jeffbuck@swcp.com
Date: 08/27/02-04:39:13 PM Z
Sandy: At the outset, I want you to know that I think so much of you that I
opened this email first in preference to one entitled, "Meet Sexy Singles in
Your Area." ... Now then: Interesting posting. Thanks. -jb
Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu> said:
>
> 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