Can we still break ground?

[Will S]

I forgot to mention that I agree completely with noseoil that there is still a lot of opportunity for innovation and invention in photography (and everything else for that matter).

Best,

Will

 

[f64'ed-up]

Illustration is the depiction of the external world...art departs from this and brings the internal experiences, understanding, and awareness into physical representation.

How many more waterfalls, trees, darkened passageways, slot canyons and cathedral interiors do we need to photograph? No matter how technically proficiently those may be produced they are still purely and simply illustration.

While I would agree in general with the first of these statements, it seems to indicate more of a widely held animosity towards landscape as photographic subject. I don't find manipulations of subject digitally or otherwise by the artists you mention either truthful or beautiful - and that is what I seek. But I wouldn't make judgements as to their validity as art. My observation of the landscape photography today is that it is overwrought with manipulations of toners and techniques supposed to "break new ground". It is like looking out a screen door, the purity of the light and the subject being veiled (or shielded) from raw emotional impact. ..escapism from Weston/Adams.

As for myself, I in no way consider myself to be a photographer. It has taken me half a century to fully realize that I am an artist. Photography happens to be the realm in which I currently express MYSELF. The medium and equipment really don't play much of a part in the emotional quality of my work. Cameras are only important so much as I am familiar enough with them to capture the moment as I feel it. I use no heroic darkroom (or digital) methods to achieve MY VISION. I consider few if any of the photographs I print to be merely illustration, technically proficient or not.

I think your characterizations of Adams vs. Weston as artists are purely personal judgements perhaps based on ignorance of the two men. When Adams finally succeeded in pulling Weston away from his studio into the high country of Yosemite, so enthralled was Weston that he used up nearly all the film he brought in the first day of a weeks' worth of shooting. After returning from the trip, he pestered Adams for weeks afterwards to take him back. And yet of all the film exposed we have little to remember Weston's work of those trips save a portrait study of Charis at Ediza Lake. Their work as artists was indeed expressed differently.

 

[c6h6o3]

What I think, again for myself, is that photography very often is limited more by the photographer his/her self then any other factor.

For myself, this impasse is the point of departure from the world external into the world internal.

“The inward work, however, consists in his turning the man he is, and the self he feels himself and perpetually finds himself to be, into the raw material of a training and shaping whose end is mastery. In it, the artist and the human being meet in something higher. For mastery proves its validity as a form of life only when it dwells in the boundless Truth and, sustained by it, becomes the art of the origin. The Master no longer seeks, but finds. As an artist he is the hieratic man; as a man, the artist, into whose heart, in all his doing and not-doing, working and waiting, being and not-being, the Buddha gazes. The man, the art, the work-it is all one. The art of the inner work, which unlike the outer does not forsake the artist, which he does not ‘do’ and can only ‘be,’ springs from depths of which the day knows nothing.”

Eugen Herrigel
Zen in the Art of Archery

Edward Weston was such a Master. That's why his work is timeless. As I read this thread I find myself asking, "Why in the world would I want to 'break new ground'?". My quest is for the eternal, not the new.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Beak "New Ground"... It depends on the intensity of the evaluation of the Photographer. How closely are you looking at the work?

Another "Landscape" ... the subject of "Landscapes" has been worked to death."

BUT ...
I wonder if you have ever tried to duplicate the photograph itself .. not copy from the print or negative, but return to the scene and try to take another photograph *exactly* the same as the first one? I have, and I have NEVER been successful. There is always something different; The sun will not be at the same position, the state of the leaves on the trees will be different, not only in a different season, but from week-to-week, and even day-to-day. The sky will *never* be the same.

At another level, We, ourselves will not be the same. Our moods, our emotional state, our depth of experience - and closely linked to all that - our VISION will not be the same.

"Break New Ground"? I don't know - I do know the crops we reap from the ground WILL certainly be different, whether they are Landscapes, Sunsets, Figure Studies, Weathered Barns, Slot Canyons .... a Dog Taking a dump in a Vacant Lot....

 

[Tom Duffy]

“The inward work, however, consists in his turning the man he is, and the self he feels himself and perpetually finds himself to be, into the raw material of a training and shaping whose end is mastery. In it, the artist and the human being meet in something higher. For mastery proves its validity as a form of life only when it dwells in the boundless Truth and, sustained by it, becomes the art of the origin. The Master no longer seeks, but finds. As an artist he is the hieratic man; as a man, the artist, into whose heart, in all his doing and not-doing, working and waiting, being and not-being, the Buddha gazes. The man, the art, the work-it is all one. The art of the inner work, which unlike the outer does not forsake the artist, which he does not ‘do’ and can only ‘be,’ springs from depths of which the day knows nothing.”

Eugen Herrigel
Zen in the Art of Archery

Sounds like Yoda...

Take pictures that are important to you or are important to those who are important to you, since 99% of what you take will never see the light of day, beyond your immediate circle of friends and family.

Once I decided to stop worrying about creating "Art", I got a lot more relaxed and started enjoying photography a lot more.

For those still intent on suffering in service to their inner Muse, ask yourself how many other people objectively think you hear the Muse. Maybe you have just convinced yourself you do.

It's very rewarding just being a photographer, without laying all that art-angst all over it.

Take care,
Tom

 

[f64'ed-up]

You are not an artist (unless you are a painter of sculptor). Photography is not art, and cannot be art.

Art has NOTHING to do with 'self-expression'. What bad art history courses did you take, if any?

Thank you for informing me what I am and am not. How could I otherwise have possibly known? So sorry I've offended your artistic sensibilities! Your personal attack (not posted to the general thread, by the way) pretty much firms up my opinion of these threads and explains why after a grand total of 11 contributions over a year or so, that one will be my last.

 

[f64'ed-up]

11 contributions over a year or so, that one will be my last.

Whoops, I guess that was 18. Bye

 

[Ed Sukach]

Thank you for informing me what I am and am not. How could I otherwise have possibly known? So sorry I've offended your artistic sensibilities! Your personal attack (not posted to the general thread, by the way) pretty much firms up my opinion of these threads and explains why after a grand total of 11 contributions over a year or so, that one will be my last.

"Ornello"???

What the ... ? I can't believe anyone is listening to him! What did he do... e-mail you on AOL of Netscape.. or somewhere? I can't find anything like that here on APUG.

Photography IS one of the "ARTS". I say so, and I have every damn bit as much authority as does Ornello.

 

[anyte]

Thank you for informing me what I am and am not. How could I otherwise have possibly known? So sorry I've offended your artistic sensibilities! Your personal attack (not posted to the general thread, by the way) pretty much firms up my opinion of these threads and explains why after a grand total of 11 contributions over a year or so, that one will be my last.

I hope you don't actually leave because someone, who could only reply to you privately, claims that photography isn't and cannot be art. This one person isn't any where near representative of the forum as a whole and I don't think they know nearly as much about art as they would like you to believe.

 

[jd callow]

Ornello is like the scum in the drain trap: smelly, useless and bound to return no matter how often it has been removed.

I hope f64'ed reconsiders. I sent him/her a pm maybe others should as well.

Photography IS one of the "ARTS". I say so, and I have every damn bit as much authority as does Ornello.

Bubble wrap has more authority and better social skills.

 

[JHannon]

Ornello is like the scum in the drain trap: smelly, useless and bound to return no matter how often it has been removed.

I hope f64'ed reconsiders. I sent him/her a pm maybe others should as well.

I hope so too.. Ornello has been on my ignore list, I almost forgot about it.


Back to the original question...

For me, I have been photographing my children (twins) since they were born. It is this and photographing things that interest me (I guess I am selfish). It is fun, interesting...a hobby. I am not trying to sell prints or break new ground... I just love the craft of photography..

 

[Ed Sukach]

Paraphrasing a joke:

An APUGer walked into a bar, sat down, and ordered a triple.

The bartender looked at him, "What's wrong, big fella?"

"Oh, that Ornello is an *SSHOLE!!!"

A guy at the end of the bar spoke up. "Hey!! I RESENT that!!"

The "Tripler" felt an adrenalin rush. "Why?!? - Are you Ornello?"

Guy: "No! I'm an *sshole!"

 

[mark]

In my colelge Poetry workshops people fell into maybe three categories of writers. Those who wrote poetry to express their inner voice and explore the abstract, those who wrote poetry as a means paint an image with words, and those who felt every successful poem had to refer to graphic sex, violence and foul language. All three types wrote poetry. Some good some bad. What was appealing to one was seldom appealing to another. Each felt the others wasted words.

As I read this thread I see that is the case here as well. We have people in their camps and they cannot, or don't, or do not want to see the validity of the other. SOme in their arrogance belittle those who practice other forms of photography or appreciate a certain style of photography.

In reality it does not matter what avenue we take as photographers, or painters, or digital manipulators as long as it is the avenue is true true to ourselves. I think the mature artist knows and understands that there are differences in artistic intent and outcome. They do not feel the need to belittle other avenues. They are content to break new ground within themselves.

The definition of art depends solely on the personal taste of the viewer. Of the mentioned photographers in this thread I find Uelsman's(sp) work quaint but with little intrinsic value, Gordon rocks I have been a fan for years, Sloda produces junk, witkin is a waste, and I can be brought to tears by an Adams image. Weston's images strike almost the same chord in me as does Adams but not in the same way. It is all a matter taste. No critic or writer has been able to define art in a manner that satisfies all concerned. There are no experts. That is the beauty of art. DO what makes you feel good and challenge yourself.

And Ornello is a waste of oxygen natural resources and time.

 

[c6h6o3]

Sounds like Yoda...

...or Minor White...looked like Yoda he did

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I knew when I posted this that the thoughts I have had would be familiar to many, even if they did not agree. I had felt this way for some time, but it was not consciously acknowledged....my mind was too swamped with photography to give it too much attention. The break of 6 weeks brought it to the front of my mind and forced me to actually think about it before picking up a camaera again. I think what it has told me is to try less hard, enjoy it more and care less. From a creative point of view, I think my ambition to 'suceed' became a hindrance. The sense of liberty gained from having a new job, more time to take images and no need to make a penny from photography cannot be understated

 

[omalley]

I knew when I posted this that the thoughts I have had would be familiar to many, even if they did not agree. I had felt this way for some time, but it was not consciously acknowledged....my mind was too swamped with photography to give it too much attention. The break of 6 weeks brought it to the front of my mind and forced me to actually think about it before picking up a camaera again. I think what it has told me is to try less hard, enjoy it more and care less. From a creative point of view, I think my ambition to 'suceed' became a hindrance. The sense of liberty gained from having a new job, more time to take images and no need to make a penny from photography cannot be understated

You said it, Tom. There's nothing like thinking about the fact that someone else will eventually be looking at (and, gulp, talking about buying) your work to make you avoidant about doing said work. I like to quote David Vestal a lot, and I think you would enjoy his article 'The Case For Obscurity' in which he says that being famous would be a horrible nuisance and how could you create quality work under such circumstances.

 

[127]

I don't remember the exact details so excuse historical inaccuracies:

In the late 1890's physics was coming to the end of a boom period. The great names of classical physics had explained virtually all of the natural phenomena around us.

One of the physics societies actually publised a turn of the century article, explicitly saying that their work was almost complete. In that article they identified 10 "minor" areas which needed to be tidied up before they could declare physics "done".

Over the next 15 years, tying off those loose ends created relativity and (more importantly!) quantum mechanics - entirly new fields which redefined physics completly. Virtually everything which had gone before was thrown out, or re-cast in a new light.

When it looked like there was nothing new to be done, they just needed to take a few more steps, because around the corner there was a whole new world to be discovered.

Ian

 

[jjstafford]

A colleague of mine has been doing what you would call "straight documentary" photography for decades. It is meticulous work. While there may be nothing new under the sun, there are a lot of old things disappearing all the time. Thus the documentary.

Regarding the art of photography, well it speaks to itself in terms of reaction, affirmation, comment and that is always, and necesssarily, a moving target to keep the artists and critics busy.

Vestal's comment follows Marcel Duchamp's in which he said that he quit art because he found he was becoming a professional painter, and that would be the death of an artist.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Just "Quietly", gang ...

"Ornello" has written me via private e-mail. I questioned him as to what he knew about the attitudes of "Artists", and how many he had met.

He replied, "Back in the '70's, I dated a couple of girls from the local Arts College (- or was it "School"?), and socialized with their friends." End. Nothing more.
From a massive "base" of knowledge like that ....

I won't continue. For two reasons; one, that this whole deal with Ornello is a massive exercise in futility; and two, that I do not want to incur the wrath of Sean, or any additional from everyone else here... So, this ends my discussion about/ with Ornello.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Yeah... I know what I said, but...

"Ornello" has just informed me, via PM, that his true identitiy is ... has anyone guessed? ... Michael Scarpitti.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

The infamous mr M.Scarpitti. Who would have guessed? Its quite fun...rather like watching a school pantomime trying to guess who is inside which costume.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Tom Stanworth: "I think what it has told me is to try less hard, enjoy it more and care less. From a creative point of view, I think my ambition to 'suceed' became a hindrance."

Yes, that's the right direction. Try to think of it this way: Making photographs should be an enjoyable experience and one that leads to personal growth. Looked at that way, it does not matter if the photograph comes out well or not. It is the depth of the experience that counts. If the photograph turns out well, that is a bonus. If you do enough work and have a bit of talent for it, enough will come out well. That is not something you have to worry about. Success? Success is simply being able to do what you want to do. If you achieve that, you are successful.

 

[jd callow]

So maybe it is all about losing ones self in the act and what comes will come.

During a slide show in a sculpture class we looked at a sculptor's work. The work was very energized, exuberant, confident, unique, highly stylized and very cool. The teacher stoped the slide show to talk about 'personal aesthetic' and that the work was totaly unique for the time (1940's and 50's when the artist was young which we didn't know until this talk) and all about this person. He then discussed how we build our aesthetic as we grow and over time. That this aesthetic thing was as much or more about our experiences, hopes, successes, failures and compromises as it is about our ideas, dedication or lack thereof to art.

He then showed us slides by the same artist toward the end of his life, 40-50 years later when he was well into his 60's and 70's. The work was of simple classic forms, elegant, minimal and arrestingly beautiful.

This is not to say that what came later was better then what came first, but that maybe, it was always all about who he was and not about the art.

I think breaking new ground is what is talked about after the fact. I also think that art is not about the medium, but the message and the message can be all about the messenger.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

I had a conversation with a professional auctioneer today, He made an interesting comment about artists: "Artists way overvalue their work" My first reaction was to dis-agree, but when I started thinking about it, it made some sense. Kind of relates to this conversation in that, If an artist gets so locked in on what it is they have to say or how much $'s they need to make or even what technical perfection they are able to acheive the motivation blinds the freedom for instinctive creation. These things money and viewpoint take up space that is better used for focused awareness on evolving ideas. Creation, destruction then re-creation. I guess it is really easy to say this but we really to not have the freedoms to focus 24/7 on intuition any more. Patrons are not hanging out there to give artists the freedom to not live within the confines of normalsy and to "let go". let it all go! make mistakes and evolve. There is just to much responsibility and pressure for conformity. I'm sure if more people are allowed to chanel their energies then, truly concentrate to a point of absolute mental freedom we would see more artists raising to the level creative freedom. Maybe even inventing new viewpoints. Course one could make the argument that: " If you really want it then you'll make it happen no matter what" But to what expense? It should be: " If you really want IT then let IT happen" I'm so confused!!!