Paul Strand ... does this idea work for you?

[MattKing]

Most fine art photographers would make lousy commercial photographers, because who in their right mind wants to be a commercial photographer?

Most photography students who attend Art Center School in Southern California (where Ansel Adams taught the Zone System) want to be successful commercial photographers. And most probably the vast majority of photography students in community college programs.

I would suggest that the only fair way to quote and then respond to Vaughn's post is to include his emoticon

 

[bluechromis]

In general terms it is hard to deny that one's life experiences are inputs into the development one's identity self-concept and that their art is reflection of one's identity. But that doesn't shed light on how particular life experiences influence the work of a particular artist. Typically, purported connections between the artist's life experience and their art is inferred retrospectively, by looking at themes in their art and the fishing in artists biography for experiences that could be said to lead to it. it might be something like, "It seems that the artist's body of work with cactus, vultures and skulls was clearly motivated by the death of their mother when they were eight years old." There is a problem with the validity these retrospective inferences. How do we really know there is connection between a feature in the art and particular life experiences? If we can do it retrospectively, we ought to be able to do it the the other way around. It ought to be possible, without any awareness of their art to study the biography of an artist and predict from that what kind themes and feature are likely to be important in their art. But I think such predictions would wildly inaccurate. Let's say you had two different artists and they both had abusive alcoholic fathers. It might be predicted that has to be a big thing in their life and must show up as a big influence in their art. But turns out with one artist the dad was hugely traumatic and seemed obviously represented in their work. But for another artist it didn't seem to be such a big thing and not clear it influenced their art all. People experience a vast array of life experiences, but often only a few are especially important influences on their art and it's difficult to predict or understand why only those are so important.

 

[Vaughn]

Most photography students who attend Art Center School in Southern California (where Ansel Adams taught the Zone System) want to be successful commercial photographers. And most probably the vast majority of photography students in community college programs.

Same with students who attended Brooks. Becoming a successful commercial photographer is the result of having the right temperment and gaining the specialized knowledge and working methods that best suits one's profession (and luck and all that stuff). If there is no desire to become a commercial photographer, then there may or may not be a need to learn all or part of that specialized skill set.

A fine art photographer having or not having that particular skill set is not the determining factor of how skilled the photographer is, nor of the strength of their art.

For example, in my case, large format camera use for the making of prints using19th Century process (w/ camera negatives) is quite a different skill set than required for (or gained from) most commercial work.

But I think most folks are over-thinking the quote. As someone mentioned early, to me it simply means that the photographer is in every image she or he makes...every one is a self-portrait. Their photographs are not necessarily (and not often) about themselves. It is more like their reflection was in a mirror they missed in the viewfinder when they made the photograph of a room.

 

[pentaxuser]

View attachment 312813

What is this picture meant to say or illustrate?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[jtk]

What is this picture meant to say or illustrate?

Thanks

pentaxuser

You might have to ask Paul Strand... I'm sure he knew what he was illustrating.

 

[jtk]

Same with students who attended Brooks. Becoming a successful commercial photographer is the result of having the right temperment and gaining the specialized knowledge and working methods that best suits one's profession (and luck and all that stuff). If there is no desire to become a commercial photographer, then there may or may not be a need to learn all or part of that specialized skill set.

A fine art photographer having or not having that particular skill set is not the determining factor of how skilled the photographer is, nor of the strength of their art.

For example, in my case, large format camera use for the making of prints using19th Century process (w/ camera negatives) is quite a different skill set than required for (or gained from) most commercial work.

But I think most folks are over-thinking the quote. As someone mentioned early, to me it simply means that the photographer is in every image she or he makes...every one is a self-portrait. Their photographs are not necessarily (and not often) about themselves. It is more like their reflection was in a mirror they missed in the viewfinder when they made the photograph of a room.

Vaughn, interesting thoughts. I think you may have attended Brooks. I did know a few former Brooks students but I did for sure know as many from California College of Arts (then in Oakland, CA) ...who benefitted from what was then the newly-formal Zone System. My impression was that Brooks was more technical and did much more advertising of itself while CCA was known particularly in Northern California (which is/was it's own less businesslike world).

CCA did do more with non-commercial design and crafts, influenced especially by Trude Guermonprez, a former and genuine Bauhaus student. HOWEVER I'm certain that Art Center School in Southern California was much more respected among advertising agency art departments than the others. Just having worked with several art directors from Art Center School in LA was a tangible assignment-door-opener for me in conversations among them (they imagined something might have rubbed off on me, though I was more influenced indirectly by Minor White). And of course, Art Center School spun off or energized various motion picture schools and programs.

 

[Pieter12]

What is this picture meant to say or illustrate?

Thanks

pentaxuser

A record of his living, of course.

 

[Vaughn]

No...I am one of those fine art photographers that developed their skillset as they developed their way of seeing and expressing it. I have no need to develop the skillset of the commercial photographer -- while at the same time realizing there is considerable overlap.

I have never been an art major. I earned a BS in Natural Resources Management. I worked for 12 years for the US Forest Service, building from scratch a skillset (some more poetic folks might say 'art') of mule packing and trail building. But I learned photography, practiced photography and worked/taught photography at a university for almost 40 years. Their program was based on photography as an art form. Minimal technical training in the classroom/studio. No classes speciallizing in just LF camera use, for example, nor for studio use. Students were introduced to all of that in their regular classes and had assignments dealing with all that. And I would volunteer to take students out into the redwoods with the 4x5s occasionally. But it was up to the students to take things further. As the darkroom tech, I was there to provide assistance to do so.

But we had up to 80 hours a week of open darkroom hours. I was only half-time, so I staffed the darkroom with student volunteer lab assistants I would train (twenty or more a quarter). In exchange, they got the keys to the darkroom. We were officialy open until mid-night every day...but there was a lot of printing thru the night! Grad schools loved our BA grads...they would end up running their darkrooms and had a head start teaching/helping other students in the darkroom, since I made helping other students the focus of the lab assistants (besides keeping the place clean and the chemicals fresh and mixed!)

I do not believe it is the job of universities to turn out completed products...and employers do not want that. Smart employers look for people who are well trained in the basics, know how to see and create solutions, and can produce. Unfortunately this is not always the result of a degree...sometimes it is the university's fault, sometimes it is the raw material, or sometimes a lack of melding of the two.

 

[Arthurwg]

The explosion of commercial photography in Germany in the 1920s certainly blurred the distinction between commercial work and fine art. Commercial photos by Albert Renger-Patzsch, Hans Finsler, Werner David Feist, Yva and others were certainly "artistic."

See: "Avant Garde Photography in Germany, 1919-1939," by Van Deren Coke.

 

[jtk]

No...I am one of those fine art photographers that developed their skillset as they developed their way of seeing and expressing it. I have no need to develop the skillset of the commercial photographer -- while at the same time realizing there is considerable overlap.

I have never been an art major. I earned a BS in Natural Resources Management. I worked for 12 years for the US Forest Service, building from scratch a skillset (some more poetic folks might say 'art') of mule packing and trail building. But I learned photography, practiced photography and worked/taught photography at a university for almost 40 years. Their program was based on photography as an art form. Minimal technical training in the classroom/studio. No classes speciallizing in just LF camera use, for example, nor for studio use. Students were introduced to all of that in their regular classes and had assignments dealing with all that. And I would volunteer to take students out into the redwoods with the 4x5s occasionally. But it was up to the students to take things further. As the darkroom tech, I was there to provide assistance to do so.

But we had up to 80 hours a week of open darkroom hours. I was only half-time, so I staffed the darkroom with student volunteer lab assistants I would train (twenty or more a quarter). In exchange, they got the keys to the darkroom. We were officialy open until mid-night every day...but there was a lot of printing thru the night! Grad schools loved our BA grads...they would end up running their darkrooms and had a head start teaching/helping other students in the darkroom, since I made helping other students the focus of the lab assistants (besides keeping the place clean and the chemicals fresh and mixed!)

I do not believe it is the job of universities to turn out completed products...and employers do not want that. Smart employers look for people who are well trained in the basics, know how to see and create solutions, and can produce. Unfortunately this is not always the result of a degree...sometimes it is the university's fault, sometimes it is the raw material, or sometimes a lack of melding of the two.

Vaughn, even more interesting, thanks. And I did understand that mule-packing had an art to it.

I never knew anybody in the 60s/70s who dedicated themselves much to darkroom, the photographers I knew had diverse interests focusing very much on risk-taking and trying to figure out why and how the photographers they happened to ponder did their image-making. And everybody was sold on slides.

My only formal study of darkroom work came about through involvement with Zone System as taught via Minor White...and we Minor-semi-mentees were ourselves quickly becoming more concerned with image making Vs tone control...for example Kodachrome, giant Kodalith transparencies etc. As Ansel failed to understand, the importance of Zone System had more to do with what the photographer learns to see than how s/he managed contrast and exposure.

It was clear that some types of student wanted to teach other students, staying in college until retirement, whatever that was (that did hurt Minor's photography IMO). Others (like me) realized college had a dead end aspect, so they got the hell out as fast as they could, while deciding what to do with the rest of their lives. Universities are not always good places to invest lives after basic degrees. There's a lot to be said for art (wine) Vs time spent laboring in vinyards or just plain bouncing around IMO. I never advocated turn-on, tune-in etc but for many photographers that may have been better than extended time pursuing B&W tonality. Still others were heavily concerned with Vietnam, one way or the other.

 

[Jim Jones]

That is like saying, "I breathe so I exist." but a French man said it better, "I think therefore I am."

Better yet for some of us, "I am, therefore I think."

 

[Vaughn]

"I am, therefore I think I am."

But odd -- what I get from AA's writings is that the Zone System is only a tool to be used by the photographer to get from their seeing (the concept) to their final piece.

Photo tech at an art school -- what better day job for a photographer who is not interested in doing commercial work?
Loved it for a long time. And ten years of it was as a volunteer before I got the paid position (had to do something in the winters when I wasn't packing mules and the fires were out...and collecting unemployment). The 1980s were pretty sweet for me. It included two trips to New Zealand, too.

 

[awty]

I always prefer art done by those who barely make ends meet, it tends to have more raw human emotions that seems to be lost with those with full bellies.

 

[jtk]

I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries. People who barely make ends meet are usually people who are looking for food, not images.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries.

@awty, I think, is interested in art as a human pursuit. And there's more than one way to "barely make ends meet". (Those who are mired in social or political inequity, for instance.)
I'm wondering what you mean by "discoveries".

 

[pentaxuser]

A record of his living, of course.

Thanks. At least I won't have to ask Paul Strand now as jtk suggested. Harry Houdini spent a lot of time trying to contact his mother but was never successful so my chances of asking Paul Strand ....well

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries. People who barely make ends meet are usually people who are looking for food, not images.

It is well known that for a long time Edward Weston could barely make ends meet.

 

[tomatojoe]

“Your photography is a record of your living, for anyone who really sees.”
~ Paul Strand

On Photography: Paul Strand, 1890-1976

“Your photography is a record of your living, for anyone who really sees.” — Paul Strand Paul Strand has been called the biggest, widest, most commanding talent in the history of American photography. He was born in the midst of one of the most exciting and innovative periods in the history of...

photofocus.com

YES it works for me. But I would edit the "for anyone" part because everyone seems EVERYTHING differently. I will give people a pass who do not see like me because my life, my eyes, my experience is different from "anyone" and unique to me. If I am lucky enough to find someone empathetic to what I see that is different I think. I do know where he was coming from, most people are too busy "living" they don't "observe". We photographers "observe" and "live". Thank you for YOUR observation.

 

[jtk]

@awty, I think, is interested in art as a human pursuit. And there's more than one way to "barely make ends meet". (Those who are mired in social or political inequity, for instance.)
I'm wondering what you mean by "discoveries".

Yes, OK. By "discoveries" I mean something like "yikes...have I really seen that? "

 

[jtk]

It is well known that for a long time Edward Weston could barely make ends meet.

Happily for us, EW was a successful portrait photographer before he moved to Monterey area and happily for him and for us he connected adequately with famous bohemians and patrons (see Daybook II). If he had wanted to I imagine he would have prospered with a studio in San Francisco.

 

[awty]

I'm not looking for "raw human emotion" ... I'm looking for discoveries. People who barely make ends meet are usually people who are looking for food, not images.

Without emotion we are nothing more than robots.
Society fears emotion, unless it's an opera on a stage.
Discoveries go unnoticed unless it's celebricited to a consumable.

 

[Pieter12]

Happily for us, EW was a successful portrait photographer before he moved to Monterey area and happily for him and for us he connected adequately with famous bohemians and patrons (see Daybook II). If he had wanted to I imagine he would have prospered with a studio in San Francisco.

If you read his day books he absolutely hated taking—and the obligatory retouching—portraits. It was a great relief to him once there were enough shows and ocollectors for him to only do unretouched portraits. He enjoyed making portraits of friends and fellow artists, but the money he made from those was mainly by selling them to collectors. If I recall from the day books, he did not like big cities much, including San Francisco.

 

[tomatojoe]

If you read his day books he absolutely hated taking—and the obligatory retouching—portraits. It was a great relief to him once there were enough shows and ocollectors for him to only do unretouched portraits. He enjoyed making portraits of friends and fellow artists, but the money he made from those was mainly by selling them to collectors. If I recall from the day books, he did not like big cities much, including San Francisco.

that might be why he beheadded his sitters

 

[Don_ih]

By "discoveries" I mean something like "yikes...have I really seen that? "

That seems a bit shallow and short-lived - especially since, once you have seen it, that excitement diminishes. It sounds like those styles and methods which blow up in popularity for a short time and then become outmoded. On the other hand, what humans want and need from art of any sort is not ever likely to change.

 

[jtk]

If you read his day books he absolutely hated taking—and the obligatory retouching—portraits. It was a great relief to him once there were enough shows and ocollectors for him to only do unretouched portraits. He enjoyed making portraits of friends and fellow artists, but the money he made from those was mainly by selling them to collectors. If I recall from the day books, he did not like big cities much, including San Francisco.

Perhaps....I'll re-read Daybook 2. Still, he did court both subjects and collectors...and San Francisco has always been an especially bohemian city, never "big" (walk from Diamond Heights to Bay in an hour) .