Plagens Again, Sam

[._._z]

"You imply the Wikipedia article is biased, lapsed, and erroneous. If so, then so is Plagens. Right?"

 

Don't be daft. By that logic, since Charles Manson was a murderer and stopped at red lights, and you stop at red lights, you are a murderer.

[don_e]

"Don't be daft."

 

Then I take it this discussion provided an opportunity for you to express your opinion of Wikipedia. Ok.

[._._z]

No, it was an opportunity to correct daft illogic.

[don_e]

"By that logic, since Charles Manson was a murderer and stopped at red lights, and you stop at red lights, you are a murderer."

 

Nope. The two quotations are equivalent. If one is "biased, lapsed, and erroneous", then so is the other. There's the logic. It is not "daft".

 

Btw, I consider the Wikipedia article on Pictorialism to be biased, lapsed and erroneous, and therefore so is Plagens on Pictorialism.

It's up to you to unscramble your own "logic" (I am assuming you are paying attention, rather just here marking your territory).

[._._z]

No, your logic is still of the 'il' ilk, unfortunately because you foolishly concluded that if Wikipedia ever said something erroneous, therefore Plagens must have. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

[don_e]

"...because you foolishly concluded that if Wikipedia ever said something erroneous, therefore Plagens must have. Foolish, foolish, foolish."

 

Tsk. You should take something for that.

 

If two statements are equivalent, and one is deemed "erroneous" then the second one must be deemed erroneous, too.

 

This is not about the sources, but about the statements. Are they true or false?

[._._z]

Because an article can change from minute to minute, the source may not be there for future reference. Wikipedia is not dependable. The Wikipedia article used as a "source" may actually have been created by the author of the academic paper, thus providing "proof" that is little more than double assertion. Or, someone copied it from the source moments after reading it. There's no such thing as actual "peer review" of a Wikipedia article, since there's no way to establish a peer group without knowing the author's credentials.

 

I replied to YOUR citation of Wikipedia. So... don't be daft.

[don_e]

Why don't you understand that the subject is not the source of, but the statements about the intentions of pictorialists?

 

You began your Wikipedia rant when I made a mild joke about Stieglitz being both the grandfather of pictorialism and the patron saint of straight photography.

"I replied to YOUR citation of Wikipedia. So... don't be daft."

 

But you don't deal with the content...

 

So, let's say I am "foolish" and "daft". Set that aside. It doesn't matter. You have two quotations, no matter the source, that are equivalent. Are they true or are they false?

 

To save you the trouble of actually reading anything, here's the issue in very simple language:

 

Did the Pictorialists' employ their techniques *for the purpose of making their photographs look like paintings?*

[._._z]

"let's say I am "foolish" and "daft"."

 

Agreed!

[don_e]

That's it? Over 6500 posts, 8 years a member, and having rated over 58,000 images, all you've got is a bitch about the way I constructed a sentence?

 

Wishing you and yours a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

[._._z]

Still agreed.

[jose_aguiar]

Emotions are nice and we try to transmit them onto our work. Or not. But we were reading/talking on ideas, concepts, symblos. Let our emotions on the tea room, please.

Reality, the special link to: We do register moments. But moments that have ligth. That is what we record: reflected light. And that reflection (no longer reality but a reflection) is chosen onto the hundreth of second on de angle corresponding to the lenses of our choice. So the way will always be a "brand-new way". Most ism schools are nice groupings so that one may study them confortably - or talk about them. But the fact is that each photographer, as such, is always choosing within is framework and paradigm and hopefully objective: the tools will change but, in the end, we are trying to transmite "our" reality, through image, to others. It is good if they perceive it as intended. It is great if perceived and felt. It is Art if surpasses the test of time and Culture. In the meanwhile it is nice if it sells.

Thanks for reading this pompous rambling that hopes to help.

Happy new year.

[Allen Herbert]

Did the Pictorialists' employ their techniques *for the purpose of making their photographs look like paintings?*

 

I think not. They were all talented photographers capable of doing high quality straight photography. They were experimenting with the Art of Photographing to see where it would take them.

 

Unfortunately the word "Pictorialist" has been so hackneyed to become totally clichéd . A photographer who uses a soft focus filter would now be deemed a ""Pictorialist".

[Allen Herbert]

By some,i might add.<div></div>

[don_e]

"Did the Pictorialists' employ their techniques *for the purpose of making their photographs look like paintings?*

 

I think not"

 

When steve swinehart said as much in the previous Plagens thread, (and repeated here) there was a response or two that indicated disagreement and I was about to chime in on that side -- I was 'ok' with Plagens (and with the Wikipedia entry) on it. All I lacked was a major Pictorialist's quotation to offer as proof. I could find none in support online. In fact, the quotations I did find dissuaded me and I found myself tentatively in agreement with steve (and now you).

 

"They were experimenting with the Art of Photographing to see where it would take them."

 

Perhaps in the 19th century, inventing photographic art was what they were doing, whatever art might mean to them at the time. Obviously and reasonably art as it might be applied to photography then meant drawing and painting, so, their photographs might have a similar "look" (that's what got me wrong on the issue). To one generation "art" meant academic painting of the Victorian era, to another Impressionism, and to another Dada and Surrealism. They are all Pictorialists. Following that logic the Group f/64 photographers may be referred to as Pictorialists; the only distinctive feature of their practice being not mixing the means and styles of other media with photography for conceiving and making photographic art.

 

At the moment I can't research this with any depth, but next month I'll be moved to a city with several excellent libraries (even my few books are packed up) and will read whatever is available on the subject.

[rick_rothwell]

As a 'rookie' at age 48 I have so much to learn, experience, and see about photography - and I want to more than anything. Perhaps my naive perspective let's me say that unless you're photographing items for documentation work, it's all art - good or bad, significant or not. Most is not notable - do we see every photo a great photographer takes? I hear there's plenty of bad ones even for them. Are great photos never seen? Yes. It's all so subjective and can be limited in distribution. I don't generally fault anyone for their likes or dislikes, what they're seen or haven't.

 

Most things in life don't stand still - change is constant, and so is growth and going through cycles. Like teenagers, most people want to be different from other generations and fit in with their own while maintaining a unique identity. And then there's those that don't follow anyone. It's the human condition - whether photography, music, or clothing.

 

Some may strive to convey more realism in their photos than others like Group f/64. But at this point in time and technology I think it goes beyond an artistic style. I do not want to become a Photoshop artist. I use RAW (NEF) files and Capture NX as an image editor, not a pixel editor. I just want to 'bring the most' out of what's already there. I see my digital post processing as an extension of taking the picture - going further than my camera can, but maintaining the original image I perceived in the viewfinder. Color, contrast, and lighting, etc. are altered to make the image as pleasing as possible while still within the reality of the moment. Does this qualify as organic photography, no artificial ingredients? I think so.

 

In portraits will I Photoshop out a few blemishes so the woman looks more flattering and to remove the distraction? Yes. Am I on the edge here of misrepresenting reality? Not really in my opinion, not yet. The person and scene are still real, just a temporary item (blemish) has been removed. I don't remove birthmarks but I may soften wrinkles. Our world is full of color, do I represent it truthfully when I output a black and white image of it? Not quite. This goes so far as to include using filters on cameras, right? It's a matter of degrees, there's no hard line I can see with alterations.

 

I do think that adding or deleting objects via Photoshop becomes more digital painting than photography, and is an 'art form' of it's own - and synthetic in nature. Unfortunately as both the organic and synthetic forms are "still images" there is no easy way to recongize one from the other. And does most of the public care? Probably not if it looks plausible, within the bounds of reality as they perceive it - and most want to believe what they see, and get used to what has already been done. Can reality compete with computer aided imagination? I don't know, I guess time will tell.

 

As I've said to a friend who has photographed as an ametuer for 30 years, I can learn a lot from others but I don't shoot pictures to make photographers happy - I shoot to make myself happy or the person I'm shooting for happy, if there is one. I am my biggest critic, and think that my work might be good on occassion, and hope it gets a little better as time goes on. And for me it is art, my art, whether others see it as such or not. I don't think I have a style yet, but I feel it is organic in nature and prefer it that way. Photography is a joy and a privilege to me above all else.

[rick_rothwell]

After my last post I began to watch my copy of the wonderful PBS documetary on Ansel Adms, and came across this quote:

 

"June 8th, 1920. Dear Father: I am more than ever convinced that the only possible way to interpret the scenes hereabout is through an impressionistic vision. A cold material representation gives one no conception whatever of the great size and distances of these mountains. Ansel."

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html

[don_e]

"Perhaps my naive perspective let's me say that unless you're photographing items for documentation work, it's all art - good or bad, significant or not."

 

Actually not. The vast majority of photos are taken without a thought regarding art. Consider the 10's of millions of snapshots taken every year.

[jtk]

For those of us who have any interest in photo history (it's at least as significant as toothpaste history), "pictorial" and "pictorialism" have specific implications.

 

Some of us obsess on the mythic, romantic fantasy aspect, others properly mention the likely soft focus, even specific optics (petzal etc). Alternative processes, etching and retouching of the film and prints come to mind (as with Mortensen). If not fully adequate, none of these ideas are "wrong," since the meaning of such terms isn't determined by unelected anal retentives.