Discussing a James Ravilious Photograph

[bluechromis]

Ravillous featured the kind of pastoral, agrarian subject matter that the Pictorialists liked. Many later photographers dismissed such subjects as old-fashioned. It seems things go full circle.

 

[Mark J]

I don't think there much overlap between Ravilious and the pictorialists. Though many of the shots are beautiful, they are also straight, and the agricultural life is not idealised. The work is always documentary as well as being art.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

You know, it’s quite possible that Ravilious and Chapman could have met up and photographed the same subjects together. Without wanting to favourite one over the other, it would be a very interesting comparison from a technical point of view.

There is a book about the two photographers available called 'A Photographic Friendship ' if I have the title correct.

James Ravilious is also closely linked to another fine photographer, Edwin Smith.

 

[snusmumriken]

There is a book about the two photographers available called 'A Photographic Friendship ' if I have the title correct.

Many thanks for that - I have now ordered it. If anyone else is interested, it’s here

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't think there much overlap between Ravilious and the pictorialists. Though many of the shots are beautiful, they are also straight, and the agricultural life is not idealised. The work is always documentary as well as being art.

Arguably Frank Meadow Sutcliffe is a link between the two aims. Definitely pictorial, but at the same time documenting his home community at Whitby. But I see far more influence of HCB on Ravilious than of the Pictorialists.

 

[Mark J]

Yes, that makes sense.

 

[snusmumriken]

Many thanks for that - I have now ordered it. If anyone else is interested, it’s here

And it has arrived already. What a really lovely book, very nice printing! Each double spread contrasts photos of very similar subjects by the two photographers. Sadly, no examples of the same shot taken by Ravilious and Chapman side-by-side.

There's a little in the introductory interview with Chris Chapman about Ravilious' use of uncoated lenses, but it's not all that illuminating (excuse pun). It would be great to be able to quizz Chapman more closely to see what else he can recall.

There is a difference in the tonal feel of Ravilious' photos compared to Chapman's, but it's hard to put one's finger on what exactly the difference is - at least I would need to give it a lot more thought to be able to put it into words.

 

[jvo]

Besides how enjoyable JR's work is, I find equally stunning how many people "had no clue of JR", until this thread, me included.

I have a list of 200 photographers, (only B+W!!), who've I come across over the years and have admired their work. Maybe 50 are the know suspects! It makes aware of how many Vivian Maier's and James Ravilious' are out there yet to be discovered. More likely lost to history!