From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 08/27/02-04:44:36 PM Z
Words can mean different things at different times. However, if we
limit ourselves to the meanings that pictorialism and the
picturesque had during the time of the development of the
photographic school of Pictorialism at the end of the 19th century it
is actually very difficult to disassociate the two, In fact the two
words are essentially derived from a common source, picture, which of
course had a very specific meaning at the time somewhat different
from its meaning today. In any event the evidence of the picturesque
is in my opinion the primary and foremost characteristic of the
photographic manifestation we know as Pictorialism.
So what is a picture? I like the definition given by Mike Weaver in
his book The Photographic Art. Pictorial Traditions in Britain and
America. Weaver notes that the principal aim of pictorial photography
is "to make a picture in which the sensuous beauty of the fine print
is consonant with the moral beauty of the fine image, without
particular reference to documentary or design values, and without
specific regard to topographical identity." It is my opinion that one
can easily read this as a definition of the picturesque, which is
also understood as a style that present an embellished imitation of
nature. Attached to this we also often see an emblematic or narrative
meaning that seeks to illustrate moral principles or localize the
scene within a specific mythological or legendary framework.
I have seen many photographs made during the period when Pictorialism
was the main aesthetic in art photography. I can think none which
would not have been considered in the picturesque style by their
makers.
As for the pictorial nude, see in particular the work of someone like
Anne W. Brigman as especially illustrative of the above comments.
Sandy King
>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