jtk
Allowing Ads
AA's and my problem with the Fuzzy Wuzzies is that they were painter wannabees. If they wanted their work to look like paintings, they should have been painting.[/QUOTE
Nothing rivals paint (or charcoal or gravure or silkscreen) but that doesn't stop wannabes from pretending.
That is probably the only thing I do not like about AA and his group. Writing the Pictorialists off the pages of history.
What I meant by "misleading" is that stereotypes are made about certain famous photographers like AA based upon mass-reproduction of what is actually a small part of their overall work. If you take in his extensive portraiture, one-off small Polaroid shots, and actually decent examples of his
own early "fuzzy-wuzzies", that would probably change some opinions. F/64 was a brief manifesto mentality, which mellowed in time. But he was
widely recognized as a landscape photographer in this country by the 40's and 50's, both due to his major contribution to the National Park system
as a photographer and activist, and due to his core relation to planting photography departments in major museums, including a lot of work outside his personal genre preferences. Steichen was another early mover and shaker. But all along there were those sniping that AA was just a "rocks and trees" guy. Nonsense. He never made serious inroads into color photography, and I think he had a relation of envy toward Eliot Porter, who did, and whose coffee-table books soon overtook AA's black and white work in the heyday of land protection, when the battle turned from National Parks to designated Wilderness Areas. There was a famous big split in the movement between AA, who retained leadership of the Sierra Club, and David Brower, who split off and founded Friends of the Earth, and who passed away not too long ago here in town. AA accused Brower of spending too much money on color photography books and purged; but these book did have a huge public impact at the time.
Nobody wrote them off. They're still trying to do it to themselves.
Good point. I read the "F 64" book not long ago and after thinking I was a fan of the group for years, I have decided they simply were caught up in "Us against Them" when it came to a blanket condemning of pictorial photography. Some of it was really bad, some was really good but it was the way they saw and photographed things just as I hope to do the same. My opinion as to why they see things their way has no more validity than anyone else's and that includes F 64 members and their diciples. F 64 may have been no more than a West Coast reaction to the East Coast photography of that period. In defense of AA (as if he needs it), he seemed to be the only level-headed one in the bunch but he too had a chip on his shoulder. As to Mortenson, I have seen work by people who studied with him and their work (B&W) was downright fascinating. I could never do it. I don't have the patience.........Regards!Right. I have a box where I toss my "reject" photos (those that aren't good enough for an album, but not totally screwed up). Just yesterday I came across a photo shot out my window on a foggy day - soft, lots of flare, odd angle - now it looks interesting.
Good point. I read the "F 64" book not long ago and after thinking I was a fan of the group for years, I have decided they simply were caught up in "Us against Them" when it came to a blanket condemning of pictorial photography. Some of it was really bad, some was really good but it was the way they saw and photographed things just as I hope to do the same. My opinion as to why they see things their way has no more validity than anyone else's and that includes F 64 members and their diciples. F 64 may have been no more than a West Coast reaction to the East Coast photography of that period. In defense of AA (as if he needs it), he seemed to be the only level-headed one in the bunch but he too had a chip on his shoulder. As to Mortenson, I have seen work by people who studied with him and their work (B&W) was downright fascinating. I could never do it. I don't have the patience.........Regards!
Does not matter what anyone thinks. As long as they have not hired you for the shoot, just please yourself.
If you are doing it right this is why you were hired in the first place.The mark of a pro is pleasing the client BY pleasing oneself.
If you are doing it right this is why you were hired in the first place.
Excellent insight!Photography is a large tent. There's room for every method of photographic expression.
Somewhere I've got an old encyclopedia volume where Edward Weston contributed a long article on photography. It's just about the most rabid manifesto rant I've ever read condemning pictorialism and advocating a very narrow definition of visual rendering. The irony is that it would condemn most of his own best work, and probably close to 100% of his portrait studio fare. So I doubt he really even believed what he wrote. Just another way to make a buck and draw some attention.
Somewhere I've got an old encyclopedia volume where Edward Weston contributed a long article on photography. It's just about the most rabid manifesto rant I've ever read condemning pictorialism and advocating a very narrow definition of visual rendering. The irony is that it would condemn most of his own best work, and probably close to 100% of his portrait studio fare. So I doubt he really even believed what he wrote. Just another way to make a buck and draw some attention.
If you are doing it right this is why you were hired in the first place.
yup
doing it right might be lowballing the bids to barely cover your materials
or having someone inside feeding you the low bid
or phasing the project and jacking up the prices after phase 1
or being related to the client ( where i live its called nepotism )
or his buddy from school ...
or there is no one in a 50-60 mile radius who can do it ..
doesn't necessarily mean you are doing it right
===
My success told it's own story...
i guess ? just cause you drop names doesnt' mean you are successful.
anyone can do that, even a 13 year old girl on her parents' computer LOL
personal attacks are not permitted in the TOS.
Wrong! The mark of a Pro is one who keeps his bills paid and is in business this time next year. What you described is a well-heeled "Fine Art": photographer who doesn't need to put food on his family's table with proceeds from his/her work. Anything else, not covered earlier, is a hobby! The IRS can certainly tell you the difference.....Regards!The mark of a pro is pleasing the client BY pleasing oneself.
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?