Pre-programming and blindness

bjorke · Dec 15, 2003

Here's the bit that sticks in my craw:

Aurore said:
Leave the books of other people's photographs for somebody else... I really don't care, and chances are, I won't like it anyhow.

Given that we live in a culture bathed continuously in media, chosing to deliberately avoid media that is specifically presented for the sake of its ideas -- that is, not for the precision of its technical execution, or for some other reason such as selling soap or idolizing the already-famous -- is to commit a sort of auto-lobotomy.

One cannot pretend that one is without influences. To know them is, in a very real way, to know your own taste and your own mentality. You are what you eat. One can also choose to have specific influences. But to choose to avoid the work generally known to be among the best is either (a) to delude oneself into believing that this work is inferior to your own inner vision, and/or (b) to prefer to wallow in the safe realm of the mediocre least-common-denominator. In both cases you end up locked in a mental prison of your own construction.

It is a bit like saying you prefer to avoid salad and fruits because you worry that they will degrade your preference for Krispy Kreme & McDonald's fries.

juan · Dec 15, 2003

Ed, my study of the roots of jazz indicated the early musicians did, in fact, play improvisations of traditional songs - church music and marches, mainly. The musicians may, or may not, have been able to read music, but they certainly learned the standards of their day. They played over a structure. They had to - you can't create art from anarchy.

I believe photography is the same. You have to learn enough about your camera and materials and their structure before you can create art. You can follow the rules or break the rules, but in breaking them, you create your own new rules.
juan

Ed Sukach · Dec 15, 2003

juan said:
They had to - you can't create art from anarchy.

I believe photography is the same. You have to learn enough about your camera and materials and their structure before you can create art. You can follow the rules or break the rules, but in breaking them, you create your own new rules.
juan

Jorge, I respect your point of view, but I am forced to disagree.

I think the really significant art DOES, in fact, come from a "rule-less" atmosphere=- "Anarchy", if you will. Not a situation where one carefully considers the "rules" and consciously decides to deviate from them, but from a clear, blank sheet of paper.

Three instances come to mind:

Gordon Parks - whose first experience with photography consisted of buying a second-hand camera loaded with film, photographing a few images - and then returning the camera to the shop where he bought it, because he did not know how to unload the film himself. Not even close to any pre-conceived "rules".
The camera shop owner unloaded, developed and printed the film - and invited Gordon to have his own show in a gallery associated with the shop.

Then - Linda Eastman (later, Linda McCartney - married to Paul, of the Beatles).
She attended an Extension Course class in photography, taught by a "great light", Anne Archer. After the first session, she, and the class, had an assignment - take some photographs and bring them to the next class. She borrowed a camera, photographed, and had the film processed at the local one-hour lab. When Archer saw these, she said, "There is nothing more I can teach you. You have the `eye'."
Linda went on to be a world recognized photographer ... with, as far as I know, no additional "training" ... and no more "rule deviation" than her first assignment examples.

Then - there was Jackson Pollock ... who first gained recognition by slopping paint from a carelessly opened paint can onto a canvas...

And on the other side of the coin ... I've been trying to think of examples where the artist was educated to the teeth in Photography and/ or art ... and became really significant. Not easy.

Hmmm ... Adams? - No, his education was in Music....

Jim Chinn · Dec 15, 2003

Just a couple of comments on the original post after reading a very interesting thread.

I don't think a person needs to ever see the work of another photographer or the work of any other medium to create. The influences and inspiration for ones own work are everywhere in nature, and the industriousness of man. I do believe that you might be surprised that after photographing for a few years and then looked at the work of others you might find some similarities in subject and style with your own,

Although we cannot wake up with the slate wiped clean, we can make a conscious effort to look at the world around us in a new and different way. For myself sometimes I try to take a scene or object and try to deconstruct it to its simplest elements or try to contemplate it on a different plane of understanding from the obvious. I had read about a author/philosopher who would spend some time everyday doing this. An example would be he would study a coffee cup and consider various elements from the design to the materials it is mad of, to its uses. He might settle on the idea of thinking about the people who make the cup. Do the make it by hand? Is it made by a machine? Do they use these cups themselves?

I like to compare the way we intrepret and understand the world around us to the electromagnetic spectrum. Only a tiny sliver of wavelengths produce visible energy in the form of light. The vast majority of energy is there unseen, yet discoverable if the right tools and techniques are applied. the same is true of our ideas in relation to what we see. it is easy to stick with the visible. already understood and interpreted world. We need to strive to push into that invisible spectrum of ideas.

It sounds kind of silly at first but try it with any object you see and can think about for awhile. It can open some new ways of thinking and looking.

blansky · Dec 15, 2003

Ed, we were doing so well.

But this time I completely disagree.

Your first two examples of Gordon Parks and Linda McCartney kind of remind me of a post I made with reference to the art world. It was about access. I'm not sure whether I'm much impressed with either photographers work. In Gordon Parks case, he documented the black lifestyle that at the time was not covered or particularly cared about by anyone else. We could argue about the quality of the work but to me his work is about access and his desire to photograph what he saw every day. That to me doesn't make him a great photographer, just occasional interesting pictures, depending on your point of view.

I grew up in the Rocky Mountains. I could take pictures of these mountains by the truckload and sell them in Hawaii and say Phoenix and people would rave about them. Sell them locally, and it's, so what. We see this live, every day.

In Linda McCartney's case it's essentially the same thing. One of the few groupie/photographers that covered the rock and roll scene in it's early days. The work is in my opinion, mediocre. It is again just access. She was there, took snapshots of the "stars" and people gobble it up. Not because of the quailty of the work but because of the people she photographed. Shooting rock stars on stage is just like shooting baseball players playing ball. It's already lit, you just shoot away and occasionally you get something pretty good. Access.

It reminds me of Jeff Bridges new book coming out on his behind the scenes shots during his life in movies. Is a lot of mugging for the camera and since it's pictures of movie stars, people are gaga over it. Amazing. All about access.

I could say the same about Annie Liebowicz(sp?) but some of her recent work is improving. She was initially employed by Rolling Stone and shot rock stars, pretty mediocre stuff.

The reason these people are famous is in my opinion, the access, I talked about. The fact that you think their work good because it is "rule-less" I actually think their work is essentially snapshots, while occassionally somewhat interesting, certainly not great photography.

Just my humble opinion.

Michael McBlane

Ed Sukach · Dec 15, 2003

blansky said:
In Linda McCartney's case it's essentially the same thing. One of the few groupie/photographers that covered the rock and roll scene in it's early days. The work is in my opinion, mediocre.
The reason these people are famous is in my opinion, the access, I talked about. The fact that you think their work good because it is "rule-less" I actually think their work is essentially snapshots, while occassionally somewhat interesting, certainly not great photography.

Just my humble opinion.

Your opinion may be "humble" but it is none the less of great value.

I cite the examples not for the fact that they were first "rule-less" and therefore "great" simply because of being rule-less; but that they had exhibited a certain "talent" (for want of a better word) when they were still unknown. Archer saw Linda Eastman's work, far before her encounter with the Beatles - and I know she did not start as one of countless "groupies" ... she happened to be on the Staten Island Ferry with a camera, when the scheduled photographer failed to show up - he had missed the Ferry. They recruited her - and when they saw her work, concluded it FAR superior to what they had expected from the "famous" photographer. In any event, I really like her work not from her photographs of the Beatles, but the later *FINE* photography she did, before succumbing to breast cancer.

Parks was far more than an opportunist. He "started" - well, not really, but he made his first professional "bones" in Fashion photography, at a store in Chicago called "Frank Murhpy's." Later he was sent to Vogue by Steichen and hired to work at Glamour and Voque.
Parks is remembered for his work documenting the black life style -- brilliant work, in *my* opinion, but he has done *so* much more.

There is a value to "creating" - and I can't conceive of "creation" as merely a modification of that which has been done before. True, facility with any medium is of value - it *helps* to know how to hold a chisel in sculpture - but the really important thing .. the vision, or "choice of concept" or the "what to do" is FAR more important.

Hmmm ... might that be a delineation between "art" and "craft"? Art is fresh creation - Craft is refinement of what has been done before...?

Aurore · Dec 15, 2003

Bjorke -
"But to choose to avoid the work generally known to be among the best"

The best? Are you kidding? I did say Barnes and Noble, didn't I? Just a generic example, yes, but indicative of the prevalent over-prodution of what somebody or other chooses to call 'art'. It's like trying to find decent programming amongst 300 cable channels. And, you guessed it, I very rarely watch TV. I have better things to do with my time than flip through channels looking for programming that is actually worth sitting on my @ss to watch for any length of time. (OK, so I'm sitting on my @ss at the computer. But... I'm being productive... sort of.)

Why would I want to go searching for a needle in a haystack when I have the means to just go make my own goddamn needle?

And who knows, maybe I'll step on a few random needles along the way.

You know, you did say it yourself; "Given that we live in a culture bathed continuously in media". I'm not choosing to avoid media presented for the sake of it's ideas... I'm just not willing to sort through so much of the other crap (inevitably most all of it) to find the decent stuff. I know I can just do what I do and I will manage to come across it here and there... or, it will come across me, anyhow.

Yes, I'm exceedingly critical. I'm not ashamed of it. And I'm not an egotistical, condescending snob, though were I to express my true opinion on everything and anything most would be likely to think so (I imagine you do by this point). The general majority of people are so very quick to call anybody with high standards disparaging and cynical. As if it is somehow preferrable to being at the other extreme; naive and dupable. I am aware, and accepting of the fact, that although most 'art' does not in the least inspire me to do anything but grimace in pain, it has value as 'art' to some, perhaps many, people. While I often do not agree with the majority of people, and their taste, I don't denounce them as fools. I am certainly aware that I may just as easily be the fool... it is all in how you look at it, and it is not really possibly to say which is true or untrue - it is entirely subjective. And no, I don't denounce the majority of work presented as 'art' because I need to convince myself that I, along with my art, am superior to everyone else. I simply have high standards, and am not easily impressed and/or inspired by the majority of what is labeled 'art'. I don't see anything wrong with being selective. It is my right, and I do have my reasons.

In fact, if I am to be perfectly honest, I often realize inside of myself a need for what I could only term 'true' art. That is, art that is art... above all else, unrivalled by any other thing that might call itself art. Oh, if I could express what I mean... In my mind, it's a something that is not yet in existence. I feel as if there must be, whether somewhere unbeknownst to me, or sometime that has not yet come, a something that is ART. I have a feeling that is a whisper of what that art would make me feel. And it exists only yet in my mind. One day I want to find that ART that makes me feel the way I'm certain the most exceptional art could make me feel. It hasn't happened yet... maybe it's a fever dream. Maybe I want to be the one to create that ART. Maybe this is only a subconscious-generated fantasy meant to convey to me that my life has some great significance, because deep down I believe my life is absolutely meaningless. Who knows?

My god, I'm foaming at the mouth now... maybe it's time for a breather.

:wacko:

blansky · Dec 16, 2003

Ed:

Again we can agree to disagree, because essentially it is just opinion, but in my opinion, a great photograph does not necessarily make someone a great photographer. While these two probably did a few great photographs, I don't see them a great photographers.

It is like in the first case, Gordon Parks. Lets say a person comes back from being kidnapped by aliens and has a whole selection of incredibly interesting photographs of their lifestyle. While they may be interesting, that does not make the photographer a great photogapher. I just don't find his work that strong.

In the second case I find that for some unknown reason people are so starstruck that anytime they see a picture of a famous person they are in awe of the picture and call the work a truimph. She may have started whenever, but her fame came from the Rock and Roll pictures she took and the access she had. Afterwards, because of her name and fame, anything she does later on is considered great. Don't buy it.

My criteria is to substitute the subject in the photograph with Bob your next door neighbor and if the picture still stands up, it is a good photograph. That would eliminate 99% of celebrity and famous people pictures.

As I said before, If you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people.

Your last statement however I find to be a great definition that I think could be very accurate." Art is fresh creation...craft is refinement of what has gone before.

To me a great photographer is not necessarily someone who photographs something completely new (aliens, mudmen of new guinea etc) but someone who photographs something we've all seen before in a new and different way.

To me a great photographer is not someone who photographs a person that we all know but someone who photographs any person, in a new and different way.

This to me shows, creativity, originality, artistry, and skill that is the sign of a true artist. I'm not sure I've ever seen this in an untrained person.

Michael McBlane

Ed Sukach · Dec 16, 2003

blansky said:
... because essentially it is just opinion, but in my opinion, a great photograph does not necessarily make someone a great photographer. While these two probably did a few great photographs, I don't see them a great photographers.
...To me a great photographer is not someone who photographs a person that we all know but someone who photographs any person, in a new and different way.

This to me shows, creativity, originality, artistry, and skill that is the sign of a true artist. I'm not sure I've ever seen this in an untrained person.

Michael,

I wish I could take more time to write today, but I'm under the gun. I have promises to keep - photographs for a Model's portfolio ... and I am really out of time.

We are not that far out of agreement. I do not think a few good photographs "make" a "great photographer" either - just what does, if in fact "Great" photographers even exist - I do not know. I'm only suggesting that one considers the largest body of their work - instead of a few stereotypical examples.

I *have* seen *wonderful* work from the hands of those "untrained" in photography .. as a matter of fact, the most difficult part of teaching High School students is to get THEM to recognize their own *fine* work.

I sense a different direction between our points of view .. I think you are (Oh, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong!!) bothered by those whom you perceive to have achieved "status" without deserving it. I cannot help but agree that they do exist, but these "phonies" are not something I dwell on. It is easy to try to find fault (possibly a little too strong a characterization ... but it will suffice for now) with their work .. but I refuse to deal out what little energy I have on the subject - I'll leave that to the fine folk on PhotoSig (see which, for some really BIZARRE critiques).

Myself... I am constantly searching for the good ones ... the hidden jewels ... no matter what the source... beginner, arrogant pompous elitist (rare to find any there), the old masters - wherever.

"As ye seek so shall you find." In searching for the brilliant gems, I've found MANY in some of the most improbable places - like the hands of the "rule-less" beginners.

Enough. To the enlarger and processor...

bjorke · Dec 16, 2003

"known to be the best" -- yes, an awkward line & I winced when typing it. However:

By coincidence, I was at Barnes & Noble's two days ago. While there I noticed that they had quite a bit that I would think is quite worthy of attention:

Bergman's A Kind of Rapture
Arbus Revelations and also Diane Arbus and Magazine Work
Aoki's Fruits
Gibson's Deus Ex Machina
Avedon's Portraits
Abell's The Photographic Life
Josef Alber's Interaction of Color
Eggleston's Guide
A number of "55's" including Boris Mikhailov, Atget, Koudelka, Smith, more.
Two W. Eugene Smith books
Sontag's Regarding the Pain of Others
The Abbeville World History of Photography
The latest issue of Aperture and several older ones
Maas's Victorian Painters

and much more -- that's just the stuff I noticed when browsing (I bought a copy of Fruits as a gift -- don't tell)

Use the library to save cash if you must. The suburban library near me is poor, though with a bigger art book budget than I could possibly have. The downtown library in San Jose is excellent.

"Art" has taken on the mantle previously reserved by religion as a means for glimpsing at the intangible otherness of a universe greater than ourselves and mysterious in its ways -- this has been true in secular art at least since the 1850's (probably due in large part to art's connection with theological mysticism back to the Lascaux caves and continuing through and beyond Saudek, Sherman, Serrano... what George Sand romantically described as "Art... is the seeking for ideal truth") (Or Salman Rushdie: "Not even the visionary or mystical experience ever lasts very long. It is for art to capture that experience, to offer it to, in the case of literature, its readers; to be, for a secular, materialist culture, some sort of replacement for what the love of god offers in the world of faith.") I do not, however, believe that this is an excuse for complete self-involvement to the exclusion of external influences.

All photographers need large photo books, don't fool yourself -- at a minimum, they're invaluable for making sure prints dry flat.

Michael A. Smith · Dec 17, 2003

Ed, going back to an earlier post of yours. I believe your assumptions about Parks and McCartney are in error. They were hardly naive photographers--even from their first roll of film. They were certainly influenced by photographs they had seen--not photographs from the "HIstory of Photography", but photographs nonetheless. The only people who could make truly uninfluenced photographs would be those who have never before seen a photograph.

And Jackdon Pollock was ahrdly an innocent. He had studied painting with Thomas Hart Benton, was a Surrealist painter after that--and a fine one, and his drip painting grew out of that quite organically.

Aurore · Dec 17, 2003

Hmmmm... It is slightly ironic that this has now evolved into an obsessive conversation about other artists, isn't it?

lol.

:roll:

Ed Sukach · Dec 17, 2003

Michael A. Smith said:
Ed, going back to an earlier post of yours. I believe your assumptions about Parks and McCartney are in error. They were hardly naive photographers--even from their first roll of film. They were certainly influenced by photographs they had seen--not photographs from the "HIstory of Photography", but photographs nonetheless. The only people who could make truly uninfluenced photographs would be those who have never before seen a photograph.

Two possibilties here ... either NOT what I've said, or more probably, not what I MEANT to say. The key here is the difference between "Trained" - to the point of being an expert in the technical aspects of photography before one is ABLE to be a "great" photographer - and the idea that there could be something else that is more important than that.

Both were largely *unfamiliar* with the process and equipment, and all the complex discussions of composition. The did have an innate capability to "put something of themselves" into their work from the very beginning.

Of course we are influenced by the our contact with the world around us ... oter photographs, images from a myriad of sources ... ineviatble , and by *NO* means something to be avoided.
At the same time, the realy significant, important work comes not from empiracal, artificial concepts (of "fine" photography), but from the Mavericks who think and work .. and DO outside of the "box"... and THAT is the quality I'm talking about. Many neophytes produce OUTSTANDING work (and it is common for many to NOT realize its worth) because they simply did not know there was a "box" in the first place ... therefore, they were automatically out of any "box".

Here is an idea ... Quite a few "beginners" are TAUGHT to keep a record of the "technical" qualities of their work .. Exposure, f/stop, shutter speed, film, lens -- I don't know, time of day, phase of moon, atmospheric pressure.....
When, IMHO, the attention should be directed toward the really important information - the "zeitgiest" of the situation, the emotionl response and "frame of mind" of the photographer ... hungry? .. cold? ... thirsty? -all factors influencing the emotional content of the work - something FAR more imprtant .. again *IMHO*.

P.S. I've just tried my BernzOmatic Mini-Torch ... what a *classy* way to get a blanket of Butane onto unused chemicals!!

Michael A. Smith · Dec 17, 2003

No Aurore, this is not about other photographers. It has nothing to do with either Parks or McCartney. This is about an issue Ed raised about the necessity or lack thereof of knowing what you are doing before you do it. As such, it touches directly on your first posting here about not being interested in the work in the medium that has gone before.

No argument from me, Ed except that your language is sloppy. You introduce elements into this discussion that throw it off track and are imprecise. You wrote:

"The key here is the difference between "Trained" - to the point of being an expert in the technical aspects of photography before one is ABLE to be a "great" photographer - and the idea that there could be something else that is more important than that"

My question: What does training have to do with it? You can learn technical things just by picking them up--without being trained.

Your assumption is simply not true. You cannot name one photographer generally considered "great" who did not have an exact and precise knowledge and understanding and the abililty to use anything technical that they needed. (Though you could easily find many good photographs by untrained people--"great," hpwever, implies a body of work made over time.) Now, of course, they all did not need the same thing. Robert Frank did not print like Ansel Adams, but his technical abilities are absolutely superior and he had a full understanding of what he needed to know technically.

And then you wrote: "At the same time, the realy significant, important work comes not from empiracal, artificial concepts (of "fine" photography), but from the Mavericks who think and work .. and DO outside of the "box"... and THAT is the quality I'm talking about."

What do you mean by "empirical, artificial concept of fine photography." I don't have a clue here. And please, name those Mavericks who have done important work. I assume you mean "untrained" mavericks. You would leave out, Bill Brandt, Stieglitz, Weston, Arbus, Frank, W. E. Smith, Callahan, Friedlander, Evans, Lange. Not all of them were terribly interested in technical things, but they all sure had it down cold, or else we would not find their work of interest.

So, Aurore, to get back to you: All of these photographers were influenced by those that came before. That does not mean those influences stayed with them, but a full understanding and appreciation of those influences was the base from which they could go beyond them (their influences).

Ed Sukach · Dec 17, 2003

Michael A. Smith said:
No argument from me, Ed except that your language is sloppy. You introduce elements into this discussion that throw it off track and are imprecise. You wrote:

"The key here is the difference between "Trained"...

What do you mean by "empirical, artificial concept of fine photography." I don't have a clue here. And please, name those Mavericks who have done important work. I assume you mean "untrained" mavericks. You would leave out, Bill Brandt, Stieglitz, Weston, Arbus, Frank, W. E. Smith, Callahan, Friedlander, Evans, Lange. Not all of them were terribly interested in technical things, but they all sure had it down cold, or else we would not find their work of interest.

Well, I was about to take all this point by point, but I will just say that I continue to disagree.

Of course you can learn by "picking it up yourself" ... I would have thought you had more respect for what I have written than that.

I will repeat ... the really *SIGNIFICANT* work is done by mavericks ... the outsiders to those "steeped" in pre-conceived ideas, foisted on them by those who consider THEMSELVES to be the "great photographers."
If you will notice, I avoid using the term "Great" ... I have been fortunate to have met and interacted with some of the most highly regarded photographers of the time, and I know of *NONE* who would describe themselves as "great".
Really? - They "have it down "cold?." - Nothing left to learn?
- Not according to what THEY say ... most are still surprised that their work turns out as well as it does, and they are most often a little "mystified" at their notoriety.

That I use words "ineffectively", or "clumsily" ... probably I do. Try to read through all the clumsiness - and think about the ideas.

That is an interesting list. Do you know of anyone there who WASN'T "slammed" by the knowledgable, educated, whatever kind of "trained" -- critics of the time .. who, collectively, "had it down cold"?

"We would not find their work of interest." -- AND *I* do!! I guess that can only lead to the conclusion that *I* am NOT part of the group considered to be "We".

- When was I kicked out?

lee · Dec 17, 2003

I don't think you were kicked out. But so far, I have to agree with Michael as to your statement of " the really *SIGNIFICANT* work is done by mavericks". I too, would like the names of the Mavericks that have done *Significant* work since you have not provided them yet.

The old saw that those that don't know the history of (name something here) are doomed to make the same mistakes again certainly apply here.

"Really? - They "have it down "cold?." - Nothing left to learn?" I don't think this the meaning that Michael meant. He talked about Robert Frank not printing like Ansel Adams but he knew what he had to know to make the images and prints that reflected his vision. That is how he had it down cold. That is all he meant (I think).

lee\c

Ole · Dec 17, 2003

Michael A. Smith said:
A ...photographer generally considered "great" who did not have an exact and precise knowledge and understanding and the abililty to use anything technical that they needed.

Julia Margaret Cameron? Acclaimed by her contemporaries as totally clueless about the science of photography?

Eadweard Muybridge - who FELT clueless, and so built his own technique which we still benefit from today (he needed shorter exposures for his motion studies)

Jan Sudek - a one-armed man with a plate camera...

- Ed, welcome to "Them". Since it's Them against Us, and they are "Us", we'll be the "Them"!

bjorke · Dec 17, 2003

Ole, J M Cameron had an entire darkroom BUILDING on her property. In those days all photo chemistry was hand-made by the photographer. While no chemist, she had a large learning curve technically.

Muybridge - same deal.

Sudek - a messy housekeeper, but quite skilled.

What all you examples shared, morever, was an ample number of intelligent influences -- Cameron's family connections put her in the company of many of England's best and brightest in the worlds of both Arts & Letters, as did Muybridge's friendship with Leland Stanford. Sudek also was part of a long-lived circle of artist/dealer friends.

To hold these people up as "outside the mainstream" is iffy. To say they were "without standard influences" is clearly wrong.

Ole · Dec 17, 2003

Well, Cameron and Muybridge were both active at a time when science was still driving photography along, and there wasn't really any "mainstream".

I'm not saying anything about JMC's chemistry skills (after all she had exellent tuition from her friend Sir john Herschel), but referring to what her contemporaries said about her basic technical skills: Things like focussing, sufficient exposure, keeping wet plates out of the dust and off the ground; things like that. Her artistic inspiration was clearly from painting, not from contemporary or earlier photographers.

Muybridge - just the opposite: He started out as a "normal" photographer, but drifted over to the scientific side. Long before he met Leland Stanford he had made significant advances in high-speed photography, creating the possibilty of the snapshot. Most of his output was intended as technical, not artistic. Yet he created a new way of photography.

Sudek started photography only after losing his arm. He had no previous training, and lived off his war disability pension while he figured things out. He didn't become "part of a long-lived circle of artist/dealer friends" until he had already established himself as an artist.
The biggest single influence on his photography was something that happened as late as 1940: He saw an 18th-century contact print. After that, he never enlarged again...

---------

Caveat: I'm at work, 400km away from my books. I write this as best I remember it, and could be completely and utterly wrong.

I'd mention the cut-and-paste Swede (Swedish-American?) as well, if I could only remember his name.

bjorke · Dec 17, 2003

Comparing Cameron's photos to her contemporaries like Lewis Carrol, or painters of the period like Alam-Tadema & Leighton, she sure seems pretty mainstream to me. In fact many of her subjects appear to be the same people one sees in Pre-Rafaelite imagery.

I'm not sure what your inclusion of Muybridge is meant to be -- if he was already trained as a photographer before starting on his later departures, then he fits exactly into the mold of "trained and therefore knowledgeable of both the medium's strengths and limitations."

As for Sudek, I seem to recall that e was also very keen on Atget. Have to admit that the one Sudek book I've had came from the library.

Ed Sukach · Dec 18, 2003

I of the "sloppy phrases" have been contemplating whether "having something [ down cold ] means "ultimate facility with ..." (a.k.a. "mastery - or more crudely, "nothing more to learn") or "Sufficient familiarity with to get by" ...

I have loaded film into Hasselblad magazines xxx times ... do I think I have achieved "mastery" over film loading? No ... I still have to be careful ... and occasionally (rarely) I still won't do it right. Oh, well... moving on...

The innovators of their times are the ones most remembered ... The ones that broke unfamiliar ground ... One can post an extensive list . Stieglitz -- see "Alfred Stieglitz - A Biography", by Richard Whelen - for an extensive description of his "working outside of the box" and all the flak he took for it ...and so many of his contemporary photographers ... Paul Strand, Weston ...so many others ... Bill Brandt was "trained" if you will, by working with someone I think had tried something new every day - and therefore had NOT "mastered" the craft - unless mastery can be achieved in a single session - Man Ray.

In any event - enough. I have NOT mastered photography. Every new "batch" of photographs that I take holds LOTS of "surprises" for me. Every time I do this thing, there are -- and I hope that there continues to be -- many examples of random "new ground" broken. Insecurity? Certainly - a necessary element of excitement. Disappointing? Oh yeah, at times ... but more than compensated for by the brilliant flashes of the ones that 'entrance" me.

Ed Sukach · Dec 18, 2003

I had an experience last night that was inspiring, and illustrates the "connection" between the "heart" and the performance.

I attended a High School concert ... "Large Ensemble Winter Concert" ... more or less a "command attendance" - my Granddaughter plays cello "ahead of herself" - with the High School Orchestra.

This was compartmentalized ... different pieces performed by individual organizations; Choir, "Band", Orchestra, with three different conductors.

The first two conductors - and their charges, were working hard to present finely crafted "work". I think they played all the notes correctly. Quite possibly, anyway. These were typical "High School" performances.

The third... was *MUSIC*!! The performers were "into" the music, the conductor was infused with ... the phrase that fits... is "joie de vivre"!! That music had LIFE to it!!! ... I heard later that there were "mistakes" made ... If there were any I didn't notice them ... and frankly, they didn't matter.

Everyone on that stage had a BALL!! Thoroughly enjoyed the heck out of every moment! - and that "joie" was infectious .. it quickly spread to the audience - and me.

There is, to me, a direct parallel. One can put a lot of effort into making a "perfect" print. I have really "worked" at it ... correcting every minor flaw... dodging, burning, tilting easels, pre-flashing .., agonizing.... there must be thousands of "tricks" that I have done -- some I can't even remember. And ... if not all of those times, then many .... I had been ignoring the *MOST* important element -- the "joie de vivre"!!!

I know not what course others may take ... but as for me ... Give me the qualities that make *music* in my work!!

.

Michael A. Smith · Dec 18, 2003

Now I'm really confused, Ed. Weston, Stieglitz, Strand, etc. were trained as photographers. If anyone had the technical side down, they did. Did they work "out of the box"? Sure they did. But in your earlier posting you were referring to untrained photographers who worked "out of the box."

Lee understood my meaning exactly regarding "having it down cold."

Sorry, Ed, I cannot overlook your fuzzy language. Fuzzy language equals fuzzy thinking. Fuzzy thinking equals fuzzy ideas. Sorry, but it does. Impossible, therefore, to hearken to the ideas and to ignore the language.

Of course the"life" in the work is what counts. You keep setting up this red herring or whatever the debaters call that kind of thing--you introduce a concept--in this case, technical proficiency is not needed, and then when that is answered you respond by saying it is the life of the work that counts. You respond as if by my saying that technical proficiency indeed counts I am implying that that is all there is and that I am not concerned with the "life" in the work. I cannot possibly imagine ahead of time the inferences you make and then the responses you make based on those inferences--responses that imply, in this case, to me (though to others as well), that all I care about is the technical stuff.

I took the word "great" from your posting.You may have been quoting me. Let's substitute "highly regarded." (There it is again, by the way--introducing a concept into this discussion that is supremely irrelevant--that no highly regarded photographer ever refers to themselves as "great." As if I said they did. Another red herring. Of course no great anybody in any field refers to themselves as "great." Most accomplished people, however, certainly do know their own worth. It is for others to call them great. I'll happily call quite a few photgraphers "great."

So, we are still waiting for the names of highly regarded photographers--who produced a consistently highly regarded body of work over time--who were "untrained" and who did not have their act together technically and, historically (knowing the medium). Since Ed raised this point, that there were such people, I believe it is incumbent on him to name them. Not for others to help him out here.

There is more, but I have been traveling for 22 hours and this is all the energy I can give to this right now.

doughowk · Dec 19, 2003

Every generation wants to think they are the rebels - that they act outside the box of conformity, eg., only they know the true joy of sex. Technical skills and the works of those that have gone before are shunned as somehow limiting on their artistic expression. These are fallacies that it seems every generation repeats, unfortunately for themselves. But maybe its a necessary fallacy for otherwise the ego would be overwhelmed to the point that most of us would be viewers/listeners/readers. The truly great are those who appreciate the skills necessary for an artistic medium and can learn from past masters while stil maintaining a creative spark.

Ed Sukach · Dec 19, 2003

Michael A. Smith said:
Now I'm really confused, Ed.

I think I have located the source of confusion. You have assumed that I was referiring to the idea that *NO* familiarity with the technical side was necessary, at ALL. Not true. I stated that the "techiniques" were SECONDARY ... not as IMPORTANT, as the intangibles ... the human involvement -- the "life" or "soul".

And getting back to the original point ... I DON"T think that involvement CAN be taught, per se -at least, not by traditional means.

"So, we are still waiting ...."

Oh, WE are, are we..?

Don't hold your breath. I won't confuse you any more with my "fuzzy" thinking ... and I won't endanger your crystal clear mastery of the craft, by voicing any kind of alternate OPINON.

Click to expand...

Pre-programming and blindness

bjorke

juan

Ed Sukach

Jim Chinn

blansky

Ed Sukach

Aurore

blansky

Ed Sukach

bjorke

Michael A. Smith

Aurore

Ed Sukach

Michael A. Smith

Ed Sukach

lee

Ole

Moderator

bjorke

Ole

Moderator

bjorke

Ed Sukach

Ed Sukach

Michael A. Smith

doughowk

Ed Sukach

Pre-programming and blindness

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency