Edward Weston - Daybooks

Michael, it is obvious that you have done a great deal of research on EW for the forth coming book, I was curious as to where you found most of the information. Was it from interviews, letters, other text - the reason I ask, is most of the information we get is from a personal slant from an author and I wonder if Francesco got his impression of EW from that or even from the Daybooks themselves, just that the information was incomplete.

I agree with you about AA (I made the reference earlier) but somehow he was a master at not letting the real AA show up in print. The only indication I found was in his biography, by Alinder which changed my impression of AA completely - taking nothing away from what he did.

Thanks for you input,

Where did I get my information? Many, many sources. First of all, I have read all of the books by or about Weston. Second, I knew, and know, a number of people who knew Edward personally, foremost among them his wife Charis and Dody Weston Thompson, Edward's last assistant and one of Brett's wives. "The best one," he called her. I also knew Brett fairly well (as of course did many others)--spent time in the darkroom with him and went photographing with him. In the early 1970s Dody wrote about Edward for the Malahat Review--an essay that was reprinted a time or two. For the book we are publishing, Dody greatly revised and expanded that essay.

Curiously, as I was writing this response, Dody called me (here in Belgium--we are finishing up the book at this moment) and I read my last response to her. She then told me that she had recently spent time with a woman who was Chandler's wife for four years. This woman (I'll call her C.W.--same initials as Chandler Weston, curiously enough) told Dody that "Edward was essentially a family man and that he loved being a 'father' to his sons", with all that implies. Chandler must have been closer to Edward than I thought--C.W. told Dody that she herself was a photographer, though in a very different style and not with a view camera, and that Edward used to take her with him on his photographic outings and that when it came time to show photographs, he would always include her with a "and let's show our photographs." For that to have happened regularly it means that Chandler lived close to Edward, too, something I did not know. (I know least about Chandler.)

By all accounts, everyone loved Edward. These mistaken ideas of him being an inveterate womanizer and a bad father get started by those who are envious, by those who want to "cut him down to size"--the "killers" as I call them. A lot of it started with Ben Maddow's scurrilous biography. He distorted Edward's character badly. His account is at odds with everyone's account who knew Edward who I ever spoke with.

Michael, Thank You for the response..it helps to understand where you are coming from knowing Where the information is from. First hand is always best and 2nd hand from those that knew him is just as good. When left with what history has left us with, it is easy to see how so many myths come about..Looking forward to the new book.

Michael A. Smith said:

I'm curious, Ed, who you think is Weston's equal among twentieth century photographers.

Click to expand...

Alfred Stieglitz, for one.

You got one of them, Ed.

Back to topic: I've read an abreviated version of Weston's Daybooks (Rememberances?); but, prompted by this thread, I've recently purchased a copy of the Daybooks. Looking forward to Michael Smith's book on Weston.

OK, gang ... I had an idea this would ... not "progress" but rather "de-gress" to the point where we start to defend our positions by employing some rather miserable tactics: "Your favorite photographer was a man of "low morals". "Oh yeah? Well your favorite photographer was a "son-of-a-bitch"... ad absurdum.

Let us respect one another, and our own individual preferences. If someone chooses to use a motion-blur to indicate action, or induce LARGE grain (a la' Ralph Gibson's nudes) ... or chooses to NOT have a "true black" and/or "true white" in a print - for the effect ... let us not extrapolate wildly ... I would accept those "faults" simply as aesthetic choices -- and not infer that s/he was either "sloppy", "uncaring", "dishonest" "ignorant" or any other of the demeaning comments that I've read here.

Let us all take a deep breath... chant to ourselves, "We are all different - we all "see" things differently" - and thank the Great Creator for those differences.


.

Ok, have done my best to moderate this thread after we've had some complaints. I've removed attacks and responses to them. As you can imagine it's hard to determine where to draw the lines (what to remove and what to keep). I think it's been a fair moderation please let me know if you have concerns (via PM or sean@apug.org). Thanks, Sean

Sean, think you did a good job with this one, it got a little..you know..

Now Ed and Michael back to the people to EW ...

Ed had Alfred Stieglitz..

I would put Paul Strand in that same group, maybe Imogene Cunnigham as well..

Who did you have in mind Michael?

You should know, Ed, that I have no problem with styles of photography other than my own. In fact, the first book Paula and I published by someone other than ourselves was Passage: Europe by Richard Copeland Miller, who worked in 35mm, photographed mostly at night, made grainy blurry pictures, and he cropped many of them (AARRRGH), but his work, and the book, is extraordinarily emotionally moving. Please don't ever sell me short and assume that I am narrow minded. I respond to all types of photography and to all types of art. I do have one standard--it gotta be good and well executed--in its own terms (not in my terms). And the lame excuse "I wanted it that way" doesn't cut it when there is a soot and chalk print that could have and should have had more tones (if not the most, at least more) for GREATER emotional impact. And, please; now don't go writing in a way that infers that all I care about is technical stuff, since I allude to that here. If you think that, then you have not understood much of what I have written here, and in other discussions.

The list is long, okay maybe not that long, of great photographers of the twentieth century. The interesting question is why someone considers a photographer great. Why do I consider a photographer great? Interesting question indeed. For me, it is not just that he/she made photographs that touch me emotionally, although that is required, but that through their work they expanded my perceptions of the world. In other words, because of their work I saw more. And they did it over a long and sustained period of time, not just for a decade or so. I am here reminded of the line by the painter Alfred Leslie who said, " There is a direct relationship between what we see and the quality of life." And in the context of the article in which that sentence appeared it was clear that by "what we see" really meant "how much we see." I am also reminded of something that Dody relates in our forthcoming book. She wrote, "Once I heard it put this way: "Ansel [Adams] reveals the beauties of nature that the ordinary man sees but cannot express. Edward reveals what no one has seen." I have always felt that way, myself, and it is why AA does not make my list.

My short list in no particular order:

Edward Weston, Brett Weston, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Alfred Steiglitz, Walker Evans, Harry callahan, Aaron Siskind,

Michael A. Smith said:

You should know, Ed, that I have no problem with styles of photography other than my own....
...Please don't ever sell me short and assume that I am narrow minded.

Click to expand...

Michael,

Please do me a great favor and GET OFF MY BACK!!!

I never inferred anything like "You are narrow-minded" ... or that "You had a problem with styles other than your own"....

I DID make a few *GENERAL* statements suggesting that we ALL exhibit respect for each other - and NOT JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that the other guy only held her/his opinions because s/he was a "phony". If you feel that was directed at you .... first, realize that it was NOT directed at you personally, but towards ALL of us... second, if the shoe fits... etc.

I mentioned *ONE* example of a significant 20th Century photographer - Alfred Stieglitz - IMHO - that is IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - the one photographer who has more effect on photography as it is regarded today - and ALL American art for that matter - than any other.

It is annoying to have to reply to - in defense or otherwise - to statements I never made. Please keep closer track of "Who Said What."

Michael A. Smith said:

You should know, Ed, that I have no problem with styles of photography other than my own. In fact, the first book Paula and I published by someone other than ourselves was Passage: Europe by Richard Copeland Miller, who worked in 35mm, photographed mostly at night, made grainy blurry pictures, and he cropped many of them (AARRRGH)...

Click to expand...

I don't get it. What *is* this fetish with printing full frame all about? Do you feel you must print full frame because that's what on the negative? The world is not parcelled into convenient sizes that match our lenses focal length, or our film sizes.

If an image can be improved by cropping it, then crop it. If it's better full frame, then leave it alone.

I don't want to start throwing stones, but it seems that the ULF crowd always (here I go generalizing) prints full frame, when perhaps their images could be improved by cropping. Sure, there's a wow factor when you contact print really big negatives, but again, perhaps some images could be improved by cropping. Why prevent yourself from making a stronger images by some self imposed (ridiculous) rule?

Can someone please explain this to me?

photomc said:

Sean, think you did a good job with this one, it got a little..you know.
.
Now Ed and Michael back to the people to EW ...

Ed had Alfred Stieglitz..

I would put Paul Strand in that same group, maybe Imogene Cunnigham as well..

Click to expand...

I cited one example - in rebuttal. I hate to reply "in rebuttal".

There are *SO* many photographers that I respect ... so many have made significant contributions to what we know as photography today...

Certainly, I'll agree that Paul Strand (and his wife, Rebecca, posing for Stieglitz' nudes deserves special attention ..) and Cunningham deserve to be "at the top of the list" ... but I refuse to - because I cannot coherently - "rank" anyone against another.

There were SO many -- Irving Penn, Horst, Arnold Newman, Phillipe Halsman, Jeanloup Sieff, Edward Steichen .... I could go on for pages ... and it would still be a travesty to omit so many others.... Joyce Tenneson, Ralph Gibson, Howard Schatz --- I'd even include ( ... what "even"? - *Deservedly* ) members here on APUG ... Thomas Sauerwein, Cheryl Jacobs, Les McLean..

I'll recommend a book (Why not - everyone else is recommending...): "20th Century Photography - Museum Ludwig Cologne" from Taschen ... ISBN 3-8228-8648-3. I've drawn a lot of inspiration form this one.

A little-known, and certainly **wonderful** photographer in here - Alfred Cheney Johnston - "... His career as a glamour photographer started when Flo Ziegfeld hired him as the official photographer of his show dancers."

Lord ... do I LOVE photography....

Hi Ken,

Just my own way to answer your question: I only do 8x10 and crop my photos on the ground glass so that when I contact print that is it! If I need to crop a scene I change lens or change position. I do not think of it as a rule because it is second nature for me, more like an aesthetic reflex. Of course someone viewing the final print might think it would be better that I cropped some more but this response to my work is after the fact and really impossible to predict.

KenM said:

I don't get it. What *is* this fetish with printing full frame all about?

If an image can be improved by cropping it, then crop it. If it's better full frame, then leave it alone.

I don't want to start throwing stones, but it seems that the ULF crowd always (here I go generalizing) prints full frame, when perhaps their images could be improved by cropping. Sure, there's a wow factor when you contact print really big negatives, but again, perhaps some images could be improved by cropping. Why prevent yourself from making a stronger images by some self imposed (ridiculous) rule?

Can someone please explain this to me?

Click to expand...

Ken,

First let me say, I shoot ULF formats and don't crop when I contact print.

For me it about seeing during the moment of exposure. If an image needs alteration afterwards then, (for me) I didn't do what I should have at the time of exposure. I want to refine what I'm seeing at that moment, and not rely on correcting it later. But this is my way of working, and is not meant as any kind of a rule. Only that I always want to continue to push and further develop the way I'm seeing.

Yes, I look at some of my negatives and sometimes think that could have been stronger with different composition. Hopefully I don't do that very often. The nice thing is the public will never see that work. That's how I learn and grow. Then, the next time I'm out working, I try to "see the image" better.

If you want to know how this mind set started, well it started when I was printing in Platinum and was displaying my prints including the full coating area. There was no way of removing a part of the image, it either worked full frame or it didn't. Now, I'm not printing in Platinum anymore, but still like keeping that same discipline.[/code]

George said it as good as I could, but I'll add something. For the photographer, the point is not the picture, the point is the experience. Having the experience of seeing your photograph complete on the ground glass is an intense, deeply pleasurable and satisfying experience. That is what it is all about. The picture is a bonus.

Cartier-Bresson cropped, too--best 35MM photographer yet in IMO. He stated that a photograph poorly seen can rarely be improved by cropping.

Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively.

That being said: no one ever asks, or cares, if a photograph was cropped or not--including me. It is just that by not cropping you are forcing yourself, as George so eloquently stated, to expand your vision. And thereby to grow.

Thaty being said, if the subject does not fit you gg, and you see it in another format, then crop. But I do not consider that cropping. Cropping is when you didn't get it, make a proof and say to yourself that if I only cut off this 1/8 on this side (or more) the picture will be a lot better. And it may be, but I say--throw it out, give yourself a swift kick, and vow to pay more attention next time. In the long run it is easier and much more satisfying to you, as maker.

For me, as audience, I don't care how you get to your final print.

Michael A. Smith said:

Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a load of crap. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the world does not fit into convenient little frames that you capture by using the appropriate focal length. I will admit that if you miss something in the field and it shows up on the negative, then that is a failure to see, but not a failure to see creatively. Creatively arranging distractions makes for a distracting image, not a good one.

If something protrudes into the frame that you are unable to remove (or incorporate) with your composition, then deal with it - make the negative with the understanding that you'll crop the offending item out later, when you have the option to do so. Simply because something appears on the glass does not in any way require that it be a part of the final image.

Michael A. Smith then said:

Thaty being said, if the subject does not fit you gg, and you see it in another format, then crop. But I do not consider that cropping. Cropping is when you didn't get it, make a proof and say to yourself that if I only cut off this 1/8 on this side (or more) the picture will be a lot better. And it may be, but I say--throw it out, give yourself a swift kick, and vow to pay more attention next time. In the long run it is easier and much more satisfying to you, as maker.

Click to expand...

Now you're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter if you crop on the glass, or crop later in the darkroom. It's called cropping. You're saying that only good photographers crop in the camera - the rest crop in the darkroom. Rubbish. And why throw out something that can be used? What a waste! Certainly, learn from past experiences, but don't throw away the entire effort!

As you say, to the viewer of the print it DOES NOT MATTER how you get from point A to point B. As long as the image conveys what the photographer saw and felt when the image was made, the mission was accomplished. If, along the way, you need to crop, so be it.

Cropping is like many other things in photography: it's a tool, much like how toning and bleaching are tools. They're not for every situation, but if they make the image better, apply the tool and make the image better.

As I read the posts to this thread I am a little confused because in one breath KenM asks for an explanation and then when one is tendered he calls it a "load of crap". I wonder if what he really wants is an explanation or perhaps more likely an argument. There are far better and more intelligent ways to express an opinion then to call someone else's opinion a "load of crap". That takes this matter to a level of a personal attack.

For all those interested in discussing the merits or lack thereof of cropping there has been a thread opened up just for that topic.

It's amazing to watch a thread develop from a question relating to Weston's Daybooks all the way thru proper parenting and then cropping. Just what you would expect at say the dinner table. I love it!

I love it too Eric. Proper photography and proper parenting and being a good husband all of these things are in the Daybooks. But what is not there is a primer on personal attacks. Tastes and Biases!!

Ths thread looks like fun! Now Michael, causing trouble again? Good job! Congratulations on your book on Weston. A book about him is long over due. Am I jealous? ABSOLUTELY! I would love to be in Belgium (or where ever you are) right now, surrounded by the Alps, printing, photographing. I would love to just get away to Vermont for a few days but cannot. Will it be available in the bookstores?

I read the Day Books back in college. I would think that anybody who read them, and still went on to be a fine art photographer, deserves to be in the position they are in. It showed that being a fine art photographer is not the most upwardly mobile fields to be in. Very few become wealthy, gain any sort of fame, especially while alive, let alone to be able to make a living and support a family.

My understanding is that before Weston went to Mexico, there were those who wanted him to open a commercial studio, in San Francisco I believe, have lots a assistants and make lots of money. Instead, he chose to go to Mexico, and live the Bohemian lifestyle as an artist. He chose to live a Spartan lifestyle. I watched a few moments of Frida, staring Salma Hyack. It highlighted that time period with Tina Modoti, Diego Rivera. I do not remember if Weston was portrayed in the movie. But you got a good idea of what it was like to be an artist in those days. Certainly not your typical middle class America, very immoral, sometimes dark, other times warm.

One account I remember of Weston being invited to the presidential palace for diner, having nothing suitable to wear. Not being able to afford much, he trimmed the fringe off his jeans, wore a wide brim hat, and got by some how. My impression from the book is that he lived most of his life in poverty.

His last years on Wild Cat Hill living in that cabin, were as difficult as any old mans. Apparently he had many cats, that were unkept, dirty, crapped where they wanted and many had to be destroyed. I believe he had Parkinson's and was in invalid in his last few months of life. His sons took care of him, even lifting him up to the camera to work the controls for some of his last negatives.

Yes the Day Books are worth reading, if not just for entertainment, or maybe to persuade others to choose a more realistic way to make a living.

Take it easy folks, you don't want to end up like them!

APUG RAW!!!!!!

Thanks Sean, I have not posted in months and already I get a body slam smack down. :twisted:

Way to go Sean....that is a perfect photo for this thread....it just seems to want to go to the mat...

when good threads go bad...

perhaps we should get the serious point behind Sean's humor.

I think the crop/nocrop answer depends a bit on the format being used. 8x10 on a tripod vs a handheld smaller format makes it a bit easier to be a purist. my problem with 8x10 is that after all my years of 35mm the format is just too square. there's always a 3:2 ratio yearning to be free.

I appreciate Michael's point the benefits to be gained by striving for the 1 to 1 correspondence between the image composed on the groundglass and the exact print produced. I believe Morley Baer (sp?) said the same thing. We probably ought to listen carefully to those who are really good at making art. Being a weekend photographer though, until I get to that point, I'll gladly take the 90 percenters and try to do better next time.