I wonder, how would Gregory Crewdson's work be classed, imitating, or perhaps following the feel of movie still? Seems like a full circle.
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.
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?Postivley nothing at all, if that is what you want to do.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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...
....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.
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.
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.
I think was first an artistic decision.Understanding that it was primarily a business decision rather than an artistic one gives me an example of a shrewd business move.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?