j_c13 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 My statements have nothing to do with unquestionable faith, or calling anyone dumb. Not surprising the point was missed. But, you yourself try to impose your own beliefs of composition that if one�s eye doesn�t flow around the image its not appealing. Please, put down the textbook or are you just reading too much Shutterbug? Like you said, I respect peoples right to voice their opinions� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 J, you are very mistaken. Instead of critizing Mr. Smith right out I decided to ask him his views and why he felt the images were succesful. This is the only way to learn, after his explanation I might agree or disagree with him, but at least I have a better understanding of his postion. You on the other hand made a blanket statement about "many of us" not being on equal footing with him. How do you know this? have seen mine or anybody's prints in this forum? I will actually state you are wrong and that there are many in this forum who are equally if not more capable than Mr. Smith, even if they are not famous. So while I respect your opinion of Mr. Smith's work and your admiration for him dont pretend to tell me you know I or many others on this forum are not his equal, you dont know that. So again, spare me the preaching. At least I had the courtesy of asking him before I made a judgement, you OTOH have decided we do not have that right because we "are not his equals". BTW I dont envy Mr. Smith's life style, I have a very comofortable one myself and quite happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_a._smith1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Quoted from Jorge, "I always felt an image has to "gather" my eye and bring me to a key point with such strength that the rest of the image actually "disappears" from my mind and I am left with the element that originally attracted the photographer. Not make my eye wander and leave me confused as to the element that initially drew the photographers attention." Thank you for your thoughtful comments, those above as well as the others. My approach is entirely different. I will, in part, explain. Early in my career, I made photographs that had a major central point of interest. Many of them were quite beautiful and museums started collecting my work from the beginning. But I found that work too "easy"--too easy for me to make and to easy for the viewers to "get." And then, for a variety of reasons and under a variety of influences (William Ivins book, "Prints and Visual Communication," the music of Hindemith, among others) I began to make photographs that were more complex, photographs that were more difficult to make and more difficult for viewers to "get," photographs that were more "all over." Later, the two ways of working fused and my work for many years now has been some combination of the two, some more complex, some less complex. Personally, I find photographs that are mostly "about" or "of" the central subject to be boring. Often there is not enough care given to what is not part of the central subject; and although the central subject may be shown well, the photograph, as a picture (italic these last there words), is unsuccessful. I said earlier, that as a photographer, an artist, I am responsible for every square millimeter of the picture space, as are all who make art. There can be nothing left unconsidered. In this context the following story has relevance. It has been said that if one took a small piece out of a painting by Renoir, you would have a painting with a small hole in it. But that if one took out the same size piece from a Cezanne painting, you would have nothing at all--the painting would fall apart. A story about Cezanne in this context is instructive. He was painting the portrait of the art dealer, Ambrose Vollard. After 117 sittings, Vollard said to Cezanne, "Cezanne, I hate to disturb you, but on the back of my wrist there are a few spots where the bare canvas shows through. Did you forget those." Cezanne replied, "I did not forget, but I don't know what to put there, and if I should put the wrong thing I would have to start all over again." (The finished painting has bare canvas spots on the back of the wrist.) That is the spirit in which I make photographs. May I suggest that you, and everyone else, disabuse yourself of any idea of what you think photographs should look like. There are as many ways of making fine photographs, fine pictures, as there are photographic artists. To quote Jorge again, "I always felt an image has to "gather" my eye and bring me to a key point with such strength that the rest of the image actually "disappears" from my mind and I am left with the element that originally attracted the photographer." No photograph has (italic) to gather your eye or has to do anything else. There are no rules. Michael A. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Michael, thank you for further explaining your approach. It is a relief to know you are not offended by being questioned as it has been suggested by J. I am starting to see better your philosophy and perhaps understand better your prints. Although I still reserve the right to disagree with you I see your approach as valid and have actually encountered in other photographers. I beleive it was Arnold Newman who demanded that the door frame he had left on the edge of the print of his Oppenheimer(sp?) portrait be put back in the printed form. So you might be onto something here, perhaps we or maybe I should say I should pay more attention to the peripherial aspect of the main subject. You have made some interesting points which are food for thought and I cannot reply to them in a quick response without mulling them over. I am still not sure wheather it is a good thing to have an image made so that it is so hard to undertand that it looses meaning. I still dont get Jackson Pollock or Andres Serrano, and I think those critics who rave about them are on some kind of medication, but I am willing to concede I might be missing something. In any case I will give your approach some more thought and perhaps in another time and another thread we will continue this discussion. Thank you making this thread a rather interesting exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_a._smith1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, Jorge. Send me your address and I will send you a copy of Michael A. Smith: A Visual Journey�Photographs from Twenty-Five Years. After you have looked at the 176 reproductions and read the text, I'd be happy to continue this discussion. If you would be so kind, after looking and reading, to post your response to this forum, I would be most appreciative. We leave in a few days for a photographing trip to Baja california--a place I have never been. So send your address promptly so I can get the book off to you now. (And if you could hold off your response until March when we will be back in the country, that would be best. Thanks.) Michael A. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b.d.trabitz___ Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 An interesting discussion.I wish to add a few comments. Criticism does not necessarily have to be negative. An artist (photogographer) is experiancing an emotion upon viewing a scene and is attempting to communicate this to the viewer. The viewer, if the art is succesful might experiance an emotion. It may not be the same emotion as the artist but is nevertheless just as valid. It is also possible that the art fails to generate anything for that viewer. Then the artist "failed" with that particular piece with that particular viewer. Just because a photograph hangs in a museum does not necessarily mean it is a work of art. All of this is of course just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Michael, thank you for your generous offer and I will definitly take you up on it. I will be e mailing you my address today. I hope you have a productive trip in Baja, it is a wonderful place full of photographic opportunities. I will hold off on the comment until after you return. I am looking forward to it. B.D. I was of the same frame of mind as you. I thought if the photograph failed to evoke some kind of "positive" response it had failed in its attempt to communicate. After my discussion with Mr. Smith I might have to reevaluate this approach. Not because I completely agree with him, but I have to admit he has made some good points as far as us (meaning me) paying more attention to details which otherwise we dismiss as "not central" to the theme. Is it possible that the pendulum has sung completly the other way and in an effort to control the image and subtlety of a print the message becomes diluted and inefectual? I thinks so, and therein lies my opposing point of view. Mr. Smith said "there are no rules" that statement itself is a rule. Perhaps there is no way to quantify beauty or a "good" print, but listening to Mr. Smith opposing approach might just make me a better photographer even if I choose not to agree with his ideas. I for one welcome the opportunity to learn something from him, even if I decide his opinons or approaches are not suited to my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_a._smith1 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Making a photograph with a few parts of it (even as few as a couple of millimeters) not working with everything else; i.e., not necessary to the print, is akin to a composer having a few wrong notes (or even one) in his or her composition or a poet having a few wrong words in his or her poem. Good composers don't ever leave in wrong notes and good poets never leave in wrong words. All artists in every medium take care to have everything count, with nothing left over. Many photographers miss this, thinking that if they have "captured the subject" they have it. That's fine for photojournalism or commercial photography, although the best of each is as rigorous about having everything count with nothing left over as any work of art. Does the message become diluted and ineffectual? How about subtle? I know, subtlety is not part of modern culture where people, having grown up watching TV, have short attention spans and are generally so deadened that they need things to "hit them over the head" in order to "get it" or to feel anything. The quick "wow" is easy. But that is for those who are not very deep, those who don't have the patience to look carefully for many minutes, or longer if necessary, and who are not willing to (or simply are unable to) put in the effort to contemplate something deeply. Why does art have to be easy and accessible to everyone? Yes, there is a lot of terrible art out there (and that is being generous), but some things, Jackson Pollack's work, for example do have great merit. The first many times I listened to twentieth century classical music, I didn't "get it." It sounded, to my untrained ears, like noise. But over time, I came to understand it, and enjoy the complexity of it--so much so that my photographs ended up being deeply influenced by it. Most people who have never really listened to twentieth century classical music think that much of it is noise, and to them it is. And yes, they have a right to their opinion, although no one who is the slightest bit knowledgeable about music would pay even the slightest attention to it. I know the value of my photographs. If some of you out there don't "get it," c'est la vie. That's okay. My writing in this thread has not been for the purpose of defending my pictures--they speak or sing for themselves--or they do not--but to try to be helpful to those of you who, obviously, are not very experienced at looking at photographs, no matter how many years you have been photographing or how much you think you know. When Paula read this thread her comment was, "Shallow people. What do you expect? Why do you bother?" Good questions. It's the teacher in me, although when she said that I was reminded of a couple of lines in a D.H. Lawrence poem: I am trying now to learn never to give of my life to the dead, Never, not the tiniest shred. It gives me pause, those lines. Michael A. Smith All artists in every medium take care to have everything count, with nothing left over. Many photographers miss this, thinking that if they have "captured the subject" they have it. That's fine for photojournalism or commercial photography, although the best of each is as rigorous about having everything count with nothing left over as any work of art. Does the message become diluted and ineffectual? How about subtle? I know, subtlety is not part of modern culture where people, having grown up watching TV, have short attention spans and are generally so deadened that they need things to "hit them over the head" to "get it" or to feel anything. The quick "wow" is easy. But that is for those who are not very deep, those who don't have the patience to look carefully for many minutes, or longer if necessary, and are not willing to (or simply are unable to) put in the effort to contemplate something deeply. Why does art have to be easy and accessible to everyone? Yes, there is a lot of terrible art out there (and that is being generous), but some things, Jackson Pollack's work, for example do have great merit. The first many times I listened to twentieth century classical music, I didn't "get it." It sounded, to my untrained ears, like noise. But over time, I came to understand it, and enjoy the complexity of it--so much so that my photographs ended up being deeply influenced by it. Most people who have never really listened to twentieth century classical music think that much of it is noise, and to them it is. And yes, they have a right to their opinion, although no one who is the slightest bit knowledgeable would pay even the slightest attention to it. I know the value of my photographs. If some of you out there don't "get it," c'est la vie. That's okay. My writing in this thread has not been for the purpose of defending my pictures--they speak or sing for themselves--or they do not--but to try to be helpful to those of you who, obviously, are not very experienced at looking at photographs, no matter how many years you have been photographing or how much you think you know. When Paula read this thread her comment was, "Shallow people. What do you expect? Why do you bother?" Good questions. It's the teacher in me, although when she said that I was reminded of a couple of lines in a D.H. Lawrence poem: I am trying now to learn never to give of my life to the dead, Never, not the tiniest shred. It gives me pause, those lines. Michael A. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_mcdonald Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I appreciate your teaching, Michael. I am glad you persist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 sissies... i think yer on to something though, as sissified as it may be. you seem to be stuck on the centrality of subject x fer landscapery and busting that supposition with a linear reaction. the end result is photos that cause your eye to 'wander'. i do believe in the axiom, same as you, that 'a picture is worth a blah blah blah'. and in that, we are the authors and must take responisbility to move the veiwer's eye from graph to graph and keep them interested throughout. some of your's and paula's do, mike. some don't. it's got little to do with centralizing a subject. s'like a dancing with a partner(not a peon), kinda... you might choose to save all yer flourishy steps for the middle of the routine, but you have to get there first and you have to get there together. otherwise, yer break-dancing, me p.s. there are no good portrait lenses, only good portraitists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 and can the judgements... okay? me p.s. 'for those who obviously haven't seen many photographs'... hehee, you actually said that here, michael. hehee... oh brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 and, i've gone back a dozen times and looked at all of them carefully. i guess i like 58. i'd like to see more of the lighter grass at the bottom of the frame though. just me, me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 <i>the end result is photos that cause your eye to 'wander'. i do believe in the axiom, same as you, that 'a picture is worth a blah blah blah'. and in that, we are the authors and must take responisbility to move the veiwer's eye from graph to graph and keep them interested throughout. </i><p> Exactly Tribblet, this was something I had never given much though. Michael speaks of subtle, but how much subtlety is too much? Is this a case of failing to see the forest for the trees? I dont know, but it sure is an interesting point which I think is not much considered when we photograph. BTW who you calling sissie?........wanna piece of me I am right here!.....:-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 ah, but you HAVE given it thought jorge. or you wouldn't be criticizing the so-called 'teacher' (see also, 'verbose pedagogue'). sometimes, the landscape as a whole, is the central subject. but like a book and a dance, the photog as author/choreographer is responsible for arranging the elements to be 'read'. like it or not, choreographed, a, b, c, even if no central subj is defined. even if the denoument, crescendo, whatever is the 'whole' of the image. Ansel did it like a ballet. so fer summupance sake, centralization of subject doesn't necessarily 'read' importantly in some landscapes, ie; when the entirety of the scene is too grand to be sacrificed to centralization... in those, the progression of eye-movement must become central. and for most of the tuscany photos, i think this important factor is lost. in my humble, subtle, immature, unfamous opinion, me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 > Ansel did it like a ballet. More like a Wagner opera, or at least Richard Strauss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Triblett, your posts are good to my health, they always crack me up as you give your very sound opinion. I really enjoy seeing your responses. Ok, so now for the serious stuff, why do you think that is? are Mr. Smith{s print missing a focusing point? Since you digged up St. Ansel, I always thought his prints had a focusing or point. As you very clearly explained they invite your eye to wander around and enjoy the small details but as you step back and are able to see the whole image all the elements coalesce to form a grandiose whole. Are we comparing apples and oranges here? Are Mr. Smith prints that subtle they have gone pffftt...right over my head? I do like his idea of forcing the viewer to wander around and see all the detail, but is that the product of masterful work or is it the byproduct of using a 12x20 camera? I know my 8x10 and 12x20 prints have incredible detail and when I show them to people sometimes they comment how incredible the detail is in the little painting on the wall found in the bottom left corner of the print. But that is not something I did conciously, heck I few times I have had to ask them to let me see, I had missed it alltogether. So perhaps in that sense he is right, I am stuck with the wow....I love that rock...and forget to take into account the grass around it, and perhaps this is what he is advocating, for us to learn to "see" the photograph in the ground glass and forget the subject. I dont know, I cant wait to see his book and be able to form a more objective opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 well, i suppose both jorge. god is in the details and those happy accidents in the far corners of pix are important as well. i think where mike lost his way was in the patterns he tried to capture. that's a tricky thing to do right. that's when the most thought to leading the eye must be given... or as we've been talking about, it tends to wander aimlessly. and to ansel's credit, it's just not easy to bore the eye when half dome is chewing up 1/3 of the print. and those aren't the type of ansel prints we should be comparing here. and we all know which. nope, half dome is, in itself, a leading line. mike is trying to stray from that, and ansel gives us guidance for such too. but fer argument's sake, and with or without a strong central subj, i think a good landscape print, captures your attention right away, huge mountain or not. and not necessarily from a 'wow' factor either. it has a sound primary composition, one that's easily seen at proper viewing distances. read whatever compositional rules of thumb you prefer into that. but if sound overall comp isn't present, yer eyes are liable to wander to the next print, rather than drawing you nearer so as to scrutinize for those 'happy accidents'. tertiary comps are an entirely other thread. over yer head? hardly... me p.s. i truly hate talking about this stuff... part of me wants to believe that composition can't be taught. but i know it can be learned. as landscape comp goes, i can't really explain my understanding of it, over and above telling you i oil painted landscapes from age 6 to 14. i sat at an easel for many long years discovering what fit on a canvas and why. if i had to explain, i couldn't. i'd get too frustrated. as fer artspeaky generalizations? well, yeah, i can do that too. i'm afraid it's not much use though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Gotcha Triblett, I agree wholeheartedly. Like you I am also starting to get a little tired. I am not much of the artsy speak myself, I usually go with my gut feeling and that is a good way to say that is what I thought, it was just right at that moment. Ah, well we will see...thanks for your input also. I know have two ideas to try, we will see what the camera does tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_a._smith1 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 From Jorge, "perhaps this is what he is advocating, for us to learn to "see" the photograph in the ground glass and forget the subject." That's it, Jorge. Sounds like you "got" it. To quote Paula, "It is not what it is that is important, it is how it looks." Michael A. Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_van_de_sande Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Michael has perfected printing techniques that use the absolute greatest amount of tonal values available via silver gelatine paper. With these tools he can make what appears to be an ordinary subject 'sing'. When you see the print in person, the effect is complete, and you realize that you are seeing something in a completely different light. <br> I had seen several of Michael and Paula's prints in B+W magazine, many of which I didn't 'get'. Once I viewed the prints in person, it was like seeing a completely different picture. <br> --Aaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Aaron I suspect that is true. Last time I went to Houston I went to the John Cleary Gallery and asked him if he had some of MIchael's prints. Unfortunatelly he did not. I now suspect even his gracious offer of the book wont be enough for me to form a truly or "correct" opinion of Michael's work. I have Paul Caponigro's book a 40 year retrospective and I thought ah well I will go see his prints, I am sure they are pretty much like the book. Well, no....I was very surprised at the diference between the book and the prints. Sure the book is beautiful and very well printed, but the prints men....I was actually a little depressed afterwards, I thought "jezz...I am never going to be that good!" From that moment on my goal was to become as good a printer. Michael, I am eager to try some of the ideas that have been presented. I am sure my next session will be very interesting trying to "see" the image as you say in the ground glass and not be concerned with the object itself. This will be very different for me and I hope more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_jarvis1 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Perhaps Strand was right when he said, "Photography is not art." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 When did Strand say THAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_jarvis1 Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Sorry...it was Minor White. 1959. 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