From: William Marsh (redcloud54@earthlink.net)
Date: 08/27/02-05:16:14 PM Z
So what we are discussing here is the movement known, historically, as "Pictorialism?"
Bill
jeffbuck@swcp.com wrote:
>
> 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