For anyone that is/will be in the FW/Dallas area...Jock Sturges will have a show - NEW WORK, at Photographs Do Not Bend Gallery in Dallas April 15-June 4, this year. There will be an artist reception and book signing on Friday April 15 from 6-8 PM.
Jock Sturges--various shows
-
A
- Thread starter photomc
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
I am so there.
Sorry, naked men, women and children are not my thing. Give me a Jack Dykinga or Joe Cornish and I will be there.
roteague said:
It's not the fact that he shoots naked men, women, and children, but how he does it. Not many people get the candidness that Sturges does with large format portraiture (not all of his portraits, mind you, just the ones I seem to like more). Also, I missed seeing Richard Avedon in Ft. Worth before he passed and I don't want the chance to miss another of the pivotal photographers in this century--whether you like his work or not, Sturges is an influential artist.
As for what you want to see, color landscape is worlds away from most of the work Sturges does (though he does have more color portraits now).
Thanks Jeremy. I actually have one of his books, so I aware of his type of photography and all the troubles he has had. I'm just making a comment so those who don't know of his work will be aware.
roteague said:
Good point, Robert, as some may be offended if they go in without knowing what they are going to see--ESPECIALLY here in the Bible Belt.
Well, that dismisses a whole lot of wonderful photography, Sturges and many, many others included. For those only into colorful calendar art, then Sturges' work won't be of much interest. But, I agree with Jeremy that Jock is one of the more influential and important photographers of our time. I happen to know Jock pretty well (although I haven't seen him since he moved north a few years ago) and he is great guy. Very receptive and helpful to new-comers. He is also an articulate and entertaining speaker, so if he's going to give a gallery talk, I recommend anyone in driving distance check it out. Jeremy and/or Mike, send Jock my regards if you speak to him.roteague said:
Kerik
www.kerik.com
Kerik said:
I don't consider what I do to be "colorful calendar art", and I'm sure neither does Jack Dykinga, Joe Cornish or any of the many other landscape photographers (not to forget Ansel Adams). We work hard at what we do, and it takes as much artistic ability as what Jock Sturges does; just in a different form.
Not everyone knows who or what Jock Sturges does, that was the point of the message.
I would agree Robert that everyone should be aware of the 'type' of work someone does so that they are not offended or taken back by what they see when going to a show. I would also, HOPE that no one would ever go to a show of any kind without at least know a little bit about the photographer/artist. While this used to be much more difficult - pre-Internet, there is really no reason in this day and age for someone to be surprised. Now that does not mean we will not be shocked or disappointed when a body of work being shown does not meet with our expectations...we are after all individuals. Part of what makes this site what it is, is the fact we all have different appreciation for different photographers.
As Jeremy stated about Richard Avedon...I was lucky enough to make that show/talk with Ms Wilson and feel very fortunate that I did...and I am not a a people photography type of person. The main reason I went was two fold..I had admired Ms Wilson work and did not want to miss a chance to hear one of the greats of my lifetime speak about one of his best know projects. So for me it was a win-win. I missed hearing Adams when he did his Photos of the Southwest when it was at the Amon Carter in the mid-70's and Elliot Porter when he was there. Do not intend to let these greats continue to pass through the area without hearing what they have to say.
But then, if Kerik were to pass through hear and give a talk...I would be so there too! It is all in the work we enjoy and the people that do that work...it is always better to know a bit more about the artist than their work...who know's I might even get to where I liked some Mapplethorp ..... nah!! even I have limits..
As Jeremy stated about Richard Avedon...I was lucky enough to make that show/talk with Ms Wilson and feel very fortunate that I did...and I am not a a people photography type of person. The main reason I went was two fold..I had admired Ms Wilson work and did not want to miss a chance to hear one of the greats of my lifetime speak about one of his best know projects. So for me it was a win-win. I missed hearing Adams when he did his Photos of the Southwest when it was at the Amon Carter in the mid-70's and Elliot Porter when he was there. Do not intend to let these greats continue to pass through the area without hearing what they have to say.
But then, if Kerik were to pass through hear and give a talk...I would be so there too! It is all in the work we enjoy and the people that do that work...it is always better to know a bit more about the artist than their work...who know's I might even get to where I liked some Mapplethorp ..... nah!! even I have limits..
photomc said:
I agree, even for those of us who make "colorful calendar art". This is an exciting website because of the differences. I don't shoot much Black and White, but love Jorge's and Francesco's work with churches, and Lee's cowboys are just fantastic. I find John Callow's street scenes to be quite compelling. I could probably list almost all the photographers who frequent here, but let me just say that there is a tremendous amount of talent here.
Jock is a formidable talent. I saw one of his books and actually was very impressed by his pictures of people with clothes on. They were better than his nudes.
There is also something very sleazy about taking pictures of naked children, who can't give informed consent, simply because their parents, whom the children trust, are "uninhibited" enough not to think it matters...
There is also something very sleazy about taking pictures of naked children, who can't give informed consent, simply because their parents, whom the children trust, are "uninhibited" enough not to think it matters...
From the introduction by Sturges, in Jock Sturges: Notes which was recently published Aperture, "Sadly, Americans are relentless in their tendency to conflate nudity with sexuality."
Robert, Your first reply was very demeaning to his work. But comments like yours are certainly nothing new. Not only was it demeaning, but it was unnecessary. As someone else said, if someone wants to learn about someone they will search for them on the internet. They dont to know what is your thing or not.
Actually there is no real "warning" or advice to investigate his work before going to the show. You dont give no insight into the type of work of Cornish or Dykinga, we can only know that it is not of naked people.
Will you please rewrite that so it reads clearly? I am unsure if you mean that the parents are uninhibited or the children.
This second quote, from the abovementioned book, is by a young woman who was first photographed as a child.
"Jock has photographed me every year from around six or seven. His pictures tell the story of my life. They show me growing up. His work also portrays my relationships---my relationship with my sister, and now with my first love. I think of it as a gift."
There is no hint that this woman feels betrayed by her parents (or taken advantage of by the photographer) when she was "too young to know better"which is something that strikes to the heart of the matter. You make being "uninhibited" sound like a terrible thing. When in fact, it is the most desirable thingto live life without guilt or shame; to live as a natural being, as god intendedwhat is terrible about that!?
And, in case you are unaware of some of his working practices, he never obtains a model release. If and when he wants to use one of the pictures he contacts the person directly and asks for specific permission. What is "sleazy" about that? It seems like one of the most decent things a photographer can ever do. It gives insight to the relationships he has with everyone he photographs.
roteague said:
Robert, Your first reply was very demeaning to his work. But comments like yours are certainly nothing new. Not only was it demeaning, but it was unnecessary. As someone else said, if someone wants to learn about someone they will search for them on the internet. They dont to know what is your thing or not.
roteague said:
Actually there is no real "warning" or advice to investigate his work before going to the show. You dont give no insight into the type of work of Cornish or Dykinga, we can only know that it is not of naked people.
Tom Duffy said:
Will you please rewrite that so it reads clearly? I am unsure if you mean that the parents are uninhibited or the children.
This second quote, from the abovementioned book, is by a young woman who was first photographed as a child.
"Jock has photographed me every year from around six or seven. His pictures tell the story of my life. They show me growing up. His work also portrays my relationships---my relationship with my sister, and now with my first love. I think of it as a gift."
There is no hint that this woman feels betrayed by her parents (or taken advantage of by the photographer) when she was "too young to know better"which is something that strikes to the heart of the matter. You make being "uninhibited" sound like a terrible thing. When in fact, it is the most desirable thingto live life without guilt or shame; to live as a natural being, as god intendedwhat is terrible about that!?
And, in case you are unaware of some of his working practices, he never obtains a model release. If and when he wants to use one of the pictures he contacts the person directly and asks for specific permission. What is "sleazy" about that? It seems like one of the most decent things a photographer can ever do. It gives insight to the relationships he has with everyone he photographs.
photomc said:
Can you give us more information? I might fly down with Tiffany to see him.
I didn't mean to say that you or Mr. Dykinga or Mr. Cornish don't work hard at what you do. I've done similar work myself in the past. In fact, you all may "work harder" than someone like Jock (depending on what that means - Jock typically shoots 2,500 to 3,000 sheets of 8x10 during his summer trips to France, then processes all of that film himself). But, you're not likely to find a lot of what I referred to as "calendar art" in the higher end galleries or museums. And not to say everyone should strive for that - certainly not. I'm just trying to put things in perspective, and as you might have guessed, I was put off by your initial comment about Jock's work. Also, anyone taking time out of their weekend to attend a gallery opening very likely knows what they're going to see, so a "warning" is really not necessary. Plus, admission is free, so if you don't like it, turn around and walk out and leave the cheese and wine behind.Robert said:
I agree whole-heartedly with your entire post, Richard, especially what you said about inhibition. I met two of Jock's models during one of my visits to his home in San Francisco. Both of them would be recognizable to anyone familiar with his work. They were probably 18 or 19 at the time, and they were 2 of the most well-adjusted, intelligent and thoughtful teenagers I've encountered. Face it, our current ultra-conservative, phobic society is out of step with much of the western world.Richard Boutwell said:
Mike - thank you for your kind comment.
Kerik
www.kerik.com
Some curious arguments flying about here, mostly right past their targets.
1) If someone says that a particular type of work is "not his thing", he is expressing a personal opinion. Isn't this what APUG is about, or have I missed something?
2) To dismiss the work of someone who dislikes Jock Sturges' work as being automatically "colorful calendar art" is simplistic, puerile and insulting.
3) I personally photograph nudes with pleasure but rarely, only females, only paid models or other artists, and well over the age of consent. I try to make sure that work of this kind has a clear viewpoint and does not look like a half-hearted attempt at cheesecake or pornography (this is not what I feel about Jock Sturges' work).
4) I do not know Jock Sturges personally, I have seen only a couple of dozen examples of his work. I feel that, since his subjects spend prolonged periods naked on naturist beaches, they are unlikely to be harmed by standing in front of JS's camera for a moment or two. There are, however, 2 things which disturb me about his work:
a) The subjects in most cases look glum and suspicious - they may not feel exploited, neither do they look very enthusiastic. Quotes in previous postings from some of JS's models contradict this impression, but this is my feeling.
b) I cannot form a clear impression in my mind of who buys JS's work and why. Are they lofty esthetes who wish to celebrate the classic beauty of the unadorned human shape? Or merely searchers for titillation? I am unable to resolve these questions in my mind, and in cases of doubt I tend to be suspicious.
1) If someone says that a particular type of work is "not his thing", he is expressing a personal opinion. Isn't this what APUG is about, or have I missed something?
2) To dismiss the work of someone who dislikes Jock Sturges' work as being automatically "colorful calendar art" is simplistic, puerile and insulting.
3) I personally photograph nudes with pleasure but rarely, only females, only paid models or other artists, and well over the age of consent. I try to make sure that work of this kind has a clear viewpoint and does not look like a half-hearted attempt at cheesecake or pornography (this is not what I feel about Jock Sturges' work).
4) I do not know Jock Sturges personally, I have seen only a couple of dozen examples of his work. I feel that, since his subjects spend prolonged periods naked on naturist beaches, they are unlikely to be harmed by standing in front of JS's camera for a moment or two. There are, however, 2 things which disturb me about his work:
a) The subjects in most cases look glum and suspicious - they may not feel exploited, neither do they look very enthusiastic. Quotes in previous postings from some of JS's models contradict this impression, but this is my feeling.
b) I cannot form a clear impression in my mind of who buys JS's work and why. Are they lofty esthetes who wish to celebrate the classic beauty of the unadorned human shape? Or merely searchers for titillation? I am unable to resolve these questions in my mind, and in cases of doubt I tend to be suspicious.
Robert Hall said:
Robert, here's a link to the galleries webpage about the opening.
http://www.photographsdonotbend.com/artists/sturges/sturges1.html
Uh, no, actually it is your point that is overly simplistic and insulting. The work that the original poster pointed to as what he preferred to Sturges' falls into what I categorize as calendar art. Not good or bad, but in that category. That's my opinion, and it is equally as valid. If he had said he prefers the work of say Michael Kenna, Kenro Izu, Josef Sudek, Richard Misrach, Joel Sternfeld, etc. my response would have been different. It was NOT an automatic response to disliking Jock's work, it was specific to the work that the poster mentioned.David H. Bebbington said:
And I'm wondering, do you have a clear idea who buys your nude work and why?
Kerik
www.kerik.com
photomc said:
Ditto.
Your opinion is of course valid, but your terminology is idiosyncratic. Most people would think of calendar art as being decorative in a sentimental undemanding way.Kerik said:
Fair enough, but you don't have to be overtly intellectual in order to have something worthwhile to say in visual terms.Kerik said:
No! But as it is of a decidedly abstract nature, I would be very surprised ifKerik said:
a) there was outcry at a public exhibition, leading to seizure by law enforcement officers
b) it was bought by anyone with the intention of using it as an aid to masturbation.
I have to admit a personal dislike of Sturges' work. He may have worthy motives, but I am unable to discern them. and by its nature his work is more than likely to be misunderstood and misused, although I fully recognize his long-term commitment to it.
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
I saw a small Sturges show yesterday at "A Gallery for Fine Photography" (www.agallery.com), which is quite a nice little photo gallery in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Also on display were a couple of studio cameras, one of which was sporting a massive 16"/f:3.5 Wollensak Varium.
I realized that I hadn't seen many Sturges prints in person before, and it's really hard to see what he's doing from the reproductions in books or on the internet. In a large print, for example, there's a much stronger sense of selective focus and very narrow depth of field than in the small reproductions. He's always focused on the eyes of the main subject, and the 8x10" camera isn't just a convention or a gimmick--he's really emphasizing fine detail in the focused area of the image. There was one very nice scene, for instance, of a mother and small child on a beach (I know that doesn't narrow it down much, since that could describe many of Sturges' images), maybe a 16x20" print, where the subjects occupy a 1.25" square section, which they can do, because the negative holds enough detail for that.
If I had some ambivalence about Sturges' work, it was because it seemed a little too slick and commercial to me, maybe a bit too easy with his conventionally attractive models in conventionally pleasant settings, but in part that impression resulted from seeing the work mainly in the same medium as the Calvin Klein ads that imitated that style--offset printing. I didn't look too closely, but I think the prints I saw were a mix of conventional and inkjet prints, and they revealed a good deal more than the versions in books. In any case, it's always good to have a reminder of why it's important to see real prints before making a judgment.
I realized that I hadn't seen many Sturges prints in person before, and it's really hard to see what he's doing from the reproductions in books or on the internet. In a large print, for example, there's a much stronger sense of selective focus and very narrow depth of field than in the small reproductions. He's always focused on the eyes of the main subject, and the 8x10" camera isn't just a convention or a gimmick--he's really emphasizing fine detail in the focused area of the image. There was one very nice scene, for instance, of a mother and small child on a beach (I know that doesn't narrow it down much, since that could describe many of Sturges' images), maybe a 16x20" print, where the subjects occupy a 1.25" square section, which they can do, because the negative holds enough detail for that.
If I had some ambivalence about Sturges' work, it was because it seemed a little too slick and commercial to me, maybe a bit too easy with his conventionally attractive models in conventionally pleasant settings, but in part that impression resulted from seeing the work mainly in the same medium as the Calvin Klein ads that imitated that style--offset printing. I didn't look too closely, but I think the prints I saw were a mix of conventional and inkjet prints, and they revealed a good deal more than the versions in books. In any case, it's always good to have a reminder of why it's important to see real prints before making a judgment.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 742
- Format
- Multi Format
The only problem I have with his work is that it is a little too skewed to the young and beautiful, at least with the images that he exhibits. They sure are beautiful prints though, and would still be aesthetically beautiful no matter who was in the picture. I think he would be taken more seriously by his detractors if he had a more democratic choice in his subjects.
Whenever his name comes up in the US there is always a knee jerk reaction to it being sexual because there are naked people in it. The horror! This country is so backwards sometimes with all the false moral crap. Seriously.
Whenever his name comes up in the US there is always a knee jerk reaction to it being sexual because there are naked people in it. The horror! This country is so backwards sometimes with all the false moral crap. Seriously.
Jock gave a public lecture here in New Orleans the weekend of his opening and it was very informative. Not so much about camera technique but about how he has lived his life as an artist photographing many of the same people over a 25 year period and how his life is intertwined with theirs. He is not parachuting into these people's lives, taking a few photos and moving on; he is living with them and is essentially photographing his own life. He also graciously offered to do portfolio reviews for 8 members of the New Orleans Photo Alliance and spent four hours rather than the two he had originally agreed to. He seems to be a man who is full of energy and passion about his work and he is willing to help others.
"The only problem I have with his work is that it is a little too skewed to the young and beautiful, at least with the images that he exhibits. They sure are beautiful prints though, and would still be aesthetically beautiful no matter who was in the picture. I think he would be taken more seriously by his detractors if he had a more democratic choice in his subjects."
He discussed this issue. Go to hear him talk and ask him about it. Very interesting answers.
"The only problem I have with his work is that it is a little too skewed to the young and beautiful, at least with the images that he exhibits. They sure are beautiful prints though, and would still be aesthetically beautiful no matter who was in the picture. I think he would be taken more seriously by his detractors if he had a more democratic choice in his subjects."
He discussed this issue. Go to hear him talk and ask him about it. Very interesting answers.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,215
- Format
- Large Format
Oh, he was taken seriously all right. The FBI seized everything in his studio. And it wasn't the naked people in the pictures that got him into trouble. It was the underage naked people in the pictures.
It's a sorry ass society we live in when such beautiful work is branded as child pornography. At least he was eventually vindicated in the courts.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |