less shadow detail mght be 'more'...

[Bill Burk]

I often worry that my Group f/64 card will be taken away from me because some of my work sometimes exhibits flaws that "literally" detract from the technical quality of the image.

I choose to accept the images because they express my feelings.

I don't think the group meant for there to be no artistic merit. They just didn't want to have to be compared to other kinds of art, held to constraints that photography is free of.

 

[batwister]

I wonder, how would Gregory Crewdson's work be classed, imitating, or perhaps following the feel of movie still? Seems like a full circle.

It was an inevitability, perhaps.

 

[Chuck_P]

It is merely a stance against photography being used to imitate other art forms, and an assertion that the purity of the photographic image is, in itself, the art form of the photographic process, accentuated by the optical qualities of the lens, I believe AA used the term "straight photography" in the writings. Not to be confused with a "straight print" made without any dodging and burning, the phrases are not at all to be used interchageably.

 

[Chris Lange]

Coming from a love for etchings and ink drawings in my childhood, as well as heavy chiaroscuro in paintings later on, I like my shadows dark and foreboding. It's all about mood as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, detail in there can enhance the mood sometimes, but for me it's all about those bottomless pools of darkness flowing into glowing highlights.

 

[markbarendt]

The use of the word 'pictorial' in critical writing on photography generally refers to more illustrative compositions - i.e. one point perspective, near-far, little emphasis on formal elements (no abstraction of space). Most amateur landscape photography you see prescribes to pictorial methods. 'Pictorial' means *compositional* devices derived from painting, basically.

'The Pictorialists' or pictorialism on the other hand was a movement in photography that not only used pictorial compositions, but attempted to emulate painterly, impressionistic effects through photographic techniques.

So I assume you mean 'pictorialism uses abstract concepts', but... pictorialism is only abstract *in technique* if we consider straight photography the norm. In actual fact, f/64 and Edward Weston's work in particular would have been considered abstract in its nature and thinking at the time. F/64 paved the way for formal abstraction in photography through proposing that an 'intensity of seeing' is more important than effects in technique.

Pictorialism at its core is illustrative, with the 'fuzziness' adding the mood and emotional elements.

Coming back to contrast and what Thomas said about negative space (pure black or pure white) being used as formal compositional elements - something Bill Brandt did a great deal. Although this is a product of photographic technique it has all its roots in f/64 because it is informed by seeing and in turn, the abstractions of seeing. Pictorialism had no part to play in the use of contrast as aesthetic.

Yes, I mistakenly left off the "ist".

The point I'm making regarding Pictorialists leaning toward abstraction is that Pictorialists aren't necessarily or even normally trying to picture anything "straight".

Also f64 has no lock pre-visualization or seeing.

 

[markbarendt]

It is merely a stance against photography being used to imitate other art forms, and an assertion that the purity of the photographic image is, in itself, the art form of the photographic process, accentuated by the optical qualities of the lens, I believe AA used the term "straight photography" in the writings. Not to be confused with a "straight print" made without any dodging and burning, the phrases are not at all to be used interchageably.

So what's wrong with photography imitating other art forms?

HCB used photography to "draw pictures" instead of pencil and paper.

I fully believe that HCB would have simply used a different medium if photography had not be available. Cameras and photographic processes were incidental to him, simply tools that were convenient in expressing ideas, not somthing that had a role in defining the idea.

 

[Chuck_P]

So what's wrong with photography imitating other art forms?

Postivley nothing at all, if that is what you want to do.

 

[Bill Burk]

So what's wrong with photography imitating other art forms?

Nothing is wrong with it. But the Group f/64 manifesto clearly wanted nothing to do with that. They wanted to move forward.

 

[batwister]

Nothing is wrong with it. But the Group f/64 manifesto clearly wanted nothing to do with that. They wanted to move forward.

Yeah. It was a reactionary movement (which most are). Certain things have to be compromised, if only for a certain period, for art to progress. Most celebrated art and photography today is notable for its broad appropriation of the arts in general, so it's become acceptable again. In our age of uncertainty, trying to find answers, I think much art is attempting to summarize everything that's gone before in one concise statement. Seems that way to me.

 

[markbarendt]

Nothing is wrong with it. But the Group f/64 manifesto clearly wanted nothing to do with that. They wanted to move forward.

So we did that, had a pretty good run of it too. Just checked, yep I've got the t-shirt too , now what?

I don't want to minimize the good that f64 has done, it provides a clear structure and understandable guidelines to achieve specific results. It encourages seeing before shooting, rigorous attention to detail.

It forgets/rejects though 1000's of years of artistic history and theory. It puts us in handcuffs of sorts.

So, now what?

 

[batwister]

So we did that, had a pretty good run of it too. Just checked, yep I've got the t-shirt too , now what?

I don't want to minimize the good that f64 has done, it provides a clear structure and understandable guidelines to achieve specific results. It encourages seeing before shooting, rigorous attention to detail.

It forgets/rejects though 1000's of years of artistic history and theory. It puts us in handcuffs of sorts.

So, now what?

I've found a great deal of contemporary photographers reference painters as influences before photographers. As others have mentioned, F/64 wasn't the whole story at that time, and people like Bresson/Callahan were actively involved and influenced by the broader arts. So whether or not we take from painting might depend on how religiously we follow F/64 thinking - which it should be mentioned, is about 80 years old at this point and only consisted of 7 photographers.

Felt the need to respond, sorry, as my previous comment vaguely suggests where contemporary photography is at.

 

[lxdude]

It forgets/rejects though 1000's of years of artistic history and theory. It puts us in handcuffs of sorts.

I don't see it as doing that at all. I see it as asserting that photography is its own art form, not just a way of imitating what came before.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't see it as doing that at all. I see it as asserting that photography is its own art form, not just a way of imitating what came before.

Actually I'd suggest that they were subjectively defining there own subset of photography for their own benefit in an act of shameless self promotion as stated in paragraph 2 in the excerpt below.

This wasn't the first time a bunch of artists got together to promote their work, think Impressionism for one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism

The following was excerpted from this Wikipedia artical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

Bolds added by me.

The first paragraph is purely subjective specifying "cleanness and definition" as a standard. That is obviously but one of many effects a lens and a piece of film can create and they essentially admit that in the third paragraph.

IMO they purposefully boxed themselves in simply as a marketing tool to be able to get more shows. Galleries love themes.

Group f/64 displayed the following manifesto at their 1932 exhibit:

The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.

The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.

Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire spectrum of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.

The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography.

 

[Chuck_P]

Actually I'd suggest that they were subjectively defining there own subset of photography for their own benefit in an act of shameless self promotion as stated in paragraph 2 in the excerpt below.

Your're certainly entitled to your own opinion on it, but you are stating that it is shameless and therefore wrong to "self promote", my opinion on that is, utter nonsense. It's called being in "business" for yourself--------what is wrong with that? They were no doubt trying to put money in their pockests by selling prints just as many may do today. The manifesto was simply a core belief and a passionate one for those practitioners, just like it may be for some today, me included. I do not care for the "fuzzy wuzzies" myself or otherwise turning a photograph into something that does not look like a photograph. IMO, anytime I may post a photograph on the web, I am, in a manner of speaking, promoting "straight" photography in my own right but without the "manifesto", who needs one these days anyway.

 

[markbarendt]

Your're certainly entitled to your own opinion on it, but you are stating that it is shameless and therefore wrong to "self promote", my opinion on that is, utter nonsense. It's called being in "business" for yourself--------what is wrong with that? They were no doubt trying to put money in their pockests by selling prints just as many may do today. The manifesto was simply a core belief and a passionate one for those practitioners, just like it may be for some today, me included. I do not care for the "fuzzy wuzzies" myself or otherwise turning a photograph into something that does not look like a photograph. IMO, anytime I may post a photograph on the web, I am, in a manner of speaking, promoting "straight" photography in my own right but without the "manifesto", who needs one these days anyway.

I meant no slight nor insult to f64's motivation nor in general to the art of self promotion. Shameless self promotion is truly honorable and normally a requirement for success in business.

It is though, IMO, important to understand that f64's primary goal was to do more shows and sell more prints.

Understanding that it was primarily a business decision rather than an artistic one gives me an example of a shrewd business move. Put that in the context of the time understanding that New York markets had already moved away from pictorialism and that the west coast had not and we see that the f/64 group smartly seized the opportunity to be on the leading edge of and mold the changes that would eventually come west.

We could if we chose to, emulate their business decisions and ask ourselves where the world seems to be headed artistically, just as they did, and we could put together a cooperative to promote ourselves, just as they did, and we could define our group standards so that galleries who welcomed one of us would welcome the rest, just as they did.

Group f64, if starting out today, could use that same business model but they would probably define a very different artistic standard.

 

[Bill Burk]

We could if we chose to, emulate their business decisions and ask ourselves where the world seems to be headed artistically, just as they did, and we could put together a cooperative to promote ourselves, just as they did, and we could define our group standards so that galleries who welcomed one of us would welcome the rest, just as they did

Brilliant! Sounds like a plan. This may be the thought that's been escaping me all along...

 

[markbarendt]

Brilliant! Sounds like a plan. This may be the thought that's been escaping me all along...

Yes they were.

I'm game too.

I was missing it too for a long time even with it "hidden right there in plain sight". (My wife call this type of thing "male refrigerator blindness".)

 

[Chuck_P]

....Understanding that it was primarily a business decision rather than an artistic one................

This is where we disagree most.......I don't believe this in the slightest. You are calling AA's departure from pictorialism to straight photography motivated by business rather than artistice preferrence. Seems to be the same as saying----------he really liked pictorialism more, but felt he could make more money by shooting "straight", as it were. How could that be when pictorialism was the "thing", it seems anyway, at the time. I don't pretend to be an art historian or anything like that, but I just disagree with the premise, but we could probably go on forever about it without changing any minds.

 

[Bill Burk]

This is where we disagree most.......I don't believe this in the slightest. You are calling AA's departure from pictorialism to straight photography motivated by business rather than artistice preferrence. Seems to be the same as saying----------he really liked pictorialism more, but felt he could make more money by shooting "straight", as it were. How could that be when pictorialism was the "thing", it seems anyway, at the time. I don't pretend to be an art historian or anything like that, but I just disagree with the premise, but we could probably go on forever about it without changing any minds.

I don't think it's a crass assessment like that. Group f/64 was formed to promote works like that of Ansel Adams, and it just happened to come at the right time and he was struck like lightning with its success.

 

[markbarendt]

This is where we disagree most.......I don't believe this in the slightest. You are calling AA's departure from pictorialism to straight photography motivated by business rather than artistice preferrence. Seems to be the same as saying----------he really liked pictorialism more, but felt he could make more money by shooting "straight", as it were. How could that be when pictorialism was the "thing", it seems anyway, at the time. I don't pretend to be an art historian or anything like that, but I just disagree with the premise, but we could probably go on forever about it without changing any minds.

I didn't intend or want to infer that AA had a preference either way and I actually see no reason to think that he preferred pictorialism.

If I were to suggest that he had preference for a different artistic sensibility, other than straight photography, or for a different way to make a living, I would have say it was piano, not pictorialism.

With that said I also believe it would be hard to find a significant number of successful business people in all of history that did not adapt to the whims and realities of the market they served.

That doesn't mean AA and his buddies didn't help define or shape the market, it also doesn't suggest that he liked a different style, it just means that the AA and his buddies made good business decisions and occasionally compromised with each other and the market.

 

[markbarendt]

I don't think it's a crass assessment like that. Group f/64 was formed to promote works like that of Ansel Adams, and it just happened to come at the right time and he was struck like lightning with its success.

I would actually like to think that AA and his buddies were shrewd enough and aware enough and connected enough to see the changes coming rather than simply getting lucky. I think there is even some evidence for that though I couldn't say where. It's hiding in plain sight somewhere probably.

 

[David Lyga]

OK, I honestly think that there is a place for both f/64 and the abstract, fuzzy pictorial approach. Since photography encompasses all aesthetic venues there HAS to be room for all to attend the party.

Now, pejorative assessments as the the monetary aspect of a particular "cult's" real seeking may, or may not be true. That becomes ancillary to the 'aesthetics' that is of primary importance. But, we all should heartily agree, both contributed mightily to the genre. Were the 'conspirators' purer than Caesar's wife? Is that of primary importance? I make no direct answer to those questions but merely present them as 'subordinate addenda' to the underlying aesthetic. - David Lyga

 

[jakeblues]

Now, pejorative assessments as the the monetary aspect of a particular "cult's" real seeking may, or may not be true. That becomes ancillary to the 'aesthetics' that is of primary importance. But, we all should heartily agree, both contributed mightily to the genre.

David, I agree with you here. As a musician primarily, I can attest that music groups (good ones) usually form for aesthetic reasons. That said, once a group has been formed with an aesthetic that I like, I hope the group does indeed "present in frequent shows"!

Great thread.

 

[David Lyga]

You know, jakeblues, I did not even make a moral assessment here. WHETHER or NOT the formation of the f 64 group was to create a reason for obtaining money is really beside the point as far as the underlying aesthetic is concerned.

We would ALL like to think that more refined and worthy alterior motives played the leading role here but, even with my love of classical music, probably the commissions and 'whom you knew' mattered more to the composers than purists like David Lyga would like to believe. Life is life and creating sublimation where such is neither warranted nor deserved holds danger for the sake of the truth. Truisms are not always true. - David Lyga

 

[lxdude]

Understanding that it was primarily a business decision rather than an artistic one gives me an example of a shrewd business move.

I think was first an artistic decision.