[pure-silver] Re: At long last you can watch Long Live Film
- From: "Don Sweet" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:46:20 +1300
Hi Michael
Thanks for your answer. I am wrong about Weston's advertising photos. What
confused me is that Weston made his photos of steel factories, etc while he
was working as a photographer in a portrait studio. I don't much care for
those photos, and carelessly assumed that they were made for the factory
owners. On the contrary it seems Weston was very proud of them.
Don Sweet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee"
<michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:21 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: At long last you can watch Long Live Film
> Well, you are absolutely correct. I mentioned
> Arbus because Bill used her as an example--he
> thought I would not like her work, and while it is
> not among my favorite work, it certainly is good work.
>
> I exclude most of Adams's work. I do not think he
> did them as technical exercises, although many may
> end up being merely that.
>
> I am not aware of any advertising work that Edward
> Weston did. He certainly made thousands of
> commercial portraits, but advertising work. Do
> point me to it.
>
> Minor White, of course was involved with to
> connecting to the universal. His approach came
> from his readings and his mystical leanings.
> Edward Weston's approach, I believe was more
> intuitive.
>
> Yes, for all of them their work resonates still,
> as does the music of J.S. Bach and W.A. Mozart in
> particular, as well as the music of hundreds of
> other composers. And what it all resonates with
> are the life rhythms that are in each of us (to a
> greater or lesser extent depending on the
> bioenergetic health of our organisms.)
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On 11/20/13 3:39 PM, Don Sweet wrote:
>
>
> > That is a very interesting analysis, but query the terms in which you
> > distinguish the artistic output of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.
First, I
> > would agree that in order to put the photographic work of each of them
into
> > context you need to consider a third photographer. But (choosing
> > exclusively from the ranks of American monochrome photographers of the
> > "heroic" period) wouldn't Minor White be more appropriate for that
purpose
> > than Diane Arbus (or Edward Steichen, or Alfred Stieglitz, or the others
you
> > name)?
> >
> > Second, for a fair comparison you would need to exclude from Ansel
Adams'
> > work his vast output of what seem to be technical exemplars (and from
> > Weston's his advertising work).
> >
> > Third you should look at their photographs in isolation from what they
each
> > wrote about their own work.
> >
> > Fourth you can't overlook their mutual respect and co-operation.
> >
> > When you compare and contrast the three of them in that way, surely none
of
> > them fails to catch the "universal rhythms." Obviously White's approach
> > was more metaphysical, Weston's more sensual and Adams' more technical
(as
> > we know from their writings). But they were all breathtakingly good
> > photographers, in the terms you describe, and their work resonates
still.
> >
> >
> > The value of PostModernism eludes me too, except for the concept of
> > deconstructionism, which probably has some therapeutic uses.
> >
> > Don Sweet
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee"
> > <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:41 PM
> > Subject: [pure-silver] Re: At long last you can watch Long Live Film
> >
> >
> >> I hardly know where to begin in response to you,
> >> Bill. You do need to know your art history. (I'm
> >> self-taught at that, too.)
> >>
> >> Post modern art is opposed to modernism. Modernism
> >> basically started at the end of the 19th century
> >> and was predominant until the middle-late 20th
> >> century. In the lase 1960s, perhaps a few year
> >> earlier, much art, at least in the "art world"
> >> became "post modern."
> >>
> >> Abstract expressionist painting is perhaps the
> >> ultimate example of modernist painting
> >>
> >> Modernism, and I am proudly a modernist, is
> >> concerned with the object itself—more than the
> >> message the object conveys. Modernist art is
> >> certainly informed by intelligence, but modernist
> >> works are not "about" ideas. Edward Weston is the
> >> quintessential modernist photographer, as is Brett
> >> Weston. Also in that category are Aaron Siskind
> >> and Harry Callahan, Imogen Cunningham, Walker
> >> Evans, and so many others. Edward Weston wrote
> >> that what he photographed was "life rhythms"
> >> whether the subject pictured was clouds, torsos,
> >> smokestacks, etc. (Since I am traveling I do not
> >> have the exact quote at hand, Apologies.)
> >> Actually, what he did say, is that he
> >> "photographed the "me" of universal rhythms." I
> >> used the term "life rhythms." Same thing.
> >>
> >> Post modernist art is about ideas. To post
> >> modernist artists it doesn't matter so much what
> >> the art looks like, what it "says"--its
> >> message--is paramount. (This is a very summary
> >> explanation, but it works.) Examples of post
> >> modern photographers would include Richard Prince
> >> and Barbara Kruger. They goal in their work is
> >> usually to critique society. (Again, this is a
> >> generalization.)
> >>
> >> The great art historian Sir Herbert Read once said
> >> that the plastic arts are not about ideas; they
> >> are about feelings. " If one has ideas to express
> >> the proper medium is language."
> >>
> >> If you are unfamiliar with the term "post modern"
> >> it is a sad comment on your knowledge of art and
> >> the art and photography world, as the term has
> >> been used more than extensively for more than 50
> >> years.
> >>
> >> Diane Arbus, who I knew by the way, was an
> >> excellent photographer. Adams made many great
> >> photographs, but is a lesser artist. Far too many
> >> of his photographs are just representations of
> >> what he photographed. They do not, as Edward
> >> Weston's photographs do, allude to more than what
> >> they are of. That is because, although technically
> >> perfect, they are not as well seen. What I mean by
> >> "well seen" is this. The rhythms created by the
> >> tones in a well seen black and white photograph
> >> (for the moment I am only speaking about black and
> >> white photographs) do not cause the viewer's eyes
> >> to move in such a way that connects them to
> >> universal rhythms. For Adams, what was seen--the
> >> beauties of nature--was more important than how it
> >> was seen. For Weston, subjects were essentially
> >> interchangeable--it was how he saw the thing
> >> before his lens that makes his photographs so
> >> wonderful, not what he was pointing the camera and
> >> lens at.
> >>
> >> In the art market Adams's photographs were the
> >> first to get relatively seriously high prices, but
> >> essentially they have not gone higher in the last
> >> ten years than they were ten years ago, whereas
> >> some of Edward Weston's photographs have sold
> >> individually for over one million dollars. Why is
> >> this? It is because there is an (often
> >> unconscious) understanding that Adams's
> >> photographs are only representations of what he
> >> saw; they are nothing more than that, no matter
> >> how lovely some of them may be to look at.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the prime example of Adams missing the
> >> point is the section "Technical Notes" (it was
> >> called something like that, I do not have the book
> >> at hand) in his 1949 (I believe it was) book "My
> >> Camera in Yosemite Valley." In this section he
> >> describes the making of each of the 24 photographs
> >> that were exquisitely reproduced. That was good.
> >> But then, for each of the pictures, he goes on to
> >> say something like, "Bridevail Falls: Photograph
> >> here in last May and early June between 10: AM and
> >> noon. Use a normal lens and a K2 filter." (I'm
> >> making up the exact words—if I had the book here I
> >> would quote exactly, but really, my words are
> >> accurate in relating the tone of what he wrote.)
> >> He might as well as put brass markers at the spot
> >> so that others could set their tripods in the same
> >> place. Why would he have written this? It can only
> >> be because he thought that what was seen (to
> >> "best" effect to show the beauty of the falls) was
> >> more important than how it might be seen. You can
> >> bet that had Edward Weston photographed there, the
> >> picture would have been more abstract—the "me of
> >> universal rhythms would have been paramount." The
> >> falls would have ultimately been just the excuse
> >> for making an exposure.
> >>
> >> Now, of course there must be an emotional response
> >> to the subject for Weston and for anyone else. No
> >> one in their right mind (I hope) would want to go
> >> to the trouble of setting up cumbersome large view
> >> cameras unless they had an emotional response to
> >> the subject. But then, the photographers job is to
> >> make the best picture they can; realizing that
> >> foremost they are making a picture, regardless of
> >> what the picture is of.
> >>
> >> Now, to contradict myself, there have been many
> >> great photographs that are pretty much only about
> >> what was pictured. They are usually news
> >> photographs of some type.But even here, the
> >> photograph of the naked girl running down the
> >> street burning from napalm and the other great one
> >> from the Vietnam War of the Vietnamese "good guy"
> >> shooting a Viet Cong guy in the head at
> >> point-blank range are great not only because of
> >> what they show, but because they are extremely
> >> well seen--in some way, and this I do not think I
> >> can explain, the rhythms in the photographs relate
> >> to universal rhythms. Had the photographs been
> >> poorly seen, they would never have become such
> >> iconic pictures.
> >>
> >> I hope this is clear. I urge you to educate
> >> yourself about art, the history of art, and the
> >> art world. Art speak is disgusting in the extreme
> >> and you can safely not read any of it, but terms
> >> such as "universal rhythms" and "life rhythms" are
> >> as far from art speak as you can get. But you do
> >> need to educate yourself so that you can make this
> >> differentiation yourself.
> >>
> >> Now, I read your response again. Ideas are always
> >> expressed through photography, but the work,
> >> unless it is post-modern work is not about ideas.
> >> Weston's "me of universal rhythms: is an idea, but
> >> his photographs are not only about that.
> >>
> >> A beautiful object, to me, is one in which the
> >> abstract structure of the picture conveys
> >> universal rhythms. It might be a photograph of
> >> something disturbing and gruesome. It is the
> >> rhythms that count. This discounts almost all
> >> "pretty" pictures. Pictures that many think are
> >> beautiful because what is photographed is
> >> considered beautiful—photographs of pretty sunsets
> >> usually fall into this category.
> >>
> >> One last thing: there are an infinite number of
> >> ways to see in terms of universal rhythms. There
> >> are no rules. Arbus and Weston are, in this
> >> regard, not so very different from each other as
> >> you may think. There is a far great difference
> >> between Adams and Weston than between Arbus and
> >> Weston.
> >>
> >> If you find it rare to see a photograph that isn't
> >> much more then the sum of its subject matter, may
> >> I suggest that you learn how to look at
> >> photographs. Most folks look at them for the
> >> subject matter—and leave it at that. but there is
> >> often more to be seen. In this regard I was just
> >> looking for a quote that I cannot locate. It was
> >> from text on a wall at hte Peggy Guggenheim Museum
> >> in Venice that I saw when I was there ten years
> >> ago. I paraphrase: The viewer of a work of art in
> >> the viewing has the same responsibility to the
> >> work as the artist had in making it."
> >>
> >> I truly hope this has been helpful.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> On 11/19/13 12:34 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>> Oh, Michael - you and I really don’t see eye to eye. First of all,
could
> > you please define “post-modern photographers”? Is that a group? An
> > organization? Photographers bounded by the years in which they’re
active?
> > “School of f/64” I understand; “post-modern”, I don’t.
> >>> Question: why on earth should a picture be a “beautiful object” to
have
> > value? What is not valid about “ideas” expressed through photography?
You
> > probably really hate Diane Arbus! As much as I loathe Picasso (there - I
> > said it!), “Guernica” has no beauty about it, but it’s certainly “art”.
> >>> I think that the bottom line here is that I have to challenge your
> > assumption that a photograph - *any* photograph - can be only "about
what
> > they are of - and nothing more”. It’s rare to see a photograph that isn’
t
> > much, much more than the sum of its subject matter. I happen to think
that
> > Arbus - and Ansel - were pretty damn good photographers!ct
> >>> -Bill
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee
> > <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> The word "image" came into common usage when referring to photographs
> > with the post-modern photographers. They are not concerned with pictures
as
> > beautiful objects; they are involved with "ideas" and invariably their
> > photographs are indeed about what they are of--and nothing more. This is
a
> > debasement of art, reflection of where our so-called society has
slithered
> > (to quote my favorite poet).
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
============================================================================
> > ==============================To unsubscribe from this list, go to
> > www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and
> > password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> >>
> >
============================================================================
> > =================================
> >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
your
> > account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> > subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> >
> >
============================================================================
=================================
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> >
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
