The uniform, the movement and the forerunners

[Bill Burk]

A movement I'm a part of, Scouting, has a well-recognized leader, Baden Powell.

He's as real and recognizable a figure as Ansel Adams is for photography.

When you wear the Scout uniform, you stand for recognizable values such as leadership, trust and the outdoors... You can have a great time, but it's not like you're trying to be Baden Powell...

When I shoot film in the wilderness, I stand for recognizable values that Ansel Adams promoted... I'm having a great time, but it's not like I'm trying to be Ansel Adams.

I'm proud that I'm an Eagle Scout. About as many have earned the rank since I did... as earned it before me. Though it's something to be recognized for... I don't expect future Scouts to be taught my name, I won't be remembered like Baden Powell.

Likewise, there are thousands of photographers before us and thousands to come. I was thinking about a Boy Scout uniform analogy... (say film is the shirt, printing is the pants)... At any meeting, some of the kids show up in street pants. Just like APUG, we'll remind them gently (or not so gently depending how incorrigible)... that they should wear the uniform to every meeting. We can give them a hard time for showing up in street clothes (digital photographers), but in the end kids are going to wear what they want. Hopefully for the important events (shows) everyone shows up in the whole uniform.

I had been worrying a bit that I don't know enough photographers.

Earlier this year I picked up a magazine in a bookstore, I think it was "Black and White Photography". I didn't recognize a single name, though I enjoyed every page, the photographs were immediately "recognizable" to me, they stood for something I stand for. I wanted to know who the photographers were, but there were so many I knew it was a hopeless cause for me to learn their names. I can't remember one now.

Perhaps a goal shouldn't be to be remembered individually by name, but be proud of what you stand for, as part of a movement that was started by someone you can name.

 

[gzinsel]

This topic is rich! but just a few observations. I suppose "the cause" is more important then the individual,But "the cause" (film) is no more important then "etching/intaglio" was in the early nineteenth, right around the time stone lithography starting making headway into commercial printing. I mean today, who can name one nationally known name of an etcher? I will state the obvious, we are part of a dying breed( film photographers) . Thats just the way it goes. Cub, boy, eagle scouts are holding their own with membership, but one day, may fall out of favor. Ennui is something powerful, but quickly fades to . . . . "what are we haven for dinner tonight? ".

 

[Bill Burk]

This topic is rich! but just a few observations. I suppose "the cause" is more important then the individual. . . "what are we haven for dinner tonight? ".

Hi gzinsel,

Thanks, that's what I was thinking. The thought occurred to me after hearing Mary Street Alinder speak about Group f.64, familiar names and a few who should be familiar as the founders of the movement I consider myself a part of. I joked about Scouts and Scouting adventures, as we'd recently been camping near Mary and Jim's home up the coast...

I'm happy we're distanced from the past where we had to fight to be considered artists (though a recent thread by an art critic who doesn't seem to "get" photography may open old wounds)... And with that distance, I feel free to stand with and for Group f.64 and to also experiment with what it stood against, Pictorialism.

I joked with the audience about my recurrent fear that I'll get my Group f.64 card taken away, and explained how in the Scouts you can earn a card (the Totin' Chip) which gives you the right to use woodcutting tools, but if you misuse it, a leader can cut a corner of your card... If you get four corners cut off, you lose the right and have to take the class again. Mary had thought of bringing membership cards to hand out...