A well written and accurate summation of Man Ray and Mortensen in that order.
The answer? One was brilliant and the other a tasteless hack.
A well written and accurate summation of Man Ray and Mortensen in that order.
Obviously, someone is not a fan of Pictorialism.
I am sort of a fan of, among other things, F:/64, but that is pretty much passé except among amateurs. For that matter, isn't black and white passé except among amateurs? Reading Photrio, it seems like most amateurs are still trying to figure out how to develop film. I have a black and white photo of me in my football uniform taken by one of my friends' father when I was in elementary school in the mid-1960s. He knew how to develop film and make prints. Amateurs don't seem to be making much progress. Well, I guess they have moved beyond Pictorialism.
Query: Was Ralph Eugene Meatyard a follower of Mortensen?
I am a big fan of good pictorialism.
Does any good pictorialism actually exist or is it just a logical place left as an eternally null set? "good pictorialism" is an oxymoron.
Steichen's The Flatiron and The Pond - Moonlight, to cite just two well known examples, are generally considered good Pictorialist photographs. People have liked them enough to pay millions of dollars for them. I also like, for example, Alvin Langdon Coburn's The Octopus, Gertrude Käsebier's Blessed Art Thou, and Frank Eugene's Lady with String of Pearls. Alas, no witches.
Does any good pictorialism actually exist or is it just a logical place left as an eternally null set? "good pictorialism" is an oxymoron.
The photographs I referred to were not accidents. I certainly didn’t expect you to change your mind though.When taking photographs, sometimes accidents happen. #454 still stands.
Oh come now! Just take something obvious like early Steichen.
He was insanely talented.
You can probably discuss whether he brought pictorial art as such much forward, or if some of his work bordered on pandering kitsch.
But you can’t discuss whether the majority of his work was essentially beautiful and had appeal.
And he always brought something extra, something special to his work.
It was never obvious or naive.
He also brought darkroom work forward by leaps and bounds. Both in kinds of techniques and degree of excellence.
Just take this, incidentally the second most expensive photograph ever sold.
View attachment 332964
Mortensen in comparison was just incompetent and way too late to the party.
He was not the unsung and repressed genius some people are trying to make him into.
The photographs I referred to were not accidents. I certainly didn’t expect you to change your mind though.
I meant that some pictorialist photographs were accidentally good.
That is nonsense.
That is nonsense, but expected.
Oh come now! Just take something obvious like early Steichen.
He was insanely talented.
You can probably discuss whether he brought pictorial art as such much forward, or if some of his work bordered on pandering kitsch.
But you can’t discuss whether the majority of his work was essentially beautiful and had appeal.
And he always brought something extra, something special to his work.
It was never obvious or naive.
He also brought darkroom work forward by leaps and bounds. Both in kinds of techniques and degree of excellence.
Just take this, incidentally the second most expensive photograph ever sold.
View attachment 332964
Mortensen in comparison was just incompetent and way too late to the party.
He was not the unsung and repressed genius some people are trying to make him into.
Who was it who said " comparisons are odious".
The earliest recorded use of this phrase appears to be by John Lydgate in his Debate between the horse, goose, and sheep, circa 1440Who was it who said " comparisons are odious".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?