Jock Sturges

gandolfi · Feb 22, 2009

gerryyaum said:
Tim M said:

There is a quote that I love;

"We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are."
- Anais Nin

Click to expand...

I am not convinced by this...

how about this:

"the photographer don't see things as they are: he/she sees them as he/she is" ?

Always felt that photography is a kind of self exposure... for good or bad.

gandolfi · Feb 22, 2009

BobNewYork said:
You like Sturges' work or you don't. End of story.

not to me.

I always search for a reason why I like/dislike images...

(and I am not going into this discussion about Sturges and whatever he has or has not done..)

BobNewYork · Feb 22, 2009

You're right, of course. (Someone has to tell me how to do the quote / box thing on here!!)

What I meant to say was that the controversy doesn't, or shouldn't, have any bearing on whether or not you like the work. You like it or dislike it because of your emotional response to the image by itself. And your like or dislike should have no bearing on anyone else's opinion.

Vaughn · Feb 22, 2009

brummelisa said:
I once took an image of my daughter nude (showing belly and up) when she was around seven... / Marcus

When my triplets were born, I did not have time for much photography with my 8x10 -- so I used a Polaroid SX-70 to photograph my boys...quite fun, actually. But I do not show them for similar reasons. Perhaps I will bring them out when my boys bring home their first dates...

Having spent quite a bit of time at nude beaches in my college years, I found them to be more relaxing than sexually exciting. I can understand how Jock's models would be very comfortable in their skin.

Vaughn

brummelisa · Feb 22, 2009

That would probably be very amusing... (at least to you and their dates)

I have also been at several nudist-beaches and I too don't see the people sexually at all. They are just simply very beautiful nomatter how they look.

And therefore I really like the quote from Tim:
We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.
- Anais Nin

Vaughn said:
Perhaps I will bring them out when my boys bring home their first dates...

Having spent quite a bit of time at nude beaches in my college years, I found them to be more relaxing than sexually exciting. I can understand how Jock's models would be very comfortable in their skin.

Vaughn

Perry Way · Feb 22, 2009

JBrunner said:
No, the same people that went after him would go after you or me. He was just an easier mark because of the age of some of his models. The persons who went after him however, hate the human form and find perversions in everything, and are a danger to everything. My only impressions of Sturges are from this one interview and his photos. It is probably a complex subject. Over coffee perhaps.

Jason I totally agree. This might get me in trouble, but what the heck.. I don't really care. If they want to lock me away for my opinion, then I don't care to be producing any values for this society anyway!

By the way, I am one of the few human beings who can appreciate the beauty of the human physique in all ages, sizes, shapes, colors and sexes. I do not understand the need for clothing aside from severe weather. I do not understand the social stigma attached to nudity. I see the place of clothing, like in the work place. It keeps our minds focused on our work at hand, no? But there are the adventurous female (and male) tarts who flaunt their sexuality despite being clothed and voids that whole point. But the fact of the matter is we tend to overly-Victorianize ourselves and each other to the point that I believe the act thereof manufactures big chinks in the human chain that we must then seek remedy of by locking away in prison for life.

Do the other animals have such problems and remedies? Something to think of.

Anyhow, I say let Jock Sturges work speak for itself. If you don't like it, then kindly move along and button your lips for if you were to truly get the opinions of everyone on the planet I think you would find that without any stigmas attached, that most of the people in this world appreciate art and beauty than wish to hide it away for only one person to see from 18 to death. Can we not admire the work of God/Evolution and be thankful that humans don't have the anatomy of the hippopotomus or the giraffe?

jd callow · Feb 22, 2009

I'm ambivalent about Stuges's work, but to casually try to destroy his character is something I find very wrong. And it is casual when there is only one damning reference on all of the big wide web. It is not common knowledge that he had sex with an under-aged girl, it is not his fault if the work he creates is fodder for the sick, both those who would control what we see or express and those who find sick pleasure in youth. I wonder how many belong in both camps?

Ed Sukach · Feb 22, 2009

While we are at all this, I appreciate the interview with Jock Sturges itself. His philosophies regarding critics and critique; models and how they are to be treated; modus operandi ... ALL are identical (or close enough to be "mystical") with mine.

Especially interesting was his vews about individual vision, and how it must be defended - from -- US!! - or anyone else.

While at it, you might scroll down and read the interview with Cheryl Jacobs Nickolai ... another GEM!! well worth reading

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Harry Hollis said:
Landscape photography anyone?

yes..lets talk rocks

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

Harry Hollis said:
will take a photo of a real live person over a rock or tree any day of the week.
Congratulations, your life must be thrilling.

people are just more interesting, but to each his own..go the rock way if thats your thingy

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

brummelisa said:
Actually I have seen several of Jock's photo-criticism (sp?) on photo.net a couple of years ago and they were really really long. So, I surely think that he is a man that loves photography and wants to share his knowledge.

/ Marcus

yes there is a deep love for photography. I think to acheive what he has that is just something you have to have, to work that hard to devote your life to something requires a deep love.

gerryyaum · Feb 22, 2009

gandolfi said:
gerryyaum said:

I am not convinced by this...

how about this:

"the photographer don't see things as they are: he/she sees them as he/she is" ?

Always felt that photography is a kind of self exposure... for good or bad.

Click to expand...

hmm..how about the photographer sees things as they really are and then puts his/her own interpretation on it, which of course is a reflection on the artist.

Vaughn · Feb 24, 2009

gerryyaum said:
hmm..how about the photographer sees things as they really are and then puts his/her own interpretation on it, which of course is a reflection on the artist.

Which photographer sees things as they really are? I'd like to talk to him/her because I tend to be a bit confused by what I see at times...and I don't even watch television.

Vaughn

Ed Sukach · Feb 26, 2009

Bear with me for a moment, gang...

From the Jock Sturgis interview:

"I was intrigued recently to read a magazine article by the photographer Rene'e Jacobs who had the rare priviledge of interviewing Charis Wilson, a seminal figure in the history of American photography and without question, one of Edward Weston's greatest models. When Rene'e asked her what Weston's working method had been like she replied that he just told her to do whatever she wanted. He trusted her to be herself and that was enough.
I was so moved to read this because Weston's work has always been so important to me. And now I read that our attitude towards our work is so more or less identical. This I like."

I think I have been "moved" in the same way, and with the same intensity in reading this interview with Jock Sturgis. His philosophies as working methods - motivations and objectives - are so nearly identical to mine that the only term I can think of to describe the similarity is "mystical".
In reading the interview, a number of principles that I've held to for many years, in a more or less diffuse and "spotty" manner have been solidified, brought into sharp focus ... been re-defined and re-emphasized.
Over the last couple of days, through the fascination with Sturgis' work and the personality of the man himself, I've attained an amount of "clarity" about my own work ... something that I think had faded during my "troubles" in the last year/ year and a half.

Thank you, APUG; and THANK YOU Cheryl Jacobs Nickolai for bringing this article to my attention.
GREATLY appreciated!!!

BobNewYork · Feb 26, 2009

That's awesome Ed. It's amazing where our creative inspiration can come from. A little bit of validation goes an awful long way!
Keep fighting the good fight Ed!

Bob

Ed Sukach · Mar 3, 2009

Possibly, I should start a new thread...

The Jock Sturges interview was so profound, in my opinion, that the "gallery enrapturement/ persistence of vision" syndrome, where one closes one's eyes and STILL sees the work - is STILLTHERE -

Part of the interview, suggesting a commonality shared by all of us:

"What I know that I know.

So here are some things that I know. I know that if I wait for and then work in beautiful light, my chances are better. I know that if I know my models, if we know each other well and there is real affection between us, a good relationship en bref, my chances are better. I know that if I pay close attention to the foreground problem, if I work with a ground that I know well, a ground that is clean and simple, lyrical, my chances are better. I know that if I keep my pictures simple, uncluttered, well focused in both senses of the word, my chances are better.

But I also know that I can do all these things right, perfectly, and make nothing but failures. And then, magically, a good one. And I don't know why this is. Try as I might, only very few pictures ever really succeed. And the agent of their delivery seems to be luck . Sweet serendipity. I try equally hard all the time. Twenty are bad. One is good. Why? We don't get to know."

- Jock Sturges

Twenty to one. That DOES sound like my succcess rate in making "fne art".

Comments?

removed account4 · Mar 5, 2009

great interview tim,
thanks for the heads-up cheryl!

darinb · Mar 7, 2009

A few years ago I made a graphic that might be of interest to this discussion. I took Jock's book Last Day of Summer and, using Amazon data, drew a interconnected network of other purchases made by people who bought the book, and then further links from those items.

I've moved it to my new site so the link back doesn't work--but everything else does.

http://www.makingphotographs.com/files/lolitasummer/

--Darin

BobNewYork · Mar 7, 2009

I'm not in the least surprised that these connections can be drawn but I think it's a non-sequiter. It's like saying that because I'm a fund manager, (which I'm not) I rip people off like Bernie Madoff; or because I enjoy a beer or two, (which I do) I'm a drunk driver. I'm quite sure there are sicko's out there who find something "arousing" in photos of baby's first bath. Because I take photos of my kids having a bath doesn't make me a pedophile; and because friends and relatives may enjoy those photos doesn't make them pedophiles either.

I couldn't read the chart that well but I didn't see any Ansel Adams books connected, nor Edward Weston, nor Lord of the Rings etc, etc - and I know of at least one buyer whose purchases would clearly show that connection. - but then I don't purchase my books on Amazon.

It's back to the "just in case" argument. Let's ban cars - just in case someone weirdo drives drunk.

JMHO

Bob H

BrianShaw · Mar 7, 2009

BobNewYork said:
JMHO

Mine too.

It is interesting that relationships can be made, and a computer can be made to draw those links, but what does it mean? Nothing, other than relationships exist and computers can draw those links.

One can do the same, BTW, with cookbooks.

It is the interpretation that would be more profound than the drawing... if such an interpretation was offered.

Pete H · Mar 7, 2009

I'm not even sure that an interpretation of the diagram would be profound. Think of the "small world" phenomenon: it is thought that you can be connected to any other person in the world through a chain of at most six acquaintances. If something like that applies to books, that diagram is almost completely meaningless. Does it apply to books? Well, BobNewYork mentioned several connections to other photography & Lord of the Rings. I don't own any Jock Sturges, but if I did you would also find shelves of mathematics, physics & geology books (work), natural history, history & politics, art, more photography, and a wide range of fiction (including some in French or Norwegian). I'm sure many other apuggers would add plenty more connections in a variety of languages.

The interview is well worth reading. I'm not sure that I agree with everything, but it is thought-provoking and, as Ed Sukach said, really makes you clarify your own thoughts.

darinb · Mar 7, 2009

Hey there,

BobNewYork, (>>It's like saying that because I'm a fund manager, (which I'm not) I rip people off like Bernie Madoff; or because I enjoy a beer or two, (which I do) I'm a drunk driver.<<). I don't think that is analogous. There is no direct link between you and Madoff. Nor between drunk divers and you. Consider a better analogy: You make a drug that you sell (legally!) to help people interested in art smile. The drug sells well. You don't know why people are buying it but you do notice that your customers are very interested in buying other, unsavory sorts of drugs and don't seem to buy much in the way of art.

How should we think about you and your drug sales given this information?

BrianShaw: (>>It is the interpretation that would be more profound than the drawing<<) Yes, that's true. Data is just data. But is it really true that you can see no potential for drawing *any* conclusion from the diagram? Just random bits of data with trivial connections?

Pete H (>>I'm not even sure that an interpretation of the diagram would be profound. Think of the "small world" phenomenon: it is thought that you can be connected to any other person in the world through a chain of at most six acquaintances. If something like that applies to books, that diagram is almost completely meaningless.<< But that assumes that the links are randomly chosen from the list of all possible links or that they were chosen to intentionally reflect poorly upon Jock's work. What if, instead, the links not randomly chosen but were simply the top five links in each case, ranked by popularity? In that case all links are not equal. To compare it to your "small world" example, that would be like trying to link from you to me in six moves but only by using our top five friends--not drawing from the much larger list of acquaintances. Much more difficult to limit it to your top five friends (but also much more revealing of the social circles you move in).

--Darin

Arvee · Mar 7, 2009

Darin, interesting 'consumer' mapping effort.

Sturges makes a grand living with his photography (he paid over $100K in legal fees in the 90s) and has to be selling large quantities of his books.

Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many APUGgers have purchased any of Sturges' books? Not many have indicated so in the context of this thread.

Then the question is, if not us, then who?

Perhaps your informal look at that particular customer base has more than just casual accuracy.

-F.

David Brown · Mar 7, 2009

Fred Aspen said:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many APUGgers have purchased any of Sturges' books? Not many have indicated so in the context of this thread.

Then the question is, if not us, then who?

Well, I for one.

Fred Aspen said:
Perhaps your informal look at that particular customer base has more than just casual accuracy.

Speaking as someone with a bit more than a "casual" knowledge of both statistics and cause-and-effect relationships (2 different things), the "informal look at that ... customer base" could be, or could not be true. However, it is my informed opinion that even if true, it proves nothing.

darinb · Mar 7, 2009

David Brown said:
Speaking as someone with a bit more than a "casual" knowledge of both statistics and cause-and-effect relationships (2 different things), the "informal look at that ... customer base" could be, or could not be true. However, it is my informed opinion that even if true, it proves nothing.

Hey David,

I'd love to hear you expand a bit on your reasoning...I'm not sure making a vague reference to your resume is sufficient!

--Darin

Jock Sturges

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency