| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2005 01:08:37 AM · #1 |
I believe I have seen threads like this on this site that highlight a famous photographer, but not recently. I think maybe I should do this once a week at least to help expose some of the DP members to a wider range of photographic art.
Many of the artists I will highlight will not be digtal photographic artists, as some may have passed well before the first digital imaging device ever came to be, but they share with us our love for photography and they lived by the same rules of light, shadow, composition and feeling.
I think a wide range of photographers should be highlighted, from the cutting edge contemporay to the pioneers of the art. Any suggestions for future artists will be welcome.
Alfred Stieglitz became promenent in the early part of the 20th century when photography, by most, was considered merely a craft used for documentation. Stieglitz helped break the prejudice of the day against photographic artists by opening one of the first galleries in NY, or the world for that matter, to feature photographers as artists; Gallery 291.
You can read about and see some of his work in these links and the ones below. Feel free to comment on his work,
Lee Gallery
Thumbs courtesy of and linked to George Eastman House
"The Terminal" is one of my favorites.
Portrait of Dorothy Norman
Margaret Prosser's clasped hands in lap
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 01:12:16.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 01:18:11 AM · #2 |
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.
What would you say about his work prompted you to pick him as the first amongst equals that you wanted to highlight ? Is there anything in particular about his images that stands out for you ? |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 02:35:08 AM · #3 |
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.
What would you say about his work prompted you to pick him as the first amongst equals that you wanted to highlight ? Is there anything in particular about his images that stands out for you ? |
Stieglitz works are for me some of the images that first inspired me as a kid to want to become involved in photography.
What stands out? Perfect use of light and shadow, moods that talks to you, strong use of leading lines in composition,... it goes on forever. I consider Stieglitz one of the great masters of his art.
I'm looking at your list of favorites on your profile and I found this image  That is very remenicent of some the work of Georgia O'Keeffe,
a protege, contemporary and intimate of Stieglitz. So know it or not even your tastes seem to be at least slightly influenced by what this man has has helped bring about. I would say he was without a doubt the most groungbreaking, influencial man in the world of artistic photography of the 20th century. Much of what we have now as far as a photograph as art would not exist had it not been for Alfred Stieglitz.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 10:54:23.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 02:52:12 AM · #4 |
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?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 08:54:48 AM · #5 |
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? |
I'll think about it. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 09:01:32 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I think maybe I should do this once a week at least to help expose some of the DP members to a wider range of photographic art.
|
I agree. Everytime you open your mouth...er, keyboard...I learn something. I would enjoy more of these.
And no, I'm not hitting on you, so let go of my hand.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 10:42:04 AM · #7 |
Enjoyed this one and can't wait for more.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 11:23:29 AM · #8 |
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. |
Ah, take some time and really learn what was going on at the time. Photography was still young, and Stieglitz was one of the first people to really push for the idea of photography as art. It wasn't accepted as such at the time, and it's because of the pioneering and truely visionary work of him and others that photography is what it is today.
Take this photo as an example:
//www.masters-of-photography.com/S/stieglitz/stieglitz_flatiron_building_full.html
It's a photo of the Flatiron building in New York. It might seem unremarkable today (well, I happen to really like it) but it was a pretty bold statement in 1903. The buidling itself was brand new--completed in 1902, and was a marvel at the time. Photographs of it from that time were mostly up close, looking up at it, casting it in a very prominant and important light in their photos. In Stieglitz's photo, he uses composition and contrast to push the building back in the frame, highlighting the tree (which actually mirrors the road split in Manhattan where the buidling is located) instead. It's clearly an artistic statement of the importance of the structure (or lack thereof, in Stieglitz's eyes), and a great example of the use of photography as art. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 11:46:19 AM · #9 |
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.
What would you say about his work prompted you to pick him as the first amongst equals that you wanted to highlight ? Is there anything in particular about his images that stands out for you ? |
Looks like, Zal beat me to it. Some works, and both Stieglitz' ands Strand's are among them, are easier to appreciate if seen in the context of their time. Like Zal, I believe what we are looking at here are the very beginnings of compositional style. What we perceive as such, as a 'style' today, were 'experiments' at one time.
I think it's exciting to go back to the raw source of something we can so easily recognize, apply and take for granted today. Stieglitz' 'White Fence' is, to my senses, a prime example of such a thing.
Just the other day I was looking at this photo by JPR  and thought of Stieglitz', wondering if JPR's was a conscious evolution of it or an automatic one.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 11:46:35 AM · #10 |
Keep in mind that Steiglitz was among the first photographers to say that his medium was as valid as any other art form. His works today might seem to lack contrast or excitement, but the esthetic of the context he saw his work in was that of oil painting, so a more refined, languorous feel was sought to distance himself from the documentarian approach of his predecessors.
I have never been as moved by Steiglitz' work as by many of those who followed him such as O'Keefe, Weston or Cunningham but he was the lead dog of this pack, and is due a large measure of respect for breaking the trail.
Message edited by author 2005-02-13 17:00:47. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 02:03:21 PM · #11 |
An excerpt from THE HAND CAMERA-ITS PRESENT IMPORTANCE
"The writer does not approve of complicated mechanisms, as they are sure to get out of order at important moments, thus causing considerable unnecessary swearing, and often the loss of a precious opportunity. My own camera is of the simplest pattern and has never left me in the lurch, although it has had some very tough handling...
A shutter working at a speed of one-fourth to one-twenty-fifth of a second will answer all purposes. A little blur in a moving subject will often aid to giving the impression of action and motion.
In order to obtain pictures by means of the hand camera it is well to choose your subject, regardless of figures, and carefully study the lines and lighting. After having determined upon these watch the passing figures and await the moment in which everything is in balance; that is, satisfied your eye. This often means hours of patient waiting.
My picture, "Fifth Avenue, Winter" is the result of a three hours' stand during a fierce snow-storm on February 22nd 1893, awaiting the proper moment. My patience was duly rewarded. Of course, the result contained an element of chance, as I might have stood there for hours without succeeding in getting the desired pictures."
Fifth Avenue, Winter
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 02:07:32 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
"A shutter working at a speed of one-fourth to one-twenty-fifth of a second will answer all purposes." |
Does "hand camera" mean hand held, or can we assume it was always attached to a tripod?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 02:20:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
"A shutter working at a speed of one-fourth to one-twenty-fifth of a second will answer all purposes." |
Does "hand camera" mean hand held, or can we assume it was always attached to a tripod? |
I think when talking about a hand held camera he means one that is hand holdable as oposed to a box camera. He did many of his shots hand held at these speeds but I'm not sure if he did the one he mentions that way. As far as the speed 1/4 sec was fast back in the day when many cameras and films still required 30 to 60 second exposures.
With a wide to normal lens these speeds are easily used without a tripod. I shoot available light, no flash, and often choose to use to slow shutter speeds as a alternative to raising the ISO level.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 14:21:44.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 03:08:51 PM · #14 |
Thanks a lot. This is very informative and look forward to more of it. I would love it if you could feature Henri-Cartier Bresson. I have heard a lot about him and seen some of his work. But it wouold be nice to read a critique of his work.
At this point, I'm trying to move beyond taking a 'pretty' photograph and actually think about why I'm taking it. After reading a lot of articles, the common suggestion is that this is what one is supposed to do but how do you do it is the question.
Threads like 'Rules of Composition', help me out. And looking at the works of the masters does help out too. Especially when someone introduces it, and there is a discussion.
Thanks a lot for this and hope to see more of these threads.
Sups
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 05:44:47 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
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.
What would you say about his work prompted you to pick him as the first amongst equals that you wanted to highlight ? Is there anything in particular about his images that stands out for you ? |
Looks like, Zal beat me to it. Some works, and both Stieglitz' ands Strand's are among them, are easier to appreciate if seen in the context of their time. Like Zal, I believe what we are looking at here are the very beginnings of compositional style. What we perceive as such, as a 'style' today, were 'experiments' at one time.
I think it's exciting to go back to the raw source of something we can so easily recognize, apply and take for granted today. Stieglitz' 'White Fence' is, to my senses, a prime example of such a thing.
Just the other day I was looking at this photo by JPR and thought of Stieglitz', wondering if JPR's was a conscious evolution of it or an automatic one. |
I at least passingly, understand the historical context of the images.
But as you stated, they are things that we take for granted today - as
images I don't know that I find the appeal as a result - they seem
ordinary, common place, uninspired - perhaps exactly because there
is so much derivative work or work that has improved upon these foundations.
I've seen the first photograph ever taken too - it is in a museum here in Austin - while historically it is interesting, photographically, not so much.
So maybe that's what I'm asking - do Stieglitz et al stand up against
modern imagery ? Adams, Weston and the other famous West Coast photographers fall under this umbrella too - while what they did is stunning given the technology available to them at the time (e.g., consider the outrageously long exposure times for Weston's famous pepper shots), are they really just historically interesting, or as good/ better than contemporaries ?
I'm posing this is a question, rather than a blanket statement.
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 17:45:28. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:00:26 PM · #16 |
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.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 06:37:36 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So maybe that's what I'm asking - do Stieglitz et al stand up against modern imagery ? Adams, Weston and the other famous West Coast photographers fall under this umbrella too - while what they did is stunning given the technology available to them at the time (e.g., consider the outrageously long exposure times for Weston's famous pepper shots), are they really just historically interesting, or as good/ better than contemporaries ? |
Personally when I see this image (which is so much more stunning in person than on the web) it inspires me and makes me wish I could make a photograph half as good. Especially when you hear about the circumstances of the photo. I believe I read that Adams had exactly one plate (not sure if that's the correct term) with him and calculated the shutter/aperture in his head based on the light available at that exact moment- after the shutter closed the light changed and it was a completely different scene, where the crosses weren't lit at all. I would love to have the kind of talent of capture that Ansel Adams had.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 07:32:15 PM · #18 |
First of all, this is a great idea, and should be a forum category of its own.
Historical perspective can be tremendously beneficial, and help you to see things in a different light (no pun intended). The comments about Stieglitz being among the first to use photography as art, rather than documentation, remind me of something. Last summer I went to the Los Angeles Museum of Modern Art to see a showing of Impressionist Masters (I think that was the show). There were many paintings there from many famous painters. One of the things that I remember best, was a room dedicated to Matisse. The recorded information (on the rented earphones) went on and on about the imagery of his work, how it was such great art, had such tremendous symbolism, blah blah blah. Sounded like some pompous intellectual who had a financial investment in the paintings, and was trying to convince me of their value so they could sell at a profit. I'm still unconvinced about his talent, but the historical importance of his style is enormous. He was (among?)the first to paint with those colors, lines, etc. To use a currently-popular phrase, he was thinking way outside the box. That information gave me a greater ability to appreciate the paintings I was looking at.
Pioneers are often under-appreciated by those who follow, simply because the followers have only their own points of reference to compare. Young people today have little appreciation for the point of view of those who went thru the Depression. Not their fault. They just don't understand the other's perspective, because they haven't lived it or been educated about it.
Perspective determines attitude. Learn about something, or experience it for yourself, and your attitude about it changes. Learning about the master photographers will no doubt help the rest of us to become better, little by little. |
|
|
|
02/11/2005 07:41:00 PM · #19 |
One post with large photos can ruin the readability of a whole thread!
Brennan, could you do something about your monster post?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2005 10:02:33 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...do Stieglitz et al stand up against
modern imagery ?... are they really just historically interesting, or as good/ better than contemporaries ?... |
[Omissions mine]
I see Stieglitz as decidedly 'modern'. He was 'avant-garde' in a time, when that word still meant something. He was, and, perhaps, we can say this today with greater certainty, 'spear-heading the troops'. Apart from the evolutionary aspect of photography as an art form, I believe we have outlived and outdone the idea of linear progression altogether. In this sense, yes, the man and his pictures are, probably and first of all, 'history' to most of us. The avant-garde has gone, and we are sprawling, literally and laterally at that, without that sort of excitement of being at the beginning of something quite as miraculous.
There are no recent perceptible leaps forward, at least not hard, dry and pure ones á la Stieglitz, made single-handedly. Our excitement (and I'm speculating here, speaking my take of it) is about technological bounds and opportunities. With possibilities so vast we cannot measure them, we're all over the map and our artistry, our best works, I think, reflect this. We take stabs in the dark (even though our darkness is such an illuminated one), if we're hungry, if we have an explorative, inventive temperament.
The most interesting of contemporary work -or so it seems to me- is not, really, attached to a name anymore. It realizes an altogether different stance toward the world, and I do not mean this in the limited sense of a 'philosophical' attitude or perspective, but as a practical means to transform everything we have been so smugly certain of for a few centuries now.
I admit, I would have the hardest time trying to find a specimen of this kind of contemporary work, which would lend itself to a reasonable comparison with Strand's or Stieglitz', by any stretch of the imagination. Both context and references are of different worlds.
I think primitive abstract works have proven to be the most compatible measuring stick of what we're up to. But then again, they have always been.
We honour our Pioneers. We walk in their steps. We forget everything we emulate. When we look back, a pair of old shoes, tied in the grand style.
I say, beautiful, what ever happened to Velcro?
Message edited by author 2005-02-11 22:02:53.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2005 10:32:57 AM · #21 |
Very deep Zeus! But I wouldn't have expected less from you. Nice analysis.
I would disagree on one point. Aside from the founding father, pioneer status and the obvious technical limitations Stieglitz would have had, I do honesty believe that his work would stand alone quite well were it introduced tomorrow.
There is a certain immortal or timeless quality to his compositions that have endured for over a hundred years so far while hundreds, if not thousands, of his contemporaries, many of whom were much more highly acclaimed in their day, have fallen by the wayside and are now long forgotten. His works have stood the test of time and I am of the opinion that 2 or even 5 hundred years from now some of his works will still be around and his name still remembered.
Of course he would probably end up with a 4.8 average if he entered anything in one of our challenges.
Message edited by author 2005-02-12 11:03:17.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2005 11:51:30 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Of course he would probably end up with a 4.8 average if he entered anything in one of our challenges. |
You mean I stand a chance of beating him? I'm at 4.9 right now... |
|
|
|
02/13/2005 02:59:17 PM · #23 |
Edward Steichen: Alfred Stieglitz at "291". 1915
|
|
|
|
02/13/2005 03:15:48 PM · #24 |
Stieglitz, Alfred, 1864â1946, American photographer, editor, and art exhibitor, b. Hoboken, N.J. The first art photographer in the United States, Stieglitz more than any other American compelled the recognition of photography as a fine art.
In 1905 he established the famous gallery â291â at 291 Fifth Ave., New York City, for the exhibition of photography as a fine art. Soon the gallery broadened its scope to include the works of the modern French art movement and introduced to the United States the work of Cézanne, Picasso, Braque, Brancusi, and many others. It also made known the work of such American artists as John Marin, Charles Demuth, Max Weber, and Georgia O'Keeffe whom Stieglitz married in 1924.
Through his own superb photographic work and his generous championship of others, he promoted the symbolic and spiritually significant in American art, as opposed to the merely technically proficient.
Partial text courtesy of
Answers.com
|
|
|
|
02/13/2005 03:29:56 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Personally when I see this image (which is so much more stunning in person than on the web) it inspires me and makes me wish I could make a photograph half as good. Especially when you hear about the circumstances of the photo. I believe I read that Adams had exactly one plate (not sure if that's the correct term) with him and calculated the shutter/aperture in his head based on the light available at that exact moment- after the shutter closed the light changed and it was a completely different scene, where the crosses weren't lit at all. I would love to have the kind of talent of capture that Ansel Adams had. |
I think this is another fine example of what I was trying to get at - all the reasons you mention have nothing to do with what the picture is, or how it looks.
Yes he was very lucky to chance across this. Yes he was technically great to be able to take it in a single shot, with all the limitations he faced. Yes it must have been extremely tough having to cart glass plates around and only have half a dozen frames on any given trip.
We've come along way with our motorised film and digital cameras and rolls of exposures. I'm not denying that it used to be a whole lot harder to put a picture on a piece of paper.
But does that have anything to do with the quality of the final image ?
Should we care how hard was it to achieve, or if it is any good or not ?
This shouldn't be taken to mean I don't like that particular image, but (ignoring the whole argument about resolution, the darkroom work done to it, the fact the original exposure has a white sky etc)
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 ?
|
|
