Fox Talbot Appreciation

[cliveh]

He took this in about 1842 or 1843 and I think it was in the winter, in the grounds of Laycock Abbey. I think it is wonderful, but is that because of the time it was taken, or what makes it so special?

 

[BrianShaw]

First, it’s a very nice tree portrait, and second it’s a record of pioneering work done by a photographic pioneer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Unlike contemporary portraits, the subject stayed still without a neck brace. How considerate.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Out of interest, here's what Larry Schaaf has to say about the photograph (plate 59 in The photographic art of William Henry Fox Talbot, Princeton, 2000). By the way it's Lacock, not "Laycock"; and in his lifetime he was plain Henry Talbot by choice.

 

[cliveh]

Ballinderry-Michael, thanks for that.​

 

[Don_ih]

what makes it so special?

If it wasn't historically significant, it's likely few people would give it a second glance, in spite of it being well-composed.

 

[cliveh]

If it wasn't historically significant, it's likely few people would give it a second glance, in spite of it being well-composed.

I have read this same sort of comment from people who viewed images by Eugene Atget. Look harder.

 

[awty]

Maybe if it were a nice tree like a Jacaranda, poinciana or eucalyptus.

 

[mshchem]

Ballinderry-Michael, thanks for that.​

So, after reading what Schaaf has to say, are the trees in the background, the little trees Talbot's mother was always moving about? I love the print, what, maybe 180 years old, thats crazy, salt prints are amazing, prints from waxed paper negatives, also amazing. I can't remember exactly what the camera was, but it surely didn't come with a rotating Graflok back.

 

[mshchem]

Maybe if it were a nice tree like a Jacaranda, poinciana or eucalyptus.

Yes, but it would have been printed upside down. It took 20 years before people realized pictures didn't need to be displayed upside down, like viewed in the camera

 

[Don_ih]

I have read this same sort of comment from people who viewed images by Eugene Atget. Look harder.

Read harder. I didn't say anything about what I thought. The fact is, currently, there would currently be practically no appreciation of such an image. Take a similar one and post it in the gallery to test. And that would be here, where people actually care a bit about photos.

In most peoples' eyes, that photo is not special at all.

 

[lecarp]

It would appear "most" people have absolutely no sensibilities, just look at the way they present themselves in public.

 

[awty]

Read harder. I didn't say anything about what I thought. The fact is, currently, there would currently be practically no appreciation of such an image. Take a similar one and post it in the gallery to test. And that would be here, where people actually care a bit about photos.

In most peoples' eyes, that photo is not special at all.

What are you talking about, people love that stuff, one of most favoured pictures on Flickr is a boring tree. It has over 500 likes and normal im lucky to get 10. Admittedly mine is a little more attractive, but to be fair England doesn't have many nice trees.

 

[mshchem]

What are you talking about, people love that stuff, one of most favoured pictures on Flickr is a boring tree. It has over 500 likes and normal im lucky to get 10. Admittedly mine is a little more attractive, but to be fair England doesn't have many nice trees.
View attachment 357880

That is a good looking tree!! Very nice print.

 

[Hassasin]

Probably not best choice for an “appreciation” thread. Talbot had taken much better, aesthetically, images.

Yet everything taken those days by the pioneers has great historical value. Every tree shot from that time has value, same taken today, not so much.

Regarding good looking trees in UK, wasn’t there one like 5,000 years old, chopped down by a kid recently?

 

[awty]

That is a good looking tree!! Very nice print.

Thanks, but I got the the horizon in the middle, Talbot would never of done that.

 

[awty]

Regarding good looking trees in UK, wasn’t there one like 5,000 years old, chopped down by a kid recently?

Yes, but it's OK they're going to replace it with something nicer from Ikea.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

Schaaf's book is readily available (46 copies) via abebooks - I searched "Schaaf" in the Author field and "photographic art Talbot" in the Title field. Mainly US sellers.

 

[Molli]

I love how everyone jumped on "the kid" for the sycamore tree's destruction.

"... Two men in their 30s have been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage and have been released on bail, Northumbria Police said. The force has confirmed that a man aged in his 60s and a 16-year-old boy, who were also arrested, would face no further action."

It was awful, whoever did it, but that kid has been shouldering the full blame for it and will continue to do so for the rest of his life.
No mention of the" men" actually arrested for it.

Anyway, back on topic, I think Henry Talbot's print is lovely, with or without the weight of history it's carrying. Admittedly, I'm rather partial to Maris Rusis (Queensland, Australia) and Alex Gard's (Tasmania, Australia) trees, but Mr. Talbot's tree looks rather venerable himself, with a gaggle of grandkids at his feet, reaching up for attention. I like the framing and can easily see it in another light, thinking of that sycamore tree mentioned earlier.


I read his 'Pencil of Nature' a few years ago which I loved! Being transported back in time to be alongside him as he made his discoveries; his excitement and wonder were contagious.
If you've lost your enthusiasm for photography - particularly the astonishing feats performed by light and chemical reactions - I recommend tracking down a copy.

 

[Don_ih]

What are you talking about, people love that stuff

People love that stuff for as long as it takes to press "like" - and in the instance of images like the Talbot tree, it's partly a function of never seeing something printed that way. It's definitely different from an iphone photo of a tree. But recognizing difference or the eccentric is not actual appreciation. It's liking something for what it's not. Everyone here is more likely to like this image for what it is.

In the meantime, it's ok to say there's nothing that special about this print. Shots like this end up on test rolls all the time. ("Gonna check to see if this Canon AE-1 works before I sell it on ebay. I'll take a few pictures of this tree on some moldy Tri-X and toss it in 3-month old Dektol for a few minutes... Darn, it's underexposed....Looks cool....")

 

[Arthurwg]

It would appear "most" people have absolutely no sensibilities, just look at the way they present themselves in pub

I think this is the key concept that is mostly overlooked or unexpressed in discussions about art. I love FT's portrait of a tree because it expresses a profound aesthetic "sensibility." Same with Atget. It is both an "idea" and a "feeling". When they come together you have an artwork.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps much of the value and importance of the Fox Talbot photograph relates to how much ongoing influence it has:

 

[cliveh]

I think this is the key concept that is mostly overlooked or unexpressed in discussions about art. I love FT's portrait of a tree because it expresses a profound aesthetic "sensibility." Same with Atget. It is both an "idea" and a "feeling". When they come together you have an artwork.

Well said.

 

[MarkS]

It's also worth noting that Fox Talbot may have been the first person to make a photograph of "just a tree".

 

[Alan Johnson]

It maybe that Fox Talbot was quite oblivious to any artistic effect but that one year or so after its introduction he just took this picture of a tree in his garden in his investigation of the calotype process disclosed in 1841:

https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/calotype