mark_gatehouse

"One thing I don't feel any restraint about is calling the work seminal. It's pretty clear that he's had, already, a huge influence on a good number of photographers (as Boris said earlier)."

Wow Doug - you sure have it bad don't you :-)

He's good, at times very good. He's interesting and oft time a little different - but seminal he's not. Eggleston is seminal, Atget is seminal, but Pinkhassov just isn't in that same league - in 30 years time I'm pretty sure we will be able to look back and while there may be a little blip on the screen, it just won't be the same kind of influence. He's not THAT different, he's not doing anything THAT new or orginal or unique.

gleaned from a couple of lists over the last few days:

"Hey guys. Just got back from a shooting trip down in LA. At the

Seattle

end they did what they always do-- swab my boxes of sheet film and

let me

on through. On my return, however, I had a box of exposed film that

the

security people at LAX insisted on opening. They that said because the

factory seal was broken, I could have a plastic knife in the box, and

they

couldn't let me through without either x-raying the box or opening it

for

visual inspection. Only after summoning the supervisor of the

supervisor

and getting into quite a shouting match, did they finally let me pass

with

my film... etc"

Maybe they were going by these apparent new regulations (forwarded

from

another list):

"My wife, flew today (4-28-04) from Anchorage to Nashville. Going

through security she identified herself as a professional

photographer and

politely requested a hand inspection of her medium format camera and

forty

plus rolls of 120 format film. She stopped the inspection when she

saw

the TSA employee ripping open her foil-sealed rolls of Fujifilm prior

to

wanding them for trace chemical sniffing. She was told that this was

now

standard operating procedure as per a new bulky TSA manual that was

just

delivered yesterday to Anchorage International Airport. The inspector

stated that all film that was not 35mm in see-through plastic

containers

had to be opened. Randi explained that the manufacturer's foil

packaging

protecting the individual rolls keeps the film clean, light tight and

dry

over a long trip. By working through TSA supervisors and having a full

hour and a half prior to her flight leaving, she was able to convince

them

to let her through without opening each roll of film.

For those of us with travel and assignments that require us to shoot

medium and large format film, this sounds like a real problem flying

with

your film. I shoot mostly 4x5 and TSA inspectors opening sealed

boxes of

4x5 inch sheet film will ruin the film through fogging. Up until

now, the

inspectors have been content with wand sniffing the outside my light

tight

film boxes and sheet film holders, but it sounds like this policy has

changed."

One thing about Struth's landscapes, especially the Paradise series, is they explore landscape from within a different tradition than is normally popular within photography - especially N American photography.

A huge amount of landscape photography is in a direct line from the whole romantic Hudson Valley/giant redwood/Promised Land school of painting of Bierstadt (to some extent), Church and Cole et al. A style of painting that wasn't popular for terribly long and whose influence on landscape painting wasn't all that great in the long run. But its influence on photography was much stronger. Ansel Adams is the most obvious example, but almost every Yosemite/Half Dome/heroic waterfall/forest glade photograph descends from this influence. For some unknown reason it stuck - which probably wasn't a good thing - as a school of landscape painting it had it's place and time, but was overblown even then. Now for every Adams impersonator it has become the standard approach

By contrast, many of the early western landscape photographers, such as O'Sullivan or even Witkins (despite his giant redwoods) were, by comparison, un-influenced to the same extent and their work often seems minimalist and post-modern when put side by side with the later Ansel Adams school.

This is merely perpetuated in the colour version we find today, with romantic/heroic photographs of canyons, mesas and long-exposure waterfalls. It's really a creative dead end doomed to repeating what was, as an artistic movement, already dead when Ansel adopted it.

Struth (and others) by comparison are mining other rich (and possibly still vibrant) seams in the landscape art tradition to inform their approach to the subject. Struth's Paradise photographs, for example, very obviously have their roots in the Germanic landscape traditions, with a very different understanding of forest and place than the normal N American one, following from Altdorfer through Casper Friedrich to Anlsem Kiefer. Struth then clearly brings his own view and vision, building on this tradition, to the project.

I've looked at Mr Turner's landscapes (the photographer, not the incomparable painter) and from both his photographs and his words, it appears he has a very shallow understanding of not only the landscape, but also of the various photogrpahic and artistic traditions and movements.

"True, but this is NOT the same thing as saying that there is no difference between the two shots. They have been taken according to quite different protocols - rules, terms of engagement, whatever you want to call it. In other words, the relation between photographer and subject is quite different in them. I always make my terms of engagement quite explicit by shooting according to a manifesto that lists the rules. Of course, this makes the photographer rather than the image the source of authenticity (if I say that I don't direct my subjects, you only have my word for this: it can't be definitively proved by reference to the image). This is where the issue of trust and integrity come in. You can choose to disbelieve me, of course, but that's not my problem. You also have to accept that this rule (or any other rule) is an important spect of the image's meaning, but this acceptance is a variant of the 'suspension of disbelief' that operates in a theatrical performance. It's not an unreasonable demand for a photographer to make.

Of course, I don't photograph the 'real' Venice, but on the other hand, I think it would be pretty pointless if all I was offering was a visual diary of my own personal experiences there, because really, why should anyone care? I photograph in the attempt to enter into a dialogue with my subject, which means I am trying to be open to what it has to teach me rather than insisting on imposing a predetermined conclusion upon it. There's a good HCB quotation about this. Part of this 'openness' is trying to find a match between form and content."

I believe that contrary to what you appear to say, you are indeed doing just the opposite of being "open" and avoiding a pre-determined conclusion. You are overly concerned with rules, manifesto's, red herrings like trust and integrity and so on.

I think this shows in your work (or what there is online). It is very tight, controlled, rigid.

interestingly you say "just as worrying about whether what you do is 'art' does". Again, you appear to dismiss as a non issue something which in fact you appear to be struggling with - as if banishing it will somehow negate it?

One of the important points about "art" is, for example, no one give a damn about the "trust and integrity" or honesty of the artist - as long as they are true to their work and vision. It's a false note introduced into photography due to it's pseudo-realistic way of seeing. Similarly rules and manifesto's - they are for crazy Dadaist's or Scandinavian filmmakers (the whole point of most of them being you state them categorically so you can then go right ahead and break them).

"Of course, I don't photograph the 'real' Venice, but on the other hand, I think it would be pretty pointless if all I was offering was a visual diary of my own personal experiences there, because really, why should anyone care?"

Again, I think you miss the point completely - in a way it can't be anything but a visual diary of your own experience because it has to be an account of your vision. If your own vision is lacking then no amount of "dialogue with my subject, which means I am trying to be open to what it has to teach me rather than insisting on imposing a predetermined conclusion upon it." is going to change that - it's just psycho-artspeak mumbo jumbo.

Your seeing needs to be clearer, you reasons for photographing more articulated (whether externally or internally). Your reliance on rules and manifestos should be abandoned altogether - it's a rigidity that is crippling any potential in your work (and there is potential).

You cited Atget in your start to this thread. He is perhaps the clearest, simplest and yet most profound example. At it's core his work is simply about pointing at something, indicating it - a gesture (happily for him, like us, recordable on film). Drawing our attention to something we had never noticed before in the same way - form and content coming together in the most effective way to enable us to notice it as well. Done "with a special grace, sense of timing,

narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with

intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work

of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the

tour, how much of our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the

things pointed to and how much from the pattern created by the pointer"

Read the essay in the first of the four volume MoMA set on Atget - I think it will tell you all you need about your project on Venice - on which I wish you luck.

(and yes - continue to take note of Basilicos numerous Italian projects Especially Cross Sections, or Bergamo [and also Beirut]) In addition also Geoffrey James' "Paris" or his Olmsted environments

"If the photographer starts posing or directing the subject it's no longer "street" photography. It's modeling photography using the street as the studio."

and

"Andrew, you've misstated my position. To qualify as "street" photography, it must be unposed, undirected... candid, if you prefer."

Presumably then, you wouldn't class Winogrand as a street photographer - as he sometimes did those things (and I guess would probably still do them today were he around)? Bruce Davidson isn't a street photographer either? Gene Richards isn't a street phototgrapher?

What causes you to decide on such a narrow definition? One which certainly has no real historic basis in the genre and one which doesn't seem so widely accepted today? It seem rather arbitary?

First, (in the US) if you are photographing from a public place - even if what you are photographing is private property, you generally need no-ones permission (in broad terms it's "freedom of expression" but there are other issues as well). Issues of the California paparazzi laws aside.

Secondly, use. You may need permission for later "commercial" use (it doesn't matter what your intended use when you actually take the photograph). However, the following have generally excluded from being defined as commercial use - educational, editorial/press and artistic use. You would be unlikely to find that Todd Hido, for example, gets permissions for use of images either in his books or for sale at galleries, nor George Tice or Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld or Nick Nixon whoever - pick an urban photographer of your choice.

However, if you start using the photographs in an ad campaign or corporate annual reports etc, then you may need permission.

Also, a slightly different issue (because people will mistakenly tell you "I own the copyright to my building") - US copyright law specifically excludes images of publicly viewable buildings from copyright protection. You can both take the photograph and use it.

Because of the inflated Homeland Security paranoia, you may well be hassled.

A useful tool is:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

with it's flyer for your bag

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

as is his book in general

http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm

"If the photographer starts posing or directing the subject it's no longer "street" photography. It's modeling photography using the street as the studio.

Documentary photography is another matter. Assuming a coherent theme to the project it may be necessary to arrange the subjects for a particular reason."

So Kertesz's lovers kissing isn't street photography? Winogrands zoo pictures aren't street photography? Brassai's figure in the night streets isn't street photography? Davidson's subway pictures aren't street photography? Surely they are. Street photographers have almost all always done this - why suddenly now is it not allowed?

I think it is more a misunderstanding of the history and practices of street photography (and documentary to some extent).

There seems to be an belief that a photograph somehow has a direct correlation to reality, when it doesn't - every photograph is a construct, a fiction.

posing or direction subjects in street or It seems that almost

everyone of the "greats" has done his and there seems to be no quams

about it - Evans, Lang, Gene Smith, Kertesz, Brassai, Winogrand,

Bruce Davidson - pick your favourite photogorpaher. (Most are happy

to admit to it a few are rather more coy).

So what's the feeling on here - any problem with doing a bit of

directing or getting the kids to fill in if things aren't coming

together?

After all, none of these street or documentary are real are they? All

are constructs.

But there seems to be a feeling (perhaps only a recent feeling) that

we need to catch the "pure" moment?

"I spoke with Dick Phillips about six months ago. I tried to get my name on the list. However, he wouldn't add my name to the list until he had sent me some literature as I had only seen the 4x5 version"

probably, because at that time he was advertising that he wasn't taking any orders at all.

I've always found Dick very personable and helpful - spare parts are no problem - though you rarely need them with a Phillips.

"After talking with him I'm glad that I'm getting a Canham. Keith's

reputation as a person who is happy to answer questions is totally true.

Furthermore, the possibility of getting replacement parts is much more likely

with a canham camera."

A shame, becuase for it's purposes, it's just not as good a camera. Heavier and nowhere near as rigid. It's good, but the Phillips is in another league really. As attested to, among other things, by the number of well known photographers who use them

I don't think you'll find much at HP Marketings site - last time I looked they didn't have anything useful. And it seems to have been a while since Rodenstock had any decent info up as I recall. Last time I looked I did find something buried in their parent companies website, but it was needle in a haystack time, unless they have done anything recently.

Last time I tried to get some info from my local importer I emailed them three times and called twice - no brochures. I had to email someone in Germany to eventually get something - by the time it came I had bought three Schneider lenses because I could find the info about the lenses I needed easily.

We won't talk about Fuji, but even Nikon has info about their lenses up on the web. Why Rodenstock doesn't seem able to do that is beyond me. Unless you are looking for over priced eye glasses you are out of luck

"I find it silly/funny/annoying that one with no photographs posted endeavors to criticize the originality of the works of those like you mentioned."

Ah that old photonet saw - as if posting photographs on photonet is some kind of qualification.

In addition, apparently it's nearly always acceptable to praise photographs without having posted any of your own. But heaven forbid you should criticize work without having posted your own first.

Personally, if it's going to be a requirement, it should at least be the other way round :-)

Searching for some other desert work on Google I came across the

following few sites among others

http://www.fatali.com/giftstore/posters/pos_port1.php

http://www.grahamlyth.com/gallery-antelopecanyon/

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com/PortfolioVI.htm

http://www.phyris.com/colslot.html

Why is it that there is so much of this over saturated almost

identical looking photography out there of Canyons, Anasazi ruins and

half dome? It seems devoid of imagination, originality, imagination

or spirit (yet I suppose it sells like hotcakes?).

There seems to be so much more of this and so little original work

(in which I would include Misrach, Emmet Gowin and Lee Friedlanders

desert work among others) -perhaps a ban by the National Parks on

the use of Velvia at such sites would help? Or maybe a period of

enforced use of Ektachrome EPN or Fuji NPS for such photographers?

(maybe that should have been part of Fatali's court ordered community

service...).

Is it possible the Departments of Homeland Security could ban Velvia

and Ektachrome VS from west of the Mississippi?