The Undiscovered Masters of Colour

In today's Photo-Eye newsletter, my eye was taken by a mention of a new book, New Color Photographs from Mexico and California, 1948-1955. Photographs by Paul Outerbridge.

http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/mshowdetailsbycat.cfm?catalog=tr315

The woman on the cover reminded me of Madeleine in Hitchcock's Vertigo, so I read on:

PhotoEye said:

The publication of 'Paul Outerbridge: New Color Photographs from Mexico and California, 1948-1955' marks the discovery of a previously unknown and unpublished body of work by one of America’s earliest masters of color photography.

Click to expand...

Hmm... "previously unknown and unpublished body of work by one of America’s earliest masters of color photography." That reminded me of someone.

Fred Herzog! no wait... he's Canadian.

Saul Leiter! no wait, he's already been (un/re)covered...

The guys who took the pictures of the Butlin resorts! no...

Etc.

Isn't it interesting that now that colour photography is finally established in museums and galleries, that we suddenly discover "masters" ?

I once read in a book by Larry Shiner, The Invention of Art, that Renaissance artists now considered to be masters such as Michaelangelo were in fact complete oddballs, total oddities for their time. Somehow the same reasoning seems applicable to colour photographers. They were complete outcasts, sub-standard artists, mere commercial photographers, etc.

The question for me remains whether those "early masters" were missed critical opportunities, or simply artists whose sensibility we chime with, and decide to elevate to the status of masters. Isn't the idea of a master someone who paves the way and has influence? Did the "undiscovered masters" really have influence?

BTW, I absolutely adore Outerbridge's pictures; here's a good sample here:
Dead Link Removed

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

Isn't the idea of a master someone who paves the way and has influence? Did the "undiscovered masters" really have influence?

Click to expand...

I think of a pioneer as someone who paves the way. A master is someone who masters the technology such that he/she can create prints that fully realize their artistic goals. Not all masters have influence, or indeed are even known. The masters who tend to be well known tend also to be pioneers. And these tend to be the ones that influence others.

Think Elliot Porter. IIRC he broke with Adams and went down the color path at a time when this was considered utter blasphemy. He labored through dye transfer and mastered it to make amazing color prints. Pioneered the color aesthetic, mastered the dye transfer process, and had a great artistic vision. Influenced the heck out of a lot of young photographers, and laid the foundation for color fine art photography.

I think of a master as someone who is able to teach (by example or in a class room).
To be that, he does not have to be a pioneer. Just someone who is showing the/a way.
But not a master without having influenced at least one other person. So a master needs to be known to at least one other person.