Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:50:55 -0800
Let me add to the top of this thread, Edward Weston's father was a doctor,
and his sisters rich California friend was EW's first wife.
SS
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Quasi "alt" question re:8x10 cameras
>
>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 - 10:06:48