Portrait of an artist: Alfred Stieglitz

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2005 03:30:23 PM · #26

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Gordon:
So maybe that's what I'm asking - do Stieglitz et al stand up against
modern imagery ?
I'm posing this is a question, rather than a blanket statement.

I can't answer your question at the momment until you answer one I posed several posts ago. I have an answer, but I need to know who you think stands out, modern or otherwise, as a great or noteworthy photographer before I feel can answer this question with merit.

Yes - I still owe you an answer - particularly hectic weekend...

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

02/13/2005 03:38:44 PM · #27

Originally posted by Gordon:

Is it any better because he didn't pull up his car and dig a leaf digital back out of the trunk and shoot the shot, bracketing appropriately then edited it together in Photoshop ? While it is certainly perfectly understandable and reasonable to be inspired as photographers by the difficulty early photographers overcame to create their images, if we look at their images alone, do they stack up ?

Yes. But I'm one of those who marvels at the pyramids and the panama canal. Those aren't a big deal, anymore, right?

The story in the final product is of immense importance to me.

It's the same as asking whether or not a photojournalists photos would be 'as good' were you to find out that it was set up.

Images don't have to stand on their own. In fact, my opinion is that the best ones don't. They're loaded with a story or emotion or background.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 15:39:21.

02/13/2005 03:42:16 PM · #28

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I guess I've never really 'gotten' Stieglitz, Strand and so on. I see their work in galleries and I find it hard to get excited about it.

So who would you like to see profiled. Who stands out for you?

My personal favourites. Number one would be Keith Carter - I love what he does. His work draws me in, captivates me.

Another stand out would be Kate Breakey, but hers is mostly mixed media/ painted photographs. Freeman Patterson has a special place for introducing me to new ways to see. He, Robert Mapplethorpe and Imogen Cunningham have had a lot of influence on my wildlife studies.

Looking back, I'm drawn to the work of Philippe Halsman and Yousuf Karsh, both fine portraitists who really captured the spirit of their subjects.

For contempory landscape work I'm fascinated by the images of Ken Duncan and Colin Prior, and Burton Pritzker probably deserves a mention too.

I think any of the names above would be fine subjects for profiling. They are certainly some of my influences and produce work that I personly think stands out.

Again - I'm not saying Stieglitz is bad - I'm just looking for a guide as to what you (and many others obviously) see in it.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 15:42:30.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2005 03:44:20 PM · #29

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Is it any better because he didn't pull up his car and dig a leaf digital back out of the trunk and shoot the shot, bracketing appropriately then edited it together in Photoshop ? While it is certainly perfectly understandable and reasonable to be inspired as photographers by the difficulty early photographers overcame to create their images, if we look at their images alone, do they stack up ?

Yes. But I'm one of those who marvels at the pyramids and the panama canal. Those aren't a big deal, anymore, right?

The story in the final product is of immense importance to me.

It's the same as asking whether or not a photojournalists photos would be 'as good' were you to find out that it was set up.

Images don't have to stand on their own. In fact, my opinion is that the best ones don't. They're loaded with a story or emotion or background.

My problem with this is in a lot of contemporary photography - You'll find photographers who self-flaggilate for hours, carefully trimming all of their pubic hair, burning it on an altar and taking a picture of the charred end result. The photograph then gets hung in a gallery. Does that make it a good photo? Is it a better photograph, the harder it is to take or the more the photographer suffers ? I've been bitten by ants for some photos - are those my best work ?

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 15:47:01.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

02/13/2005 04:02:08 PM · #30

Originally posted by Gordon:

I've been bitten by ants for some photos - are those my best work ?

Only if the photograph is black and white, processed in a dark room with some unavoidable vignetting.

Sure, the pendulum can swing too far...hardships don't make a good photos and ascetics aren't the best photographers, but I don't think that's what we're really talking about here.

When you substitute a device for skill (whether it's a lensbaby, a pinhole camera, blurred motion or high key) it runs the risk of becoming a gimmick. The same applies to creating unnecessary problems for yourself in the process of creating a photograph. But like I said, I don't think this applies here.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 16:02:47.

02/13/2005 04:03:50 PM · #31

Originally posted by Gordon:

do they stack up ?

Stack up to whom. Who would you have us compare them to? Is there 1 or more particular contemporary artist who you would compare them to?

EDIT: OK, you already answered this while I was typing.

Do not get me wrong there are a geat many photographers around the meet the timeless challenge and will hold there own well. But ask any of them to give you a list of their fovorite photographers of all time and most will include at least a few of the masters we have listed on this thread.

The fact that they are still around should answer that. There were millions of photographers recording images at the same time these men were under the same conditions, some of whom were greatly aclaimed in their day. Yet only the few shine through after these hundred or so years.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 16:08:04.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2005 04:07:47 PM · #32

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Sure, the pendulum can swing too far...hardships don't make a good photos and ascetics aren't the best photographers, but I don't think that's what we're really talking about here.

It was what I was talking about when you responded though - someone linked to a picture then explained why it was good, based solely on how difficult it was to take - only one plate left, no exposure meter, did it all in his head, etc. That particular image is also telling, given that it is by and large created in the darkroom - a straight print is almost nothing like it. There's no doubt Ansel was a wizard in a wet darkroom, recreating images that never existed other than in his head. He was also a master technician.

But does the fact he had to suffer hardship to capture the original negatives and had a limited number of exposures make the pictures any better or worse ? This isn't exactly ancient peoples building pyramids after all - we are talking about things that happened 50 years ago.

If you fast forwards 100 or 200 years - we are the contemporaries of Adama, Steiglitz, Strand, Karsh etc. While we can look 'back' at their work - it will all end up lumped in with the photographic work that we do. (we being all photographers working now - not just dpc obviously ;) )

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

02/13/2005 04:15:23 PM · #33

I understand what you're saying. I'm indicating that there's a difference between purposefully limiting yourself as a gimmick, and being limited by your circumstances.

My friends and I made a huge pyramid of a few dozen picnic tables in the park one day. Big deal, a construction company could have had that done in no time. To us, it was art. There was a story to it. It didn't 'hold it's own' but when attached to our tale, was quite impressive.

02/13/2005 04:19:43 PM · #34

I have got a bit lost by all this thread and the way it is trying to convince me and others that some guy who took photos 100 years ago should be held up as a Photographic Guru.

Let's get real here, all these old b&w photos would get low points here in a challenge...if they didn't, then why did my b&w shots score so low?? The quality is about the same, the main theme is not any more interesting.

I agree that we should mark historical events, and the people involved, but they are not Gods! They were pioneers in a new technology...we have many pioneers in a new technology here in DPC.

I have to agree with Gordon here, the past always looks rosier than the present, in 100 years time I am sure there will people using the latest technology for recording scenes and they will be saying 'What do you think of that BradP, weren't his digital recordings sublime??' 'Was he a genius born before his time, or was he the Devil's Spawn!!'

We, here know that answer...don't we :)

Steve

02/13/2005 04:33:44 PM · #35

The Terminal

Of course you must understand this is a web image and many of the subtleties of tone and contrast are lost, but I see this as a timeless work of art regardless of who artist was and under what circumstances it was created. This image for me stands alone quite well.
It evokes for me feeling, mood and emotion, which I believe are major factors in what is the true essence of art.

.

02/13/2005 04:43:13 PM · #36

Plus, I thought Fox Talbot took the first photos??

He was British and the photos are displayed in his home town.

Lacock Abbey holds his exhibition, Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 16:45:40.

02/13/2005 04:50:23 PM · #37

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Plus, I thought Fox Talbot took the first photos??

He was British and the photos are displayed in his home town.

Lacock Abbey holds his exhibition, Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK

No one said that Stieglitz took the first photos. That was not even implied.

02/13/2005 04:54:11 PM · #38

I was answering Gordon's statement about the first photo being on display in USA!

Not implying Stieglitz took it.

Steve

02/13/2005 04:54:29 PM · #39

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Plus, I thought Fox Talbot took the first photos??

He was British and the photos are displayed in his home town.

Lacock Abbey holds his exhibition, Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK

You could have a reasonable argument that any of Niepce, Daguerre and Talbot took the first photos. It depends a lot on what you want to call a photograph, for example.

more info on that particular claim.

and a slate article that discusses the role of each of the three and mentions that Niepce was about 7 years ahead of the other two.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 16:58:26.

02/13/2005 04:57:46 PM · #40

Originally posted by Formerlee:

I was answering Gordon's statement about the first photo being on display in USA!

Not implying Stieglitz took it.

Steve

Sorry. I think the honor far preceeds Talbot and must be accorded DeVinci.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/13/2005 05:03:10 PM · #41

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Formerlee:
Plus, I thought Fox Talbot took the first photos??

He was British and the photos are displayed in his home town.

Lacock Abbey holds his exhibition, Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK

You could have a reasonable argument that any of Niepce, Daguerre and Talbot took the first photos. It depends a lot on what you want to call a photograph, for example.

more info on that particular claim.

Yes, Gordon, you are right...but Niepce produced an image using a camera obscura, it was photo. Daguerre used a silver plated cooper plate sensitised with vapourised iodine and developed with fumes of mercury.

Fox Talbot discovered the unique property of potassium dichromate to directly harden colloidal gelatine in proportion to the amount of light to which it is exposed.

Steve

downtherabbithole

Canon EOS-30D

02/13/2005 05:12:02 PM · #42

I more enjoy okeef and imogene coningham (sp?). They are my two biggest influences and I think my pictures show it. check some of them out Here.