art waldschmidt

Kamol, Please do not feel that you need to be sorry (as you said) ..."for my education", or for your unfamiliarity with English.

This forum is about Leicas and photography - and all the ideas and questions that are related to those interests.

There are many folks who are highly educated (and whose English, no doubt, is flawless) who contribute little.

To me, the value of this forum is in the exchange of ideas and concerns. I welcome your participation, and hope you take part.

 

Best regards,

I believe it was Gustav Klimt who said, "All art is erotic". I don't

feel, however, that the essential meaning of *erotic* in such a context equates with what most individuals would consider simply sexual. No, I believe it is much deeper and more mysterious (notwithstandng its obvious applicability, however, to areas that are honestly sexual). I believe the one essential theme of all art has been the identification with, and the celebration of, that mysterious root or core energy. Awareness of this reality consequently invalidates the preponderance of much marketable *art*,

because it is in fact a variety of substitute/counterfeit, having been spawned by non-artists. Much that is calculated to be perceived (and purchased) as *art* is simply a gesture within an acknowledged category of type. Conversely, much genuine art that is created by real artists may be unsuccesful in the marketplace, and may be destined to oblivion without so much as a footnote in the official archives of art history.

Photography seems particularly rife with coy images suggesting a slick but *discreet* contemporary sexuality - this masquerades routinely as *art* in the genre of *fine-art nudes*. Very little honesty is required to evaluate the real message of these images or the poverty of vision that promotes their ubiquity. The most telling evidence of their non-art status is the continual recourse to the obvious sexual attraction/titillation dynamic. Most fine art nudes (not to mention *glamour*) seem like pornography with training-wheels! A real artist/photographer will see the nude in the same celebratory (erotic) spirit as, perhaps, a shell or a flower - it is the connection with that real, transcendent, energy that vitalizes and invigorates - not the cutting-edge of the sexually tolerable.

Thanks, Stewart, for this second post regarding Ravilious and his opinions on the uncoated, vintage, optics (etc.). Perhaps in an ideal universe new examples of similar glass could be purchased!

 

regards,

Rob, If a green filter lightens freckles, wouldn't the *freckles* have to be green (or damn close)?

I also like that 3rd image. Dance images seem inherently difficult, and often unsatisfying, because of the disparity between the potential offered by a still image, and the artistry and passion of motion that the word *dance* implies. Maybe *dance photography*, in the sense of still-photography, is close to an oxymoron!

Never-the-less, your images are more than off to a good start!

It's good to see you and your images here. I've already told you how much I admire your work. I love my M6TTL (But I use my larger format equipment a lot more.....especially my Hassy 500 C/M!).

 

Best regards!,

Charles, why don't you try shooting/hand holding a Hasselblad or Bronica and evaluate the results? The cameras we've been discussing aren't cheap - why don't you try the medium formats and judge the results for yourself? Maybe you could rent one first? Knowing would be better than supposing!

 

Best regards!

I think medium format combines the best of all worlds. I've used a lot of different equipment and will agree that they're all *tools*, but some seem to be a lot more versatile than others. Of course the size and handling characteristics determine what tasks they're ultimately best suited to.

I've traveled a lot with just a Hasselblad 500 C/M and 80mm Planar (plus filters, shade, meter, etc.) in a relatively small tamrac bag. I use a magnifying hood (chimney) finder. The camera nestles comfortably and solidly in my hand - I can make very sharp images even without a tripod (which I prefer, however, if possible). A 4x5 would never be equal to this in terms of size and hand holding.

If I wanted to *move up* (I also use 6x7 cameras) it wouldn't be to 4x5, it would be to 8x10!

Kevin, huh?

A really NICE image, Felix! (That's what I meant to say)

A really image, Felix! Regarding the controversy of the smoking *issue*, I'm inclined to feel that certain forces/factions within society seem to promote lopsided crusades, often with a seemigly excessive zealotry. I think we're living in a very pale, pastel, age where all the zest is being rooted out of life, and is being replaced with a thin and arid brand of *acceptable* discretion.

How many are being poisoned by the techo-wonder-drugs of the greed driven *legal drug barons*? How many injuries (and deaths) are related to sports? How many die due to rampant obesity? Everything has its inherent dangers - perhaps we should just learn to be honest about the real risks, learn to enjoy our lives - and let others enjoy their's.

Nor do reproductions do justice to fine photographic images - I've noted quite a difference between the original prints by masters such as Alvarez Bravo, Edward Weston, etc., and the reproductions that appear in even the better/pricier publications.

If someone wants to really appreciate the works of an artist (or artist-photographer) look at the originals!

Does anyone know which serial number, of the late M6TTL's, marked the change to the brass top-plate?

(a) I try to photograph only the extraordinary.....so I guess I cheat on this one.

(b) Hopeless as a photojournalist!

© I can capture the decisive moment as long as a cloud doesn't cover the sun - or if you give me most of the day.

(d) A lot of folks seem to like my printing.

(e) Off-the-scale OBSESSION!

Ray, some time ago I thought the same thing about Kertesz - wondered why he seemed to be forgotten.

Marc, I can only assume that your last line was meant as a kind of rebuttal for what you supposed I meant in my comment.

I'm not blaming students for not knowing, but institutions for not inspiring the right kind of thinking. I do give students *credit* for knowing - but memorizing material is not the approach that I'm concerned with.

Maybe some of the fault for the fixation on the few *greats*/gods of the arts (all mediums included, of course), is the failure of academia to inspire any genuine inquiry (or even interest) among students or provide enough examples of diversity. I'm often surprised by the ignorance of *intelligent* students when it comes to personally discussing and evaluating various artists and their works. It almost seems as though the emphasis in art education is in dispensing a kind of official propaganda rather than by fostering inquiry or debate.

Does DAH go through this sort of thing?....does anyone know?

Fascinating, superb, composition! - seems like the optimal placement of those saturated colours counterbalanced by the surrounding darks.

Everything is really working together - very cohesive, but with such inherent vitality (almost an inner motion - life).

For something compounded of so few elements (stopping short of being perhaps too *minimal*) it conveys (for me, anyway) a kind of mystery usually always absent in this kind of colour image!

I like that *look* too. I've seen the characteristics that you're talking about in images made with earlier uncoated optics which undoubtedly didn't have all those pesky aberrations under control! I know I'm eccentric, but I think some of the most beautiful images were probably made with the least *perfect* optics.

Robin, I think that you're right - but I'm very selective concerning the kind of artist to whom any measure of my romanticism may apply!

I would hate to feel that all artists/artist-photographers have essentially nothing to say (or believe) beyond the hope of merchandizing their images for the maximum profit.

 

Here's a quote by Alfred Stieglitz (it's one of my favourites, and perhaps I've posted it before) - it is a sentiment (perhaps overly romantic) with which I wholeheartedly concur:

 

"It is not art in the professionalized sense about which I care, but that which is created sacredly, as a result of deep inner experience, with all oneself, and that becomes *art* in time."

Yes, of course it's all a game. I've no doubt that quite a few photographers feel (almost) as adamantly as I do about the practice - but early on fell in line, dutifully, to the routine. Sadly, it seems to be an essential component of the cult of *high art* (along with the password, the secret grip, the trendy 'ism's, etc.). The most bothersome thing about all of it, however, is that so much of it, when traced to the root, springs from the formula that price is the only measure of validation. The quality of art would improve tomorrow if artists would remain true to their own vision, and would rather unload trailers for a discount store, to make ends meet, rather than rushing prematurely to embrace all the dubious practices of the art-marketplace.

The *limited edition concept* is also in line with the character of those collectors whose primary concern when considering a piece is "who else is collecting it?"(!!), and, "how much and how fast might it appreciate?"($$) - I think these types (who would happily *invest* in a stick figure doodled on a scrap of toilet tissue, providing that it was accompanied by the signature of an artist of popular apotheosis - Picasso, for example) should reserve their collecting to the acquisition stocks, bonds, or mutual funds.

The individuals I respect the most are those whose art is crafted in love, and those who acquire it in the same spirit.

I think the "limited editions" gambit is bullshit. It is eblematic, for me, of the many, obligatory, affectations that afflict the artworld but, as such, is not without both its *utility* and (to some) charm.

 

My opinion of Edward Weston, albeit always high, soared when I discovered that he gave up on the concept and considered it contrary to his views about keeping his images accessible to those who genuinely appreciated them.

 

My prints will always be *limited* by my overwhelming obsession with

exploring new work - rather than by cranking out the maximum number of images from a handful of easily commercialized negatives. Of course I still do it the slow, traditional, wet darkroom way.

Among the films I've used (certainly not as extensive a list as some mentioned already!) I'd say that Infrared Ektachrome (E-4 process, I think - it's been years!) was unquestionably the most exotic. And, Richard, it easily appeared *gimmicky* - I think that's what you said, but, with practice and adjustment of filtration it was possible to introduce sufficient control to achieve some remarkable subtlety - not predictably enough, however! As time went by, I had to get more creative (and extreme) in my efforts to have it processed. At one point I was even trying go negotiate with a hospital lab to obtain small amounts of the chemistry! (If you want to know why, please see a preceeding thread about Kodak and *goofs*)

 

All the best!