From: Lukas Werth (lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de)
Date: 02/14/01-07:23:34 AM Z
At 01:03 14.02.01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
>
I find this thread again very interesting, and generally I agree with
Sandy's cautioning of the meaning of the term "pictoralism". However, as
far as I know, the term was historically also used as a program, a label,
and it denotes certain schools and mutual influences among photographers.
I myself freely admit of having been inspired by the little I have seen so
far of the work of Ortiz Echagüe (is this spelled correctly??) and his
Anthroplogical projects, although I certainly don't want to emulate him, if
alone because I feel a bit uneasy about his political role, and its
possible implications for his work (but then, I also admire Leni
Riefenstahl's pictures of the Nuba).
I must get some of the books mentioned by Darryl!
Two points I must mention:
1) the whole question of art /not art /intended as art or not is quite
tricky for my. In modern times and in the USA only, Weegee's pictures, for
instance, were probably not intended as art, nor much of Norman Rockwell's
paintings, but they are exhibited as art now. (Problems multiply when you
look, for example, at native Australian art.)
2) The term picturesque: I am heading at employing a general theory of
aesthetics, very basic of course, but still well worth to be explored for
some fields in photography. "Aesthetics" seems to me the more useful
expression, because it potentially handles the whole set of parameters of
what people find worthwhile to perceive and to reproduce, and it places the
"picture" in a wider context.
Oh yes, regarding Ed Freeman's page: certainly very skillfully made
pictures, but mostly too much "licked" and polished for my taste; just what
I deplore of much of the digital work. Much of the colour work looked to me
like those posters sold at Rock concerts in the 70ties, motives which also
featured on record covers of the time.
Lukas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST