Loss of fine art photography tradition

[doughowk]

Thanks, Søren Nielsen, for the link to Adam Marelli's video. His approach to photography is very refreshing.

 

[cliveh]

A little while ago I found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zwk3YFknyNA

through here

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/page/2/

Quite interesting I think

Best regards

One thing I noticed in that video was Adam Marelli's reference to the Robert Capa quote “If you aren’t good enough, it’s because you aren’t close enough.” He interpreted this as Capa meaning physical distance. I have sometimes wondered if Robert Capa meant close in an emotional way?

 

[PhotoJim]

One thing I noticed in that video was Adam Marelli's reference to the Robert Capa quote “If you aren’t good enough, it’s because you aren’t close enough.” He interpreted this as Capa meaning physical distance. I have sometimes wondered if Robert Capa meant close in an emotional way?

My guess is that he probably meant both.

 

[redrockcoulee]

'Fine art photography' does still, strangely, have some meaning on APUG it seems. Probably because of the zone system bias. 'F/64 vs pictorialism' is actually still a relevant and timely debate here!

But anyway, let me tell you all a story. Back in nineteen-diggidy-two...

Why is fine art photographer supposedly pretensions but wedding or commercial photographer are not? Some painters put house in front of painter so that no one asks them to paint a portrait and if one said they were a fine art photographer you may decide not to ask them to shoot a wedding or a catalogue shoot as they may not have the skills, equipment or desire to do so. To me fine art means some one who takes the image for the sake of creating an image not fulfilling a commercial obligation or to record events or even to document your kids hockey games.

To OP

You use the term "wanabees:, "art teacher" "professor", "so called" "experts" etc makes me when reading your posts to consider that you have already a great disdain for young artists and art schools that perhaps you are very bias in your comments. Perhaps you are accurate however the constant editorializing does colour my interpretation of your comments. You have dished a whole generation of new photographers, their teachers and schools, art experts, and those whose posts argue strongly against your view. You even dismissed photographers whose work have been judged by other widely accepted photographers as good stating that this was meaningless. What other then your approval or one's passing an exam on history of photography is required for a young photographer to be considered a photographer? This is a serious question as I have tried to understand just what is acceptable in your mind and frankly all I have been able to gleam is nothing that is new cuts it. Thanks

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

To OP

I think Elvis has left the building...

Ken

 

[mr rusty]

Late to the party, but in my book "Fine Art Tradition" is an oxymoron.

(visual) Art is the sum of image + emotion. A traditional image that might have sparked immense emotion when it was first created, may not as a copy that has become common and familiar. (e.g. is John Constable's "Haywain" fine art when printed on the lid of a box of biscuits). Nor is the technique or technology of the process particularly relevant. Take Hockney. His technique at face value is in many ways child-like. And yet, at an exhibition of his work some (but not all) (probably different for different people) inspires emotion that is far in excess of the technical detail.

Tradition implies repetition, sameness, following. Only images that inspire emotion are art, and the quality and principle of material and technique is not directly proportional to the inspired emotion.

Context is everything. A contemporary image of the mundane (e.g. fish-dock workers 100 years ago) was probably not "art" when it was created. Displayed now to inspire an emotional reaction, it probably is.

 

[Cold]

hi mark

people with no art background or anti art background like you ...
have probably even more of a valid opinion than those who are steeped in whatever tradition they have.

while i have a background in both art+architecture, as well as photography, for the most part,
i don't know most of the current big influences people typically mention ... i would rather be
out of the loop than in the loop ... besides, i find a lot of contemporary photography to be kind of boring

so, chime in, give your opinion, it is just as relevant as anyone elses ( just like the photographs you make ) ...

john

Well, since you asked...

First of all, by "anti-art" I didn't mean so much that I dislike art for art's sake, but rather that my own personality, strengths, tastes, and methods in most aspects of my life tend to favor logic, reason, skill, and technical elements over things like emotion, intuition, expression, etc. I work with technical drawings, diagrams, etc. and in past jobs, absolutely despised any project where I had to work with artistic types (usually architects, but sometimes graphic designers, interior people, etc.) because of their general lack of familiarity (or regard) for the physical realities of various situations ("No, you *can't* just remove that wall...it's load-bearing."..."Well can't you just make a different wall load-bearing and remove that one? It's going to block all the natural light!"). It's not that I didn't like the people themselves, or that I didn't appreciate and admire their contributions to various projects...just that their approach and concerns were so vastly different from me that most dealings with them led to communication breakdown and frustration.

That being said, I tend to look at art in a way similar to TheFlyingCamera...as a medium, or better yet, a language. A vehicle for communication of ideas, emotions, etc. Like any language, there are accepted standards and guidelines, always in a state of flux, and certainly affected by the context of the times, factors including (but not limited to) social values, world events, technology, religion...and of course history. In this light, it's impossible to separate the two matters of what is new and what has come before. That being said, however, the existence of the past is not the same as tradition, and the effect of the past on the present is not the same as the effect of knowledge of the past on the present.

Some kid with a camera, taking pictures of things because he 'thinks that'd make a good picture' is, objectively, producing art. The reasoning of 'this would make a good picture' means it's an image for the image's sake, to be viewed simply for the experience of viewing it. It's not, say, a snapshot of a smashed car fender, to be sent to an insurance company. To use the language analogy, this kid might not be fluent (or even understandable), let alone eloquent in the language of art, but the fact that he's taking a picture for the picture's sake means he's making an attempt to 'speak the language' of art.

In contrast, take an experienced fine art photographer (subject matter, style, etc. completely irrelevant for the point) who's been selling their images for longer than the aforementioned 'kid' has been alive. He's studied, both informally and in an academic setting, hundreds of artists, styles, works, and theories, both about his chosen area of expertise, and others that have little or nothing to do with him. He understands every intricacy of every element of the photos he makes, and appreciates photographs both on their own, and for their place in the history of photography, and art at large. In the language analogy, he's a bona fide linguist, an expert in not only things like spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax, but also word origins, definitions, alternate spellings, synonyms and antonyms, and the subtle differences in mostly similar words and phrases. He's also got some degree of familiarity with other languages, and makes connections between them.

Both of these "native speakers" are speaking the same language, but nobody would argue that they've the same level of mastery over it. In time, "the kid", if he sticks with it, will develop, and even if he's only exposed to his own work, will find that he likes some pictures more than others and attempt to repeat sucesses and learn from failures. (And I just used 'develop' and 'expose' in a post here and kept a straight face!) This kid, in all likelihood will also tend to look at other photos with more of a critic's eye, and find that he doesn't just randomly like or dislike photos, but that he likes or dislikes elements of those photos. In this way, the past...the traditions...will make their effects known...even if "the kid" never sits down and reads a book on composition. For those here that have argued that "fine art tradition is important because without it the present couldn't exist!", I think that's really begging the question, and very circular logic.

I think that the study of tradition will certainly give an artist a better understanding and familiarity with his work, and will likely make it easier for him to produce work which speaks to others who are similarly "well-read" on a higher level, but with that being said, it's not at all impossible...or even all that difficult...for a "semi-literate" neophyte to produce work that is undeniably art without any connection to tradition beyond the same instinctive human urge to communicate that led to the first cave wall drawings.

It's also worth noting that the language analogy has another component which is highly applicable to the discussion, that really is a counterpoint to the pro-tradition camp: language evolves, and while knowing what came before might be helpful when you tackle the task of digesting some new material that someone else has produced, you really don't ever hit a point where you want to communicate something, but are wholly unable to do so because of a lack of knowledge of tradition (or word etymology, to use the analogy). The more time between the foundations of the tradition and the present, the objectively less-directly-relevant it is. For a shining example, check out early English works. some of it is readable, but other parts are nearly indecipherable to someone not well-versed in language history...even if that person is very well spoken in terms of modern english.

Eesh! Sorry for the lengthy post, but it's difficult to put something like that succinctly. Thanks for reading.

 

[Polder]

That's not a new phenomenon

Hi David, About fifty years ago I worked in an Amsterdam Photolaboratory. In my Holidays while riding through France on my little motorcycle in a village I passed a huge monument stating that in this village Nicephore Niepce had invented photography. After my trip I showed my colleagues in the laboratory a picture of this Monument. Nobody had ever heard of Niepce. Sad to say I remember it after nearly fifty years, I really was disappointed. Now I am succeeding in arousing far more than just a little enthousiasm in my own little family. Together with one of my grandchildren I am learning to make the emulsions of old. The tutorials on Denise Ross's The Lightfarm website are as inspirational as can be and a tremendous motivation for the younsters around me. More is not to be hoped for. Henk

 

[realart21]

Nice thread, I liked it. It shows the necessity of art photography.

 

[benjiboy]

One thing I noticed in that video was Adam Marelli's reference to the Robert Capa quote “If you aren’t good enough, it’s because you aren’t close enough.” He interpreted this as Capa meaning physical distance. I have sometimes wondered if Robert Capa meant close in an emotional way?

You misquote Capa he said "if your pictures aren't good enough it's because you aren't close enough.

 

[cliveh]

You misquote Capa he said "if your pictures aren't good enough it's because you aren't close enough.

I stand corrected.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Great, rollicking thread.

First off, I'd like to thank David for connecting the disparate dots and coming up with the Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique (SLIMT) method of reducing negative film contrast. You should get a Hero Badge for that one!

http://www.davidkachel.com/historical/cont_pt3.htm

As for the discussion at hand, everybody is right, because art cannot be codified or defined by universally acceptable rules. There is no one path.

Picasso said, "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal". Would he have invented cubism without experiencing African ceremonial masks and statuary? Then there's Warhol, who took a simple idea and milked it for all it was worth while the new business of investing in art instead of the stock market was beginning to flourish. Lots of wiggle room between those two.

As long as people define great art by its investment potential, it will foster a system which races to the new, the shocking, or the avant garde. As the above examples show, you can do this based on a firm foundation of skill and deep insight, or have a single good idea that the art investment market adores.

There will always be people searching for the new, ready to push it into the fray with the best marketing they can muster. Unfortunately, only great lengths of time (as in hundreds of years) will answer the question as to wether it's great art or not. In the meantime, we debate!

 

[cliveh]

99% of photographic art is about seeing. The capture is merely a photomechanical process.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

99% of photographic art is about seeing. The capture is merely a photomechanical process.

Egad. That, to me, implies a rigid process, like getting prints made at a drug store. There are many ways the 'hand of the artist' can influence the final work;

What film? Developer? Exposure development combination? What paper? What developer, stop, fix combination? Toner(s)? Dodging? Burning? Sharp or unsharp masks? Presentation?

That's a very condensed list as I'm on my lunch break!

 

[markbarendt]

Egad.

What film? Developer? Exposure development combination? What paper? What developer, stop, fix combination? Toner(s)? Dodging? Burning? Sharp or unsharp masks? Presentation?

That's a very condensed list as I'm on my lunch break!

I think the point Clive is making is that all the things you listed are related to the "craft", they are all learnable, even industrial, processes and tools.

The "magic" of good photography is in seeing, and I'll add deciding, how to use the tools and processes we have available.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

Ken

I do agree that you also need the skills to render, but not perhaps to extent often discussed on APUG.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I do agree that you also need the skills to render, but not perhaps to extent often discussed on APUG.

What you need is the skills to render YOUR vision into reality. If your vision tolerates or requires mis-exposed negatives, dirt, dust, hairs and scratches, by all means, work with that. If it requires f/64-esque exposure, processing and printing skills, do what it takes to develop that technique. I think the critique many folks don't succeed at articulating of the former is that some if not many practitioners of the former do it out of laziness and lack of skill, rather than understanding the how and the why, so it isn't repeatable in the long run - you can't build a portfolio of considered work if you don't know how you got that one image to look the way it does. The critique of the latter is very easy to articulate - being super-technical lends itself to sterile imagery because the photographer is more concerned with making sure the tree bark of THAT tree renders Zone VI 1/2 than paying attention to a harmonious composition. If it comes down to it I'd rather look at an image with emotional content that is technically rough than an image that is technically perfect but unengaging, but if I have the choice, I want an image whose technical delivery enhances the emotional delivery. I shouldn't be distracted from emotional content by technique, one way or the other - neither should I look at a print and think, "wow, I can't tell you anything about the picture because I'm constantly distracted by its flaws" nor should I think "well, that was a perfect step-wedge in the form of a landscape".

 

[cliveh]

What you need is the skills to render YOUR vision into reality. If your vision tolerates or requires mis-exposed negatives, dirt, dust, hairs and scratches, by all means, work with that. If it requires f/64-esque exposure, processing and printing skills, do what it takes to develop that technique. I think the critique many folks don't succeed at articulating of the former is that some if not many practitioners of the former do it out of laziness and lack of skill, rather than understanding the how and the why, so it isn't repeatable in the long run - you can't build a portfolio of considered work if you don't know how you got that one image to look the way it does. The critique of the latter is very easy to articulate - being super-technical lends itself to sterile imagery because the photographer is more concerned with making sure the tree bark of THAT tree renders Zone VI 1/2 than paying attention to a harmonious composition. If it comes down to it I'd rather look at an image with emotional content that is technically rough than an image that is technically perfect but unengaging, but if I have the choice, I want an image whose technical delivery enhances the emotional delivery. I shouldn't be distracted from emotional content by technique, one way or the other - neither should I look at a print and think, "wow, I can't tell you anything about the picture because I'm constantly distracted by its flaws" nor should I think "well, that was a perfect step-wedge in the form of a landscape".

I agree completely and well said.

 

[markbarendt]

The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.

If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.

To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.

Ken

I do see people who do that, what I'm talking about is art versus craft. My intent is not to say craft is unimportant just to say that there is a difference between art and craft. We might dodge skillfully. We might dodge artistically. Or we might dodge both skillfully and artistically. The last is the best. The second is ok. The first though only works when you get lucky or are told what to do.

 

[Chris Lange]

As a 22 year old who shoots everything from 35mm to 4x5, maintains a stable of Hasselblads, Nikons, and a Leica, as well as a fully featured dedicated darkroom with a dialysis-grade temperature control and archival storage boxes for his prints, and an avid collector of photo books (new and old), I resent the sentiment that all young people are versed only in the ways of the 'gram and canon digital rebels.

That said, most people of my generation are ignorant fucking dumbasses when it comes to just about anything with a history longer than ten minutes.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I do see people who do that, what I'm talking about is art versus craft. My intent is not to say craft is unimportant just to say that there is a difference between art and craft. We might dodge skillfully. We might dodge artistically. Or we might dodge both skillfully and artistically. The last is the best. The second is ok. The first though only works when you get lucky or are told what to do.

I see craft and art as mutually inclusive. Or mutually enabling. Remove either from the equation... and you are left with nothing whole. Only some part of the whole.

To say that to dodge artistically is better than to dodge skillfully belies the fact that the former is dependent upon (inclusive with) the latter. The latter enables the former. The former prompts cultivation of the latter. One cannot dodge artistically (i.e., render one's artistic vision effectively) until one can dodge at a sufficient level of skill to even make such a rendering possible. If one successfully dodges such that the result matches the desired artistic outcome and one has no dodging skills, then that outcome was a fortuitous accident not likely to be repeated.

If one wishes to express oneself in a painting, one kinda' needs to first learn how to paint. At least well enough to effectively render that expression to one's artistic satisfaction. The only other alternative would be to render the expression ineffectively, which is probably not what any party to the work would want.

When a child first learns to walk, he doesn't do so from the blocks of the Olympic finals in the 100-meter dash. He must first master the basic skills of walking to eventually enable that end result. And, truth be told, most children—most of us—will never see the Olympics.

But a very, very few will...



Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

As a 22 year old who shoots everything from 35mm to 4x5, maintains a stable of Hasselblads, Nikons, and a Leica, as well as a fully featured dedicated darkroom with a dialysis-grade temperature control and archival storage boxes for his prints, and an avid collector of photo books (new and old), I resent the sentiment that all young people are versed only in the ways of the 'gram and canon digital rebels.

That said, most people of my generation are ignorant fucking dumbasses when it comes to just about anything with a history longer than ten minutes.

Most people your age wouldn't have the resources (financial) to acquire and ten have experience with anything more than digital, how did you amass such things? I will not assume until you tell me.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Most people your age wouldn't have the resources (financial) to acquire and ten have experience with anything more than digital, how did you amass such things? I will not assume until you tell me.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Stone:

Like many of us, Chris grew up in an environment that fostered knowledge of and skill with film equipment.

Given your fascination with the female form, I expect you would enjoy seeing Chris' father at work .

See the link in Chris' post #8.: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Darkroom317]

Most people your age wouldn't have the resources (financial) to acquire and ten have experience with anything more than digital, how did you amass such things? I will not assume until you tell me.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

As a 23 year old who does much the same as Chris, I too resent the earlier remark. I know several young people who prefer film. However, as you stated they have not amassed the equipment like Chris and I have but they would like to.

Kristoffer