QOTD: Edward Weston - DPChallenge Forums

10/13/2002 03:26:26 PM · #1

Let's try one that won't create bickering in the forums :)

"The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process." - Edward Weston

10/13/2002 05:14:37 PM · #2

Just to start the bickering :

Which sorts of moments do you normally capture the former or the later style ?
Discuss

10/13/2002 05:28:54 PM · #3

Ya mean, all these cute and fuzzy flower, teddy bear, fruits and vegetable shots on DPc is meaningless or meaningful? :) I do think a few of them will make great photographs for Whole Foods though :^)

I think why people are offended when soemone gives them a bad score or a bad comment is that photography is something personal and something that looks absolutely meaningless or devoid of emotion for that one viewer may not be how the photographer sees it. Some people find portraits are like that because they don't know the person and looking at a portrait COULD be conceived as meaningless.

The only thing I can say is that if the composition is chaotic, then the meaning the photographer is trying to convey probably gets lost in the message. Too often i see landscape photographs on here with branches and leaves that stick out in th emidle of nowhere for no apparent reason, i.e. it doesn't add to the composition it distracts from it. And sometimes i see branches and leaves used as a good part of that composition (i.e. to frame it or the focus is the stump). The KISS principle for the most part, works well with photography.

(but if I see a macro shot of a teddy bear.... eeeeek)

10/13/2002 05:47:12 PM · #4

I believe that Weston's quote here is purely self criticism.

10/13/2002 05:48:42 PM · #5

Originally posted by Gordon:
Just to start the bickering :

Which sorts of moments do you normally capture the former or the later style ?
Discuss

I believe that all of my images fall into the later category. The first category is what I strive for constantly though... my choices in subjects don't lend themselves well to the first...

10/13/2002 06:16:16 PM · #6

Isn't Weston famous for the B&W pepper shot that is so copied? How is that important or revealing?

Personally, all of these quotes seem to be focused on one particular type of photography to the exclusion of others.

I collect color scenics from two different local artists, and I cannot come up with what the important or revealing aspect is to any of the photos I have paid hundreds for. Perhaps I am just closed minded, or maybe I am misinterprating the quote.

Who defines what is important or revealing? The artist or the viewer? Is he talking about composition? Getting down to the important elements of a scene?

I have a two prints on my wall of sycamore trees, in black and white. When my mother-in-law saw it, she said "that looks like a place I would like to be"

Would this put that photo in the first catagory?

It would be nice to see some examples.

And John, your "Forbiden Fruit" shot was quite revealing.

10/13/2002 08:09:32 PM · #7

Originally posted by Zeissman:
Isn't Weston famous for the B&W pepper shot that is so copied? How is that important or revealing?

You maybe have to realise the conditions under which it was shot and
the time it took to get right. I believe it was something like a 4.5
hour exposure at that point in photographic history.

Slightly different from pointing your SLR at the pepper and getting
the built in electronics to work everything else out.

He also shot a lot of very revealing nudes...

10/13/2002 08:58:46 PM · #8

I do not see how the conditions matter, I am wondering, how this shot fits in with his quote.

10/13/2002 09:00:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by Zeissman:
I do not see how the conditions matter, I am wondering, how this shot fits in with his quote.

It's simple Zeiss... not everyone feels the same way about all photos.. you obviously don't like Weston's pepper... that being the case, I wonder if it is possible that Weston liked it?

10/13/2002 10:51:53 PM · #10

I am not saying I did not like it. I am not commenting on his ability.

I wonder, how a shot of a pepper fits into an important or revealing moment. I am wondering if I am missing something in what he means. What I do not like, is the quote. But I am open to the fact that I may not understand the true meaning of the words.

John,

Why so defensive? I am sure Weston liked the photo, or he probably would not have gone through the trouble to print it. I thought the purpose of being a moderator was to stimulate the conversation. But you are putting a negative spin on what I said, that is not in my words. That is not very stimulating, and could really prove to be provacative.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/13/2002 10:53:00 PM.

aelith

Olympus C-3020Z

10/13/2002 10:53:47 PM · #11

I think that pepper anticipates Maplethorp. It's organic distortions as revealed by the lighting are very sensual. The ordinary becomes extrodinary in Weston's eyes.

10/13/2002 10:59:05 PM · #12

So, if people find the photo interesting, that makes it an important or revealing moment? He definitely captured the shape of the pepper well.

I have a two prints on my wall of sycamore trees, in black and white. When my mother-in-law saw it, she said "that looks like a place I would like to be"

Would this put that photo in the first catagory?

Perhaps I am being to literal in my interpretation of what he is saying.

10/16/2002 12:12:55 PM · #13

Originally posted by Zeissman:
I am not saying I did not like it. I am not commenting on his ability.

I wonder, how a shot of a pepper fits into an important or revealing moment. I am wondering if I am missing something in what he means. What I do not like, is the quote. But I am open to the fact that I may not understand the true meaning of the words.

Perhaps this other quote from Weston might help ?

"Anything that excites me for any reason, I will photograph; not searching for unusual subject matter, but making the commonplace unusual."
-- Edward Weston

Perhaps he felt he was revealing something about peppers that people
normally overlook in the rush to cut/dice/ eat/ cook them.

That's the beauty of photography for me. I've started actaully seeing
things again, rather than just knowing what they are.

10/16/2002 12:35:24 PM · #14

You have to take into consideration of the times.

When Weston, Adams, etc. all the great old ones are around, photography is a relatively new art and it's in that era when advances in B&W occured both in the field and the darkroom.

I always find it funny when people criticize Weston or Adams.

Sure in today's world a pepper in a studio doesn't look interesting. Why? Because every other amateur photographer has taken a photo of it and shown it. Why? Because Weston did it FIRST :) Then we see photos of LOCKS, which is also Weston's thing. He made ordinary things seems interesting or extraordinary, structure out of chaos, like Adams did with nature. In today's world he wouldn't be as effective because the theme has been repeated so many times that the VIEWER expects something new and innovative. Thus, this is reason why I find most flower and pepper shots in the studio "boring, cute and cuddly, whatever" :) Unless it's done in a totally different context than it has been done before. I think as time goes by the viewer's IMAGE maturity grows, and expects more.

I can tell Gordon is influenced by Weston by the amount of similar subjects in his gallery :)

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/16/2002 12:37:50 PM.

10/16/2002 12:40:43 PM · #15

Originally posted by paganini:

I can tell Gordon is influenced by Weston by the amount of similar subjects in his gallery :)

While that is certainly true, I wasn't actually aware of any pictures
of locks by him. Though I have taken quite a few pictures of locks/
padlocks myself. I find that interesting though I don't quite know
what to make of it. Two conclusions : I'm subconciously aware of
his lock pictures and copying them, or I found the same interest in
locks that he discovered by looking at things in a similar way,
so rediscovered that theme, rather than copied it.

10/16/2002 12:41:24 PM · #16

Seeing things??? Is that after you have takena few LSD's? :)

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i] I am not saying I did not like it. I am not commenting on his ability.

I wonder, how a shot of a pepper fits into an important or revealing moment. I am wondering if I am missing something in what he means. What I do not like, is the quote. But I am open to the fact that I may not understand the true meaning of the words.

Perhaps this other quote from Weston might help ?

"Anything that excites me for any reason, I will photograph; not searching for unusual subject matter, but making the commonplace unusual."
-- Edward Weston

Perhaps he felt he was revealing something about peppers that people
normally overlook in the rush to cut/dice/ eat/ cook them.

That's the beauty of photography for me. I've started actaully seeing
things again, rather than just knowing what they are.

[/i]

10/16/2002 01:02:42 PM · #17

Originally posted by paganini:
Seeing things??? Is that after you have takena few LSD's? :)

Rather than just giving a flippant comment, ask yourself this, when
was the last time you actually looking at something and saw it for
what it was, rather than the name you attach to it. Take the
time to really look at something that is really common-place to you.
Pick something simple - like a tennis ball, notice the shape, the
texture, the space it occupies, the space around it, the patterns
on the surface.

All the things that normally you'd ignore because you mentally
attach the label 'tennis ball' to it and move on. If you can do
this well, things become a lot more interesting to photograph.

I wish I could get it to come out in the pictures I take, but
at least the 'input' has some more thought than it used to have.

And that's why I like Weston's Peppers.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/16/2002 1:01:45 PM.

Seeker

Canon EOS-30D

10/16/2002 01:58:23 PM · #18

Gordon,

I may be wrong but I think Pag was playing rather than being flippant. Anyway, I understand fully your point of "seeing things". Because of DPC and the weekly challenge I find that I'm observing things closer, studying them and filing them in my memory for possible future use in a challenge. The ordinary is no longer ordinary and things I've passed thousands of times without a second thought are noticed and while not necessarily fully appreciated are at least acknowledged. This was why I decided to get back into photography, it makes you more aware of the world around you. Weston's comment (to me) implies that depending on our mastery of our medium and a understanding (or lack thereof) of what we are trying to show in our photographs will determine whether it is meaningful or not.

10/16/2002 02:24:30 PM · #19

Duh, i meant it sarcastically :) Too often though, flower shots on here just look like flowers. And photographs of peppers just look like peppers. Like I said before, viewers today have higher expectations than viewers in the early 1900's. Weston was unique in that he's the first one to photograph them and show them on a 2D print, but ever since then there have been hundreds and thousands of such prints by other photographers and people are used to it. You can see a good photograph of those things on Whole Food's ad nowadays. It becomes quite common place, and thus it looks stale unless the photographer is able to show something that hasn't been shown before which goes to my previous point: there have been thousands of interpretations made on "peppers" "flowers" in a studio setting, thus i haven't seen anything new in those areas that Weston haven't already done in 1920s.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]Seeing things??? Is that after you have takena few LSD's? :)

Rather than just giving a flippant comment, ask yourself this, when
was the last time you actually looking at something and saw it for
what it was, rather than the name you attach to it. Take the
time to really look at something that is really common-place to you.
Pick something simple - like a tennis ball, notice the shape, the
texture, the space it occupies, the space around it, the patterns
on the surface.

All the things that normally you'd ignore because you mentally
attach the label 'tennis ball' to it and move on. If you can do
this well, things become a lot more interesting to photograph.

I wish I could get it to come out in the pictures I take, but
at least the 'input' has some more thought than it used to have.

And that's why I like Weston's Peppers[/i]