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

[Landrum Kelly]

<p> I will try to read back over the above later. I don't want anyone to think that I am not interested in pursuing a certain line of argumentation or discussion.</p>

<p>For the moment, however, here is one by Käsebier that I cannot imagine anyone doing any better in any age, with any equipment or any type of processing:</p>

<p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Rose_O%27Neill.jpg">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Rose_O%27Neill.jpg</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie mentioned "progressive" earlier and Anders talks about progress in terms of what's acceptable now that once wasn't or what was once acceptable that now is not. These are tracks worth considering, given where Lannie originally came from.</p>

<p>Stieglitz was a well chosen figure for the discussion, in that he was a pivotal figure in the movement of photography away from pictorialism and into realism. Now, chances are that if Stieglitz wasn't around, someone else may have at least to some extent filled his shoes or photographers would have chartered new territory. So, I think in the sense in which Lannie and Anders are talking, Stieglitz embodies photographic progress, <em>sans</em> any necessary association with "better."</p>

<p>Nan Goldin, Robert Mapplethorpe, Jock Sturgess (we've all seen the examples) couldn't have done the kind of work they did before Stieglitz certainly, and even after Stieglitz up to a certain point. So, indeed, the fact that subjects are being dealt with openly does show the progress of photography as well as the culture which supports it, helps determine it, and benefits from and is affected by it.</p>

<p>As Anders points out, there are negative (IMO) progressions (regressions) as well, due to an increased fear over child abuse, etc. There's been a similar regression regarding photojournalists and governmental restrictions placed on coffins returning from war. What were imortant and motivating images coming out of Vietnam each night on mainstream TV has regressed to journalists often embedded in battalions cheerleading for wars they don't understand, and making money for corporate outlets billing themselves as news media.</p>

<p>I do think some of this progression is ultimately for the better, which doesn't, in my mind, reduce the effectiveness, beauty, interest, or attachment to work of the past. They simply weren't there yet. The portrait of Rose O'Neill Lannie linked to is no less sublime because, today, she might be shown nude, homeless, and shooting up heroine in bleeding colors. And the nude, bleeding, ultra-real image of today is no less moving than some of the more romantic and pleasant images of a century ago. There is a unique and timeless beauty and a deep reality even in the posed artificiality of that Käsebier photo. It is staged, almost as a still life, with the emphasis on life, not still. It has a softness and lyricism to it from the gentility of the smile, the comfort of the eyes, to the folds of the translucent curtain and texture of her apron and the white loveliness of her dress. Whatever formula I see in the setup, I immediately accept. Because we are currently exploring edgier work, do we reject this kind of photographic classicism? No. And, if we appreciate the kind of beauty found in the portrait of Rosie, must we reject or put down the different take on the world that Nan Goldin or Robert Mapplethorpe give us? Also, no.</p>

<p>A progression is an unfolding. That's what's been happening and what will continue to happen, even if there is regression. It's also not a constant, as Anders may have been getting at. The standing on shoulders of past artists, as Wouter put it and Anders responded, can also be to reject them, sometimes quite harshly. There are also lean periods, and stagnant eras. There is backtracking. There are schools revisited, neo-this and anti-that. There are declared ends and then miraculous continuations beyond the ends. We survived Dada. A little bit or a lot of all that has come before manages to survive. And it informs.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Addition] And, believe it or not, the present informs the past. Because we have Stieglitz, Goldin, Mapplethorpe, and Serrano, we see Rosie through somewhat different eyes than those who saw her way back when. The past is not as fixed as we sometimes think, I think.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Of course Stieglitz wouldn't shoot the Flatiron the exact same way today if he was a contemporary. Why would he use ancient techniques/vision? Why on earth would he be a retro, old-school Modernist? That kind of conservatism doesn't seem to fit his character.</p>

<p>Consciousness evolves, and artists are not exempt. Is it a progression in the sense that things are "better" all the time? I doubt it. Things change (and/or we change them), and we adapt (or die). </p>

<p>There's also the not-so-small Hubris factor in thinking that <em>we </em>are the pinnacle of everything. It's a tad self-serving. I do not think we're standing on the shoulders of giants, either. They were men, basically like us. Mythologizing them into Titans shorts them out of the significance of their achievements, and imposes distance and disconnect between us and them.</p>

<p> Transplant a Stieglitz clone into being born in 1972, and he might never have become an artist. We can't shift so many variables and expect similar/identical results. He might have grown up to be a politician, software developer, or...? That's a lot of butterfly wingbeats.<br>

____________________________________<br>

A progression in the sense Fred posits above, an <em>unfolding</em> (which is very close to what I was thinking in development) makes sense.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>I try my best not to get caught up in these philosophic rollercoaster rides, but since Edward Steichen is a personal favorite of mine (the man, not necessarily his work), I wanted to add something to what Fred posted.</p>

<p>Steichen writes, "There wasn't anything that wasn't discussed openly and continuously in the galleries at 291. If the exhibitions at 291 had been shown in any other gallery, they would never have made an iota of the impact that they did at 291. The difference was Stieglitz".</p>

<p>Max Weber was the first one to argue Stieglitz into seeing that Stieglitz's early work was much better than his later "pictorial" work. It was De Zayas who found among Stieglitz's proofs a "Steerage" picture, which Stieglitz had overlooked, which later became his most famous photograph.....<br>

But Stieglitz only tolerated people close to him when they completely agreed with him and were of service. Gertrude Kasebier was the first Photo-Secessionist to be forced out of the organization, because she was antagonistic to some of the things that Stieglitz did. Next was Clarence White, for the same reason. Max Weber and Stieglitz remained enemies until their dying days. </p>

<p>This leads me to believe that where your work is seen, and who you're associated with, be it a publication of note, gallery, or people of influence, has more to do with how your work will be perceived, than the quality of your work itself. As Fred pointed out, and Stiechen confirms, they didn't see each in the same light as we view them today. I believe the same holds true for the art here on photo.net. If it were seen in a top gallery, and not on this social network, we would be have a different assessment of it. In every generation, there will be those who praise art, buy art, make art, and finally critique art.....</p>

<p>Oh...so many critics!!!!!!!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am always glad to see Steichen's "Flatiron" shot discussed. Of particular interest to me are remarks about early experiments with color, shooting night-time shots in mist, etc. These guys were experimenters above all else:</p>

<p>http://kunmr-suse.msg.ku.edu/pages/flatiron.html (Please read the comments below the photo.)</p>

<p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Steichen_flatiron.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/33.43.39</p>

<p>Any further insights on the techniques used would, I believe, be germane in this context. Yes, we are talking philosophy, but I hope that all allusions to how certain effects were produced then (versus now) might be deemed within bounds on this particular thread.</p>

<p>I love this shot with a passion. That means nothing to anyone else but me, although I have heard others say it, too.</p>

<p>(I am not sure why we are seeing two different colorations above. Perhaps someone could help.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Max Weber was the first one to argue Stieglitz into seeing that Stieglitz's early work was much better than his later "pictorial" work. It was De Zayas who found among Stieglitz's proofs a "Steerage" picture, which Stieglitz had overlooked, which later became his most famous photograph.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Steerage</p>

<p>Phil, are you talking about the sociologist Max Weber or someone else?</p>

<p>http://www.mta.ca/faculty/socsci/sociology/fleming/weber_album/index.html</p>

<p>Oops! I see the answer already:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber_%28artist%29</p>

<p>(Any citations that any of you could give to those of us who have had no formal training in this area would be most appreciated.)</p>

<p>-Lannie</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p>I really tried to red the whole thread, just to make sure I wasn't repeating someone, but I gave up, and I'm jumping in...</p>

<p>I would guess that every photographer , if they could, would be able to look back on their work and point at a time when they produced their best. It may or may not be a progression. It may be that it happened earlier in their career than later, or they did continually get better with time. So, as individual artists, they grew to a point in time.</p>

<p>Even though you want to guide the topic to their vision and topics away from gear, I think the further you go back in time , the more you may find photographers internally wishing they were not held back by the limits of their film, or gear, or something physical. I got my Nikon F4, because I wanted to do something that my FG could not do. I'll bet every photographer who took shots of portraits grumbled about the blurry hands or arms of the people who couldn't sit still for those long shutter speeds they had. Or maybe how long it took to change film plates, or many things. Once those restrictions were removed, I would imagine a collective, sigh of relief, where they knew they could be MORE creative and do what they always wished they could do. Sometimes technology advancement does lead to more creativity and better work.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Even though you want to guide the topic to their vision and topics away from gear, I think the further you go back in time , the more you may find photographers internally wishing they were not held back by the limits of their film, or gear, or something physical. I got my Nikon F4, because I wanted to do something that my FG could not do. I'll bet every photographer who took shots of portraits grumbled about the blurry hands or arms of the people who couldn't sit still for those long shutter speeds they had.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand perfectly, John, and of course the technology has often driven the artistic opportunities. I was simply afraid of being overwhelmed with mindless reminders of how far we have come technologically. Informed comments like yours are always welcome--and right to the point, precisely because we find it very nearly impossible to see the world (photographically speaking) the way it was seen a hundred plus years ago.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for your post, which says everything that I would have said if I had known how to say it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p>The "what if Atget had had a Nikon D4x" speculation and fanciful arguments have little to do with philosophy, and IMO belong in Casual Conversations.</p>

<p>[Gee, what if the Spartans had a couple of neutron bombs? American Indians AK-47's and RPGs?]</p>

<p>People live with the technology of their time. Although camera manufacturers and stores would love for you to think that what's holding you back is gear, the truth is that what's holding you back is you. At last year's AIPAD show in NYC, comprised of many of the top galleries in the US (and some around the world), the great majority of contemporary images sold were made on ancient technology: <em>Film. </em>(and, no, I am not in any way making a case for film!).</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Luis, you are right of course that people live with and use the technology of their time. At the same time, isn't the technique used by Atget, Steichen etc. part of the attraction? The technique is among the reasons of the look of their photographs.<br>

This is not to deny that the real qualities are in composition, vision, etc. but photographic technique used does tend to show up in the final result.<br>

_______________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not think we're standing on the shoulders of giants, either. They were men, basically like us. Mythologizing them into Titans shorts them out of the significance of their achievements, and imposes distance and disconnect between us and them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 'giants' should not be taken too literal for sure. It's just a quote and more used to underline the sequence in development. I full agree, though, making myths of them creates a distance. The earlier discussion on Lannie saying he will never reach the level of the discussed photographers comes to mind. Just as example, since I think we all 'suffer' from it in various degrees.<br>

___________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's also the not-so-small Hubris factor in thinking that <em>we </em>are the pinnacle of everything. It's a tad self-serving.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, but in which way is it self-serving? A feel-good factor that we live in interesting times?</p>

<p>____________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This leads me to believe that where your work is seen, and who you're associated with, be it a publication of note, gallery, or people of influence, has more to do with how your work will be perceived, than the quality of your work itself. As Fred pointed out, and Stiechen confirms, they didn't see each in the same light as we view them today. I believe the same holds true for the art here on photo.net. If it were seen in a top gallery, and not on this social network, we would be have a different assessment of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to agree to it; especially different appreciation is different time-frames. Not to knock Steichen in any way (since the works I know, I quite like), but to what extend does his work get the praise because he was a pioneer? Because we realise he worked with limited tools (compared to what we can use nowadays) and made the (very) best out of those?<br>

It happens often enough. I have a bit a problem with it, since it 1. does not value the work on its own merits, and 2. it smells dearly of the hybris attitude quoted above (<em>he did well, given what he had = oh poor boy with his limited camera</em>).<br>

But at the same time, if I see a good photo on facebook, or here, or in a gallery, do I really perceive it different? I honestly wonder; it could well be true because the 'context' in which I view it sets a mood and changes to what I am perceptive. It would be a nice test!</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>here is one by Käsebier that I cannot imagine anyone doing any better in any age, with any equipment or any type of processing: (<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Rose_O%27Neill.jpg">Here</a>)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The shot shows <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_O%27Neill">Rose O'Neil </a>. She was known as the "Queen of Bohemian Society", the inventor, as an illustrator, of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewpie">Kewpie dolls</a> and a very outspoken defender of women rights. She was the re-known "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_O%27Neill">Rose of Washington Square</a>".<br /> So Lannie, you are right, the portrait of Ms O'Neil, would surely enough not be shot in the same way today as it was by Käsebier in 1907. It is a shot of a very known personality at that time and she was considered one of the most beautiful women in New York (the "world" for the connoisseurs, admiring the portrait).<br /> <br /> The shot includes a series of elements that only with ease could be interpreted and appreciated by people living at that time and very much in the style of the shot of the lady I previously gave a link to of <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nIZprbnXL-s/TPRkRA24wbI/AAAAAAAARxI/fwL2009M8gs/s1600/GertrudeKasebierEvelynNesbit1901.jpg">Evelyn Nesby</a>: the empty fruit bowl (consumed fruits!) and the photo on the wall behind of mother and child and her casual partly covered white gown, told the story of a woman (she was divorced from her first husband at the age of 27) that lived a bohemian life, a thread to the dominant morals of the "good society" - but surely secretly admired by many, for exactly that. Is she vulnerable ? Not the least. She is demonstratively facing the viewer with a charming maybe even confronting smile defending herself against any possible critical judgements of her way of life.</p>

<p>If one should return to the question of progress in photography on the basis of this short outline of what I think Käsebier was up to when shooting Rose O'Neil, I would believe that we would not se many portraits with the same somewhat heavy symbolism, but still most portraits of any time includes elements, chosen deliberately or not, leading the viewer towards interpreting the personality in view.<br>

<br /> It is my impression, but I might be wrong, that such approaches to portraitures, and photography in general, has been even further developed in recent years with the booming of allegories in modern photography (<a href="http://oaj.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/117/F1.large.jpg">Jeff Wall</a> (nude!), <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_KAV5i0Uoa8/Tb2QW8d-YbI/AAAAAAAAALE/kPbdgpw7JHo/s1600/pierre-et-gilles3.jpg">Pierre et Gilles</a>, <a href="http://f56.net/images/kuenstler_artists/johngoto/Newworldcircus/58842_9227_PopsMcGovern.jpg">John Goto</a>, <a href="http://www.slashseconds.org/issues/002/003/articles/kknorr/en_receptioncopy-1.jpg">Karen Knorr</a>, <a href="http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/archive/images/119.486.jpg">Melanie Manchot</a> not to mention <a href="http://myoutergeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/sherman-cinderella.jpg">Cindy Sherman</a> .. and many others - no name-dropping, for sure!)</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The 'giants' should not be taken too literal for sure. It's just a quote and more used to underline the sequence in development. I full agree, though, making myths of them creates a distance. The earlier discussion on Lannie saying he will never reach the level of the discussed photographers comes to mind. Just as example, since I think we all 'suffer' from it in various degrees.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not suffering, Wouter--but I am glad that you put the word 'suffer' in square quotes. If I really expected that I would ever make the contributions to photography that Stieglitz, Steichen, Käsebier,<em> et al.</em> have made, especially given my other obligations (and my very real sense of mission in political philosophy), then I would be suffering indeed, and there would be no need for the scare quotes: I would be suffering from. . . DELUSIONS!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Good point Lannie, but likewise Fred made a good point that being ambitious does pave a way forward, while being too modest may hold you back.<br>

The truth will be somewhere in the middle ;-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Wouter - </strong>"At the same time, isn't the technique used by Atget, Steichen etc. part of the attraction?"</p>

<p>Atget's camera, lens and process were archaic during the last half of his career. Weston's lens was so old that there's a famous conversation when Ansel Adams encourages E.W. to choose from any lens on his shelf, and E.W. keeps his. The gear they used was mass-produced, meaning it was accessible to thousands of photographers during the day, but we only remember a very few. By that I mean it wasn't the gear.</p>

<p>If one wants to discuss the gear they used, there's gear oriented forums here. Now, talking about the aesthetic decisions they made is something else entirely.The answer to the question Lannie posed about the grain in one of Stieglitz's pictures is an example. How the grain was made, technically, is far less interesting than why.</p>

<p>Of course, if people want to discuss gear here, and the staff allows it, I have nothing further to say on the matter.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter - "</strong>The earlier discussion on Lannie saying he will never reach the level of the discussed photographers comes to mind. Just as example, since I think we all 'suffer' from it in various degrees."</p>

<p>That part about Lannie was exactly what I had in mind when I wrote about the "Titans". I realize it's a "manner of speaking", but believe it to be a destructive one. People suffer who are comparing themselves to the legends, but, 1) This is not a contest. 2) Most of the people here did not make a life commitment of the kind these guys did. 3) As the Buddha says, everything must suffer, but it is possible to escape from that misery. Enlightenment in the photographic sense is no mystery. 4) Each of us is on his own path. Do the best you can. 5) Oh, yeah, you're no Einstein or Pornstar either. Get over it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There's also the not-so-small Hubris factor in thinking that <em>we </em>are the pinnacle of everything. It's a tad self-serving.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Wouter - "</strong>Agreed, but in which way is it self-serving? A feel-good factor that we live in interesting times?"</p>

<p>No. The delusion that we're the ne plus ultra of evolution, and photography, the living peak (demigods?) at the top of the heap. All times are interesting. Being -- and staying -- alive are interesting.<br>

__________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Anders - "...</strong> I would believe that we would not se many portraits with the same somewhat heavy symbolism, but still most portraits of any time includes elements, chosen deliberately or not, leading the viewer towards interpreting the personality in view.<br /> <br /> It is my impression, but I might be wrong, that such approaches to portraitures, and photography in general, has been even further developed in recent years with the booming of allegories in modern photography. "</p>

<p>Anders, some good points there, but it is good to remember that at any given time there was a spectrum of portrait visions/approaches and overall trends. The idea of a girl in Nesbit's situation changed, as did the culture's view on the matter and the way artists depicted them. This was evolving long before the invention of photography.</p>

<p>In the case of Nesbit, instead of looking at one portrait in a vacuum, it might be helpful to see other portraits done of her at the time.</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=evelyn+nesbit+photos&hl=en&biw=761&bih=396&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=NiFqTqaWDIm6tgeXhdX0BQ&ved=0CBsQsAQ</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Luis</p>

<blockquote>

<p>instead of looking at one portrait in a vacuum, it might be helpful to see other portraits done of her at the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree Luis, if the point was to formulate an opinion on portraits of Nesbit or on her, herself, through her portraits, if that could be done. It was however not my intention. What I tried to do was to try to say something of relevance to the specific question of Lannie concerning "progress". <br /> I agree with you that at any time, there is, what you describe as "a spectrum of portrait visions/approaches and overall trends". My modest proposal was simply to catch just one dimension of such visions that can be detected in some portraits of the beginning of last century in photography and that I would suggest are not possible (?) today. Not all portraits of Nesbit would illustrate such visions, I'm sure, but my suggestion was that certain portraits of <strong>Gertrude Käsebier</strong> have them.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Wouter - </strong>"At the same time, isn't the technique used by Atget, Steichen etc. part of the attraction?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not think that it necessarily is the gear that attracts, but the way photos looked, and especially the way the look today, that attracts. I have uploaded an example of such an anachronic pastiche photo shot some few days ago with very much up-to-date techniques. <a href="../photo/14177912&size=lg">See here</a> (click on the photo to make it smaller!) It attracts me, if you wish.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Anders, "<em>the way photos looked, and especially the way the look today, that attracts</em>": exactly, that's what I meant. I wasn't trying to imply Atget photos look good because of his gear, but the 'signature' left by the gear he used, is part of Atget being Atget.<br>

And I see what attracts you in your example too, it works well (my 'sepia' experiments usually end up in some disastrous looking murk, so I tend to stick to black and white), and the topic lends itself well to it.</p>

<p>In no way did I try to make this a discussion on gear, but maybe the way I desribed it was a bit unclear on that matter.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Anders, my point was not about the sad figure of Nesbit herself, but on developments in portraiture. Not to attempt to downgrade Kasebier in any way, by looking at the same subject photographed by many photographers of the day, we can begin to see that many of the tropes we see were in GK were common at the time, not just endemic to one photographer. We can also see variants, some of which prefigure how portraits would be done later, and others that harken back to portraits (and cliche's) of earlier days. I think if one is using her as a baseline, it is good to flesh that out a little.</p>

<p>In other words, I do not disagree with you & was simply approaching this from another angle.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree Luis. Sorry I misread you. I'll try to do the exercise of looking at the interesting collection of shots of Nesbit you linked to, who surely was know for what she stood for, by all the photographers concerned. Good exercise.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>See this series of <a href="http://turnofthecentury.tumblr.com/search/Evelyn+Nesbit">photos of Nesbit</a> and you can see her in all possible and impossible roles: as intimate friend of a polar bear, as gypsy, as geisha, half naked or fully naked (not part of this series), as mother, girl with flowers or just dreamy. They are mostly shot by Rudolf Eickemeyer Jr., who seems to be specialized in the girl - and our Käsebier.<br>

I seem to be stuck with what I originally wrote based on the Käsebier portrait.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I guess I must be in the minority, on this. I do believe that the physical tools available do indeed make a big difference in a persons progression and ability to be creative.</p>

<p>Some one mentioned perspective. Prior to the "discovery" of how to draw with physical perspective, all the painting looked like people all pressed flat and some where giants and others where tiny.</p>

<p>http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/flemish3.jpg</p>

<p>When Filippo Brunellesch figured out how to paint with depth, the world was amazed. </p>

<p>I'm sure similar things happened with better paints, better canvas, perhaps brushes, etc.</p>

<p>How many great artistic ideas never came about, simply because the medium just could NOT do that , at that time ? I think that many art fields had quantum leaps in their scope of what could be done. Between these leaps, the art progressed slower, as they tried to perfect what could be done in that window.</p>

<p>I really think that the artists of the past would NOT shoot the shots the same, if given a much larger playground to work with. I'm sure they knew what they had to live with and pushed it as far as they could. With much better tools, comes more room to BE creative.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I think your point is completely valid. I also think the reverse can be true, which is why people often choose to go back to earlier tools and instruments, such as musicians who still prefer to play harpsichords or original instruments, photographers who love to get their hands on old polaroids, etc.</p>

<p>Something to consider is the freedom that limits can and often have created. The limits of tools (and there seem always to be some) are often what inspire us to be more clever, more creative, more industrious. People often relish rubbing up against those kinds of limits as well as many other kinds. It's why, in another thread, when someone tried to tell me that I couldn't be both artificial or contrived and at the same time genuine, I told him just his saying that gave me more energy toward my goal of doing just that. </p>

<p>If art, to any extent, is about transcendence, it's not just the magical or the drug-induced type. It's in the creator transcending his own perceptions and especially his own pre-conceptions and assumed limitations.</p>

<p>If we're wondering whether Steichen and Stieglitz would have shot differently with today's equipment, we can't separate that from today's sensibility. My guess is that they would have done many things the same and many things differently. My guess is also that they were very accustomed to overcoming what others probably saw as limits and boundaries. </p>

<p>We all run up against limits, not necessarily of equipment, but of time, lighting situations, missed opportunities, inability to get to the position we desire, inability to control weather, etc. To a great extent, it's the decisions we make given many coordinates which are out of control that determine our voices. </p>

[johnw63]

<p>I think the underlying problem that comes up in these sorts of discussions is that to show progress, one has to assume the position that this picture is better than another. Is it technically better, or aesthetically better ? Does it do a better job of telling the story or relating the emotion that the photographer was looking for ? That would be very hard to judge. Only THEY would know how successful they were. It also is biased by the viewers personal taste. Pictures from 1910 that were considered a real " wow " type of shot are just sepia portraits to most viewers now. Spanning that much distance in time is so hard, because the shot was intended for the audience of the time and their ideas. Unless you can chat with people from 1910 and 2010 and get their perspective, a comparison is always going to be foggy at best.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Could I just make one semi-technical point? Almost all contributors in discussing the works of Käsebier, Steiglitz and Steichen have assumed that their works look the way they do (grainy, soft) because of technical limitations. This is absolutely not the case - in the late 19th century, straight sharp prints on bromide paper were associated with cheap and nasty portraiture - photographers with ambitions to be considered artists would do anything rather than make this kind of image. Instead they used numerous processes such as carbon, bromoil and gum bichromate printing which in one way or another turned a sharp silver gelatine image into a soft pigment image. Their work is in no way primitive but represents fully realized examples of these processes.<br>

Anyone today using these processes would produce a very similar result (if they were skilful enough) - conversely, if you were able to see a picture by Käsebier, Steiglitz or Steichen printed on bromide paper, it would look surprisingly modern (to make a pigment print, one needed to make an enlarged positive (glass plate), possibly defocusing slightly if the photographer felt it appropriate, contact print this onto another plate to make an enlarged negative and then use this to make a contact print). I have printed hundreds of Victorian negatives (museum record shots) and taken many photographs myself with Victorian cameras and can assure you that sharpness and general image quality with modern materials are comparable to modern cameras, in many cases better with large formats of 8x10, 10x12, etc. Do not jump to conclusions based on viewing old work as screen reproductions.</p>

<h1 ><strong><br /></strong></h1>