art waldschmidt

Z,

Or maybe "fahrvergnuegen"(?)

Another terrible loss for the forum.

 

(But the problem isn't that folks are leaving, but that the folks who should be leaving are staying, and the ones that should be staying, are leaving!)

 

I'll miss you, Marc!

 

Best regards!

Tony, I certainly agree with what you mentioned about this forum being the best place to discuss Leica Photography, but Leica photography fits within a broad context that should allow for some latitude regarding off topic posts. I'd hate to see the forum reduced to such a narrow focus that it would preclude anything more than wranglings over lenses and chrome versus black finishes.

I think the greatest detriment to this forum arises from the vicious raw invective, name calling, and childish, petulant personal attacks, to which certain members have frequent recourse. I'm sure that kind of behaviour has cost the forum quite a few knowledgeable and valuable contributors, and prevents others from participating.

I think it's a rather nice image, Dennis. It's good to see some joie de vivre captured after your fashion!

"To conclude, can digital be "Fine Art Photography"?

 

No, but it could very well be "fine-art digitography". It seems that digital is so essentially divergent from traditional photography that it necessitates a different category or designation. It is likely that ANYTHING done by an artist could be an expression of art, regardless of means or medium. In the same sense, donning a beret and smock and dabbing oils on a canvas does not guarantee anything more *artistic* than an evocative, expressive, work in a less traditional or familiar medium. I believe that art has more to do with spirit, vision, and intent, than a condition defined by medium or degree of actual "hands on" physical engagement (a la Beckert's non-metaphysical prerequisite).

I would like to offer a divergent (perhaps contrarian) approach. I do not subscribe to the notion that one must incessantly shoot thousands of images to *learn* photography - in fact I believe that for an individual with any real talent and potential, the ease of spitting out image after image actually slows the process of learning. I would suggest instead, that you learn to be ruthlessly honest in the evaluation of your images, that you peruse the images of masters of the style or type of photography that your might be drawn to or wish to emulate - study the images, learn from them, compare their characteristics to your own progress - ask questions of yourself and search for answers. Just (for fun) imagine what it might be like to go out with four sheets of 8 x 10 film, and have to make each one count for something!! - do you think that might offer any insights?

The decline of formal considerations (in all mediums) has become almost the hallmark of a certain approach to art. The sophomoric, popular, image of the *artist-as-rebel* (doomed to perennially chafe at the constraints of technique, craft-knowledge, grammer, or tripod!) seems often to usurp any other moderating influences. Since the advent of *Modernism* (not without some utility as far as the banishment of stultifying academicism goes), the flaunting of technical indifference has become equated with innovation and genius.

 

Addressing the Paris pics you referenced: they hold the promise of a fascinating series with the application of some judicious editing. I re-read the poster's comments, reviewed the images quite a few times, and re-considered my own response. Showing work in progress is a brave and dangerous undertaking - one often either falls prey to flattery or is side-tracked by criticism (no mattter how constructive or well-intentioned).

Gee! ..... (or should it be gosh!?) I hadn't considered the sinister influence of those warm surroundings on the evaluation process.

I can not help wondering if you think the images would be less good or less interesting if you got to know them (your subjects)? You say you are "trying for a glimpse", and I believe you've succeeded - in that sense the 2nd image seems to have some extra resonance. Otherwise, they seem to be trading too much on the sensationalism of what they are supposed to be portraying, rather than any depth or investment of feeling. If they were from a series called "Halloween in Newark" the effect on the *critic* or viewer would be quite different. I think there's a lot of potential in your project, but I'd like to ask you, the photographer, if you think they "work"?

Warren, have you tried B&H (www.bhphotovideo.com) in New York? Like Ralph, I also use mostly Ilford papers, but usually prefer Agfa's Neutol WA (warm tone) developer.

Jeff, If I'd have stated my position as a "fact", rather than an "opinion", you'd have undoubtedly been even less gracious! (LOL)

I'm not trying to make any "wild" accusations - and I don't think anyone can read a wholesale indictment of the whole of contemporary art in my response. There are, in fact, quite a few artist-photographers whom I deeply admire. Of course there's a lot of fascinating stuff being done these days - but there is also a lot that has been .... shall we say, overly hyped and unrealistically appraised - and do you doubt that subsequent generations may entertain divergent opinions from the critiques that are current today?

I admire a lot of work that has been done and is being done - but I would be a fool to try to pretend to love EVERYTHING uncritically, mindlessly, or equally!

Jeff, I could not stay with this thread (or the forum) today because I was busy developing film. You asked for "examples" - but I'm not comfortable with issuing some kind of list that would target the works of specific individuals. I do believe (and doubt that I'm alone in this belief) that there is an abundance of contemporary work that seeks acceptance and approval through context, association, "marketing", and pretense - rather than through any intrinsic depth of beauty, committment, or vision. Travis elicited opinions, "however subjective" - and this is simply mine.

I don't think the era matters that much, Travis. I'm always drawn to individuals whose work reflects an honesty and passionate inner vision. Such artists pursue their own goals regardless of critics, the "spirit of the times", or the dictates of academia.

 

Certainly photography has "improved" technologically, but technology has very little to do with the quality of artistic vision. There's a lot of empty, inane imagery around these days because the originators have nothing to say, celebrate, or explore - shrill, desperate bids for instant recognition should not be embraced out of misplaced charity, nor should they be accepted as a substitute for something genuine or real.

Gary, what you wrote reminds me of a remark I'd read in a magazine years ago - "by the year 2000 everyone will be an artist, and artists will have to call themselves something else!".

I don't doubt that colour films will be more easily imperiled than b&w emulsions - there's a significant difference in manufacturing and q/c technologies. As far as the big numbers go, I'm sure that most amateurs (as well as pros) will be easily seduced by the lure of digitography. And it is to be expected - I don't know of anything that is more in sync with the collective *character* of our times. The lamentable thing about digital isn't its existence, but the inevitability that it will deny or severely limit the choices available to artistic users of the traditional medium.

I can't grasp the usefulness of all the debate over the demise of film .... years ago I read quite a few articles (by experts who had their fingers on the pulse of *reality*) who affirmed that colour photography meant the certain death of b&w .....and of course they were right!

I'm certain a lot of wonderful things can be accomplished digitally, but I also think there are quite a number of photographers who think in terms of the traditional b&w process (from exposure to final print), and that has become an intimate part of their approach and vision. Expecting such folks to abandon the traditional b&w medium because of the *new wave* of digitography is unrealistic and rather ridiculous. Film is not dead - but if it does die due to the monolithic impact of push button culture, it will not be because of inherent worthlessness, but due to the usual forces that shape the attitudes of the masses.

Herr Beckert's assumption is (to utilize a phrase by Herr Barnack) "totally underexposed".

But Charles, now everyone who wants to shoot hand-held at 1/4 second or longer (!!) will finally understand what all the mystique is about!

There is no end to the limit of *improvements* that can be manipulated into a print. Everything can be adjusted, controlled, heightened, and glamorized. Vic asked, "Does it make a difference if I move objects around in a picture to make it more artistic?".

 

It seems that an essential component of the photographic medium is the implied sense of reality in the portrayal of objects - in time and space - in their relationship and counterpoint with each other. (Of course most folks know that a lot of trickery is possible, but the compelling sense that is evoked by a great/real photograph derives not from the presumption of falsehood, but truth. Would you embrace the classic street style /decisive moment image with the same relish if you discovered it was staged or carefully orchestrated?) This is to me, a kind of metaphysical attribute of the photographic experience. Additionally, I also think that a certain vigor and freshness is usually lost when an image is over-refined and fussed over.

It seems that the issue of manipulation (and the larger issue of "integrity") depends upon the individual's perception of what is essential to the identity of the medium. In my own approach (traditional b&w), the identity of the medium would be negated by the kind of tampering that allows for the addition or subtraction of objects that were recorded on the negative. I actually enjoy the perceived "limitations" of traditional b&w in comparison with the ease of manipulation that obtains in digitography. Maybe the orientation toward limitless adjustment and manipulation (in digitography) is closer to the "psychology" of drawing or painting, rather than the psychology of seeing photographically?

I remember ads for a Prontor Ultra Slow Speed Cable Release - something I always wanted, but really didn't need (I just count off the seconds or use a watch). Try some dealers with large used inventories.

Compared to colour film manufacturing, b&w is rather low-tech. Regardless of much of the hype that's out there, I don't expect the demise of traditional b&w films in the near future. If the major manufacturers lose interest, I expect others will arise to supply the needs for those who wish to work in the traditional medium.

 

There are undoubtedly more users of b&w than many would expect, and there are also quite a number of individuals who use 120 size films.

I've read quite a few articles from vintage photography publications that either predicted or questioned if colour film would *kill* b&w.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more fine-art photographers using b&w today than ever before.

Your interest seems already to lean toward the abstract or minimalist approach in your concentration on the "lines of a nude and the curves..." that you wrote about. I would suggest that you obtain a copy of NUDE:THEORY edited by Jain Kelly. Some copies are available through www.alibris.com. While not a "how to" publication, it offers a lot of insight into the philosophies and techniques of some fine masters of the genre (photographs and essays by Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Harry Callahan, Lucien Clergue, Ralph Gibson, Kenneth Josephson, Andre Kertesz, Duane Michals, and Helmut Newton) - of the photographers represented, Gibson is undoubtedly closest to the approach that interests you.

In the absence of real solutions to real issues, governments rely eagerly on "scatter-shooting" and "window dressing" legislation - undoubtedly out of an "at least we've got to do SOMETHING" approach.

Developing this further, the principle apparently is that the maximum inconvenience done to the many, will somehow compensate for the failure of selectively targeting the guilty few.