Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

As an example of technical and subjective brilliance, I think about Weston's "Pepper" series. His Pepper #30 is certainly a technical achievement, but was it "well seen" also? I would have to say it was. Although some critics will be able to write reams of technical, social, visual and metaphorical tripe about it, they cannot change its impact. This is what they are paid to do, talk and write words, not produce a thing of lasting beauty and value. Obviously, they have never tried to take a picture of a pepper, or perhaps they did and in their prints, it looked like $hit instead of a pepper.

What I find most pleasing about his work is a sense of completion, no secrets, no frills, no hidden meanings, the essential distilled into the print. To me this is a good print. Would it be as good without a technical mastery? Would it be as good without a sense of vision? It could not possibly be without both. How many prints which you have seen really move you or force you to see an object differently than you normally would?

As to photographs revealing a sense of "space".... I'd like to see a picture of the area between Teddy Kennedy's ears. The technical abilities of someone who could faithfully render this rhetorical vacuum would be truly awesome. tim

This is an interesting thread. When I first read Sean's question, Ansel Adams came to mind. I agree with Monophoto, here. I find his prints quite beautiful technically, but they seem to somehow lack expression, and always leave me, as you say, a little cold. I won't brush him off too quickly, as I think he made an enormous contribution to photography, but I'll spend much more time immersed in a Weston pepper anyday!

Of course, a poorly executed print will suck the life out of even the most emotionally inspired image.

At the end of the day, I think what we are all trying to create are expressive prints that connect with viewers. How we get there is of little importance to them. However, if the only thing that the viewer perceives is our technique, brilliant or poor, then we haven’t done our jobs at all well. I think we also need to be somewhat cautious in ascribing blame to technique when viewers don’t connect with our images.

It has been my experience that having excellent technical skills, the craft part of making photographs, is better simply because it makes life easier. Technique becomes second nature, and you end up being able to concentrate on the expressive rather than the technical.

So to answer your question Sean, no I don’t think technical brilliance can detract from an image, if it is well seen. But technical brilliance won’t enhance a poorly seen one either.

Allen

From the perspective of the photographer (not the viewer) it is annoying as hell to shoot a wonderful composition and screw up the exposure/dev or otherwise create a neg that is unprintable.

Sometimes it is a great joy to nail a a tough exposure create a wonderful print even if the subject or composition is wanting.

And, of course to get both, a great neg and composition is truly wonderful.

I have a shot (Brighton pier) that I love, is horribly under exposed, requires far too much effort to get a 'good' print (the best prints from this neg are not so great-- technically) and yet the 'fragile' nature of the print, in my mind, enhances the final image. In other words, what is technically good, may not be needed or even be a hindrance to the final image.

Many of the items I shoot are, common, everyday even boring. I shoot these subjects in a way that tends to glorify them (crossprocessed, close up with a wide lens) and then print them big on high gloss paper which tends to further elevate the subject.

So what I often strive toward is to take a boring (low content value) item and use technical 'tricks' to raise the visual value. Kind of like using big words and a loud voice to say nothing at all -- yet I like my work and the direction it is going.

As a photographer I might find it hard at times to get by technical issues when viewing others work or I might look at what is a good image and only see how I would do it different. I have also looked at others work noticed the perfection of the print and then found it hard not to label the artist a technician. In other words I am often too burdened with myself to objectively view others work.

It is clear that taste plays a huge roll in the process. I for one have never been left cold by an Ansel Adams print. In the flesh they are, in my mind absolutely wonderful on all shores, but that is totally my opinion I have the same feelings for Ed weston's photographs. I can appreciate MAS' s technical ability but I find his photos utterly lacking in anything else. To bring it closer to home, and I do miss seeing his photographs, Francesco is a technical wizard but his photographs move nothing in me. Technically amazing images. I would easily place his printing ability much higher than MAS's, yet neither moves me emotionally. SO yes I can appreciate them for their technical beauty, in francesco's case I can admire the hell out of his work, but would never own one as they do not mve me one bit.

Can a print's technical brilliance over take it's subject? Obviously it can if the subject matter is not to ones likeing. On the other hand a print's brilliant subject matter can and will be overshadowed by technical ineptitude.

To accuse a person of "not getting it" when they do not like the work of your favorite artist is about as silly as getting mad when someone does not appreciate the shoes you are wearing. It is a waste of time.

Jorge said:

OTOH, I dont buy this notion that we dont "get it" or that we dont understand the work....perhaps we understand all too well.

Click to expand...

Some images resonate with some people and not others and abstracts seem to resonate with fewer people than other images. Brooks Jensen had an audio blog a few months back where he talked about how abstracts don't sell but he shoots them anyway because he loves them. I'm that way, too.

I was having dinner with some folks who were going on and on about a painting they were going to buy from that 'Painter of Light' guy. I was in a lot of pain because they've bought my work and I can't imagine someone liking my work and that guy's at the same time. So, for me, I don't think that "getting it" or "not getting it" is the issue (though I freely admit that I don't "get" Thomas Kinkaide's work). It's just acknowledging that we all have different tastes.

I do feel that some are being hasty in glossing over the fact that some images don't work on the web. Jorge, I've been looking at your pictures on ebay (I've been waiting impatiently to see your new work since you left the CPG) and some images speak very loudly to me while others don't. The irony is that if I were to see the prints in person it is probably those images on ebay that leave me cold now that I would like the most. I've seen MAS's and Paula's work in person, in books and on the web. They have a quality to them that doesn't translate to web but that I could view indefinitely in person. The method of diplay has a huge imact on the way (or if) an image works.

Cheers,

James

James M. Bleifus said:

Some images resonate with some people and not others and abstracts seem to resonate with fewer people than other images. Brooks Jensen had an audio blog a few months back where he talked about how abstracts don't sell but he shoots them anyway because he loves them. I'm that way, too.

I was having dinner with some folks who were going on and on about a painting they were going to buy from that 'Painter of Light' guy. I was in a lot of pain because they've bought my work and I can't imagine someone liking my work and that guy's at the same time. So, for me, I don't think that "getting it" or "not getting it" is the issue (though I freely admit that I don't "get" Thomas Kinkaide's work). It's just acknowledging that we all have different tastes.

I do feel that some are being hasty in glossing over the fact that some images don't work on the web. Jorge, I've been looking at your pictures on ebay (I've been waiting impatiently to see your new work since you left the CPG) and some images speak very loudly to me while others don't. The irony is that if I were to see the prints in person it is probably those images on ebay that leave me cold now that I would like the most. I've seen MAS's and Paula's work in person, in books and on the web. They have a quality to them that doesn't translate to web but that I could view indefinitely in person. The method of diplay has a huge imact on the way (or if) an image works.

Cheers,

James

Click to expand...

James, I agree with you that some prints resonate with people and some dont. Clearly many people like Michael and Paula's style enough to buy their prints and books. But at the same time there is nothing wrong with admiting and knowing that not everbody is going to like your work. Telling someone that they just dont "get it" when they express their opinion against the print smacks me of too fragile and ego. I think a perfect example is the last print I uploaded, most viewers liked it with exception of Mark (the unwashed heretic....kidding Mark ). He expressed an honest opinion, and I am glad he did. It forced me to see the print in "his eyes," in this case I disagree with him, but there have been times when his opinion has been right on the button, as well as the opinon of others concerning my prints. Just because someone says "I dont like it because...." I cannot respond, "ah, you just dont get it".....that is a cop out.

On the subject of web publishing I disagree with you. If you see some of my prints in the web and you do not like them, I seriously doubt you will like them in real life. In the web you dont see the detail, you dont see the tonal transition, etc, etc....the print is reduced to its minimal common denominator, which is the overall content of the print. If you dont like that, I dont think any amount of technical proficiency will persuade you to like it. This is precisely the difference in philosophy I have with Michael. As many have pointed out here, Weston's Pepper is not great because it is well printed, it is great because he showed us an ordinary subject in an extraordinary manner. I beleive that is the job of the photographer, to remove all unnecessary elements and leave us with a pristine point of view. With a few exceptions I dont see that in Michael's or Paula's work. But as I said, it is a matter of taste and what we percieve as our reasons to photograph. I am not saying they are wrong, but I cannot abide by the "you just dont get it" excuse either. Brooks put it very well in his blog done in Feb 4 titled "Pay the price" Listen to it and you will see what most of us mean.

Jorge said:

Brooks put it very well in his blog done in Feb 4 titled "Pay the price" Listen to it and you will see what most of us mean.

Click to expand...

Jorge, I think we're largely in agreement. As for Brooks' blog, feel free to check the discussion some of us already had about it here (there was a url link here which no longer exists) .

Cheers,

James

Jorge said:

Mark (the unwashed heretic....kidding Mark ).

Click to expand...

And I do not like rodinal either.

This is going to sound bad but what I like about viewing prints on the web is I am not concerned with the technical aspects. I am viewing a copy. I am forced to consider the subject. and everything that goes along with it, Ie. composition, detail etc...

mark said:

And I do not like rodinal either.

This is going to sound bad but what I like about viewing prints on the web is I am not concerned with the technical aspects. I am viewing a copy. I am forced to consider the subject. and everything that goes along with it, Ie. composition, detail etc...

Click to expand...

I agree.

mark said:

And I do not like rodinal either.

This is going to sound bad but what I like about viewing prints on the web is I am not concerned with the technical aspects. I am viewing a copy. I am forced to consider the subject. and everything that goes along with it, Ie. composition, detail etc...

Click to expand...

Exactly! Web publishing is a great equalizer, it takes away the technical aspect and presents an image that is pared down to the essential, content.....

Richard alerted me to this thread (thank you, Richard) and since my name and Paula's name have been dragged into it I will respond. I have written about this before, but will do so once again.

It should be understood that both Paula and I are entirely uninterested in technical perfection for its own sake. A great print of emotional deadness is still emotional deadness. At the same time, a poor print of something that is exciting, does not convey all it might be able to. In the best work in any medium, there is a perfect integration of form and content.

I am more than a little aware that there are many that find our work boring and uninteresting. That's fine with us. Everyone has a right to his or her own taste.

Why do some find our work to be boring? I believe it is because it does not confirm their expectations of what they are looking for. In an essential way our photographs are too new to readily assimilate and are not like other photographs many are used to looking at. In this regard, I liken their experience to my own experience of listening to 20th century classical music for the first time, or even many times. After knowing the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., I started listening to the music of Bartok and Hindemith in particular, and to many other 20th century composers. At first their music sounded like noise (akin to the way Jorge feels about some of my photographs)--until I became familiar with it. Once I did, I found it equally beautiful to the more "classical" classical music, and at the same time much more challenging. And to be challenged in that way is the only interesting thing, for it leads to growth, and as e.e.cummings said, " . . . an artist, whose only agony is to grow."

Our photographs are usually complex. Jorge mentioned that he liked photographs that have a more simple structure, where there is a central subject, whereas we want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space. he had that right, We want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space because we see each part of the photograph as being of equal importance. Our photographs are never about "things"--centered things if you will. They are about relationships between things. I have referred to photographs as rhythmic events. When the viewers' eyes are impelled to look at everything in the photograph, there is a rhythmic activity that is taking place. That gives great visual pleasure. When the subject just sits there in the middle, unless it is seen in a rhythmic relationship to the space around it (Weston's Pepper #30 is as much about the surrounding space as it is the pepper itself), it can be static. Static = less rhythmic, less lively. Some may prefer that in their photographs. We do not.

Paula and I make photographs that often ask a great deal from the viewer. Many of them do not admit of the easy access that, say, a Michael Kenna photographs admits. This is not to denigrate Kenna's work. It is just that we ask the viewers to work at "getting" our photographs. We don't want to make it too easy for the viewers--or for ourselves.

We recently met with a curator who asked us a question about our visual concerns. After we talked for a minute or two he said, "You must write this down. No one talks about photography and understands it the way you do." I had been toying with the idea of writing a book about visual things and his comments pushed me over the edge. It will take a few years, as there are two other books ahead of it, but it will get done. I find it curious that people who don't know me think of me as a technically oriented photographer. That's what writing a couple of articles does. I'm probably the least technical large-format photographer out there, as anyone who has taken any of our workshops readily discovers. It's all about vision. As someone said in this thread--the technical part is easy. And it is. Anyone can make great prints--and easily, really. To me and to Paula, that is the least interesting part of what we teach. In this regard a recent comment in another forum by one of our workshop participants is perhaps relevant: "After taking a workshop with Michael and Paula, not only my photographs are getting WAY BETTER, the amount of keepers WENT UP BIG TIME too." (The all caps are in the original.) How about that? Could have something to do with vision as the workshop he attended did not take place in the darkroom and technical things were never discussed.

I wrote most of this before the last couple of posts. I do not understand how anyone can prefer--or even enjoy--looking at a work of art on the web, unless they have already seen the original and can, in their minds bring it back. If the purpose of the photograph is to illustrate a concept or to show a thing, then yes, the web is adequate. But if the intention of the photograph is that it is to be a work of art, then the web is a poor substitute for the real object. Thinking you have seen a photograph on the web is even worse than thinking you have seen a painting, when all you have seen is a reproduction in an Art History book. But I guess, in this mediated world, second-hand experience is good enough for many people.

Sean said:

Do you think in some cases a print that is too well executed can have a negative impact on the overall subject matter?

Click to expand...

No. I think that the quality of execution can only enhance it, never detract from the experience.

Michael A. Smith said:

But if the intention of the photograph is that it is to be a work of art, then the web is a poor substitute for the real object. Thinking you have seen a photograph on the web is even worse than thinking you have seen a painting, when all you have seen is a reproduction in an Art History book. But I guess, in this mediated world, second-hand experience is good enough for many people.

Click to expand...

Much like a reducing glass or thumbnail sketch, web images are a wonderful way to view a composition without the interference of minutiae andextraneous detail. It is not the best way to determine the overall value of a work.

To Seans question, I think one should make the best technical image possible for viewing.

I am intrigued with this web thing that is being discussed here.
One of the nicest images I have seen in a long time was posted on the technical gallery a few months back. It was an image of a boy laying on the floor with a bowl and goldfish with this mask on the boys head.
I cannot get this image out of my head, it was that good.No matter how good or bad that image was printed I know it is a killer image. I would know how to print this negative and be very happy with it.

I would like a chance to see Micheal and Paulas images in person as I have only heard of their work and seen it on the web site. To be honest there work looks very good to me and I know seeing it live would be better.

One of my friends is I believe one of the best colour printers in the World. His name is John Bently. His prints are absolutely amazing. But I wonder how great his work would transfer to the web. But if you ever get a chance to see his colour carbans you will sh** your pants.

so Sean , I think there are two considerations.. Well executed prints... Wonderfully exposed concepts...
hope you get lucky on both.

Vision

Bob-you can do the second best thing and purchase a copy of Michael Smiths' book: A Visual Journey; Photographs from 25 years. You wll be absolutely stunned by this visual feast. This has to be one of the finest photo books I've ever had the pleasure to own. The printing is over the top and the clarity of vision-well I leave that up to the individual. As I've said many times on this forum if you are interested in making fine prints one must seek them out either in Galleries, Museums,or in books.
Regards, Peter

Bob Carnie said:

I am intrigued with this web thing that is being discussed here.
One of the nicest images I have seen in a long time was posted on the technical gallery a few months back. It was an image of a boy laying on the floor with a bowl and goldfish with this mask on the boys head.
I cannot get this image out of my head, it was that good.No matter how good or bad that image was printed I know it is a killer image. I would know how to print this negative and be very happy with it.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, the same person posted a picture of a starving dog...gotta tell you, I still remember that shot as if it was just yesterday I saw it.

WHich goes to show, good content will always trump a well executed print of a fuzzy concept, as St. Ansel used to say..

Why do some find our work to be boring? I believe it is because it does not confirm their expectations of what they are looking for. In an essential way our photographs are too new to readily assimilate and are not like other photographs many are used to looking at.

I just don't think that this is the case. Some manage it obviously. If you are suggesting that unlike many famous names (whose work was only slow to take of due to the emergence of the medium as a valid artistic means of expression) your work is so radical that we cannot bend our minds to it [quickly], I think that is ridiculous. Just because some are not used to looking at them, does that make them a blind unthinking creature unable to appreciate a new 'way'?

Our photographs are usually complex........we want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space. he had that right, We want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space because we see each part of the photograph as being of equal importance. Our photographs are never about "things"--centered things if you will. They are about relationships between things.

I think this would be something easily said of any image. Of course there are relationships between things. There have to be relationships...however one might wish to define that relationship through composition etc! 'everything being of equal importance'. In all images? That rule is unilaterally applied? It really means nothing at all. It is a non-statement. Sounds to me like taking snaps where there is simply no regard for actively dealing with relationships. Is this not what composition is? Or are you suggesting that you deliberately engineer your images so that there really is nothing in particular to look at? You must be trying to actively do something with relationships (proportionately, relative to one another) otherwise what is the relationship ? that simply given to you by nature?

I have referred to photographs as rhythmic events. When the viewers' eyes are impelled to look at everything in the photograph, there is a rhythmic activity that is taking place.

Again, this actually means nothing other than the viewers eye wanders about with no reason to settle upon anything. Sounds like you are trying to sell the already well trodden concept behind the 'Boring Postcards'.

Paula and I make photographs that often ask a great deal from the viewer. Many of them do not admit of the easy access that, say, a Michael Kenna photographs admits. This is not to denigrate Kenna's work. It is just that we ask the viewers to work at "getting" our photographs. We don't want to make it too easy for the viewers--or for ourselves.

Sorry, but this is silly! Is there a secret code? Is there a moment of revelation when one suddenly realises the eyes are getting worn out looking for something to settle on (but failing) and then a light bul illuminates?
I think this is suggesting that many of us who don't get excited about your images are not 'up to it'....cannot/will not work as hard as you are asking us to. This is just daft.

As for the comment by one of your workshop participants......."my photographs are getting WAY BETTER, the amount of keepers WENT UP BIG TIME too." (The all caps are in the original.) How about that? Could have something to do with vision as the workshop he attended did not take place in the darkroom and technical things were never discussed.
It depends on what he means by better really. It depends upon his abilities and what sort of photographer he is. If he is a contact printer in tune with your way of photography he would (perhaps try to emulate your images), but then again the same issues would apply to him. If you provided the 'expert nod of approval' as he came closer to you vision he would naturally assume an improvement.

I wrote most of this before the last couple of posts. I do not understand how anyone can prefer--or even enjoy--looking at a work of art on the web, unless they have already seen the original and can, in their minds bring it back. If the purpose of the photograph is to illustrate a concept or to show a thing, then yes, the web is adequate. But if the intention of the photograph is that it is to be a work of art, then the web is a poor substitute for the real object.

So art is not about concepts or aesthetic 'things' dealt with in a particular manner specific to the artist's vision? I beg to differ. Sounds like you are defining your works as art because it is art.....sounds like you are talking all about the execution rather than content again. If you are removing concepts and the importance of the things (this is the subject content after all) what on earth is one of your photographs? Please define what it is that cannot be seen on the web aside from the actual printing merit. Is the art always missing from anything on the web? The web is always a poor substitute, but a terrible one if the only merit an image has is its 'glow' , 'radiance', 'tonal relationships'. You say your images are about equal relationships, space and rhythm and about the eyes exploring. Why is this not possible on a monitor?

Thinking you have seen a photograph on the web is even worse than thinking you have seen a painting, when all you have seen is a reproduction in an Art History book. But I guess, in this mediated world, second-hand experience is good enough for many people.

Again ridiculous and actually quite patronising (tho I am sure that was not intended) to suggest that those of my view have lower standards and a lowly preference for the simple 'howling wolf under moon' type of visual injection for satisfaction. I doubt there is a single masterpiece (photo or art)out there modern or classical where the viewer would not be able to make significant enthusiastic comments based upon a web image as to why the image 'made it'. Yes there would be an infintessimally better face to face experience, but the very basic factors which make it work are there however it is represented. The actual up close execution of the art enable considerable expansion upon this identifiable substrate.

Michael, I am not intending to make a personal attack on you or your work! I just have very different opinions to you. I also feel that it is very easy to dress up pretty well anything with words. I personally feel that great images just don't need them. Like Jorge, I think the notion that those who dont like something have not 'got it' is in itself a faddish and concept based notion! My original comments were not specific to your work, but as you have used your work as a vessel to explain your view, I did likewise. I do enjoy some contact printers work very much, but feel that the a significant number (in their quest for ultimate prints) have lost the balance somewhere along the way and images of an utterly dull nature become 'art' because of the medium used to record them and the resultant technical brilliance of the print. Many are just technically perfect recordings. The fact that so many contact printers visibly get so incredibly excited about technical things (often making it the main topic of disuccion when describing an image) suggests to me that the technical conquest of an image becomes its reason for being. I also believe in the Emperor's clothers concept. People buy into an awful lot of garbage and some peddle it. Sometimes it is because they are pretentious and art becomes art because of how much it can be talked up (and not disproved), sometimes because they stick with their own self-congratulating clique and sometimes because they are charletans. Plenty of people believe plenty about cosmetic beauty products, but the number of believers does not make their assertions any more impervious to critcism.

Tom

Well said Tom.

Michael
It's a matter of taste. If someone does not "get" your work it may be a case of not likeing it enough to linger and let their eyes involutarily move around the picture. I am not sure it matters that a curator praised your ideas, or that a workshop participant felt they were better because of your tutoring. Or are these supposed to be proof of your greatness. In the end either a photograph is liked or it is not. A person has to want to linger over photograph. If they are not willing to linger all of your work and planning is for naught.

Just my opinion though.

Actually there are a lot of good points in many of these last few posts. If M Smith didn't believe in his work (even to the point of finding fault in other's assessments) then he really would have no reason to go on shooting. I have heard that his workshops are all about the image/vision. The fact that many look at his work as being technically excellent shouldn't take away from that.

Meanwhile, others find, for good reasons, that they may not like his work and take exception to his arguments that they are wrong.

Oddly both sides are correct or at least understandable.

Bob Carnie said:

I would like a chance to see Micheal and Paulas images in person as I have only heard of their work and seen it on the web site. To be honest there work looks very good to me and I know seeing it live would be better.

Click to expand...

I have seen their work in person. As well as an Adams, some Westons, Strand, Parks, and a bunch of others.

Simply put, the Web does not do any justice to anyone's print, much less, one from a Master. The only type of photography it goes well with the Web is the D****l stuff. That may give a hint as to why several big name websites become dominated by pixelography

Bob Carnie said:

so Sean , I think there are two considerations.. Well executed prints... Wonderfully exposed concepts...
hope you get lucky on both.

Click to expand...

I quite agree. It takes a combination of both. One part done excellently cannot make up for the lacking of the other part. I found the technical part to be the easier of the two, Maybe that's why so many get caught up in obsessing with it. The hardest part, at least for me, is seeing, or vision, part.

Listen to a Mahler symphony on AM radio. Horrible fidelity...wondrous ideas. I can endure it because the ideas dominate a nearly unendurable corruption of sonic fidelity. Listen to the unendurable musical example of your choice. Perfomance on the finest of high-end equipment...or live for that matter...cannot render the execrable excellent. Photographs are not any different.

Splitting this into two postings. Since I requoted Tom's quoting of my writing there is a lot of repetition and the post became too long for one posting.

MAS: Why do some find our work to be boring? I believe it is because it does not confirm their expectations of what they are looking for. In an essential way our photographs are too new to readily assimilate and are not like other photographs many are used to looking at.

TS: I just don't think that this is the case. Some manage it obviously. If you are suggesting that unlike many famous names (whose work was only slow to take of due to the emergence of the medium as a valid artistic means of expression) your work is so radical that we cannot bend our minds to it [quickly], I think that is ridiculous. Just because some are not used to looking at them, does that make them a blind unthinking creature unable to appreciate a new 'way'?

MAS: We'll have to agree to disagree here. I've had too much experience otherwise.

MAS: Our photographs are usually complex........we want the viewers eyes to involuntarily navigate the entire picture space. he had that right,

TS: I think this would be something easily said of any image. Of course there are relationships between things. There have to be relationships...however one might wish to define that relationship through composition etc! 'everything being of equal importance'. In all images? That rule is unilaterally applied? It really means nothing at all. It is a non-statement. Sounds to me like taking snaps where there is simply no regard for actively dealing with relationships. Is this not what composition is? Or are you suggesting that you deliberately engineer your images so that there really is nothing in particular to look at? You must be trying to actively do something with relationships (proportionately, relative to one another) otherwise what is the relationship ? that simply given to you by nature?

MAS: I do make photographs where there are no figure/ground relationships. They are more often of a complex allover "field"--like Jackson Pollack's painting, or the painting of Mark Tobey. As such, the relationships are far more subtle than simple figure/ground relationships. You got it, nothing particular to look at--you must look at everything, not just the ostensible subject. Maybe you don't like Pollock's or Tobey's painting either. That's okay. Everyone is entitled to their own taste.

MAS: I have referred to photographs as rhythmic events. When the viewers' eyes are impelled to look at everything in the photograph, there is a rhythmic activity that is taking place.

TS: Again, this actually means nothing other than the viewers eye wanders about with no reason to settle upon anything. Sounds like you are trying to sell the already well trodden concept behind the 'Boring Postcards'.

MAS: "Postcards"? Postcards are always about "things."

MAS: Paula and I make photographs that often ask a great deal from the viewer. Many of them do not admit of the easy access that, say, a Michael Kenna photographs admits. This is not to denigrate Kenna's work. It is just that we ask the viewers to work at "getting" our photographs. We don't want to make it too easy for the viewers--or for ourselves.

TS: Sorry, but this is silly! Is there a secret code? Is there a moment of revelation when one suddenly realises the eyes are getting worn out looking for something to settle on (but failing) and then a light bul illuminates?
I think this is suggesting that many of us who don't get excited about your images are not 'up to it'....cannot/will not work as hard as you are asking us to. This is just daft.

MAS: Each to his own. But yes, people want instant gratification and generally aren't willing to stay with a work of art for more than a few seconds. Just watch people in a gallery or museum--they uaually spend only a few seconds in front of each photograph. Not minutes. And yes, it might take minutes, even many minutes.

TS: As for the comment by one of your workshop participants......."my photographs are getting WAY BETTER, the amount of keepers WENT UP BIG TIME too." (The all caps are in the original.) How about that? Could have something to do with vision as the workshop he attended did not take place in the darkroom and technical things were never discussed.
It depends on what he means by better really. It depends upon his abilities and what sort of photographer he is. If he is a contact printer in tune with your way of photography he would (perhaps try to emulate your images), but then again the same issues would apply to him. If you provided the 'expert nod of approval' as he came closer to you vision he would naturally assume an improvement.

MAS: This was posted by a workshop participant whose photographs I am unlikely ever to see again. He certainly didn't write what he did to please me. I assume he meant "better" in his terms, not mine. That should be obvious.

MAS: I do not understand how anyone can prefer--or even enjoy--looking at a work of art on the web, unless they have already seen the original and can, in their minds bring it back. If the purpose of the photograph is to illustrate a concept or to show a thing, then yes, the web is adequate. But if the intention of the photograph is that it is to be a work of art, then the web is a poor substitute for the real object.

TS: So art is not about concepts or aesthetic 'things' dealt with in a particular manner specific to the artist's vision? I beg to differ. Sounds like you are defining your works as art because it is art.....sounds like you are talking all about the execution rather than content again. If you are removing concepts and the importance of the things (this is the subject content after all) what on earth is one of your photographs? Please define what it is that cannot be seen on the web aside from the actual printing merit. Is the art always missing from anything on the web? The web is always a poor substitute, but a terrible one if the only merit an image has is its 'glow' , 'radiance', 'tonal relationships'. You say your images are about equal relationships, space and rhythm and about the eyes exploring. Why is this not possible on a monitor?

MAS: Art is certainly not about concepts or ideas. If it were, all you would have to do is get the concept or idea and you wouldn't have to look anymore. Art is, however, informed by intelligence. Art is about aesthetic things--feelings--not ideas. As the great art historian Sir herbert Read said, "If one has ideas to express the proper medium is language."

MAS: "The importance of things": Ah, "things"--or as some would call it here the "subject"--is ultimately unimportant. Weston understood this. Adams did not. Weston wrote that what he photographed was the "me of universal rhythms." He went on to say that "Clouds, torsos, shells, peppers, smokestacks are but interdependent, interrelated parts of a whole, which is life. Life rhythms felt in no matter what become symbols of the whole." You see, it didn't matter what he photographed. Yes, he further wrote, " To see the thing itself is essential . . ." But it did not matter which thing it was he was photographing. And in his last photographs he got away from photographing things altogether.

MAS: Thinking you have seen a photograph on the web is even worse than thinking you have seen a painting, when all you have seen is a reproduction in an Art History book. But I guess, in this mediated world, second-hand experience is good enough for many people.

TS: Again ridiculous and actually quite patronising (tho I am sure that was not intended) to suggest that those of my view have lower standards and a lowly preference for the simple 'howling wolf under moon' type of visual injection for satisfaction. I doubt there is a single masterpiece (photo or art)out there modern or classical where the viewer would not be able to make significant enthusiastic comments based upon a web image as to why the image 'made it'. Yes there would be an infintessimally better face to face experience, but the very basic factors which make it work are there however it is represented. The actual up close execution of the art enable considerable expansion upon this identifiable substrate.

MAS: You believe there is only an infinitesimal difference between web viewing and in the presence of the actual object. I guess you feel that art museums, which I feel must be very important indeed considering the value society seems to put on them, not to mention the amount of money that gets spent on the museums and on the art, must be an almost total waste, since the difference between looking at a great work of art in the flesh so to speak and on the web is only infinitesimal.

TS: Michael, I am not intending to make a personal attack on you or your work! I just have very different opinions to you. I also feel that it is very easy to dress up pretty well anything with words. I personally feel that great images just don't need them. Like Jorge, I think the notion that those who dont like something have not 'got it' is in itself a faddish and concept based notion! My original comments were not specific to your work, but as you have used your work as a vessel to explain your view, I did likewise. I do enjoy some contact printers work very much, but feel that the a significant number (in their quest for ultimate prints) have lost the balance somewhere along the way and images of an utterly dull nature become 'art' because of the medium used to record them and the resultant technical brilliance of the print. Many are just technically perfect recordings. The fact that so many contact printers visibly get so incredibly excited about technical things (often making it the main topic of disuccion when describing an image) suggests to me that the technical conquest of an image becomes its reason for being. I also believe in the Emperor's clothers concept. People buy into an awful lot of garbage and some peddle it. Sometimes it is because they are pretentious and art becomes art because of how much it can be talked up (and not disproved), sometimes because they stick with their own self-congratulating clique and sometimes because they are charletans. Plenty of people believe plenty about cosmetic beauty products, but the number of believers does not make their assertions any more impervious to critcism.

MAS: Well, Tom, it is a personal attack. But I hope you are not referring to me in your last paragraph. You should know that outside of a workshop--when I am teaching--all I ever say about my work is that my prints are contact prints, which is hardly a technical comment. And even in our workshops, I never talk about the technical qualities of my photographs. Never. It's all about vision, first. The technical stuff, when well done, conveys the vision in the strongest possible way. Would you enjoy a concert of your favorite music if it were poorly performed?

"As for the comment by one of your workshop participants......."my photographs are getting WAY BETTER, the amount of keepers WENT UP BIG TIME too." (The all caps are in the original.) How about that? Could have something to do with vision as the workshop he attended did not take place in the darkroom and technical things were never discussed.
It depends on what he means by better really. It depends upon his abilities and what sort of photographer he is. If he is a contact printer in tune with your way of photography he would (perhaps try to emulate your images), but then again the same issues would apply to him. If you provided the 'expert nod of approval' as he came closer to you vision he would naturally assume an improvement."
Tom


Tom, I am the one who made the comment and I KNOW that my photographs are better. It is not about a approval. It is about witnessing my own work before and after the workshop. What I have learned is how to use the camera and because of that my photographs are more coherent and stronger even when they are subtle and somewhat complex.

The photographs that I am making are simply more mine because of what I have learned.