Chuck, I think we've had a lot of semantic by-passing here. I'll offer an alternative to your rather narrow view. If by pictorialist you mean someone like myself who uses focus as a device, ie. lenses that produce a dreamy soft focus effect or highlight effects as a mean to an end, I am definitely a practitioner. BUT......that said, the idea that the finished photograph according to your view is intended to be other than a photograph, like it's a painting wan-a-be or something has never EVER entered my mind. It is a photograph as pure as any ever was. Whether I've succeeded or not, I will sometimes use an antique lens personality to give the photo a power to reach a little deeper. It is a device, period. If it succeeds is for my audience to judge. I use it like any other tool in my toolbox. I also make the decision when this particular device might work. If you wade through the pages on my web site you'll find both blindingly sharp and "pictorial" pictures.
To try to lump everything into 2 neat groups, pictorial and non-pictorial or whatever the buzzwords are, is simplistic. The boundaries are not that well defined.
I would end this semi-rant by saying
Anybody can make a sharp picture. That is by far the easier of the 2 camps to wave your flag in. And you'll never be lonesome there either.
Jim,
I have a very simplistic view of the process and it relates to me and me alone and how I practice photography and I try to never make personal judgements on anyone elses own practices (not saying that you did or anything like that). It merely appeals to me or it doesn't and that's about as far as I take it. We photograph, we develop, and we print. We all have that in common with each other.
The views that my original post referrenced i.e., straight photography and pictorialism are not views that I am inventing here. They're merely points of discussion on two concepts that I have been reading about here lately, in terms of the history of photography. So, that said, I will have to reject your assertion that I have a narrow view. My view, and if it is thought to be narrow then so be it, is that I will always be more attracted to photographs that look like photographs and not, say, a gum print that appears to my own senses to be a painting (but I don't frown upon that use of photography, I'm merely not enthused by it---it's not a put down). That's a pretty simple and clear way of saying it, but as I write it I am certain it will urk somebody.
Reading on the history of photography sparked in me a thought that I would pose on APUG to ask others in hopes hearing what they liked. Clearly, in retrospect, not a good idea, as it served only to ignite far out discussions that I had never intended. And, in retrospect, I should have absolutely expected it. I must have posed the intent of the post in a poor fashion. I'm sure that this topic may seem old to some and beaten to death. However, what those don't realize is that it is not old to everyone; therefore, IMO, it can still serve as useful discussion to some when the sarcasm and the "smart -assness" of the responses is removed. But this is difficult for some.
Your photograph looks like a photograph to me. I never said all photos have to be tack sharp. I don't think anyone believes that photography indicates that a photograph cannot show selective focus. In fact, I believe, AA commented later in life that if you intend to throw a background out of focus, then make sure it is distinctly out of focus.
Although back in the early days of this controversy, the Group f/64 folks probably would not have done that, IMO, but that was their way, it seems---I think they wanted the image to reveal all that the lens revealed in distinct detail and that was being true to the medium, as they saw it. Whereas, in their view, the "pictorialists" of the day, were not being true to to the medium when they presented photography in a way that imitated another form of art. I find it amazing
, however, that those two thoughts alone can boil-up in others such disgust. It's quite funny.
Anyway, all this for the interest and love of the traditional process.
Chuck
). It seemed that some were arguing that: -pictorialism doesn't really exist anymore, -that one is stupid or sophmoric to comment on such a non-existant and ill-perceived petty difference within the medium. Not that I agree with any of that, but that was my take on it. I'll have to admit that it sparked some of the strangest rants that I've ever seen in my time here, and I'm sure one or two of those rants might even be mine
. 
