the great schism of photography

frank · May 30, 2015

There is some context that is necessary, the punative treaty of Versailles playing a part.

This is happening in Canada right now with our government's war on terror.
The US as well.

MartinCrabtree · May 30, 2015

Shelve the politics. They're the ruination of all worthwhile endeavors.

This is the reason for my earlier request. I venture a guess it was not the OP's intent for his discussion to end up here but here we are. So far off topic that we're treading on a mod locking the thread.

removed account4 · May 30, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
Shelve the politics. They're the ruination of all worthwhile endeavors.

This is the reason for my earlier request. I venture a guess it was not the OP's intent for his discussion to end up here but here we are. So far off topic that we're treading on a mod locking the thread.

thanks martin,
you are right, politics are not the reason for this thread,
and i promised myself if additional posts were made about ww1 - 2
that i would say " please keep to the topic of photography and leave politics at the door, thanks "
i appreciate your reminding me !

politics ARE the ruination of all worthwhile stuff / photography

Old-N-Feeble · May 30, 2015

deleted due to political content

removed account4 · May 30, 2015

this isn't a political thread, can you please keep the politics out of it ?

Old-N-Feeble · May 30, 2015

You're right... sorry.

gzinsel · May 30, 2015

I always miss out on the beginnings of these threads!!! We are on page 9 now. first time reading! it always happen to me.
. . . .anyway. JNanian, mixed into the fray, are people who's artwork are more conceptually based and those who's artwork is "real Photography".
those two camps will never see, eye to eye. conceptual artists tend to work out of ideas of the continental school of philosophy, while "the real" tend to render more precisely (literally), i.e. logical positivists!!!! whether intended or not,artists in those two schools break along the same lines as those who are technically(performance) minded and those who conceptually minded.
as example, if two photographers came across a black box on the floor with a white background. This situation ( as an exposure would flummox the conceptual artist, while the performance driven realist would take the correct exposure quickly and move on. having the confidence of sensitomitry in the bag so to speak. The realist would not change the location or disturb the black box in any way, because that would be no longer be "real" photography, it would be folly!!! The conceptual artist would be inclined to move the box so as it would appear to "do something" that, for the intended audience, seeing the print,would make them think about an idea "other than, "this is a photograph of a black box on the floor". Although the conceptual artist would have to return to the site to re-shot because he didn't get the exposure correctly the first time. Conceptually speaking I think AA photographs are boring. Is a photograph of a mountain. it doesn't get any tamer than that..BUT His prints sure LOOK pretty. IMO its better to working on ideas, instead of a "Vapid consumption" of the world as it exist. But some people just love the idea of going out to purposefully "get" the correct exposure, with the optimal development, for the optimal print of that neg. They don't seem to care if they photograph a tree or a dog( living or dead) in either case, as long as the light is perfect, then their negative will be perfect and if their negative is perfect so too will their print. when showing these at the gallery. People are always amazed at this type of work, however when ask . . . what do think about the ideas presented, . . . . they always look at you quizzically, saying something like. . . . What do you mean?. . . . these photographs are superlative examples of HOW TO" . so. . . . some people like content, some people like pretty. thats my take away.

blansky · May 30, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
You're right... sorry.

It's a pretty sad thread when we can't fit the Nazis in there somewhere.

Dali · May 30, 2015

gzinsel, well said. In photography, the technical aspect is often there only to hide the conceptual vacuum. As long as you focus on films, exposure, developers, etc..., you stay within the realm of science and logic, indeed a comfortable environment but somewhat sterile in terms of exchange with others.

benjiboy · May 31, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
Shelve the politics. They're the ruination of all worthwhile endeavors.

This is the reason for my earlier request. I venture a guess it was not the OP's intent for his discussion to end up here but here we are. So far off topic that we're treading on a mod locking the thread.

This isn't politics, after seventy years it's history.

eddie · May 31, 2015

Dali said:
gzinsel, well said. In photography, the technical aspect is often there only to hide the conceptual vacuum. As long as you focus on films, exposure, developers, etc..., you stay within the realm of science and logic, indeed a comfortable environment but somewhat sterile in terms of exchange with others.

In order to successfully convey your concepts, isn't the technical required? Without an understanding of process, communicating ideas is impossible. I think it's normal for beginners to focus on the technical. Once they have a grip on that, they're free to delve into concepts/aesthetics/ Art. It's a normal progression.

Vaughn · May 31, 2015

There is no schism...it is a bridge. Some folks want to cross it, some fear to do so, and perhaps the most successful tend to sit on it.

benjiboy · May 31, 2015

Ther's no need for a schism, there is IMO a happy medium between technical knowledge and creativity.

Sirius Glass · May 31, 2015

Vaughn said:
There is no schism...it is a bridge. Some folks want to cross it, some fear to do so, and perhaps the most successful tend to sit on it.

+1

Sirius Glass · May 31, 2015

benjiboy said:
Ther's no need for a schism, there is IMO a happy medium between technical knowledge and creativity.

+1

The schism exists for those unable or unwilling to see the bridge between the two.

gzinsel · May 31, 2015

In response to Eddie, I think Vaughn, hit it on the head, About the "bridge" metaphor> . In addition I would clarify to Eddie that his assumption that the technical is required in photography is not true. There is point and shoot with auto exposure, and auto focus- requiring little or nothing from the photag except press button. Photography unlike previous printing methods ( litho, etching) where one is required to know process before communicating, Photography was the first process where by no skill is required, i.e. one can point and shoot, send of to process, and some one else make prints. Digital has only put "that" on steroids.

TheFlyingCamera · May 31, 2015

gzinsel said:
In response to Eddie, I think Vaughn, hit it on the head, About the "bridge" metaphor> . In addition I would clarify to Eddie that his assumption that the technical is required in photography is not true. There is point and shoot with auto exposure, and auto focus- requiring little or nothing from the photag except press button. Photography unlike previous printing methods ( litho, etching) where one is required to know process before communicating, Photography was the first process where by no skill is required, i.e. one can point and shoot, send of to process, and some one else make prints. Digital has only put "that" on steroids.

I don't entirely disagree but I don't entirely agree either. Even if you pull a Henri Cartier-Bresson and pass all the technical stuff off to a lab, and pull a Terry Richardson and use a fully automatic point-n-shoot, in order for your photographs to be anything other than record shots of the "I-was-here" variety, you have to be even if only on a subconscious level aware of the vocabulary and modality of the photographic medium. Doing anything more than selfie-snaps with your cellphone requires some kind of artistic intent - composition, focus, exposure, all are processes specific to photography that if they exist in other media do not work the same way. Those constraints of the viewfinder, the lens, the film or the image chip, all lead to an at least subconscious effort to manipulate reality within those constraints if photography is practiced on any level beyond the most infrequent, most casual and most careless level.

eddie · May 31, 2015

gzinsel said:
... I would clarify to Eddie that his assumption that the technical is required in photography is not true. There is point and shoot with auto exposure, and auto focus- requiring little or nothing from the photag except press button.

I have to disagree. If we're talking about concepts, and conveying those concepts, the auto-everything camera cannot read your mind. To successfully communicate emotion/etc. requires some manipulation, whether in exposure/development/dodging/burning/toning/et al.... All of these are technical aspects, which are necessary in making a truly expressive photograph.

gzinsel · May 31, 2015

well, I guess . . . . every day, we> collectively as well as individually , the acts that we (I)perform become history. .. . .. its usually the case, that politically no one takes notice> if they do, its a while before its written about and disseminated to the masses. But maybe you were using "you " in the pejorative sense? Like, when will you die? Hopefully we all have fruitful lives, long and prosperous. I wouldn't want any of "our" community to die before their time, or have them silenced because they disagree with ideas I hold to be true. we just disagree. . . .. thats all! no big whoop. I still buy ya a beer, If thats o.k.????

Old-N-Feeble · May 31, 2015

MartinCrabtree said:
These either/or threads are getting tedious. Please stop.

MartinCrabtree said:
Shelve the politics. They're the ruination of all worthwhile endeavors.

This is the reason for my earlier request. I venture a guess it was not the OP's intent for his discussion to end up here but here we are. So far off topic that we're treading on a mod locking the thread.

MartinCrabtree said:
So how long before you become history?

Martin, you sure do follow threads that you don't like. I guess you're a glutton for punishment. Or maybe you're just angry.

removed account4 · May 31, 2015

gzinsel said:
In response to Eddie, I think Vaughn, hit it on the head, About the "bridge" metaphor> . In addition I would clarify to Eddie that his assumption that the technical is required in photography is not true. There is point and shoot with auto exposure, and auto focus- requiring little or nothing from the photag except press button. Photography unlike previous printing methods ( litho, etching) where one is required to know process before communicating, Photography was the first process where by no skill is required, i.e. one can point and shoot, send of to process, and some one else make prints. Digital has only put "that" on steroids.

maybe it is a bridge, maybe the grey area where most people lie is the bridge not sure, .. but getting to the technique less photography, using a auto everything camera ...
there IS technique in using an auto everything camera the technique revolves around composition ... learning the technique of FRAMING the subject to make it look good or bad.
composition seems to be the key to it all without good composition a photograph might fall flat .. and the same photograph framed a little bit to the left, right top or bottom might be perfect.
plenty of people use a camera without having to worry about process, that is what eastman's magic did -- he freed the regular person from having to know anything about process ...
and since that day in the 1880s millions of people have made photographs just framing the subject in a viewer and had someone else do the magic of developing the film and making prints ( or slides ) ..
i dont' think photography is about communication all the time, there is plenty of photography that is "art for art's sake" just like not all drawing or painting or sculpture or architecture music is about communication.
yes, there are some that are, but not all of it ..

Dali · May 31, 2015

eddie said:
In order to successfully convey your concepts, isn't the technical required? Without an understanding of process, communicating ideas is impossible. I think it's normal for beginners to focus on the technical. Once they have a grip on that, they're free to delve into concepts/aesthetics/ Art. It's a normal progression.

I am OK with your comment as long as there is a "concept" to take your words but don't you think we are surrounded by an army of beginners seing the number of "technical" questions posted in the internet? Photography is not rocket science and just reading and understanding half a dozen technical brochures from manufacturers, you have enough knowledge to master the principles. The rest is a question of practice like for any human actifity.

No, to me the huge number of "technical" questions draw the photographic horizon of a huge number of photographers who think that getting the "perfect" camera / lens/ filter / film / developer / paper / etc... will save their practice. It is the exact opposite which happens: they become slave of what they should master.

I am not totally innocent here: I went down the same road but it is over now and guess what? I enjoy more taking pictures than ever! I am clearly convinced that less (camera / lens / film/ filter / film / developer / paper / etc...) means more (fun).

Bill Burk · May 31, 2015

Dali said:
... the huge number of "technical" questions draw the photographic horizon of a huge number of photographers who think that getting the "perfect" camera / lens/ filter / film / developer / paper / etc... will save their practice. It is the exact opposite which happens: they become slave of what they should master.

That's a fascinating observation.

If I could make a wish, I'd wish that really there is a huge number of photographers asking technical questions because they are interested in advancing the state of their art.

eddie · May 31, 2015

Dali said:
I went down the same road but it is over now and guess what? I enjoy more taking pictures than ever! I am clearly convinced that less (camera / lens / film/ filter / film / developer / paper / etc...) means more (fun).

That's what I'm getting at. The natural progression is to search for the magic bullet, until you discover it doesn't exist. Then, you simplify things, but the technical knowledge you've acquired is still there, and still plays a part. More internal, maybe, but integral to whatever you want to express.

removed account4 · Jun 1, 2015

so does that mean we had the ability to go home all the time ?
and the ruby slippers are really whatever we have ?

you guys have really confused me .. no magic bullet ?!

my life is just about ruined !

you all aren't behind a red curtain, are you ? :wizard:

the great schism of photography

frank

Attachments

MartinCrabtree

removed account4

Old-N-Feeble

removed account4

Old-N-Feeble

gzinsel

blansky

Dali

benjiboy

eddie

Vaughn

benjiboy

Sirius Glass

Sirius Glass

gzinsel

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

eddie

gzinsel

Old-N-Feeble

removed account4

Dali

Bill Burk

eddie

removed account4

the great schism of photography

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency