From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 02/13/01-10:19:12 AM Z
Hi Judy, you wrote:
>
>> 1. presentation of the picturesque
>
>Whoa Sandy, what the hell is "picturesque"? Do you mean the criteria of
>the 1930s where a scene had to pretend 20th century didn't exist, and
>no power lines or automobiles permitted? Can you define? (I have a recent
>book called "On the Picturesque" but not read.)
What I mean by the "picturesque" as practiced by the pictorialists is the
adherence, conscious or otherwise, to what I would call Ruskin's idea of
the search for natural beauty, a view which saw the mountains of the earth
as cathedrals, and of the search in the lanscape of an arechetyal beauty.
It is a presentation of nature without docuemntary value and with no
important regard to specific topography. It is a romantic view in that
there are clearly moral overtones, in other words, the sensuous beauty of
the picture is elevated to have greater meaning than identifiers -- they
are signifiers that convey hidden memories.
>
>> 2. a concern with making art, as opposed with making a record
>
>Isn't a great art photo both?
Perhaps, but then why do so many makers photographs label their work "fine
art photography"? This statement clearly implies that not all photographs
are art, or at least fine art.
>
>> 3. the concept that the work reveals the subjective of the maker through
>> signs of conscious manipulation
>
>It's all *conscious* unless it's sureshot & machine print. You might say
>*visible*... or *obvious* tho that would cut out a LOT of "pictorial"
>work.
I meant obvious and visible manipulation of the print, as with combination
printing, artificial embellishment of the image, etc.
>
>> 4. an interest in the effect and patterns of natural lighting
>
>Artificial lighting can be extremely picturesque -- & look natural.
Yes, as in Emerson's truth to nature. But I guess you will have to define
for what you mean by picturesque?
>
>> 5. landscape as one of the major themes
>
>Like Ansel Adams?
No, Adams' landscapes have specific references to known topography and are
geographical specific. They are in the geographical representations of
Timothy O'Sullivan and Carleton Watkins. At times, however, Adams'
landscapes are picturesque and his scenes more emblematic, even with their
immediate topographical identity.
>
>> 6. overall effect of an image considered more important than the
>> detail therein
>
>Thus risking sum of the parts, which is greater conundrum. Again hard to
>separate.
The difference imagined is that of impressionism to the photography of the
f/64 school. The conundrum may remain but the intention of the artist is
better understood.
>
>> 7. the use of non-silver printing processes, particulary carbon, gum,
>> platinum, oil and bromoil.
>
>Strange, isn't it, that that looks like current criterion by common
>consent... even though platinum can be totally unlike anything known as
>traditional "pictorial." Maybe "pictorial" is like old joke about
>"pornography": I know it when I see it (?). Tho one person's porn is
>another person's art -- AND plenty argument about that, too.
Yes, I know many photographers who make images that I know to be firmly
entrenched in the traditions of pictorialism, yet if the subject of
pictorialism comes up in conversation they know only to speak derisively of
it.
>
Sandy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST