O.T. RE: Sharp plane of focus

So, I guess I deserve this for holding an opinion contrary to the conventional
wisdom about Richard Avedon...

JS> Silly me --
JS> I always thought those...dehumanized
JS> their subjects, making them look
JS> freakish or abject,...subhuman and degraded.

It's hardly silly for you to have your own understanding of the work. That's
why I lead off with the word, "personally." Otherwise, I'd have started, "No
one could possibly see anything in this work other than..."

Sadly, you didn't share with us *why* *you* see Avedon as dehumanizing his
freakish subhuman Awful Warnings. Those are strong words to stand without
explanation, whether you have formed your own opinions, or adopted those of
others.

Or wait--were you being sarcastic at my expense, Judy? Well, I accept your
hearty welcome to the list--Glad to be here.

JF> [The] oeuvre of Avedon...primarily shows a
JF> pejorative stance toward people in general.

Jack...what common elements of his imagery and technique suggest to you that he
hates humankind (er, sorry, "takes a 'pejorative stance' towards people),
especially when you describe him as "kindly," "charming," and "sincere."
(Perhaps you can point me to other literature...his whole oeuvre is big and
off-topic.)

JS> As for scale -- most people see them in books,
JS> not the original, so if they see them as "grand,"
JS> that's another proof of the power of suggestion...
JS> in this case perhaps by a teacher.

Wow--taking down my teacher, as well as my own adoption of his opinion!

But without that "power of suggestion" (often called "teaching"), most people
would think that Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" was an insignificant piece,
perhaps 4 inches by 7 inches, a typical reproduction size in art history
books--ignoring the fact it is a pivotal part (physically and meaningfully) of
an immense work at the center of one of the world's major religions.

To clarify, my opinion is that scale matters. I suggested to Gary that he
consider several things it could mean (including aggrandizement). To go
further, I'd say that scale *of the original* matters...reproductions (books,
show cards, slide shows in art class) are simply illustrations of the original
art, meant to enlighten--so many elements, tangible and intangible, are lost
(including size, most times). (Exception: art that is only meant to exist as
mass reproduction, like cereal box art, or maybe tomato soup can labels.)

It seems to me that only in photography do people expect a reproduction to carry
the full artistic weight as an original print, made (or overseen) by the artist,
viewed in person.

JF> Richard...called me...when his exhibit
JF> on the The American West was hung,
JF> large and direct.

If "direct" can be interpreted as "in your face" or "confronting the viewer," at
least I have one valid thought, eh?

Why do *you* suppose he chose to hang large, Jack? His portrait of Donald
Rumsfeld looks just fine at 16"x20". His picture of Ronald Fisher looks good
in a coffee table book...even the bees. But, he chose to make his exhibition
prints--his original artwork--large. I would think he gave some thought to his
work's exhibition size when he was creating it. But I wonder if he gave much
thought to its possible reproduction size when he was working?

JC> There is not a woman alive that wants her
JC> portrait taken with a normal lens!

JS> ...when a person is seriously gorgeous...there's no point in..."soft focus."

But the comment was not about what the photographer should do when photographing
a portrait; it was what the sitter would want. While the phrase "not a woman
alive" is a bit hyperbolic, most people like to look their best in a portrait,
even if the photographer would prefer to dwell on pores, blackheads, facial
hair, and acne scars.

Avedon may have been rude, or even a little mean, to disallow the courtesy of a
face washing and proper make-up to some of his subjects, but they knew what
they looked like and still agreed to sit. I still don't think this is enough
to make their pictures degrading to them.

        - Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 11:09 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Sharp plane of focus

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Dan wrote:
> Now erase the battlefield from behind them. I don't think you would
> take away the pride and confidence from their face. That, personally,
> is what I see in Avedon's "West"--people standing forthrightly in
> front of their lives, as shown by their faces, their skin, their clothes.
>
> There's no battlefield, just white. But there doesn't have to be,
> when you can see what James Story has been doing all day, perhaps all
> his life, just by looking at his eyes.

Silly me -- I always thought those portraits of "the American West" (or whatever
they were called), far from showing "pride and confidence,"
dehumanized their subjects, making them look freakish or abject, which is to
say, subhuman and degraded.

As for scale -- most people see them in books, not the original, so if they see
them as "grand," that's another proof of the power of suggestion... in this
case perhaps by a teacher. (Although I don't think there's much doubt about
Avedon's motive for museum scale to begin with.)

> A teacher of mine, Rod Klukas, also reminded me a few weeks ago about
> the scale of Avedon's prints. Does it change the meaning of the piece
> to present it at 40"x50" instead of, say, 8"x10"? At 50" tall from
> torso to head, they are now life-size or more--a slightly super-human
> scale. This could indicate considerable respect for the subject, a
> desire to aggrandize or celebrate them. Or maybe it's just an attempt
> to make a big print for a big museum space--or big ego?
>
> But this idea of scale is something one might consider in alternative
> processes, where, many times, presentation size is limited to film
> size (or your computer printer's maximum transparency output size).
> I'm not going to be aggrandizing much of anything with my 4"x5" contact
prints!
>

[Cut]

> (John
> Cremati (this thread) said "There is not a woman alive that wants her
> portrait taken with a normal lens!")

Silly me again, hanging out with so many dead women.... But let me point out
that, male or female, when a person is seriously gorgeous (and photography
reveals how many folks are) there's no point in futzing them up with so-called
"soft focus." I don't recall, however (and this may be simply my lack of
attention) that many of Avedon's subjects meant much besides "Awful Warnings."

Judy
Received on Sat Dec 31 11:29:56 2005