From: Robert Newcomb (Robert.Newcomb@gactr.uga.edu)
Date: 10/09/03-09:49:15 AM Z
I have seen plenty of wet plate era or older images made before the time
of "Weston and the gang" with "poor" quality lenses and long exposure
that were not fuzzy. Genre, allegory, pictoralism were intentional as
people struggled with different notions of what the place of photography
should be in the world of art.
Robert N.
SteveS wrote:
> Ôªø Kate, you would do well to find "California Pictoralism" a
> Getty publication. Weston and the gang were nothing more than a group
> of punks doing photography very, very well. The original group, the
> Brennan Group that met in Berkeley were mostly [women] photographers
> employed to illustrate books of poetry and epic poems, classics of the
> kind rarely read today. These photographs were referred to as a
> genre, "Pictoralism." Because the photos were staged, and the poor, by
> today's standards, lenses caused long exposures, the results were
> fuzzy. That was 'writtn off' as artistic. Sorry to be such a fuddy
> duddy, but I knew those guys, and what you read is somewhat what I was
> treated to of my own ears from their own mouths. I met Ann Brigman,
> who owned the Brennan St. studio in Berkeley, was taken out of my way
> to be introdued toher by Ansel and we spoke about Pictoralism. The
> 'poetic titling idea' came from him and her during a series of
> conversations over a couple years. S. Shapiro
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kate Mahoney
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:25 AM
> Subject: Re: neo-Pictorialism
> No posing people is "staged and directed", pictorialism
> refers to a particular school of photography that weston and
> others referred to as "fuzzy-wuzzies". - particularly the
> gum and platinum printers around the turn of the 20th
> century.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: SteveS
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: neo-Pictorialism
> My understanding of neo-pictoralism is when you
> 'title' a photograph and create or impose a
> meaning for what may be a simple photograph of
> some annimate or inannimate object. I often
> photograph trees, and label or title them with my
> impression of what they represent. I see it as
> 'poetic' and the labeling critics label it
> neo-pictoralism. Pictoralism is the practice of
> posing people, arranging a set up for a purpose of
> illustration. One opinion. Steve Shapiro, Carmel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ender100@aol.com
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: neo-Pictorialism
> Kate,
>
> Here is what is probably a very
> oversimplified view of the whole thing.
> You do what work you do based on what is
> in your heart, mind, and spirit to the
> extent your mastery of the craft and
> your creative ability allows
> you—involving the relevant
> subjects that fall within the range of
> your mobility and your camera lens.
>
> Then, later, after you are dead, should
> someone notice your work, be they a
> critic or writer, to satisfy their need
> for order, they place you in a category
> or box with a label on it—like
> maybe the post-neo-pictorealist
> photographisterical movement. Then they
> go about describing all sorts of obvious
> symbolism in each of your images and
> motivations on your part at the time of
> clicking the shutter to include those
> meanings in the image so that you are
> proven obviously to be a
> post-neo-pictorealist
> photographisterical photographer type
> person.
>
> You can call me anything you want. Just
> don't call me after 2:00 AM.
>
> ;)
>
> Mark Nelson
>
> In a message dated 10/6/03 8:58:43 PM,
> kateb@paradise.net.nz writes:
>
>
>
> > The only thing I've got against the
> > tag of "neo-pictorialism" is the faint
> >
> > odour of disapproval that wafts to me
> > from "pictorialism". Being a product
> > of the postwar generation, when
> > pictorialism was a no-no and we were
> > to
> > stick severely to "realism", even
> > through abstraction, neo-expressionism
> > and
> > Malevich. Seems like we've finally
> > caught on to what the painting world
> > has
> > known for over a century - art is NOT
> > about truth!!! It's about ART - and
> > the word artifice is rooted in the
> > wrord ART so........is the Sistine
> > ceiling a lie??? Or an artifice???
> > Does anybody care??
> > And what about thoses peppers? Were
> > they supposed to be read as
> > vegetables????? They may have been as
> > sharp and real as all hell but they
> > were at the very least another sort of
> > artifice in themselves.........
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST