jeffbuck@swcp.com
Date: 08/27/02-03:48:41 PM Z
I don't HAVE the idea that a pictorial photograph should be of a picturesque
subject. That was the whole point of the posting (I think my wryness is
getting in the way here). Still, what people call "pictorialist" is
typically IN FACT of picturesque subjects, whatever I may think. I mean, just
pick up any collection of the classic period (the pictures in Stieglitz's
Camera Work, except for the very VERY end of the run) and you see pictures of
pretty women, pretty men, pretty clothing, pretty vases, pretty bridges,
pretty lakes, pretty trees, pretty paths, pretty cars, pretty streets, pretty
buildings. No? ... "Don't worry about categories." Huh? How can I think
and not "worry about categories"? I mean, I'm on board, I'm DOWN, but if I
want to make pictures (as opposed to documents of some kind), then I'm engaged
from the start with the question of what is pictorial, and "pictorial" is a
category. "Worrying" about what fits or does not fit is the consequence of
the fact that I'm not the first person that ever lived who cared to do this
sort of thing. Also, it gives me something to do (in accordance with Tillman
Crane's injunction to "just do something"). Anyway, I'd like to look at a
tree or a boulder or a Firestone tire and see line and mass and color w/o any
words flitting across my consciousness, and I'm really really going to try, I
promise, but....
Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com> said:
> Hi Jeff,
> I'm curious how you got saddled with the idea that a pictorial
> photograph should be of a picturesque subject. To my mind, pictorialism
> is about philosophy and, to a lesser extent, process, but the content
> could be anything. You should take pictures of whatever draws you to
> take pictures of it, try to give your own unique perspective on it
> whatever it is, and not worry so much about the categories, IMHO.
> Katharine Thayer
>
>
> jeffbuck@swcp.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for keeping after this stuff. Please just ignore this posting, if
> > you're glazing over. This is a little different though:
> >
> > All this about the nude got me to thinking about pictorialism. In one way
or
> > another, many of us have commented on the distinction between the
pictorial
> > nude (which overlaps with Judy's "young" + "female") and the non-pictorial
> > nude.... In my own "work," I've usually found myself wrestling with the
> > usually-thought-of-as-pictorial (e.g., Mount Fuji, Brooklyn Bridge, Lisa
> > Lyons) and the not-so (Metropolitan New Jersey, Sears Tower, Zero
Mostel)....
> > Twenty-four years ago, in photography class at Univ. of New Mexico, I made
> > these very pictorial images of brightly lit semi-trailers against a night
sky.
> > They were pretty good. Honest. Anyhow, the bottom line was to make a
pretty
> > picture but, you know, I really wanted to use this not-pretty subject. I
have
> > been arguing with myself about this ever since. I've been uncompromising
> > about wanting to make a pretty picture, but all over the place about what
this
> > means I ought to be putting a camera in front of. I'm on the lookout for
> > things that are inadvertently pictorial (those semi-trailers) and I've
been
> > trying to warm up to things that are cheaply pictorial but also, it turns
out,
> > actually pictorial (detail of a new public building or private residence).
I
> > like the just plain pictorial, but feel like a fool taking pictures of it.
> > The woods, the young/female, and Gateway Arch are too deliberate.
> >
> > Jeff Buckels
>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST