Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:08:23 -0800
Rich;
Just a reminder that probably the most influential figure in photography in
the 20th century was rich to start off. Alfred Steiglitz had plenty of
money at his disposal, so therefore he had the luxury of time to create the
vast changes that he did in the photo world. He worked at his craft as hard
as anyone can. There were also a few other pictorialists, I believe in the
UK (their names escape me now) that were in the same boat as Steiglitz.
They had wealth and that allowed them the luxury of time to travel,
photograph, set up fully stocked darkrooms, etc. I don't think that having
money or being poor can necessarily make someone a good photographer.
Struggle isn't always necessary to achieve mastery, but it is a romantic
thought. This same issue harkons in the recent discussions of having
expensive equipment or used, old beat up cheap equipment, fine lenses, soft
lenses, etc . In the end it should not make a bit of difference what
equipment someone uses. The photograph is within the artists' mind and
therefore someone should be able to use a Sinar 8x10 P2 with an APO
Schneider lens or a cardboard box pinhole camera and create a substantial
work of art. But remember, every piece of equipment has its own inherit
limitations.
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lahrson <tripspud@hooked.net>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Quasi "alt" question re:8x10 cameras
>Michael Keller wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree, Steve. I've seen a few examples of EW's work in real
life,
>> and plenty reproduced (well) in publications, and I think the fact the
EW's
>> prints surpass his materials, equipment and income show that great photos
come
>> from the photographer. I think his prints are wonderful, and I don't
"see" the
>> poor quality materials or other limitations you note.
>>
>> IAC, no one should start out thinking that money is a limitation on their
>> ability to create.
>
>Hello,
>
> I'll have to take Miclael's side in this discussion. The fact that
>Edward Weston was able to overcome any equipment or materials limitation
>because he was not wealthy is, perhaps, one of the reasons for his
>successful, emotionally satisfying images. With some exceptions, such
>as Cecil Beaton, really wealthy people never became great
artists/photographers.
>There is no reason to struggle, and without struggle, there is no art.
>
> This all borders on personal taste, of course. I've admired Ansel
>Adams work, read all of his technical books and seen many of his works
>in galleries. But for me, his work does not "reach" me emotionally.
>Alfred Steiglitz work "reaches" me as does the work of Frederick Sommer
>who just died recently. Diane Arbus "reaches" me. Gene Smith "reaches"
>me. Steven Shore does not move me.
>
> I will not continue......the idea is that the individual is free
>to respond to a photograph or not respond.
>
> Rich Lahrson
> tripspud@hooked.net
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:46