizon panoramic whizzer, do something different. It's sort of like taking a break from religion and _sinning with abandon_.

 

<p>

 

Then when I do get back to the big camera and f64 there's usually a little zip in the photos that wasn't there earlier.

[james_chinn]

Photography, as much as people would like it to be, is not rocket

science. We see a subject that speaks to us and we use the tools and

techniques we have learned and put the image to paper. We hope we

have created something that will resonate in others and convey a

little something of ourselves. If ultra sharp total control gets you

there great. I think people who get hung up on one format (especially

LF) cheat themselves out of a lot of creative opportunities with the

medium.

 

<p>

 

Their was a wonderful interview with Gordon Hutchings in the Nov/Dec

99 View Camera magazine where he talked about how he felt his work

was getting to formulaic and static. He put the view camera away and

shot 645 and 35mm for awhile. He talked of an "explosion of vision

in all directions...I was able to do things visually that you can't

do with a view camera. I loved it".

Hutchings returned to the view camera with a "fresh eye", using a

wider variety of lenses and subjcet matter.

 

<p>

 

He also said in the interview, "The interesting thing about the view

camera it that because it is physically demanding, we slowly and

subconsciously begin to play it safe. I think the images over time

if you don't watch it, become classic and conservative. The

photographer has to watch out for this entropic slide toward a

static, repetitive formula. You've got to be on constant gaurd

against it"

[keith_laban]

Would it not be refreshing, to worry less if a landscape photograph

in the style of Adams, was more or less "artistic" than a soft focus

version of the same. Surely we should strive for originality, even if

we fail. I loved the Gordon Hutchings quotes above!

 

<p>

 

Keith

[conrad_hoffman]

I've found I can do anything I want, except something completely new

and different.

[keith_laban]

Yes Conrad, but its fun trying!

[matt_oulman]

Man -O- Man!<BR>

<BR>

BR>

<BR>

It's no wonder everyone considers LF folks elitist and snobby!

[jnorman2]

to imply that weston and adams created some new vision or "visual

philosophy" is surely to be completely ignorant of the history of

photography. look at the work of edouard baldus and others who

excelled at achieving wonderfully sharp mammoth plate images of

landscape and topography dating from the earliest years of

photography - look at the direct antecedents of adams work, such as

timothy o'sullivan, muybridge, and carleton watkins. of the two

photographers mentioned, weston was surely the more groundbreaking in

terms of moving the artistic target, if simply through his unique

choice of visually reinterpreting common objects. adams work, while

technically excellent and often quite dramatic, is, philosophically,

merely an extension of the work of earlier topographic

photographers. just as the zone system is a refinement of basic

developing principals that had been known and used for 50 years or

more before adams came along.

[edward_burlew]

There is a continuing desire for picture of landscape. the difference

of course is that the techology to do them is evolving and the public

is saturated with the same images. The "dead horse" is the lack of

new environments and ways of seeing. Ansel if I recall never added a

nude to the landscape as Weston did or Bullock did. Eugene Smith dis

landscape with people and of course Galen does 35 mm landscape . So

is it dead? No. ou have to add and keep going. The old 8x10 can be

used in many places and not just from the roof of a 1937 suburban.

But you have to get outthere and sweat and experiment.