Straight Photography or Pictorialism

Jonathan Brewer · Mar 8, 2007

'the definition of pictorialism as an evolving concept of photographic art,'.............I would ask you to quit putting words into my mouth, whatever I said, I didn't say it in the way you suggested above, although what I said by the time it gets to your brain may mean the above, understand, I think what I said speaks for itself, now as to this...............

................'Red is now blue, and my car is now a sailboat. Those who are a bit dull, please try to keep up'...............

.......................I respect what you have to say, hopefully you'll do the same as opposed to any suggestion of folks being a 'bit dull'.

Roger Hicks · Mar 8, 2007

Humpty Dumpty springs to mind: 'Words mean what I pay them to mean'.

There was a lot of vicious infighting in the 1930s, with Mortensen easily the most amusing writer and therefore perhaps the butt of the most vicious attacks by AA and his cronies. AA took better pictures, most of the time, but of a completely different kind, and he was a plodding writer.

Seventy years on, who cares? There are lots of attempts right here to redefine all kinds of everyday words.

Anything is legitimate in any art. All that matters is whether it works or not. To pretend that photography can ever be wholly objective (as f/64 adherents sometimes seem to imply) is as idiotic as pretending that a photograph is better merely because it isn't sharp, which sometimes seems to have been the theme of the Photo-Secessionists -- against whom, after all, f/64 was a reaction.

Cheers,

R.

Chuck_P · Mar 8, 2007

TheFlyingCamera said:
Chuck -

I'd respectfully disagree with your assessment that Kerik's image looks like some other art form.

Well, there in lies the fly in the ointment. It's what I believe it looks like that matters and I believe that it does look like a charcoal drawing. This is not an attack on his photography; it is merely my assessment of it as something to look at. That's my impression of it, there's really no right or wrong to it. Nothing is the law and we usually only produce what appeals to us.

Chuck

JBrunner · Mar 8, 2007

Jonathan Brewer said:
'the definition of pictorialism as an evolving concept of photographic art,'.............I would ask you to quit putting words into my mouth, whatever I said, I didn't say it in the way you suggested above, although what I said by the time it gets to your brain may mean the above, understand, I think what I said speaks for itself, now as to this...............

................'Red is now blue, and my car is now a sailboat. Those who are a bit dull, please try to keep up'...............

.......................I respect what you have to say, hopefully you'll do the same as opposed to any suggestion of folks being a 'bit dull'.

I most certainly did not get it wrong.

You drew a direct allegory between the term "pictorialism" and the term "African Art" in an attempt to explain your self evolved use of the term "pictorialism"

I wrote " I do not ascribe to the definition of pictorialism as an evolving concept of photographic art" Those are my words. My position. That you could attempt to confuse my position by saying I ascribe to you illustrates our loggerheads.

Redefining yourself, and a patronizing, insulting, and condescending attitude does not make your incorrect assessment of what constitutes pictorialism any less obvious.

Attempting to control a disscussion by usurping the meaning of language is a very old, very tired, and very obvious tactic.

Jonathan Brewer · Mar 8, 2007

'I most certainly did not get it wrong.

You drew a direct allegory between the term "pictorialism" and the term "African Art" in an attempt to explain your self evolving use of the term "pictorialism"

I wrote " I do not ascribe to the definition of pictorialism as an evolving concept of photographic art" Those are my words. My position. That you could confuse my position by saying I ascribe to you illustrates our loggerheads.........

That's totally ridiculous and 'ass backwards', it's not my 'explaining my self evolving use of the term pictorialism' it was saying this.......

.........'I disagree, I mean no such thing, as in your above quote, you 'think' that,............................I'm considering a concept held THEN by folks about African Art(which is I agree evolving), but apart from evolving, was initially dismissed because of folks inability THEN, to see what it really was.

What the word Pictorialism really means, how people used it to classify other folks work, and like we're discussing here, the premise that some folks were in denial about the pictorial aspects of their own work, is what I'm talking about with my reference to African Art................................be it African Art, or straight photography versus the 'fuzzy wuzzies', ............do we/did we/are we seeing the art for what is really is, and the arguments for what they really are.'............................

................NOW YOU SHOW ME WHERE I'm only talking about the DEFINITION of pictorialism, if there's any confusion it's because of your inablility to READ, READ WHAT I SAID, what's even more ridiculous is how you sum up what I said in terms of a single word and it's definition.

No one in this thread started with insults except you, or the suggestion that anybody that disagrees with you is a 'bit dull', now when somebody stands up to you about that, you show your 'ass',............now if you don't like what I said act like an adult and say I disagree, instead of a personal attack and 'riling against' imaginary insults.

SHOW ME in the previous 5 pages of this thread, any insults from me to anyone, and if you can't then please shut up.

JBrunner · Mar 8, 2007

Jonathan Brewer said:
'I most certainly did not get it wrong.

You drew a direct allegory between the term "pictorialism" and the term "African Art" in an attempt to explain your self evolving use of the term "pictorialism"

I wrote " I do not ascribe to the definition of pictorialism as an evolving concept of photographic art" Those are my words. My position. That you could confuse my position by saying I ascribe to you illustrates our loggerheads.........

That's totally ridiculous and 'ass backwards', it's not my 'explaining my self evolving use of the term pictorialism' it was saying this.......

.........'I disagree, I mean no such thing, as in your above quote, you 'think' that,............................I'm considering a concept held THEN by folks about African Art(which is I agree evolving), but apart from evolving, was initially dismissed because of folks inability THEN, to see what it really was.

What the word Pictorialism really means, how people used it to classify other folks work, and like we're discussing here, the premise that some folks were in denial about the pictorial aspects of their own work, is what I'm talking about with my reference to African Art................................be it African Art, or straight photography versus the 'fuzzy wuzzies', ............do we/did we/are we seeing the art for what is really is, and the arguments for what they really are.'............................

................NOW YOU SHOW ME WHERE I'm only talking about the DEFINITION of pictorialism, if there's any confusion it's because of your inablility to READ, READ WHAT I SAID, what's even more ridiculous is how you sum up what I said in terms of a single word and it's definition.

No one in this thread started with insults except you, or the suggestion that anybody that disagrees with you is a 'bit dull', now when somebody stands up to you about that, you show your 'ass',............now if you don't like what I said act like an adult and say I disagree, instead of a personal attack and 'riling against' imaginary insults.

SHOW ME in the previous 5 pages of this thread, any insults from me to anyone, and if you can't then please shut up.

At this point Jonathan, I am really not sure what you are on about. I don't understand the rant. Sorry.

Kerik · Mar 8, 2007

Chuck1 said:
It's what I believe it looks like that matters and I believe that it does look like a charcoal drawing.

Matters to you, yes. But, whatever. It's a shame you have such a narrow view of what a photograph can look like.

JBrunner · Mar 8, 2007

Kerik said:
Matters to you, yes. But, whatever. It's a shame you have such a narrow view of what a photograph can look like.

Is it possible that some of this may come from the viewing of this on a computer screen, as opposed to the real thing? I mean, if one sees a plate in person, most would not think it was at all similar to a charcoal drawing.

Jonathan Brewer · Mar 8, 2007

Yes you do...........my last post was no rant, it was on the money. I enjoy these discussions, appreciated everything everybody had to say, so nobody gets deleted/suspended, and I'll say this, so there's no ongoing flames between me and you. I'll attempt to do the moderators work before they have to

I didn't mind when you start calling what I said ridiculous, I'm grown, I can say your premise is just as ridiculous, just as easy, but the attack at the end which wasn't there, and the suggestion that anybody that disagrees with you is confused and/or a bit dull, I don't care to deal with.

From now on, simply do not respond to my posts, put me on your ignore list, and I will do the same, I don't have anything else to discuss w/you, I'm not saying that so you'll lash out, hopefully you'll respect that I'm saying it you 'man to man', now this is my last response to you ever.

Now hopefully this interesting thread, at least for me can continue, peacefully.

JBrunner · Mar 8, 2007

Jonathan,

Thank you for explaining my position to me, interperting my poor communications, and telling me how to behave, and respond to you. I will of course do as you say. Sorry for any confusion on my part, as to my place and position. You are in control. Please forgive me.

Best

J

Jonathan Brewer · Mar 8, 2007

Jim Galli!!!! It's great seeing you post, how did the workshop go, or has it happened?

MurrayMinchin · Mar 8, 2007

Chuck1 said:
Are you a "straight" shooter or are you a "fuzzy wuzzy"?

I use 4x5, sharp lenses, and print on glossy paper yet most of my images have a soft edge to them. Thousands of square miles of thick cloud cover overhead and long exposures while it's raining, snowing or blowing tend to soften the nature scenes I photograph.

Like where the truth usually resides, I'm towards the middle

Murray

Alex Hawley · Mar 8, 2007

Kerik said:
F64's definition is just plain silly. (Although I understand why it was important to them at the time.)

Kinda what I always thought too.

Kerik · Mar 8, 2007

JBrunner said:
Is it possible that some of this may come from the viewing of this on a computer screen, as opposed to the real thing? I mean, if one sees a plate in person, most would not think it was at all similar to a charcoal drawing.

Yes, that is very true.

smieglitz · Mar 8, 2007

Fuzzy-wuzzy. But then again I've started using Petzval lenses which are extremely sharp in the center then swirl out towards the edges. Mixed with wetplate collodion it is a great combination.

I've always thought the debate about "straight photography vs. Pictorialism" somewhat laughable. I think there are aspects of representational art that can be universal between many different media. I enjoy the "fuzzy-wuzzy" approach and think the results are phantasmagoric and more akin to how we actually see than the tenets of the f/64 group and those that followed. Just because a photographer doesn't try to make edge-to-edge uber-sharp images and they may prefer the soft palette of processes like gum bichromate, doesn't mean they are trying to imitate painting or charcoal rendering, etc.

Plus, to stir the pot, I'll give the nod to William Mortensen being as talented a technician as Ansel Adams and a whole lot more interesting to read.

Some of my absolute favorite photographs are those by George Seeley and Anne Brigman and I've gone so far as to purchase and hang a few of those at home.

Joe

bill schwab · Mar 8, 2007

smieglitz said:
I enjoy the "fuzzy-wuzzy" approach... (it is) more akin to how we actually see than the tenets of the f/64 group and those that followed.

I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps it would be relevant when speaking in historic terms, but it seems that "straight", "pictorialist" and any argument of one vs the other are completely useless and outdated when referring to photography in this day and age. Photography as an art form has come a long way and limiting the discussion to these two camps is, in my opinion, much too narrow.

Bill

Petzi · Mar 8, 2007

Chuck1 said:
Hasn't it been said that photography is painting with light? I think that's pretty cool.

A more proper translation of the word "photography" would be: "drawing with light".

jimgalli · Mar 8, 2007

Jonathan Brewer said:
Jim Galli!!!! It's great seeing you post, how did the workshop go, or has it happened?

Hi Jonathan. In fact the workshop has been delayed until (there was a url link here which no longer exists) Hope you can make it.

donbga · Mar 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
against whom, after all, f/64 was a reaction.

Cheers,

R.

Several years ago I attended an Edward Weston exhibit at the Hunter Museum in Chattanooga, TN. The work shown in the show spanned most if not all of EWs career and his style of photography also showed many different phases or styles that he produced; much of his early work was definitly soft focus dreamy looking stuff so he was not so pure as many think, though of course he eventually recanted the pictorialist style in favor of the Modernist approach to photography.

This new style Modernism, was suggested as I recall not by Weston or Adams or even Strand but by Charles Sheeler who was a painter and photographer, but perhaps I have that factoid wrong. I've seen Sheelers photos and photographs and his modernist approach in photography obviously got its start in his paintings.

Weston has frequently been cited as being the founder of the f64 group though I beleive there are some sources that may dispute that.

Back to the exhibit at the Hunter Museum. In one part of the Weston exhibit there was a view camera on display which may or may not have been used by Weston, (I can't recall now) which had an Astragon lens mounted on it with a maximum aperture of f/63!

Yes f/63 not f/64. I thought that was so ironic. It would be interesting to know if anyone from the f64 group ever did use an f63 Astragon.

Roger Hicks · Mar 9, 2007

Dear Don,

Let's announce the formation here and now of the f/63 group. Our motto shall be, "Ignore meaningless differences."

Interesting post, too. Thanks. Some I knew, some I didn't.

Cheers,

R.

Ed Sukach · Mar 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Let's announce the formation here and now of the f/63 group. Our motto shall be, "Ignore meaningless differences."

I would like to be included as a Charter Member!!!

Struan Gray · Mar 9, 2007

Presumably such a group would be limited to one significant figure?

Can't see it making much of an impact...

catem · Mar 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Humpty Dumpty springs to mind: 'Words mean what I pay them to mean'.

Had to find the full context for that one - one of my favourite bits in the whole of Lewis Carroll (from Alice through the Looking Glass). Not intended to apply to any posts here, but just felt like sharing it...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

As for me, I can in theory go up to (down to?) f32, but can't remember the last time I did...

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Our motto shall be, "Ignore meaningless differences."

Oh brother Roger, I am so with you on that! No more...

Condenser vs cold light vs dichroic
Ultimate resolution tests
Canon vs Nikon
Sharp vs fuzzy as the True Essence of Photo
Art vs Not Art
Zone System vs BTZS
Cropping or not
Best gear
Best artist
Best photo
Paterson vs Stainless
Hassy vs Mamiya

And I'm forgetting some.

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 9, 2007

mhv said:
Oh brother Roger, I am so with you on that! No more...

Condenser vs cold light vs dichroic
Ultimate resolution tests
Canon vs Nikon
Sharp vs fuzzy as the True Essence of Photo
Art vs Not Art
Zone System vs BTZS
Cropping or not
Best gear
Best artist
Best photo
Paterson vs Stainless
Hassy vs Mamiya

And I'm forgetting some.

I know this one will ruffle a few feathers -

AZO vs everything else. And don't forget the biggest shibboleth of all hiding under the coffee table that nobody wants to admit is in the room-

film vs. d*g*t*l

Straight Photography or Pictorialism

Jonathan Brewer

Roger Hicks

Chuck_P

JBrunner

Moderator

Jonathan Brewer

JBrunner

Moderator

Kerik

JBrunner

Moderator

Jonathan Brewer

JBrunner

Moderator

Jonathan Brewer

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

Alex Hawley

Kerik

smieglitz

bill schwab

Advertiser

Petzi

jimgalli

donbga

Roger Hicks

Ed Sukach

Struan Gray

catem

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Straight Photography or Pictorialism

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Advertiser

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency