Photographers you most admire

[Rolleiflexible]

Interesting thread. My polestars get little love in these lists. My ten, in no order:

Robert Doisneau, the master
Irving Penn
Willy Ronis
Andreas Feininger
Andre Kertesz
Robert Mapplethorpe
Avedon, of course
Laszlo Moholy-Nagy
Robert Frank
O. Winston Link

 

[faberryman]

bThis injecting of agenda has always been somewhat present in art, likely from the beginning of human existence. What's different today is that the demand now is that the agenda replace the art because it's so verrrrrrrrrry important. If you want a close look at the levels of lunacy this has reached in the arts circle, I highly commend the brilliant "Rape Of The Masters" by Robert Kimball. He's a fine art critic and he just disembowels the agenda peddlers and the academic high priests that pimp for them, in that book.

Richard Kimball has an agenda of his own.

 

[chuckroast]

Richard Kimball has an agenda of his own.

Indeed he does. He pursues great art and lets us know about it. Also, he's not claiming to be making art, only observing it. Oh, and we both have his name wrong, it's "Roger"...

Roger Kimball

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
Discussions about "political correctness" and the role of same will be likely to result in moderator intervention due to, among other things, our prohibitions against discussions about politics and other similar off topic subjects.
Moderator hat off.
And in case anyone else was wondering, earlier references in the thread are not apparently to the main character in "The Fugitive"

 

[chuckroast]

Moderator hat on:
Discussions about "political correctness" and the role of same will be likely to result in moderator intervention due to, among other things, our prohibitions against discussions about politics and other similar off topic subjects.
Moderator hat off.
And in case anyone else was wondering, earlier references in the thread are not apparently to the main character in "The Fugitive"

Yeah, I figured I might be pushing that boundary. The problem is, you cannot meaningfully discuss modern art and artists without also talking about what fuels their sense of life and how they respond to actual good art (generally, not well).

I mention Kimball only because he exposes the whole art school scam with nearly perfect examples. He takes famous classical paintings and explains why they're considered important. Mind you, he's a first class art critic in his own right. This alone is worth the cost of the book. Relevant to this discussion, he then quotes modern art critics and academics on their view of that piece of art. It's instructive and - by turns - depressing, maddening, and hilarious. The title is unfortunate because it suggest a level of politicking that isn't actually found anywhere in the book.

No, he's not the Fugitive ... but you just disclosed something about your age

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I try not to look at photographers work!! It’s too easy to compare and judge myself unfairly. Also I want to do my own work, not copy others. I really think that borrowing other peoples ideas is not healthy. Find your own path, your own voice. Don’t look to others for your trick, you would like to turn. Find it in yourself. Do your own work. Spending time looking at others and wishing longingly “ that I was that good” is a joke!! Don’t do that to yourself. Looking at others is counterproductive. And counter intuitive.

 

[MattKing]

exposes the whole art school scam

I think, perhaps, you are painting with far too broad a brush.

 

[chuckroast]

I try not to look at photographers work!! It’s too easy to compare and judge myself unfairly. Also I want to do my own work, not copy others. I really think that borrowing other peoples ideas is not healthy. Find your own path, your own voice. Don’t look to others for your trick, you would like to turn. Find it in yourself. Do your own work. Spending time looking at others and wishing longingly “ that I was that good” is a joke!! Don’t do that to yourself. Looking at others is counterproductive. And counter intuitive.

I try to do both. I do my own work - always. But I try to learn from others. I periodically go back to Atget, Brassai, the Westons, et al and each time I get new ideas for my own stuff. Also, for beginners, I think there is considerable value in trying to duplicate the work of other great photographers. It's a good learning experience.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Don’t go back!! And look at others! You are strangling yourself!!! You are cutting off. Oxygen to your debate with yourself “ as to what is a photograph. Others have their answer to that question!! Don’t copy don’t get “ influenced” being a mirror person who copies others is never an authentic moment.

 

[bjorke]

Ah, Txema Salvans. Didn't know the name but had seen some of his photos @ Photo España a few years back. Agree, great work.

But curious about what's "of real value" that's so absent in the unnamed work that seems to so rankle people. Specifics, please.




Saw the Ansel Adams (+) show this afternoon. A yawn. Thankfully Kehinde Wiley's show upstairs from it was fantastic, if overcrowded.

 

[Don_ih]

Don’t copy don’t get “ influenced” being a mirror person who copies others is never an authentic moment.

Greg, people can look at the work of others without abandoning their own vision. And some people do get inspiration from the work of others to adopt an approach they've never before considered, which can lead to highly original work. You take what you learn and you apply it to what you want to do. Being broadly exposed to different ideas and results only makes you more aware of the possibilities of a discipline.

 

[faberryman]

Richard Kimball has an agenda of his own.

Indeed he does. He pursues great art and lets us know about it.

Superficially. Look deeper.

 

[chuckroast]

Superficially. Look deeper.

I have read him extensively beyond that book. He is an arts "snob" in the best sense of the word and wants to preserve the integrity of the Western canon. I wholly approve of this.

 

[faberryman]

I have read him extensively beyond that book. He is an arts "snob" in the best sense of the word and wants to preserve the integrity of the Western canon. I wholly approve of this.

Your last clue: You are reading horizontally, not more deeply.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Your last clue: You are reading horizontally, not more deeply.

Artists follow the line or lines of the composition and do not lock themselves with mindless restrictions.

 

[bjorke]

In the good old days, the Great Master Artists made pictures just because they loved the color and line. And maybe horses. None of this political context nonsense.

 

[snusmumriken]

So far, nineteen forum members have offered up their lists of most admired photographers. More than a hundred photographers have been named. The top four names are Edward Weston (6 votes), then Josef Koudelka, Josef Sudek and Robert Doisneau (5 votes each). Margaret Bourke White, Richard Avedon, Robert Frank and Brett Weston tied on 4 votes each. Ansel Adams and HCB got 3 votes each.

I really imagined there would be far more consensus, so I find this surprising, but on reflection quite cheering. It's a long list, but most of the names are familiar, which I guess means there is a substantial appreciative audience that has celebrated all this work. And out of this very broad spectrum of images, each of us finds different things to admire. That's good, isn't it?

[Moderators: I would attach the spreadsheet, except I can't see how to create a file that Photrio will accept. I created it as a .numbers file on a Mac, and can export to .xlsx but not to .xls.]

 

[drkhalsa]

Jane Bown
Elliott Erwitt
Larry Towell
Andre Kertesz
Lee Friedlander
Walker Evans
Gordon Parks
Jamel Shabazz
David Burnett
W. Eugene Smith

 

[Rolleiflexible]

In the good old days, the Great Master Artists made pictures just because they loved the color and line. And maybe horses. None of this political context nonsense.

View attachment 340918

Ah yes. And bees. Lots of bees.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And out of this very broad spectrum of images, each of us finds different things to admire. That's good, isn't it?

Yes it is. I don't think there's any other art as open to possibilities than photography—safe, maybe, music, in both very similar and very different ways. It's the beauty of it, and the reason why there's nothing more absurd and sterile than wanting to dictate what it is and what it isn't, what it should be about and what it shouldn't be about.

 

[MattKing]

In the good old days, the Great Master Artists made pictures just because they loved the color and line. And maybe horses. None of this political context nonsense.

Ah yes. And bees. Lots of bees.

Don't forget nekkid ladies.

 

[MattKing]

I haven't posted a list, because for whatever reason I don't tend to organize my admiration by photographer.
But if I were to name two, they would be Jane Bown, and Jeff Wall.
Plus a whole bunch of photographers I've had personal contact with, but are usually unknown to most of the internet or publishing or art world.

 

[snusmumriken]

I haven't posted a list, because for whatever reason I don't tend to organize my admiration by photographer.

That’s rather intriguing, Matt. Have you really no idea why not?

Most of us seem to believe that admirable images are not allocated randomly among photographers. I’m definitely not one for hero-worship, because most candidates turn out to be flawed. All the same, for me, getting a sense of the personality that unites a body of work is a fascinating part of being a viewer. I think it’s also true that many images can only be understood as part of a person’s output. I’ve even seen it suggested that putting together a portfolio leads a student photographer to discover that they actually have a personality and what it looks like - whether or not it appeals to anyone else!

 

[Algo después]

-Rodchenko
-Moholy-Nagy
-Herbert Matter
-Tichy
-Nadar
-Prokudin Gorsky
-T.G. Hamliton
-Nan Goldin
- Muybridge
-Chambi

 

[MattKing]

I haven't posted a list, because for whatever reason I don't tend to organize my admiration by photographer.

That’s rather intriguing, Matt. Have you really no idea why not?

One important reason is probably that I don't buy and collect books by photographers .
But more generally, I am more likely to wander through the photography itself, often moving from photographer to photographer, noting how their influences seem to interact with each other, including how they influence each other.
So when people complain about genres and academia, I find myself somewhat surprised, because I find observations about genres and the trends that academia loves to be a source of inspiration - often frustrating and confusing and pig headedly obtuse - but still inspiring.