From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/14/01-12:03:17 AM Z
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Sandy King wrote:
> >> 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.
So what? They're marketing, and defensive, the inferiority complex of
photographers after a century of being NOT art... I know a commercial
photog turned gallery artist, feels he has to say that. Proves zilch.
> >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.
I believe many classics of pictorialism lack this. Look at for instance
Heinrich Kuhn, many pure straight gum prints of exquisite delicacy &
skill. Clearly pictorialist, nothing artificial or embellished, at least
to naked eye.
"Artificial embellishment" (a tautology probably anyway) is not a useful
criterion, IMO. Cuts out too much good and lets in too much awful.
> >> 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.
You're trying to have it all ways.
> 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.
> >
You define by "intention of the artist"? That would cut out a lot of the
greatest photography in the canon.
> 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.
Artists are always (or usually) trying to say they're good & someone
else is bad. Too much competition for comfort. Too many artists.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST