[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex for Artists

  • From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:13:15 -0400

Either didn't know or didn't care. Atget often used a rising front on his camera beyond the image circle so that the top corners on many of his photos were vignetted. C-B's negatives were so dense, according to Sid Kaplan, one of his printers, that printing from at least one of them took more half an hour under the enlarger (said he went out for a sandwich during that exposure). Many of Weston's prints were improperly fixed so they faded over time. Stuff like that. None of this prevents me from regarding these guys as heroes, but not for their technique.


Allen Zak

On Oct 10, 2008, at 1:11 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

"finer points" means what?
It means they didn't really know what they were doing?
You wouldn't not want to go down as saying people like Atget and Weston
didn't know what they were doing. They practiced their craft day in and day
out. What they skimped on I don't know.



mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner



From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 21:59:57 -0400
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex for Artists

Recognized masters of photography are all over the place with regard to
their technical abilities.  Ansel Adams, Avedon (fill in the blanks)
had solid technique, but other great photographers, like
Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue, Atget, to name three Frenchmen, were
relatively indifferent to the finer points. This carries over to other
arts, including some of the most technically demanding.  Modest
Mussorgsky, an amateur composer who continually relied on some of his
more proficient colleagues for technical assistance, produced some of
the world's greatest classical music.  Art is in the power of the
impulse, I believe, which if strong enough, overcomes technical
limitations.  That, however, is no license to be lazy.

Allen Zak

On Oct 7, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

"Technique" certainly comes well into play regardless of ones media if
its
painting, sculpture or whatever else is left.
As it is in the performing arts.
I don't believe photography stands alone as an unusual artform which
is hard
to categories as art or anything else.
Lots of people nowadays to learn their art need to make sure they are
not
weak on computer skills.



mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner



From: Marvin Wallace <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:13:15 +0800
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleisflex for Artists

I was considering the content of previous posts, and think it obvious
that
photography at least with film, is not like being an artist,"
painter",
since the artist can be solely conceptual. The photographer on the
other
hand must at least be a great technician. He or She is forced to
master the
technique, whereas the artist can dispense with technique. This
mastery of
technique is what makes the photographer an artist within the
discipline.
This high technique lends itself to a quality camera such as the
Rolleiflex.


Examples of such photographer technicians are Cartier Bresson, Ansel
Adams,
Joel Peter Witkin, Andre Serrano, Cindy Sherman and so on.

Marvin.



-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:25 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree

I painted on the smooth side of Masonite as did lots of my friends
taking
painting in Washington university in the 70's.
4x4 was my format of choice.
Feet.
An 8x4 cut in half.

Was a bit tricky to hitch hike down Big Bend Blvd with but I pulled
it off.



mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark William Rabiner



From: David Dodge <dannysoar@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:28:48 -0400
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Marvin Wallace and I Disagree

I was brought up by artists. They frequently painted on the rough
side
of Masonite. From time to time they'd crop a half finished painting
with
a saw. I remember one large painting that was cropped several times
and
wound up very small.
David


Don Williams wrote:
At 07:27 PM 9/24/2008, Marc Small wrote, in part:
Cropped photos are life.  I cannot comprehend the sort of
anal-retentive mindset which demands that all pictures be printed
full-frame. It just does not work that way. Any one who has spent
time in a dark room has experienced the process of just HOW to
crop a
decent negative.  A lot of poor pictures produce a great cropped
image.

Marc

I never knew cropping could be such an emotional subject.  I never
think about it, I just do it, both in the camera and later, as the
mood strikes me.

I wonder how all the famous painters of the past decided how to crop
their paintings.  Was it a result of the size of the canvas they
could
afford, the dimensions of the wall or ceiling they were working on,
the size of frames available (if there were ready-made frames), or
what?

DAW

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: