Actually not everything is derivative, some is even original. Stretching a definition to twisting around to "prove" anything actually is weasel wording and proves nothing.
Everything is derivative of scratchings on a cave wall, so you have to look at the intent of the statement and not be fastidiously literal. I don't mind a little segregation and organization here and there in my life, even in my photography. Others may not.
Artist's manifestoes are like manufacturer's recommended developing times. They're a guideline and an argument-starter, not a legal requirement. I think the Group f/64's point was to elevate photographs as an art form in themselves, and to resist trying to make a photograph look like an imitation painting. Of course that is not entirely obtainable, because their vocabulary as visual artists at that time included at least six or seven centuries of Western painting. Especially in landscape. Where would Ansel's clouds be without JMW Turner's clouds? But the idea that photography should stand on its own feet was still a little novel and even controversial.
I have an old edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica where Edward Weston contributed an article on photography. It is the most rabid unforgiving manifesto of f/64 ideology I ever read, but if consistently followed, would condemn 70% of Weston's own work. Mostly just a lot hot air stirring up dust for sake of an incidental paycheck.
AA would have photographed clouds if Turner never existed. Who ya kiddin? - that's a windbag notion of its own. Panchromatic film had arrived, and AA hung out in the Sierras with thunderclouds. I painted and photographed em before I ever heard of Turner, took an art history class, or ever even saw an actual AA print. The last thing we need is more generic pigeonholing of genre. If some pontificators want toss me into the dumpster as a mere "Rocks n' Trees" stereotype, I could point my own finger right back at em and call them just another photographer of urban weirdos. Nothing is that simple. And there was nothing novel about photography as an art form by the time AA arrived. Yes, he was involved in the NYC MMA's engagement with it. But people like PH Emerson and Steiglitz had already done the heavy lifting, along with numerous others. Even in mountain photography, people like Watkins, Muybridge, and Sella had already done things that not only rivaled the upstart Adams, but in certain ways exceeded it in my opinion.
Actually not everything is derivative, some is even original. Stretching a definition to twisting around to "prove" anything actually is weasel wording and proves nothing.
Clouds existed before JMW Turner, in fact they are even mentioned in the Old Testament and I think we can all agree that the Old Testament predates JMW Turner.
so you are suggesting a "romantic" photograph is not derivative of a another art form because we are duped by a conspiracy that suggestsNone of us have eyes or minds of our own, apparently.
Yeah AA was a great printer. Given his negative I wouldn't be able to make a print that even worth looking at.
I mean the moonrise negaive. It looks so flat and underexposed.Why do you think you could not make a decent print from one of AA's negatives? Ever seen any of his negatives up close?
Faberryman - I don't know why people think of AA as an apogee of technique. He wasn't, and certainly not if compared to how things are done today. I load my film-holders in an actual cleanroom. He sometimes changed out film in his holders in the bottom of a dusty sleeping bag at night! His darkroom was comparatively primitive even by commercial standards in his own day. His film and lenses were not as consistent as today. Magnify most of his 8X10 film images more than 3X and they look downright mushy - that's why he specified anything bigger than 20X24 be printed relatively soft and warm instead of in his classic bold cold tones. And I personally have seen a lot of those up close.
As far as many of the original negs go, I think I'd just set aside most of those into their own boneyard pile and move on to something less problematic, if those were my own. You have to keep in mind that the mass-produced high-quality press reproductions of his most popular images have been made from digital scans and re-mastered content. Actual silver prints are still being offered by Alan Ross from some of the original negs, and he has his own methodology for dealing with all the idiosyncrasies, which he has practiced on over and over and over again.
None of what I have just stated is an attempt to diminish AA's contribution to either the art or technique of photography. Times were different. We have a lot of advantages he didn't.
When one grows up surrounded by gigantic thunder clouds most summer afternoons, and darkening skies with all kind of magical hues in Winter before a snowstorm, or when one clears, they don't sit around thumbing through art history books tryng to figure out what kind of genre they want to belong to, or be classified under. ...
A photographic print should be judged by its appearance, not by the work or manipulation in it's making.
I am sure that all of us can improve our technique, although I doubt any of us will reach your pinnacle of perfection. Even though AA may have been a slob working in a mediocre darkroom using substandard equipment, he inspired me to work carefully. Probably one of those do as I say not as I do things. I have seen many original AA prints over the decades, and most of them look pretty good to me technically, but I am just a hack and probably couldn't see their glaring deficiencies if my life depended on it. I like some of AA's work though he is not my favorite photographer. I will be loading my film holders in my bedroom closet this evening. Now I am wondering if it is even worth going out tomorrow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?