Should we start a new photographic movement?

Vaughn said:

That is one thing about being involved in education...one will always leave a mark. One just hopes they are mostly positive.

Click to expand...

So true. That is why I gave up my former career (industrial design/construct) and became a high school teacher at age 39. I wanted to have some, hopefully, positive impact on society and figured that planting seeds was one of the best ways I could do that.

Young photographers mostly have access to good printers.

Young photographers virtually always use great cameras constantly. They carry wonderful cameras everywhere and make photos their ancestors would not have dared.

This is our movement:

The cartoon reminds me of Fukuyama's End of History book. It's over. Nothing new to discover or change.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I don't think I was twisting anyone's arm. …

Click to expand...

I’ve always thought it was curious, if not hypocritical, that someone who starts multiple thread titled “Post your…..here” is the last one to do so.

VinceInMT said:

I’ve always thought it was curious, if not hypocritical, that someone who starts multiple thread titled “Post your…..here” is the last one to do so.

Click to expand...

I think the "bully" part comes in when someone knows that some people do not like displaying their images on the internet and have given their reasons, yet the bully persistently calls them names or try to discount their opinions/experience because they differ from bully's own opinion about posting images.

Vaughn said:

I think the "bully" part comes in when someone knows that some people do not like displaying their images on the internet and have given their reasons, yet the bully persistently calls them names or try to discount their opinions/experience because they differ from bully's own opinion about posting images.

Click to expand...

Noted. Thanks.

Vaughn said:

I think the "bully" part comes in when someone knows that some people do not like displaying their images on the internet and have given their reasons, yet the bully persistently calls them names or try to discount their opinions/experience because they differ from bully's own opinion about posting images.

Click to expand...

Vaughn, I understand some people don't want to post pictures generally for professional or other reasons. But it's legitimate and not bullying to ask someone to show samples of their results when they suggest a new procedure or process they use and recommend. Even if the procedure is very effective, the results may not be what the viewer needs or not their taste. How could they know without seeing it? Before someone buys a lens here, they want to see a picture of it. It's the same thing. Also, there are people here who make unsubstantiated claims. Showing samples separates the wheat from the chaff. PS> I'm not referring to you here.

Of course one has the right to ask questions and request images for clarification...but no right to demand them. If one knows the other person does not post images, than it is bullying (or perhaps badgering, with apologies to badgers) to keep bugging them about it, with apologies to bugs, everywhere. One has a right not to trust an opinion or presented fact based on the lack of image-based 'proof'...but one risks missing out on some incredible information. When coming across conflicting opinions and concepts, we also have the option of checking out the information ourselves, by using logic coupled with an open mind, and perhaps some experimenting ourselves...or Google if one must.

But 95% of the time, these folks are also talking about fine differences in the use and understanding of the process and materials -- so fine, that it is impossible to determine on a computer screen if the image supports their argument or not.

No, when it comes to bullying, I do not exclude myself, and am disappointed in myself when I realize it happens.

Vaughn said:

Of course one has the right to ask questions and request images for clarification...but no right to demand them. If one knows the other person does not post images, than it is bullying (or perhaps badgering, with apologies to badgers) to keep bugging them about it, with apologies to bugs, everywhere. One has a right not to trust an opinion or presented fact based on the lack of image-based 'proof'...but one risks missing out on some incredible information. When coming across conflicting opinions and concepts, we also have the option of checking out the information ourselves, by using logic coupled with an open mind, and perhaps some experimenting ourselves...or Google if one must.

But 95% of the time, these folks are also talking about fine differences in the use and understanding of the process and materials -- so fine, that it is impossible to determine on a computer screen if the image supports their argument or not.

No, when it comes to bullying, I do not exclude myself, and am disappointed in myself when I realize it happens.

Click to expand...

It's easier to buy what someone is selling if they can show samples. But, I don't think I demand anything. If they don't want to show, so be it.

That's a different subject altogether. The present topic refers to personal images -- not images of equipment, for sale.

Folks,
Post your work, or refrain from posting your work, that is your choice.
Understand though that if you don't, people have the right to discount or even outright disbelieve the words you post, if those words reference the photographic experiences you intend to share.
We make it very easy to post digital facsimiles of what you do photographically. If you choose not to do so, don't be surprised if some people won't "listen" to what you say about it.

MattKing said:

Folks,
Post your work, or refrain from posting your work, that is your choice.
Understand though that if you don't, people have the right to discount or even outright disbelieve the words you post, if those words reference the photographic experiences you intend to share.
We make it very easy to post digital facsimiles of what you do photographically. If you choose not to do so, don't be surprised if some people won't "listen" to what you say about it.

Click to expand...

Matt, I think it is wholly inappropriate for a moderator to publish such an (essentially editorial) one sided opinion which may lend itself to suggest a member can seek moderators' approval by following a recommended behavior. Your post may be an subtle example of victim blaming. You have made it the writer's fault if a reader does not believe him.
Of course, to paraphrase a different opinion, it may be better to not post a photograph and have people wonder if you know what you are talking about, than to post a picture and remove all doubt.

cowanw said:

Matt, I think it is wholly inappropriate for a moderator to publish such an (essentially editorial) one sided opinion which may lend itself to suggest a member can seek moderators' approval by following a recommended behavior. Your post may be an subtle example of victim blaming. You have made it the writer's fault if a reader does not believe him.
Of course, to paraphrase a different opinion, it may be better to not post a photograph and have people wonder if you know what you are talking about, than to post a picture and remove all doubt.

Click to expand...

Someone echoing my thoughts. Blame the victim, again.

MattKing said:

Folks,
Post your work, or refrain from posting your work, that is your choice.

We make it very easy to post digital facsimiles of what you do photographically.

Click to expand...

That is official site policy. And as a moderator I both support it, and will defend it.

MattKing said:

Understand though that if you don't, people have the right to discount or even outright disbelieve the words you post, if those words reference the photographic experiences you intend to share. ........ If choose not to do so, don't be surprised if some people won't "listen" to what you say about it.

Click to expand...

That is a long term member's observation about how much of the membership tends to react to another member's decision to not post photos.
It is a caution of sorts - not telling anyone to do something, but rather warning them about how the membership is likely to react.
And the membership is entitled to react that way - it is site policy to let the membership come to that decision, and to state that fact.

cowanw said:

You have made it the writer's fault if a reader does not believe him.

Click to expand...

It is the writer's fault if a reader doesn't believe him. It is up to the writer to be convincing - not up to the reader to be convinced.

cowanw said:

Your post may be an subtle example of victim blaming.

Click to expand...

There's no victim. It is the choice of whoever decides to not post photos.

That said, the most anyone should do is ask that an example or demonstration be shown. When it isn't, if that makes you disregard the claim, just move on.

However, often you can comprehend that a procedure or method will likely work a certain way just from the description.
Especially if you have some experience.

Don Heisz said:

It is the writer's fault if a reader doesn't believe him. It is up to the writer to be convincing - not up to the reader to be convinced.

Click to expand...

Say, you're curious how to produce a split toned print. Someone explains an approach, but doesn't show an example. What do you do - consider their approach, perhaps try it out? Or just dismiss it - after all, no example has been shown, hence the information provided cannot/should not be taken into consideration?

It's someone's own loss if they decide to disregard information that might be useful to them.

I learned a lot from people who didn't post examples of what they meant and also from people who didn't show credentials of their expertise (perhaps because they had none).

koraks said:

It's someone's own loss if they decide to disregard information that might be useful to them.

Click to expand...

That's exactly true. Not everything needs an example. Also, it can be discouraging to genuinely knowledgeable people to be constantly asked for examples. Demanding "proof" could cause a lot of people who do know how to do lots of stuff but don't actually have any examples of their own (for whatever reason) to not volunteer any information.

However, when a claim is contentious or counter-intuitive, you can't expect people to believe you if you don't demonstrate. But even then, if you don't have an example at hand, should you shut up about it?

Don Heisz said:

However, when a claim is contentious or counter-intuitive, you can't expect people to believe you if you don't demonstrate. But even then, if you don't have an example at hand, should you shut up about it?

Click to expand...

Certainly so! And if the consequence then is that people remain skeptical about such claims, that's understandable. Nonetheless, sometimes it's possible to provide other means of illustration. This could be a theoretical proof, or measurements. Example photos are nice and often useful. They're not essential.

It may be useful to look at the origins of other movements. Here is a quite good listing of various movements. George, if you want to actually do something about a new movement, you going to need to provide leadership and finely tuned political and social skills. And deal with the realization the new movements reflect new realities and technique.

https://onphotography13.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/a-brief-history-of-photographic-art-movements/

Movements seem to primarily be the expression of singular personalities. But also an expression of the technical advances of possibilities of the times and of changes in society.

The first twenty years of photography, from its origins as either of daguerreotypes or of Calotypes was itself the origin of the recurring debate between sharply focused (straight) photography and the artistic photography of the paper processes. This has been a recurrent conflict in a variety of forms, but always as an expression of a different technical basis. The arguments recurred but not exactly as before. After the development of Glass collodion, the sharply focused aesthetic was predominant until the development of naturalism and a debate between Henry Peach Robinson and manipulated images and Peter Henry Emerson and unaltered natural photography.

Pictorialism developed in the 1880s as photography began to open up to the masses with the first Kodak cameras from George Eastman. The Pictorialists strove to go beyond the clinical, focused detail of the photograph, beyond the “snapshot”, to invoke a feeling, a mood or an atmosphere in the print. They might manipulate the print or use a soft focused lens or pinhole. The movement lasted almost 40 years (or 140 years depending on how you think of it). The subject matter was often life and landscapes, architecture, and portraiture.

The Linked Ring (1892-1909) was formed by the Pictorialist photographer George Davidson in England along with other members of the Royal Photographic Society who objected to the more technical emphasis of the Society. The first members included Julia Margaret Cameron and Henry Peach Robinson. Membership in the group generally held the position that photography should be seen as an art form.

The Photo Succession (USA). Alfred Stieglitz (along with Edward Steichen) formed the Photo Succession in 1902 in NYC as a Pictorial group. He later moved toward more urban themes, similar to the American “Ash Can School” (1908-1918) of realistic inner-city painting.

Stieglitz’s’ story may be most relevant to the idea of creating a movement, so I shall return to this particularly American version of Pictorialism.

Expressionism (Germany, 1905-25) used emphasis and distortion to create an emotional response. Consider the distorted nudes of Dritikol and Kertesz from the 20s.

Futurism (Italy, 1909-1944) Giulio Bragaglia used multiple exposure and time-lapse techniques to show movement and dynamism in still photographs, as illustrations of the machine-age Futurist doctrine.

Cubism (Europe c1910) arose just before WWI and is characterized by a reduction of the image to geometrical forms and multiple viewpoints.

Dada (Germany 1915-23) was a movement that followed the Great War and set about to dismantle tradition. One of the most important features was a desire for the influence of chance, of accident. Photo-collage was used to create intellectually challenging absurd non-images. Photograms were also created by placing objects directly on photographic paper and exposing them directly.

Constructivism (Russia 1915) and the Bauhaus (Germany) celebrated the machine in abstract photographs, creating art for the industrial age, a utilitarian art. The paintings were created using strict mathematical and technical principles.

Surrealism (France c1920) aimed to explore the unconscious, using unexpected juxtapositions of objects and spontaneous technique. Andre Breton published the Manifesto in 1924 that established the basis of the movement. Man Ray was a painter and photographer at the centre of this movement.

Modernism has usually, in the United States, been attributed to Stieglitz as well, through his association with Paul Strand and straight photography, but Modernism was a worldwide movement with many “originators”- Germany’s New Objectivity, Surrealists in France, and Constructivists in Russia were all within the Modernist movement.

F.64 (1932, USA) This group was formed in 1932 by, among others, Weston, Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Willard Van Dyke. The grouping was short lived, disbanding in practice by 1935, but has had a profound effect in the recurring debate, first encountered in the Daguerreotype vs Calotype affray.

Photojournalism (1920s) with more portable cameras came more “street photography” with Henri Cartier-Bresson (“the decisive moment”) advocating a snapshot style, Berenice Abbot and Helen Levitt documented New York City. Of course photojournalism had been carried on since the 1840s but the widespread use of the style had to wait for more portable cameras.

There are newer forms of movements which I know less about and will leave to others to recount if they choose to.

Back to what George can learn from Stieglitz.

Stieglitz first used written criticism and comment to achieve a specific personal goal; that is to present his circle of friends as the vanguard of independent (while dependent on him) practitioners whose work was promoted as the natural progression of artistic photography. By promoting a specific set of photographers as a movement of independent artistic photography and he and his associates as the, self-evidently, only future of photography Stieglitz undermined other alternative producers and forums of artistic photography.

He provided a vertical organizational structure combining intellectual control of his producers of product and his advertising and promotion of that product with the venue for sales of that product. This vertical control is exemplified by the central organization “The Photo-Secession” founded in 1902 in such a way as some member never realized that they were members even as the value added aspect of their work was being co-opted.

This was followed a year later by Camera Work, the printed organ of his efforts. As a bully pulpit this was predated by Stieglitz’s editorship of “Camera Notes” of the New York Camera Club. But despite being regularly promoted as independent, Camera Work was used to keep readers informed of the Photo Secession. To photographers west of New York, the journal was the Photo Secession presented as independent, presented as unified, presented as working towards a single aesthetic goal, presented as elite, and presented as the only possible and natural entity for authority over American ( and thusly world) photography. Stieglitz was quick to undercut, as a point of principle rather than debate, other potential leaders such as Julius Strauss, F. Holland Day and later Clarence White and claimed for himself the sole rights to interpret photographic art and its history. Such self- interpretation, in the guise of independence, excluded alternate interpretations.

Three years on from the introduction of his publishing Camera Work, the sales venue of his empire opened as the “Little Galleries”. Here was an “independent space” wherein Stieglitz could control the message and exclude photographers whose questioned or competed with his exclusive leadership. By keeping the display and distribution of Secession production separate, in the gallery and also while on loan to other venues, the validity of the secession message and its elite status was maintained. The Philadelphia exhibition submitted to Stieglitz’s demands concerning control and presentation while the St. Louis exhibition did not. Not surprisingly, The St. Louis exhibition received a disparaging review in Camera Work- old, stale, and ignorant of modern developments, by which of course was meant the imagery of the Stieglitz coterie.

This vertical structure readily acted as a gate keeping structure; there were outsiders who opposed his centralized control, who had no validity, and there were his accredited insiders.

Stieglitz fully understood the need of a multilayered virtual institutional approach to building an artistic movement, while keeping any formal institutional structures in his own hands. His goal was to create the one (linked) ring to control them all.

cowanw said:

…Stieglitz fully understood the need of a multilayered virtual institutional approach to building an artistic movement, while keeping any formal institutional structures in his own hands. His goal was to create the one (linked) ring to control them all.

Click to expand...

In other words, it’s about the money: who generates the demand, who creates the work that sells, and who gets a cut of the action.

While Stieglitz was independently wealthy he was notoriously stingy and slow giving his artists their cut of the purchase prices and his business practices were-- not transparent.
Personally, in this case, I think it is more about the need for power and control over others.

cowanw said:

While Stieglitz was independently wealthy he was notoriously stingy and slow giving his artists their cut of the purchase prices and his business practices were-- not transparent.
Personally, in this case, I think it is more about the need for power and control over others.

Click to expand...

I agree and money is certainly one way to wield that power.