Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: tom b on May 25, 2009, 02:14:25 am
-
Is this time in photography going to be seen as a golden era?
It seems to me that for all the arguments about digital vs film this period in time will be seen as providing a fantastic variety of photographic opportunities.
In terms of film it is true that it in decline but that in itself does provide opportunities. Used film cameras are becoming cheaper, particularly in a recession. Wet darkrooms are being given away. There is still expertise and a knowledge base out there if you want to learn film processing and printing. Although film and chemicals are getting harder to obtain they are still available. There is equipment available to combine film and digital techniques.
In terms of digital obviously there will be continual increases in terms of quality and price but we have reached a level of sophistication that allows us to make high quality images that will be very hard to improve on significantly. The limiting factor for digital seems to be lens quality. With 20+ megapixel DSLRs stretching pro zooms there is a ceiling that will slow down major advances in cameras. Medium format cameras seem to be reaching that ceiling too.
The future will see a rapid decline in film availability and wet darkroom enthusiasts will find it difficult and expensive to get materials.
Digital will continue to get better and less expensive. The limit will probably be the willingness of photographers to pay for Leica quality prime lenses to put on their camera bodies.
Will people in the future be saying that we had so many opportunities to make photographs be it using film or digital?
Cheers,
-
Is this time in photography going to be seen as a golden era?
In terms of digital obviously there will be continual increases in terms of quality and price but we have reached a level of sophistication that allows us to make high quality images that will be very hard to improve on significantly.
We'll look back and sigh - yes it was good, but not that great. With all-electronic cameras improving, ceramic lenses improving, and more sophisticated sensor and lens designs enabled with use of quantum or hybrid computers, we'll see a few jumps over some of those stubborn hurdles.
-
We'll look back and sigh - yes it was good, but not that great. With all-electronic cameras improving, ceramic lenses improving, and more sophisticated sensor and lens designs enabled with use of quantum or hybrid computers, we'll see a few jumps over some of those stubborn hurdles.
Interesting question.
I think we're already reaching a point of diminishing returns when it comes to sharpness and resolution in absolute terms. Certainly there will always be folks who want more ("A print that's 5x8 meters? That's just not big enough!), but things are really good already.
I see the biggest opportunties for improvement in the automation of processing issues. If you could automate and optimize the process of capturing & processing multiple frames for focus depth blending and HDR, I'd be first in line. Likewise, automation of multiple frame capture and stitching may be a better direction than über-costly giant sensors.
-
I don't see this "era" as a golden age, but rather as a stage of evolution in the technologies that photographers use to capture images and advance their vision. The tools got easier and complicated at the same time. As Jeff Schewe(as others as well), "Pixels are free". But the technologies utilized to take advantage of them are both new and confusing in that we have had to rethink and relearn how we photograph. Many of us that have relied on outside sources(process film, print images) are now learning that we have the ability to be "the lab" and have a far greater control in the output. This has freed up our limitations in that we no longer have to be at the mercy of someone else to output our vision. But it was the technology that has allowed this to happen. To me the "Golden Era" of the past is not over, but is and always will be evolving.
-
Is this time in photography going to be seen as a golden era?
Cheers,
Golden era in terms of what? Equipment certainly, but when I look at what's coming along in magazines like B&W, Color, Aperture, etc., I'd hardly call this a "golden era" of photography. Great photographs aren't made by equipment. They're made with equipment by the human mind. I may be wrong but it seems to me that there was a long period, beginning perhaps with the people who followed Andre Kertesz, during which photographers looked back at the best of what preceded them and built on that. Nowadays I see too many people not bothering to learn from the history of the medium and, instead, taking advantage of recent digital cameras' high burst rate to try to capture things that would be captured far better by an approach on tiptoe and an anticipation of the developing situation. In the end the rapid fire people capture many frames but often miss the shot.
There's a story about Brassai, late in his life, going to shoot a portrait of some recently famous personage. When he arrived he found two young photographers already there banging away. When they learned who he was they stopped shooting and helped him set up his ancient, rickety tripod that kept wanting to kneel. Brassai engaged his subject in conversation for a while and finally made an exposure, folded his gear and got ready to leave. The young photographers were flabbergasted. They asked why he didn't make more exposures. He laughed and said something to the effect that "I'd rather feel I made the shot myself than that I won it in a lottery."
Sometimes gee-whiz equipment can hinder your work instead of enhance it. Everything depends on the guy using it.
-
Sometimes gee-whiz equipment can hinder your work instead of enhance it. Everything depends on the guy using it.
At the moment if you want to make a photograph with similar technology to Brassai you can. Similar cameras, film, paper and chemicals can be found to make photographs from most eras. If you want to be a Cartier-Bresson and grab a Leica and some film and walk the streets you can. If you want to to grab a 10fps DSLR to take Olympic diving events you can, though I don't think that you could have a talk with the diver and take one shot with any confidence.
My statement about this being a golden era is that today you have the tools and materials to make an incredible variety of images using present and past techniques.
In the future I doubt we will have this variety of choices. We already are starting to have a new generation of photographers that have never used a wet darkroom. Film stock is starting to disappear and how long will they continue to make a broad range of photographic papers.
Yes, gee-whiz equipment can hinder your work, but in the future will you have a choice to use anything but digital equipment without having to pay high prices and searching for materials that we take for granted today?
-
Golden era in terms of what? Equipment certainly, but when I look at what's coming along in magazines like B&W, Color, Aperture, etc., I'd hardly call this a "golden era" of photography. Great photographs aren't made by equipment. They're made with equipment by the human mind. I may be wrong but it seems to me that there was a long period, beginning perhaps with the people who followed Andre Kertesz, during which photographers looked back at the best of what preceded them and built on that. Nowadays I see too many people not bothering to learn from the history of the medium and, instead, taking advantage of recent digital cameras' high burst rate to try to capture things that would be captured far better by an approach on tiptoe and an anticipation of the developing situation. In the end the rapid fire people capture many frames but often miss the shot.
There's a story about Brassai, late in his life, going to shoot a portrait of some recently famous personage. When he arrived he found two young photographers already there banging away. When they learned who he was they stopped shooting and helped him set up his ancient, rickety tripod that kept wanting to kneel. Brassai engaged his subject in conversation for a while and finally made an exposure, folded his gear and got ready to leave. The young photographers were flabbergasted. They asked why he didn't make more exposures. He laughed and said something to the effect that "I'd rather feel I made the shot myself than that I won it in a lottery."
Sometimes gee-whiz equipment can hinder your work instead of enhance it. Everything depends on the guy using it.
Perhaps Brassai was able to take just one shot because of his decades of experience, while the young guns were gunning just to get that shot they'd otherwise miss due to their inexperience?
I saw a statistic somewhere that each National Geographic article requires 10,000 photographs. And this was in the film days, with established pros behind the lens.
There's a lot to be said about the deliberate approach of shooting only a few frames, and going for the near-video speed. I do both, with dSLR and MF film, and haven't found much difference in the end result - only more keepers with MF.
In the end, what matters is the shot - such anecdotes as you wrote above make for entertaining stories, but in the end it's the final image which counts, no matter how you got around to getting it.
-
Perhaps Brassai was able to take just one shot because of his decades of experience, while the young guns were gunning just to get that shot they'd otherwise miss due to their inexperience?
Brassai was able to make one shot because he was having a conversation with the subject and watching for the moment when the subject's facial expression was the right one. The "young guns" never would have gotten that expression because instead of interacting with the subject they were interacting with their equipment.
I saw a statistic somewhere that each National Geographic article requires 10,000 photographs. And this was in the film days, with established pros behind the lens.
Yes, that's a sad statistic about the "established pros."
There's a lot to be said about the deliberate approach of shooting only a few frames, and going for the near-video speed. I do both, with dSLR and MF film, and haven't found much difference in the end result - only more keepers with MF.
Depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting birds on the wing the machine-gun approach may make sense, especially if you're a novice and uncertain about what you're after. It hardly makes sense in landscape or on the street, and it certainly doesn't make sense if you're shooting a portrait. If you're shooting portraits at "near-video speed" there's definitely something wrong with your technique.
In the end, what matters is the shot - such anecdotes as you wrote above make for entertaining stories, but in the end it's the final image which counts, no matter how you got around to getting it.
Exactly. Seems a bit self-evident as a matter of fact. If you take a look at Brassai's work you'll see that a lot of his "final images" were pretty good. As for the anecdote, it's more than entertaining; it illustrates the point that art isn't created by equipment.
-
Is this a golden era?
That´s a loaded question, as RSL points out, and is too wide for simple reply. Insofar as equipment goes, it´s a revolutionary era; in the case of what´s done with all that stuff - then it is not a golden era.
Clearly subjective, this latter part of the reply, but just the way I see it. In my opinion, there was indeed a golden era and that existed for a short time after WW ll and lasted until around the time of the Beatles and Blow Up. After that, the rot seems to have set in with ever more empty theories and emptier visuals taking up space in magazines, whether photographic or just users of photography. Instead of great photography I sensed greater desperation and a change for the sake of change. It could be false hindsight but I seem to remember some Vogues as more exciting places to visit - at least, the European ones as the few US ones I saw were very stiff - than they are today. A difference seems to be that today it´s all about perfect detail and razor definition where once it was about romance and feel. Could this be simply because of the pernicious influence of the pixel? And where there is the exception to that, it seems to be all about porno chic, something which disgusts me more than it excites me.
In a way, you might take Playboy as an example of what I think I mean. There were several years from about ´64 when I had a subscription running and the magazine was left lying about the house and I felt no compunction whatsoever about my young kids reading it or just looking at the photography. Then, slowly, it changed ever so gently and it lost that lovin´ feelin´, you could say, and I cancelled.
Advertising. All the great commercials I can remember happened many years ago; all the billboards I seem to think about were from a bygone age too. Today, the message is to shock; yesterday (that golden era?) it was about charm. Maybe as contribution from the pixel, today´s wow factor depends on going over any limits you care to think about. It´s the age of excess, not gold.
As I said, subjective.
Rob C
-
Insofar as equipment goes, it´s a revolutionary era; in the case of what´s done with all that stuff - then it is not a golden era.
I agree with the first part of the statement, but not necessarily the second part.
Transitioning from chemical to digital imaging is indeed revolutionary. It is similar to transitioning from large format to 35mm, from cumbersome to simple standardized processing, from b/w to color, from rangefinders to slr to point&shoot, etc. Each attracts a new generation of photographers, opens new doors to distribution/exhibiting, and changes the ways business are conducted. Some such examples in the digital era (which IMHO is in its infancy):
- There is an explosion of new photographers producing an astounding volume of work. Many such work could never have been produced without digital imaging. (Think Abu Ghraib, arguably the most viewed images of the decade.)
- Many, new or old, can edit and print their own work at home with easy.
- Once produced, the image makers have a wide range of distribution channels to a far reaching audience. Both are unimaginable in the past. (Think Abu Ghraib, again.)
- Amateurs, like myself, now have an incentive to show and market their work.
- For the pros, there are wedding photobooks, micro stocks, etc., etc., etc.
Now onto the second part: do these lead to "new" or "better" photography? I believe the answer is yes and no. Some digital work could never be made chemically (or only with great degrees of difficulties), such as panoramas, collages, etc. A step down is the control and manipulation of dynamic range, sharpness, etc. For some photographers, applying these capabilities can lead to creation of new work, and making technical improvements. For them, the answer is yes.
But not everyone would agree. One geezer photog lamented that, "There are just *too many* digital images out there, and most of them are *junk*." For people like him, the answer is no.
In a way, you might take Playboy as an example of what I think I mean. There were several years from about ´64 when I had a subscription running and the magazine was left lying about the house and I felt no compunction whatsoever about my young kids reading it or just looking at the photography. Then, slowly, it changed ever so gently and it lost that lovin´ feelin´, you could say, and I cancelled.
I know exactly what you mean. The photos keep getting sharper and better "exposed", but the articles keep getting worse.
-
At the moment if you want to make a photograph with similar technology to Brassai you can. Similar cameras, film, paper and chemicals can be found to make photographs from most eras. If you want to be a Cartier-Bresson and grab a Leica and some film and walk the streets you can. If you want to to grab a 10fps DSLR to take Olympic diving events you can, though I don't think that you could have a talk with the diver and take one shot with any confidence.
I shoot dancers,who move through their motions as fast as a diver and normally prefer to use a single shot to capture the peak of the action. The other day I used a 9 fps camera to shoot a performance and wished I' stuck to my single shot methodology as I had more shots to choose from, but rarely were any at the right moment, as 9fps was way too slow and too vague to catch the precise moment.
And if photographing divers I would talk to them if possible and watch them perform to be able to know the best moment to shoot - I'd learn my subject.
-
Clearly subjective, this latter part of the reply, but just the way I see it. In my opinion, there was indeed a golden era and that existed for a short time after WW ll and lasted until around the time of the Beatles and Blow Up. After that, the rot seems to have set in with ever more empty theories and emptier visuals taking up space in magazines, whether photographic or just users of photography. Instead of great photography I sensed greater desperation and a change for the sake of change. It could be false hindsight but I seem to remember some Vogues as more exciting places to visit - at least, the European ones as the few US ones I saw were very stiff - than they are today. A difference seems to be that today it´s all about perfect detail and razor definition where once it was about romance and feel. Could this be simply because of the pernicious influence of the pixel? And where there is the exception to that, it seems to be all about porno chic, something which disgusts me more than it excites me.
In a way, you might take Playboy as an example of what I think I mean. There were several years from about ´64 when I had a subscription running and the magazine was left lying about the house and I felt no compunction whatsoever about my young kids reading it or just looking at the photography. Then, slowly, it changed ever so gently and it lost that lovin´ feelin´, you could say, and I cancelled.
Advertising. All the great commercials I can remember happened many years ago; all the billboards I seem to think about were from a bygone age too. Today, the message is to shock; yesterday (that golden era?) it was about charm. Maybe as contribution from the pixel, today´s wow factor depends on going over any limits you care to think about. It´s the age of excess, not gold.
As I said, subjective.
Rob C
And nearly always biased to when the person opinining was young and before they grew up and got boring! "It were much better in my day,when they played real music, not that new fangled jazz/rock 'n roll/rock/disco/punk/hiphop/rave/jungle [delete as appropriate] nonsense"
Ironically I don't have too much time for contemporary music as it all sounds like stuff I already have. Much as I like say swing, dance or punk rock music, I like to hear new sounds, not the same thing rehashed again and again and again and........
-
But not everyone would agree. One geezer photog lamented that, "There are just *too many* digital images out there, and most of them are *junk*." For people like him, the answer is no.
Now, now... easy does it with the geezer stuff.
The other day I used a 9 fps camera to shoot a performance and wished I' stuck to my single shot methodology as I had more shots to choose from, but rarely were any at the right moment, as 9fps was way too slow and too vague to catch the precise moment.
Hear, hear! I tried the same thing, shooting birds on the wing. 9 frames/second almost never gave me as satisfactory a result as I could get with single shots. After a couple mornings doing that I gave up and went back strictly to single-shot. If I'd tried to get these shots in burst mode I'd almost surely have missed them.
[attachment=14302:Egret_in_the_Sun.jpg] [attachment=14303:Great_Bl...scending.jpg]
-
> Is this time in photography going to be seen as a golden era?
IIRC the golden era of photography begin in about 1888 when Kodak started selling the first mass produced camera. Since then it has gotten better and better. Now, due to the growth of digital technology, the mechanisms used to make and produce photographs have permitted broad, even revolutionary improvements and a phenomenal decline in time and cost, on all fronts.
The average person can get excellent results, and, has been shown on this site repeatedly, if one is willing to spend some time to learn technique and practice, one can get world-class results. So most definitely this is neither the beginning nor the end of a golden era, but it is squarely in a point where the only limits are due to the photographer’s opportunity, imagination, and willingness to try new things.
The best part of all is the phenomenal growth of synergy in the photographic arena. Sites such as this one permits the willing opportunities to learn and share in ways that a few years ago were simply not possible.
-
> Is this time in photography going to be seen as a golden era?
IIRC the golden era of photography begin in about 1888 when Kodak started selling the first mass produced camera. Since then it has gotten better and better. Now, due to the growth of digital technology, the mechanisms used to make and produce photographs have permitted broad, even revolutionary improvements and a phenomenal decline in time and cost, on all fronts.
The average person can get excellent results, and, has been shown on this site repeatedly, if one is willing to spend some time to learn technique and practice, one can get world-class results. So most definitely this is neither the beginning nor the end of a golden era, but it is squarely in a point where the only limits are due to the photographer’s opportunity, imagination, and willingness to try new things.
The best part of all is the phenomenal growth of synergy in the photographic arena. Sites such as this one permits the willing opportunities to learn and share in ways that a few years ago were simply not possible.
Justan, I don´t see that any of this defines a golden era, simply records the changes of the game; I also have huge doubts about your claim of "phenomenal decline in time and costs"! In my gentle opinion, it is both much more expensive and very time consuming too. I lived through the era of toting around a pair of Hasselblads and three Nikons at a time; it wasn´t a statement it was because I had them, I wanted the backup and some jobs required both formats. The point, though, is that it was affordable buying top-of-the-line some years ago. Yes, there was a business to write it all off against but that doesn´t make the prices for t-o-t-l equipment any the less crazy today. The difference is that people have just become accustomed to being creamed at every turn.
You are right, I think, in saying this is neither the beginning nor the end of a golden era; this is long after it happened and, jjj take note, you require the old man´s memory to know that. It has sod all to do with music or anything else: that´s a distraction from the discussion, which is photography.
But hey, wouldn´t it be awful if you knew at twenty what you would like to forget at sixty!
Rob C
-
Ironically I don't have too much time for contemporary music as it all sounds like stuff I already have. Much as I like say swing, dance or punk rock music, I like to hear new sounds, not the same thing rehashed again and again and again and........
Sounds as if you're listening to the wrong music. Try Mendelssohn or Beethoven or Grieg. Good music, like good visual art and good poetry gets better every time you visit it. Once you become familiar with it it becomes yours. If that doesn't happen then it's time to move on.
-
>Justan, I don´t see that any of this defines a golden era, simply records the changes of the game;
Rob, that sounds dismissive. What isn’t golden about the time span? IMO it’s all been good. It is no different from any other art. As time goes by things change, but there has been no period that stands out as achievement above and beyond all others. What has happened is increasing numbers have and continue to become masters.
Kindly explain why you suggested the golden age only existed between shortly after WW2 and the time of film Blow Up? What do you suggest was outstanding about this span?
> I also have huge doubts about your claim of "phenomenal decline in time and costs"!
Denial can be a strong thing, but at least look at the facts. First, here’s a tool to show you the role of inflation over time: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) Accordingly, $2K US in 1970 is the equivalent of just shy of $11K today. The reverse of that is that something that sells for $2K today had an equivalent cost in 1970 dollars of about $364.
Second, you are making reference to top of the line equipment and I was making reference to what most buy. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, right? While I do agree that top of the line is way more expensive now than it was in 1970, that is unique to top of the line equipment.
Third, regarding work flow, consider the time, costs, and infrastructure to handle & process film and printing. Plus of course the costs to maintain a wet lab, plus the costs for the lab’s space and equipment. Add to this the post processing time to touch up dust spots. Whew, it was lots of work and cost! If you did work in photo enhancement in the ways prior to computers, that could be a *huge* consumer of time.
Today you can go from camera to printer in minutes if you want. No film. No darkroom. Anyone who actually pays attention would agree that the loss of these work flow ball-and-chains amounts to a HUGE savings in both time and infrastructure. Combine the time reduction for work flow with a decrease in the cost of most equipment (again, in terms of real dollars) and that’s what I mean by a phenomenal decline in time and costs.
> I lived through the era of toting around a pair of Hasselblads and three Nikons at a time; it wasn´t a statement it was because I had them, I wanted the backup and some jobs required both formats. The point, though, is that it was affordable buying top-of-the-line some years ago.
It is a wise person that plans for failure. Today it seems that new MF is ever more a specialty market, particularly in terms of equipment cost; the same is true for top of the line in the traditional DSLR class. Yet even in the crème de la crème class of gear, I suspect you’ll agree that equipment offers far greater abilities than it did 30, 20, 10, or even 5 years ago; moreover, the cost in terms of real dollars has continued to decline, except for the state of the art. Of course, were we to bring used MF into the discussion, it too has tumbled.
But you are correct that new top end equipment now is way more than in the past. So I’ll modify my previous comment and say that except for the small number who buy top of the line technology, equipment is less expensive now than in the past. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
I did some comparisons of my past purchases.
In 1979 I got a Leica M4-2 with 50 mm Leica lens from a top-price retail store for about $3375 u.s. in 2009 dollars.
In 1985 I got a Leica M6 with 35 mm Leica lens from another top price retail store for about $3950 in 2009 dollars.
In 2009, the equivalent in digital would be over $6000 I think. Maybe that's because the labor cost is higher now in constant dollars.
In mid-2006 I bought a Panasonic FZ-50 small-sensor camera with 420 mm zoom for $563 mailorder in 2009 dollars.
In mid-2009 I bought a Panasonic G1 with 14-45 lens (90 mm max. equiv. zoom) for $629 mailorder. Unfortunately I had to pay $305 more for the 400 mm equiv. zoom lens. If Panasonic had offered the G1 with the 45-200 lens as a kit, it might have been $800 - $850 total, quite a bit more than the FZ-50, with more quality and flexibility. I'd rate that as about the same value for the money, no better.
The 2009 equivalents to the FZ-50 may offer more for less, but the sensors are much smaller, so comparisons are a problem.
The predecessors to the FZ-50, in my case the Nikon 8800 and 8700, and before that the Minolta DImage7, offered a *lot* less quality for a retail price at least 50 percent higher than the FZ-50, so the FZ-50 was a real breakthrough.
Based on my above thoughts, it looks like I got my breakthroughs in value-for-price by switching brands at key points in time.
It does seem that the rash of low-end DSLR's today offer a lot more for the dollar than what the same money could buy in the film era.
Normally I wouldn't compare film to flash memory cards, but today I can capture about 2,400 RAW images on an SDHC card that costs about $100. With memory costs still going down rapidly, you can capture many times more images as each year goes by, and each image be much higher quality than previous years.
The thing about memory isn't just cost, it's real ability to get work done without having to unload the camera and reload. The batteries are a slight inconvenience since changing them can cause a missed shot, but the change is still very quick, about 10 seconds total.
-
[quote name='Justan' date='Jun 5 2009, 04:12 PM' post='289175']
>Justan, I don´t see that any of this defines a golden era, simply records the changes of the game;
"Rob, that sounds dismissive. What isn’t golden about the time span? IMO it’s all been good. It is no different from any other art. As time goes by things change, but there has been no period that stands out as achievement above and beyond all others. What has happened is increasing numbers have and continue to become masters."
Dismissive, in English English, means something I would not be intentionally unless pushed very hard; this has not happened here.
"Kindly explain why you suggested the golden age only existed between shortly after WW2 and the time of film Blow Up? What do you suggest was outstanding about this span?"
On the assumption that I am allowed a perspective of my own without having to use one supplied from elsewhere, the reason is simply that I consider the people who were the leaders (all pros) in that period, creating the styles subsequently ripped off ad nauseam ever since, were: John French, Bert Stern, Cecil Beaton, Norman Parkinson, Richard Avedon, Saul Leiter, William Klein, Ernst Haas, Pete Turner, Art Kane, Frank Horvat, HC-B, Robert Doisneau and some more whose names will come to mind almost immediately after I post. Also, some of these were working throughout WW2 and before, but I suggest that their moment of glory came within the period I selected.
"Second, you are making reference to top of the line equipment and I was making reference to what most buy. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, right? While I do agree that top of the line is way more expensive now than it was in 1970, that is unique to top of the line equipment."
I was not aware that we had governed the parameters on a lowest common denominator basis.
On the matter of time/speed, it all depends what you do. In black/white I did all my own processing - never employed anyone at all. That filled the non-shooting time to perfection. It also allowed me total control and the delightful feeling that both the buck and the praise stopped here.
You mention the speed of turnaround using digital. I´m sure it is quicker in some instances but it frees your time for what? Are today´s pros really all that busy? (The greater reality seems to be that there are no jobs for anybody these days, photographers or anything else, even bankers!) I don´t remember a time when there wasn´t enough time... it´s my conviction that as work expands to suit the time available, so that time shrinks for no good reason other than it makes the person applying the pressure feel important. I wonder if the reality of working overnight, as I often did, just to hand a bunch of prints over to a client who then left them lying on his desk for a couple of days has really really vanished; I wonder how many urgently required files are simply filed for a while in exactly the same display of political power as in analogue days...
Insofar as colour work goes, most of it was transparencies. Editing on a lightbox (to me) is the way to go. Even better, once I had handed those films to the client, there was nothing more for me to worry about other than sending in the invoice. Unless, of course, I was also doing the production, as with my calendars, in which case, it paid a lot more but carried a huge responsibility for other people´s work which, ultimately, was beyond my control. Unless one owned a printing press today, I don´t see that handing over a file satisfies the digi-lover´s claim that digi allows any more total a control!
You mention the cost of running a lab and, presumably a studio; don´t you realise that the very fact that so many big names have had to close down their facilities and rent instead is saying something to you, very loudly? What it is saying, if you weren´t listening, is that the golden era is over, baby, gone, kaput, bye bye. In the final analysis, everything related to price is increased by the measure that the seller thinks he can get away with. That´s the simple basis for business: the transfer of money from your account into mine. If photographers now find themselves - have been finding themselves for a long time - unable to finance their operation as before, they don´t have far to look for the reason or what it´s telling them.
But, ultimately, any era is seen differently by those who were there and making something out of it. I was not doing my own thing until ´66, but was very aware as a kid and also as an employed photographer in those years before ´66! I guess it was that awareness/admiration of the movers and shakers which drove me to get into the business.
Blow Up might have popularised the business in some minds, but I never met a pro photographer who would have been happy to waste a roll of Colorama for a fumble with a couple of skinny chicks! By the time of that movie, every guy who had failed at everything else thought photography might provide a salvation. It sure did not!
Perhaps it is imposible for a pro and an amateur to look at photography from the same perspective, so perhaps in this case, there can be no common understanding between the two parties. There were ever amateurs who could afford equipment that some pros never could; the opposite must be equally true.
Rob C
-
The Golden Age of anything is never the present age.
But it is easy to locate...start looking with the age just before the present one, you can usually find it there.
Those of us old enough may even be able to see a string of several successive Golden Ages lined up behind us. But best advice is to at all cost avoid turning around to look, that leads to nothing but trouble.
-
The Golden Age of anything is never the present age.
But it is easy to locate...start looking with the age just before the present one, you can usually find it there.
Those of us old enough may even be able to see a string of several successive Golden Ages lined up behind us. But best advice is to at all cost avoid turning around to look, that leads to nothing but trouble.
There is a lot of truth there, Bill; if I may continue with the pun (?), then Lot´s wife turned into a pillar of salt on looking back because of the tears of regret that she shed at what had been and was no more. Salination by self, as it were. But that didn´t mean she was wrong.
Rob C
-
The Golden Age of anything is never the present age.
But it is easy to locate...start looking with the age just before the present one, you can usually find it there.
Those of us old enough may even be able to see a string of several successive Golden Ages lined up behind us. But best advice is to at all cost avoid turning around to look, that leads to nothing but trouble.
Never look back. Something may be gaining on you.
-
Never look back. Something may be gaining on you.
With flashing red and blue lights!
Rob
-
Never look back. Something may be gaining on you.
But then you'd know to run faster!
-
Sounds as if you're listening to the wrong music. Try Mendelssohn or Beethoven or Grieg. Good music, like good visual art and good poetry gets better every time you visit it. Once you become familiar with it it becomes yours. If that doesn't happen then it's time to move on.
Two things - why assume the music that pleases you will please me? My preference is for later composers as it happens, but more importantly, I like to hear new music. Now matter how good a piece of music is or how much I ilke it, it's not as exciting as something fresh and never heard before. I'm not saying new automatically equals good btw.
-
Lot´s wife turned into a pillar of salt .......... But that didn´t mean she was wrong.
Rob C
According to Jack Nicholson's character in Prizzi's Honor, "If Marxie(sp?) Heller's so f______ smart how come he's so f______ dead?"
-
Now, now... easy does it with the geezer stuff.
I'm a geezer, or wouldn't have used that word. Some of us are more set in our ways of thinking than others.
-
> …the reason is simply that I consider the people who were the leaders (all pros) in that period, creating the styles subsequently ripped off ad nauseam ever since, were: John French, Bert Stern, Cecil Beaton, Norman Parkinson, Richard Avedon, Saul Leiter, William Klein, Ernst Haas, Pete Turner, Art Kane, Frank Horvat, HC-B, Robert Doisneau and some more whose names.. will come to mind almost immediately after I post. Also, some of these were working throughout WW2 and before, but I suggest that their moment of glory came within the period I selected.
> You mention the cost of running a lab and, presumably a studio; don´t you realise that the very fact that so many big names have had to close down their facilities and rent instead is saying something to you, very loudly? What it is saying, if you weren´t listening, is that the golden era is over, baby, gone, kaput, bye bye.
> But, ultimately, any era is seen differently by those who were there and making something out of it. I was not doing my own thing until ´66, but was very aware as a kid and also as an employed photographer in those years before ´66! I guess it was that awareness/admiration of the movers and shakers which drove me to get into the business.
Thank your for these relevant comments. It appears that your idea of a golden age is largely self-referential That’s perfectly valid. I asked for your opinion. Remember if you can that there is no right or wrong for this topic.
> You mention the speed of turnaround using digital. I´m sure it is quicker in some instances but it frees your time for what?
One can do whatever one wants with free time. The concept isn't difficult to understand.
> Perhaps it is imposible for a pro and an amateur to look at photography from the same perspective, so perhaps in this case, there can be no common understanding between the two parties.
I needed a good laugh. BTW there are 2 of the letter “s” in “impossible.” ;-)
What you are suggesting is that communication doesn’t work. Clearly that’s not true. Photography is a vast industry. Each person’s experiences within this industry are unique but an understanding of what one considers noteworthy about the industry is easy as long as one can communicate competently. I was heavily involved in photography between 1972 and 1983. My experiences included 8 years of regular course work taken while at high school, a CC, and a U, and a variety of jobs.
Back to the topic, during the span you suggested as golden, there was remarkable development in the use and kinds of color films available and other technologies. I would have guessed you’d have cited the introduction of the Hasselblad camera in about 1948, since you’re obviously a fan. Also the economic and population booms which started just after WW2 played major roles in the spread of photography. During this time span, there was the introduction and phenomenal growth of the kinds and types of SLR cameras available. These all support your case of golden age.
Inexpensive built-in through the lens light meters were not standard until the late 60s, IIRC. The ability to meter while composing the image was revolutionary all by itself! But light meters were around since about the 1930s. But that, too continues to improve.
These and other innovations also point out a continuation of what I stated as the continual growth of and synergy that started with the introduction of the Kodak Brownie, and which continues to advance the science and art of photography to this day.
Lastly, Businessweek recently ran an article on the golden era of photography. They claim it is now. Here’s the article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...31117_mz070.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/b3931117_mz070.htm)
Here’s another article that claims that the golden age of Western photography took place between 1858 and 1920: http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibiti...rn/jackson.html (http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/western/jackson.html)
All is good. There are a lot of interpretations on this topic.
-
Lastly, Businessweek recently ran an article on the golden era of photography. They claim it is now. Here’s the article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...31117_mz070.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/b3931117_mz070.htm)
Here’s another article that claims that the golden age of Western photography took place between 1858 and 1920: http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibiti...rn/jackson.html (http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/western/jackson.html)
I am completely unable to read the Golden Aged barometer except by standing atop the amount of work I am selling. To me the relevant part of the Business Week article is not the words about photography, but the information in the side panel that the US stock markets are rising in close proximity to my next selling show. Woohoo, Golden Age, come an get yo' baby boy!
As to the second article, I need only refer you to the hosting gallery which makes its living by positioning the GA at least a few few decades ago, relative to the current date. The Golden Age sells, wherever you care to place it. One of my favorite galleries, however.
-
[quote name='Justan' date='Jun 9 2009, 04:13 PM' post='290030']
BTW there are 2 of the letter “s” in “impossible.” ;-)
Now he mocks my dyslexic fingers!
;-)
Rob C
-
When we can extract DNA from old portrait negatives, THEN we'll know we've arrived!
-
Lastly, Businessweek recently ran an article on the golden era of photography. They claim it is now. Here’s the article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...31117_mz070.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_18/b3931117_mz070.htm)
All is good. There are a lot of interpretations on this topic.
Justan
I think your last point is very real, and why we will never be able to have any agreement about periods.
The fact that the galleristas of this world elect something to be golden says only one thing: they wanna sell it.
That´s no worthwhile judgement of photography, only of marketing and investing, if you are speaking about the big bucks end of the game.
Rob C
-
Looks as if we mostly agree that "golden" is in the eye of the beholder. It's an overcast morning here and instead of hitting the street with a camera I took the time to run back through this thread. What I find missing is any mention of the rise and fall of the photo-story magazines -- "Life" above all.
To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.
Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.
The art of still photography lost an important part of its heart when TV came along and captured the advertising revenue that had kept magazines like "Life" in business. Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.
-
Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.
The Life cover for the week I was born (a few weeks before Hiroshima) is a girl in a fuzzy two piece bathing suit. Doesn't get much more golden than that.
My personal Golden Age is a movable feast. Right now I'm hung up on the Steichen Condé Nast book which is where I presently place the Golden Age in my rear view mirror. All you guys who think you know how to print B&W need to take a look at it.
And my personal favorite Dark Age is that time when Bill Brandt and the paint-it-black, make-it-look-like-tar boys were in vogue. Gad, what a plague that was. That should push somebody's buttons.
-
And my personal favorite Dark Age is that time when Bill Brandt and the paint-it-black, make-it-look-like-tar boys were in vogue. Gad, what a plague that was. That should push somebody's buttons.
Yes, but you have to admit he established a whole new (gasp!) vogue in photography, one that continued for quite a while. The more contrast and the less detail you could get the "better" the shot. Klein carried the idea to its logical conclusion in the sixties.
-
Yes, but you have to admit he established a whole new (gasp!) vogue in photography, one that continued for quite a while. The more contrast and the less detail you could get the "better" the shot. Klein carried the idea to its logical conclusion in the sixties.
Or to put it another way, who needs technique when you have Brovira #6?
-
Or to put it another way, who needs technique when you have Brovira #6?
Bill, Exactly. I've always been flabbergasted that these guys got away with what they got away with. On the other hand, there are a couple of shots by both Brandt and Klein that I like very much.
-
I am completely unable to read the Golden Aged barometer except by standing atop the amount of work I am selling. To me the relevant part of the Business Week article is not the words about photography, but the information in the side panel that the US stock markets are rising in close proximity to my next selling show. Woohoo, Golden Age, come an get yo' baby boy!
As to the second article, I need only refer you to the hosting gallery which makes its living by positioning the GA at least a few few decades ago, relative to the current date. The Golden Age sells, wherever you care to place it. One of my favorite galleries, however.
Yes you have it. The golden age will be repackaged to fit the agenda of the presenter. And while I have most certainly not made thorough research on photography’s golden age, the concept of a golden age is tantamount to saying that everything done after say Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, or Rafael was mere witless repetition. There were many masters after these, and each owes something of their "unique contributions" to ideas stolen and manipulated from their forbearers.
Photography is no different.
-
....What I find missing is any mention of the rise and fall of the photo-story magazines -- "Life" above all.
To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.
This is an interesting observation. While photo-journalism didn’t exist prior to photography, there was a lot of art work that was made along these lines. The entire concept of genre art and even before then, illustrated manuals fulfils much the same goals. But what is widely unique was the distribution of fairly high quality printed work. The combination of intimacy that photo-journalism brings combined with the power of the press, did make for a unique combination. Still you can see much the same intamacy in photos from the Civil War, as example, so they are not unique to a particualr time.
Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.
who is the "our" in your "our standard"?
....Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.
A charming if romantic view of photography.
-
I'm not sure who made the reference to William Klein, but Klein is a riot. I remembered the name from long ago.
Klein illustrates how he and others reformulated works and the profound influence advancing technology and exploding markets brought with it. It is a great view into the time.
I found the following a little into the text:
“Klein recalls that he was “very consciously trying to do the opposite of what Cartier-Bresson was doing. He did pictures without intervening. He was like the invisible camera. I wanted to be visible in the biggest way possible. My aesthetics was the New York Daily News. I saw the book I wanted to do as a tabloid gone berserk, gross, grainy, over-inked, with a brutal layout, bull-horn headlines. This is what New York deserved and would get. The thing I took as my inspiration was all over the place, three million a day, blowing in the gutter, over-flowing ashcans, the New York Daily News. An old buddy. [In high school] I'd done a whole issue of the school paper parodying that paper. I decided to be visible, intervene, and to show it. Shades of Brecht but also the Daily News' Inquiring Photographer. I was never after news, of course, just the dumbest, most ordinary stuff. But I liked, as further distancing, the garish urgency of their front-page scoops. So I would try to photograph schlock non-events like some crazed paparazzo and print it accordingly.
“At one point, I discovered in a camera store the wide-angle lens, relatively new at the time. It was love at first sight. I rushed out in the street and shot away, aiming, not aiming, it didn't matter. I could never get enough into the camera. I wanted it all in a gluttonous rage - the wide angle was the solution. The 28mm became my normal lens.”
-
This is all very well, but simply illustrates the point that Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.
But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: for me, and here´s where the arguments will start, I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed, ideas that turned out to be the base line for most everything that followed, but a period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business. In short, it was a living, growing time.
I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)
Rob C
-
Looks as if we mostly agree that "golden" is in the eye of the beholder. It's an overcast morning here and instead of hitting the street with a camera I took the time to run back through this thread. What I find missing is any mention of the rise and fall of the photo-story magazines -- "Life" above all.
To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.
Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.
The art of still photography lost an important part of its heart when TV came along and captured the advertising revenue that had kept magazines like "Life" in business. Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.
I'm an admirer of HCB and Gene Smith. Some of their images left an indelible impression on my very young mind long long ago. For me, their ability to capture real life stories as they happen with artistry and feelings is what separtes them from the rest. Unlike most "objective" photojournalistists, they had no problem letting their "subjective" feelings towards their subjects show through in their work.
That era of photography is kind of like the movies of the '70s. They just don't make them like that any more.
-
To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.
Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.
The art of still photography lost an important part of its heart when TV came along and captured the advertising revenue that had kept magazines like "Life" in business. Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.
I think you're really onto something there. Circa late 1930s to early 1960s, magazine photojournalism really was the prevailing social zeitgeist. Much of what we 'remember' from that period was shaped and created by Life, Look, Picture Post and similar periodicals. That whole venue for images started to die with the arrival of television, and it's clearly on its last legs now. Just look through an issue of Doubletruck to see lots of fantastic photography that will never see the light of day in the last remaining newsweeklies.
Ironically, the television journalism format is now also in rapid decline. I don't think television journalism ever reached a 'Gene Smith' level of storytelling skill, but things like Harvest of Shame (Murrow) could try. In the late 1960s Walter Cronkite could set the entire tenor of debate on a public issue; in the U.S. at least the three big television networks essentially created the visual reality most people experienced. But market fragmentation and the blind stupidity of the networks has obliterated this venue too; instead of television journalism we have 'reality shows' and endless true crime tales.
Now we have the Internet, an endlessly fragmenting and fracturing universe of tiny 'micro markets' each with their own visual sensibility, none large enough to permit a vision to resonate like Gene Smith's did. And now digital video is coming along to supplant the still image. Photojournalism today is much more likely to involve on-line video or multimedia 'content' than the beauty of the perfect still image or the photo essay. Immediacy and lapel-grabbing impact at the expense of interpretation and artistic staying power.
Just a bit of my caffeine-induced musings.
-
Of course the Golden Age is seen from a point of view. At it's peak, Life Magazine was probably viewed by serious word journalists as nothing more than a pretentious fru fru comic book, and those annoying photo monkies as guys who took pictures because they couldn't write. Sorry, no citations, but based on my intimate knowledge of human nature I betcha...
-
[quote name='Geoff Wittig' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:04 PM' post='292069']
"I think you're really onto something there. Circa late 1930s to early 1960s, magazine photojournalism really was the prevailing social zeitgeist. Much of what we 'remember' from that period was shaped and created by Life, Look, Picture Post and similar periodicals. That whole venue for images started to die with the arrival of television, and it's clearly on its last legs now."
As I suggested, too, in post 41; we think alike sometimes.
"Just a bit of my caffeine-induced musings."
Whereas mine are due to caffeine deprivation! Off to make a cuppa now!
Rob C
-
Rob C> …Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.
Agreed.
Rob C> But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: … I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed… but a period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business.
This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.
Rob C> I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)
…said the man who has redundant ‘blads and Nikons ;-) Actually I agree with the spirit of your statement. The most creative people absolutely do not depend on the state of the technology in equipment. But what they can do with a camera is absolutely conditioned by the general state of technology. Following is an illustration as to why: When school I did work with then 30 year old view cameras that produced wonderful results. But most genres of photography outside of the studio could not exist using that kind of equipment. It is too cumbersome, too slow, and expensive to operate. Clearly then, the flexibility and savings brought about by technological advances, absolutely helped to push the art foreword. Imagine trying to do candid, sports, or most photojournalism with an 8x10 view camera. The idea is laughable. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for technological advances in, as example, magazine printing technology, high quality images would not have gotten into the public’s hands. So technological advances has not only served to make several genres of photography possible but also improved the end product. My example from Klien (above) shows this clearly. No he didn’t depend on it, but it obviously opened doors for him, and everyone else too.
-
Bill T> At it's peak, Life Magazine was probably viewed by serious word journalists as nothing more than a pretentious fru fru comic book, and those annoying photo monkies as guys who took pictures because they couldn't write. Sorry, no citations, but based on my intimate knowledge of human nature I betcha...
Some may have but probably not a lot. Life competed with the top literate magazines. Life employed first rate if mostly very conservative writers. Interestingly it was also among the first to provide a long running series of gruesome war related photos – many not so different from images taken more recently at Abu Ghraib. Wasn’t that RSL’s metric for ‘if it bleeds it leads’ as a recent phenomena? Anyway Life has a loooooooooong list of noteworthy writers and a longer list of note worthy photographers.
BTW I found an archive of Life’s photojournalism here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life (http://images.google.com/hosted/life) and a list of it’s cover photos here: http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life (http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life)
-
BTW I found an archive of Life’s photojournalism here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life (http://images.google.com/hosted/life) and a list of it’s cover photos here: http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life (http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life)
Hey thanks for those! Some great stuff there from many a Golden Age gone by.
Make up a good backstory, some of these 1880's shots would fit easily into any bleeding edge gallery today.
Pets were newsworthy...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...a5da43a3b920f9f (http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1880s+Wallace+Levison+source:life&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1880s%2BWallace%2BLevison%2Bsource:life%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18&imgurl=2a5da43a3b920f9f)
Lack of Photoshop was no obstacle to bizarre imagery as long as you had a fast shutter...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...98f44921de37657 (http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1880s+Wallace+Levison+source:life&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1880s%2BWallace%2BLevison%2Bsource:life%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D72&imgurl=298f44921de37657)
Jacques Sturgis prefigure, or maybe Dianne Arbus...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...b4e34b74584bed7 (http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1880s+Wallace+Levison+source:life&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1880s%2BWallace%2BLevison%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den&imgurl=6b4e34b74584bed7)
-
Shall try to post this again. In one piece!
Rob C
-
[quote name='Justan' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:32 PM' post='292221']
Rob C> …Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.
Agreed.
Rob C> But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: … I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed… but a period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business.
This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.
1. I have no way of checking numbers working and such figures are, at best, irrelevant. When did quantity equate with quality, which is what a Golden Age is about? When I first entered full-time photographic employment in 1960 there used to be many pro magazines advertisng page after page of pro jobs. Now? Where, even, those magazines, if the trade is so healthy? Of the thousands of poor students released form art and/or photo schools ever year, how many ever land a single job in photographic employment? From a time when almost every pro had his own premises from which to work, why have so many over recent years had to give them up for the simple, unfortunate fact that they can no longer afford to hang on to them? That might be camouflaged with accountant´s bullshit, but the truth for any pro is that he wants his own space.
Rob C> I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)
…said the man who has redundant ‘blads and Nikons ;-)
2. Wish he still had - the 'blads went years ago in a bad decision based on the imaginary benefits of 6x7.
Actually I agree with the spirit of your statement. The most creative people absolutely do not depend on the state of the technology in equipment. But what they can do with a camera is absolutely conditioned by the general state of technology. Following is an illustration as to why: When school I did work with then 30 year old view cameras that produced wonderful results. But most genres of photography outside of the studio could not exist using that kind of equipment. It is too cumbersome, too slow, and expensive to operate. Clearly then, the flexibility and savings brought about by technological advances, absolutely helped to push the art foreword. Imagine trying to do candid, sports, or most photojournalism with an 8x10 view camera. The idea is laughable. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for technological advances in, as example, magazine printing technology, high quality images would not have gotten into the public’s hands. So technological advances has not only served to make several genres of photography possible but also improved the end product. My example from Klien (above) shows this clearly. No he didn’t depend on it, but it obviously opened doors for him, and everyone else too.
3. There is no need to return to the Ark: my Golden Age already had photographers with all they needed in the way of equipment to do the ground-breaking work that they were doing.
Rob C
-
This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.
1. I have no way of checking numbers working and such figures are, at best, irrelevant. When did quantity equate with quality, which is what a Golden Age is about? When I first entered full-time photographic employment in 1960 there used to be many pro magazines advertisng page after page of pro jobs. Now? Where, even, those magazines, if the trade is so healthy? Of the thousands of poor students released form art and/or photo schools ever year, how many ever land a single job in photographic employment? From a time when almost every pro had his own premises from which to work, why have so many over recent years had to give them up for the simple, unfortunate fact that they can no longer afford to hang on to them? That might be camouflaged with accountant´s bullshit, but the truth for any pro is that he wants his own space.
What does the number of "professional" photographers around have to do with art? Most "professionals" don't do art; they do weddings. The number of professional photographers has about as much to do with a golden age of art photography, and I think that's what we're talking about, as the number of professional house painters has to do with a golden age of painting, in the sense of art.
-
What does the number of "professional" photographers around have to do with art? Most "professionals" don't do art; they do weddings. The number of professional photographers has about as much to do with a golden age of art photography, and I think that's what we're talking about, as the number of professional house painters has to do with a golden age of painting, in the sense of art.
Who would you list as the leading art photographers?
-
Who would you list as the leading art photographers?
Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand. I've left out a lot of people who were and are fine artists but not quite in the top rank. Even with those people included the list would be far from complete. There also are others who are coming along, but it's too early in their careers for me to say where they'd fall in a list like that.
I think I know where you're going with your query. You've chosen to remain anonymous, but from your moniker I'd guess you're a pro. Yes, all of the people I've listed were professionals in the sense that they made their living from photography, but they'd be a miniscule fraction of the census of "professionals" Justan suggested as a way to identify a "golden age of photography." If you consider quantity the deciding factor, a census like that might tell you something worthwhile. I think I'd opt for quality instead.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I have nothing against pros. Two of my best friends are pros and both will quickly admit that what they're doing isn't art.
-
Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand. I've left out a lot of people who were and are fine artists but not quite in the top rank. Even with those people included the list would be far from complete. There also are others who are coming along, but it's too early in their careers for me to say where they'd fall in a list like that.
I think I know where you're going with your query. You've chosen to remain anonymous, but from your moniker I'd guess you're a pro. Yes, all of the people I've listed were professionals in the sense that they made their living from photography, but they'd be a miniscule fraction of the census of "professionals" Justan suggested as a way to identify a "golden age of photography." If you consider quantity the deciding factor, a census like that might tell you something worthwhile. I think I'd opt for quality instead.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I have nothing against pros. Two of my best friends are pros and both will quickly admit that what they're doing isn't art.
The link to my site works fine.
Sorry your professional friends don't make art. Mine do.
-
The link to my site works fine.
Sorry your professional friends don't make art. Mine do.
Well, I'm happy for you.
-
Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand.
Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.
To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.
-
Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.
To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.
His history is more than a little off. Two names conspicuously absent are Mapplethorpe and Sturges. Not that those two match anyone's taste in photographic art, but at least unlike HCB, they weren't afraid to take chances and do something different.
-
His history is more than a little off. Two names conspicuously absent are Mapplethorpe and Sturges. Not that those two match anyone's taste in photographic art, but at least unlike HCB, they weren't afraid to take chances and do something different.
Dale, now you gotta be joking!
Rob C
-
Dale, now you gotta be joking!
Rob C
I might have been pushing it a little with Jock S., but not with Robt. M. I checked out the current bios on the wikis just to make sure. Once JS passes from the living we'll get a better evaluation of his 'art', but certainly RM can be considered legitimate, and his work has had great influence in the art communities. RM's photos of certain risky sex performance caused a major stir far and wide years ago, offending quite a few, but still, it's the kind of risk that I perceive as courageous, not the kind that's purely offensive like putting a crucifix in a jar of human waste. And RM's photos of the governator didn't hurt his election, amazingly enough.
-
Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.
To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.
Pop, I'd say that Atget's posthumous coming out via Abbott in 1927 took place early in the twentieth century, unless 1927 isn't "early." Curtis made some fascinating photographs of American Indians early on, and yes, he did deliver to a large audience of pictorialists, to whom I'm assuming you refer when you talk about early 20th century fine art photographers. Stieglitz was a great promoter, but I can't see that his photography influenced many successors. Strand was the one who got him to turn away from pictorialism, so, in that case, the influence was reversed. When you say that Stieglitz was more influential than Atget you mean that Stieglitz did more promoting than Atget, who did no promoting at all. The thing that makes Atget influential is the quality of his work. Stieglitz did two or three fine pieces, but his photography simply didn't some up to the level of Atget's.
Regarding HCB, who began photographing in 1931, most of the finest photographers in the latter part of the twentieth century have acknowledged his influence in their development. Sometimes the acknowledgment has been reluctant.
As I said, I left out a bunch of people when I named the top photographers. Penn, Avedon, Arbus, Minor White, Sudek and Bourke-White possibly should be on the list. There are others.
By the way, Rob, Dale may be right about one thing: Maplethorpe and Sturges probably have been influential among later twentieth century and early twenty-first century pornographers.
-
By the way, Rob, Dale may be right about one thing: Maplethorpe and Sturges probably have been influential among later twentieth century and early twenty-first century pornographers.
In the case of the former, influential in the way that seeing a road accident makes you drive better for a minute or two; the latter - who did you say? Oh yes, I remember now, the revenge of the other naked people...
Rob C
-
... unlike HCB, they weren't afraid to take chances and do something different.
Dale, I missed this one first time around. You probably should do a little research before you come out with a honker like that. As Casey said, "You could look it up."
-
Dale, I missed this one first time around. You probably should do a little research before you come out with a honker like that. As Casey said, "You could look it up."
In case YOU have been asleep for 25 years or so Mr. VanWinkle, everybody knows about Mapplethorpe, and whether you like his art or not, it's real, it's professional, it's influential. Hard to argue with that. And he's not Thomas Kinkade. The other guy is not yet one of the old dead dudes, so we'll have to wait for a better reading from the historians. But then, you wave your hand and all of the world of landscape photography is reduced to a ho-hum, so what can I expect from a pig but a grunt?
-
You probably should do a little research before you come out with a honker like that.
...you wave your hand and all of the world of landscape photography is reduced to a ho-hum, so what can I expect from a pig but a grunt?
Thank God! One more hour of that 24/7 Michael Jackson coverage, and I'd've gone comatose!
*grabs a bowl of popcorn and settles back to watch "Saturday Night with the Photopugs"*
-
Thank God! One more hour of that 24/7 Michael Jackson coverage, and I'd've gone comatose!
*grabs a bowl of popcorn and settles back to watch "Saturday Night with the Photopugs"*
For once, being off-topic is very much ON topic. I have despaired of finding a news channel that is actually presenting news. There is this madnes of trivia everywhere I turn. Not death - far from trivial - but the coverage this event is getting is absolutely crazy and unwarranted. You would think the world had stopped turning. For a bloke whose records had stopped selling, there is a funny, ironic, sudden growth of fanbase! And even if he had still been the world´s greatest, most prolific seller, so what? Of what bloody momentous value to the world is a pop star?
Sorry day for the family, as is any death, but for the rest of the world and for more than five minutes?
Rob C
-
For once, being off-topic is very much ON topic. I have despaired of finding a news channel that is actually presenting news. There is this madnes of trivia everywhere I turn. Not death - far from trivial - but the coverage this event is getting is absolutely crazy and unwarranted. You would think the world had stopped turning. For a bloke whose records had stopped selling, there is a funny, ironic, sudden growth of fanbase! And even if he had still been the world´s greatest, most prolific seller, so what? Of what bloody momentous value to the world is a pop star?
Sorry day for the family, as is any death, but for the rest of the world and for more than five minutes?
Rob C
Rob, There's a solution to that problem. I found it about ten years ago: never turn on a TV unless you've got a DVD player connected to it and a good movie in the player. For years I kept thinking TV couldn't possibly get worse. Finally, one evening I said to myself, "Why am I still doing this?", shut off the damned thing, and never again turned it back on.
-
.....the coverage this event is getting is absolutely crazy and unwarranted. You would think the world had stopped turning. For a bloke whose records had stopped selling, there is a funny, ironic, sudden growth of fanbase!
Rob C
There is some importance after all. Most have forgotten Mr. Jackson's slur against a certain minority people a few years ago, on a record album, and how when it was announced far and wide in the media, Tower records just happened to have a million of them in stock.
There's the courtroom precedents of being able to share one's adult bed with other people's children.
And the fact that pop music today, for better or worse, *is* Michael Jackson, period. That's a real tragedy.
-
Rob, There's a solution to that problem. I found it about ten years ago: never turn on a TV unless you've got a DVD player connected to it and a good movie in the player. For years I kept thinking TV couldn't possibly get worse. Finally, one evening I said to myself, "Why am I still doing this?", shut off the damned thing, and never again turned it back on.
Russ
We passed that way some years ago with the movie package: when it started, there was a reasonable selection of films available that we had not seen, would not have gone out to see, but that did pass a couple of hours after dinner. Later, they introduced a further set of movies: Premium, or something like that, where you then had to ´phone up and pay over and above the package price. Recognizing a screw for a scew, we cancelled the lot and never missed a thing.
For similar reasons we never got around to changing from a Sony Trinitron to one of those thin sets. Each time we had a look in a dealer´s shop we came to the same conclusion: changing sets doth not programmes change! Where would lie the point?
Unfortunately, there is hardly anything left that is watchable other than the few different news channels, and even they tend to become an endless belt.
Thank God for the internet. And in the same breath, of course, photography!
Dale
I hadn´t thought of the death as a marketing opportunity. But I should have - stands to reason it would be the ideal moment to crank up the emotions of the gullible and part them from their money. What a sick world it can be. Actually, that´s one good thing about youtube: you can find all manner of oldie but goodie stuff there, which can be both heart-warming and heart-breaking, often at the same time. Sure does bring back lots of good memories...
Rob C
-
Russ
We passed that way some years ago with the movie package: when it started, there was a reasonable selection of films available that we had not seen, would not have gone out to see, but that did pass a couple of hours after dinner. Later, they introduced a further set of movies: Premium, or something like that, where you then had to ´phone up and pay over and above the package price. Recognizing a screw for a scew, we cancelled the lot and never missed a thing.
For similar reasons we never got around to changing from a Sony Trinitron to one of those thin sets. Each time we had a look in a dealer´s shop we came to the same conclusion: changing sets doth not programmes change! Where would lie the point?
Unfortunately, there is hardly anything left that is watchable other than the few different news channels, and even they tend to become an endless belt.
Thank God for the internet. And in the same breath, of course, photography!
Rob C
Rob,
Unfortunately the world's supply of good movies is limited and doesn't seem to be growing. So at the moment I'm using my TV and DVD player to take The Teaching Company's 48 lecture course on the HIstory of European Art. It's pretty good. Next I think I'll do the 24 lecture course on the Impressionists. Too bad they don't have a lecture series on the history of photography. It would be a real help for Dale.
-
Rob,
Unfortunately the world's supply of good movies is limited and doesn't seem to be growing. So at the moment I'm using my TV and DVD player to take The Teaching Company's 48 lecture course on the HIstory of European Art. It's pretty good. Next I think I'll do the 24 lecture course on the Impressionists. Too bad they don't have a lecture series on the history of photography. It would be a real help for Dale.
Always did love those Parthians...
Rob C
-
Rob,
Too bad they don't have a lecture series on the history of photography. It would be a real help for Dale.
At least my photography smarts come from the living - a lot of experts in three photo societies I belong to. That's Russ' problem - buried in the "classics", unable to open the coffin to breathe some fresh air.
-
We passed that way some years ago with the movie package: when it started, there was a reasonable selection of films available that we had not seen, would not have gone out to see, but that did pass a couple of hours after dinner. Later, they introduced a further set of movies: Premium, or something like that, where you then had to ´phone up and pay over and above the package price. Recognizing a screw for a scew, we cancelled the lot and never missed a thing.
I hadn´t thought of the death as a marketing opportunity. But I should have - stands to reason it would be the ideal moment to crank up the emotions of the gullible and part them from their money. What a sick world it can be.
Rob C
Oddly enough, in a long time on the Internet, and in live discussions at work or in the photo and computer clubs, this is the first time I remember anyone stating clearly how the scam works. It's no different with coffee and cigarettes - those Sherm's you pay double or triple for aren't any better than the standard brands were 50-100 years ago. Now on Mr. Jackson, if they could just find (or invent) some mysterious circumstances, they could have another Hendrix, Joplin, or Morrison to milk. Too bad this one doesn't have any musical depth, like Stevie Wonder or Lionel Ritchie.
-
Always did love those Parthians...
Rob C
Well, he doesn't go back quite that far. He starts with Charlemagne, but he does make reference to a bit of architectural plagiarism by the French and Germans from the Romans.
-
Pop, I'd say that Atget's posthumous coming out via Abbott in 1927 took place early in the twentieth century, unless 1927 isn't "early." Curtis made some fascinating photographs of American Indians early on, and yes, he did deliver to a large audience of pictorialists, to whom I'm assuming you refer when you talk about early 20th century fine art photographers. Stieglitz was a great promoter, but I can't see that his photography influenced many successors. Strand was the one who got him to turn away from pictorialism, so, in that case, the influence was reversed. When you say that Stieglitz was more influential than Atget you mean that Stieglitz did more promoting than Atget, who did no promoting at all. The thing that makes Atget influential is the quality of his work. Stieglitz did two or three fine pieces, but his photography simply didn't some up to the level of Atget's.
Well, Strand was first influenced most by Lewis Hine, who was his mentor. But it was Stieglitz who inspired Strand to pursue a career in fine art photography and gave him his first show at the 291 Gallery in New York. I'd call that pretty heavy influence. Of course, 1927 is somewhat early in an absolute sense, but not as far as fine art photography is concerned. By then, 291 Gallery had already been closed for a decade. Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Edward Steichen and Imogen Cunningham, to name a few, were well established artists. Atget became a major influence much later in the century--his influence on early 20th century photographers was minimal. It wasn't until the Museum of Modern Art purchased the Atget collection in 1968 that his work became widely known and he was given the recognition he richly deserved.
-
Well, Strand was first influenced most by Lewis Hine, who was his mentor. But it was Stieglitz who inspired Strand to pursue a career in fine art photography and gave him his first show at the 291 Gallery in New York. I'd call that pretty heavy influence. Of course, 1927 is somewhat early in an absolute sense, but not as far as fine art photography is concerned. By then, 291 Gallery had already been closed for a decade. Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Edward Steichen and Imogen Cunningham, to name a few, were well established artists. Atget became a major influence much later in the century--his influence on early 20th century photographers was minimal. It wasn't until the Museum of Modern Art purchased the Atget collection in 1968 that his work became widely known and he was given the recognition he richly deserved.
Pop, I guess that's one way to look at it, but a number of the people you mentioned were aware of Atget's work early on through Abbott or through association with one or another of the artists who bought his "documents." HCB certainly was. In The Decisive Moment he says, "... I met photographers who had some of Atget's prints. These I considered remarkable and, accordingly, I bought myself a tripod, a black cloth, and a polished walnut camera three by four inches..." This, of course, was before he turned to the Leica.
In any case, I think Stieglitz was a fine showman but not a great photographer. People seem to be confused about his photography because of the central role he played in making the work of some of the world's finest artists available to audiences in the U.S. Other than a few pictures such as The Steerage, The Terminal, and my personal favorite, Fifth Avenue, Winter, what great photographs did he produce? Yes, he got Strand to do serious photography, which was a plus, but later he turned up his nose at Walker Evans's work, which, in my estimation, removes a lot of the gilding from his crown. Seems to me an awful lot of Stieglitz's glamor came from his affair and later marriage with Georgia O'Keeffe. Actually, I see Stieglitz sort of as the Barnum of the fine art field.
-
Actually, I see Stieglitz sort of as the Barnum of the fine art field.
For myself, I wouldn´t have minded being the Bailey.
;-)
Rob C
-
For myself, I wouldn´t have minded being the Bailey.
;-)
Rob C
Rob, He had a "Bailey" and her name was O'Keeffe, though a gal named Dorothy Norman pretty much replaced her as "Bailey" later on. Stieglitz really was a horny old goat.
-
Rob, He had a "Bailey" and her name was O'Keeffe, though a gal named Dorothy Norman pretty much replaced her as "Bailey" later on. Stieglitz really was a horny old goat.
Something that you may not have considered since it's not in your playbook - he may not have been horny at all, he may have actually liked women as friends.
-
Something that you may not have considered since it's not in your playbook - he may not have been horny at all, he may have actually liked women as friends.
Sounds a bit of a waist - sorry, waste.
Rob C
-
Rob, He had a "Bailey" and her name was O'Keeffe, though a gal named Dorothy Norman pretty much replaced her as "Bailey" later on. Stieglitz really was a horny old goat.
It´s what has always made the world go round.
Have you ever wondered about the odd train of thought that finds horniness in the young admirable, but not so magnificent with the old? Given the downright cruel nature of life, I would have thought that a priapic old guy was worth more than a now-and-again young one.
Just a mild thought, which reminds me of those boats on trailers you see in seaside towns like this one: "Tender to..." imagine owning a boat called Tumescent.
It´s quite hot here in Spain just now; one loses a lot of moisture so I suppose I´d better go and have some water.
Rob C
-
It´s what has always made the world go round.
Have you ever wondered about the odd train of thought that finds horniness in the young admirable, but not so magnificent with the old? Given the downright cruel nature of life, I would have thought that a priapic old guy was worth more than a now-and-again young one.
Just a mild thought, which reminds me of those boats on trailers you see in seaside towns like this one: "Tender to..." imagine owning a boat called Tumescent.
It´s quite hot here in Spain just now; one loses a lot of moisture so I suppose I´d better go and have some water.
Rob C
I wasn't knocking it. I like girls too. But when Stieglitz began his "relationship" with Dorothy she was 22 and he was 64. In addition, he was still married to O'Keeffe, Dorothy was married and had one kid, and their relationship went way beyond "friendship."
I can imagine a boat with that name. I think I've seen farther-out names than that on boats in Florida, but I can't recall exactly what they were.
-
I wasn't knocking it. I like girls too. But when Stieglitz began his "relationship" with Dorothy she was 22 and he was 64. In addition, he was still married to O'Keeffe, Dorothy was married and had one kid, and their relationship went way beyond "friendship."
I can imagine a boat with that name. I think I've seen farther-out names than that on boats in Florida, but I can't recall exactly what they were.
You didn't clarify what you meant with the age differences. Does it imply that a man is hornier when he selects a young friend, or less so, just wanting female companionship from someone who is more outdoors-adventurous, intellectually curious, not stuck in the past, etc.? And what exactly is wrong or questionable with having friends of the opposite gender, or different ages?
Do you remember the time when Roseann and Tom wanted to marry a third person, for a genuine state-sanctioned three-way? Now that's what I call imagination, which is sadly lacking in so may places (hint).
-
[quote name='dalethorn' date='Jun 30 2009, 08:08 PM' post='294739']
"Do you remember the time when Roseann and Tom wanted to marry a third person, for a genuine state-sanctioned three-way?"
Dale, who are Ros and Tommy? I guess they are somewhat confused... much as I seem to find myself.
Rob C
-
"Do you remember the time when Roseann and Tom wanted to marry a third person, for a genuine state-sanctioned three-way?"
Dale, who are Ros and Tommy? I guess they are somewhat confused... much as I seem to find myself.
Rob C
Rob, You're not the one who's confused.
By the way, I forgot to mention that Stieglitz started making it with O'Keeffe while his wife, Emmy was away, and when she returned she threw him out of the house. In the winter, in Florida I have a lecture I give to central Florida photography groups titled, "Photographers we can learn from." The title's grammar leaves something to be desired but I have fun with the lectures. Stieglitz always gets more laughs than any of the others.
-
Rob, You're not the one who's confused.
By the way, I forgot to mention that Stieglitz started making it with O'Keeffe while his wife, Emmy was away, and when she returned she threw him out of the house. In the winter, in Florida I have a lecture I give to central Florida photography groups titled, "Photographers we can learn from." The title's grammar leaves something to be desired but I have fun with the lectures. Stieglitz always gets more laughs than any of the others.
Russ, you could fix that by refusing to end it with a preposition and demanding a round of applause instead.
;-)
Rob C
-
Russ, you could fix that by refusing to end it with a preposition and demanding a round of applause instead.
;-)
Rob C
Rob, To quote a source with whom I'm sure you're familiar: "This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put."
-
Rob, To quote a source with whom I'm sure you're familiar: "This is the kind of impertinence up with which I will not put."
At nine forty-five in the morning, the dishes still in the sink, I´m glad I visited Lula just now; I think I will make it through the rest of the day. Amazing the power of a little giggle - much like that naplam in the morning buzz.
Funny thing I´ve noticed: the days seem to be getting longer and more tedious yet my weeks fly past ever more quickly. Doesn´t seem to be much point in thinking about upgrading cameras, cars or anything at all - the awkward 'what for?´ always crosses my mind at some stage of the process. Ironically, I have managed to get a local gallery to grant me a show next April, but the initial enthusiasm has vanished, leaving in its wake the realisation that perhaps I don´t really want a show at all, that what I wanted was to be granted one, not the bother of all that must surely follow that little victory.
Finally finished Atlas Shrugged, which I´d been reading in the two-hour bursts of battery life over bar lunches. Such a strange book; oddly, the main failure I felt it to show was in the descriptions of Agny´s romantic passion. It felt totally false; I couldn´t imagine a woman ever feeling that way, yet, it was written by one. Somewhere, either in her idea of how romantic sections should read or in mine, conditioned to expecting something else, it jarred. To be honest, I eventually found myself skipping over them in embarrassment at how awkward they felt. Perhaps it explains why beauty commercials are as they are. Also, she does seem to be making the same point over and over again, much like a dog with a soft doll between its teeth. (Much like some of the arguments here, in fact. Are there that many Ayn Rand fans on board?) However, with her being of Russian origin, I guess it isn´t difficult to understand what was driving her.
Rob C
-
Dale, who are Ros and Tommy? I guess they are somewhat confused... much as I seem to find myself.
Rob C
Roseann Barr and Tom Arnold. TV show actors and comedians. These two have a very complex and funny approach to humor, which goes over the heads of many people, particularly those people who understand only the stereotypical roles of men and women described in the common literature of 75 years ago.
Roseann's singing of the national anthem at a public event some years ago was one of those that made history.
-
Roseann Barr and Tom Arnold. TV show actors and comedians. These two have a very complex and funny approach to humor, which goes over the heads of many people, particularly those people who understand only the stereotypical roles of men and women described in the common literature of 75 years ago.
Roseann's singing of the national anthem at a public event some years ago was one of those that made history.
Dale
TV is a desert for me. I can get a selection of news channels on satellite as well as some BBC ones early in the day - at night the latter tend to break up - and the only series that reached intact recently has been Friends, over and over and exactly as often over again as was M.A.S.H., where the game with both was to try and come up with the lines before the actors did. I made a mean Miss Aniston, except for the voice, well, perhaps I also lacked the hair and certainly I lacked the young bumps. Perhaps not as good an impersonation as I had imagined.
We got House for a couple of seasons, until it became really popular, when the pay-channels cornered it and made it impossible for us expats. to watch anymore. Such is life.
Spanish terrestrial TV is unobtainable because we are screened by a hill; Spanish satellite TV is pointless because of the programmes. So I watch or, rather, don´t, wall-to-wall Michael Jackson over breakfast. Starts the day off well. Well enough to tune me into LuLa in hasty retreat. Me, not LuLa.
Cheers - Rob C
-
Roseann's singing of the national anthem at a public event some years ago was one of those that made history.
Rob, I don't know whether or not you heard about Roseann's rendition of the national anthem, but I can tell you that since her performance she's been regarded by most sane Americans with about as much love and enthusiasm as is Benedict Arnold.
-
At nine forty-five in the morning, the dishes still in the sink, I´m glad I visited Lula just now; I think I will make it through the rest of the day. Amazing the power of a little giggle - much like that naplam in the morning buzz.
Funny thing I´ve noticed: the days seem to be getting longer and more tedious yet my weeks fly past ever more quickly. Doesn´t seem to be much point in thinking about upgrading cameras, cars or anything at all - the awkward 'what for?´ always crosses my mind at some stage of the process. Ironically, I have managed to get a local gallery to grant me a show next April, but the initial enthusiasm has vanished, leaving in its wake the realisation that perhaps I don´t really want a show at all, that what I wanted was to be granted one, not the bother of all that must surely follow that little victory.
Finally finished Atlas Shrugged, which I´d been reading in the two-hour bursts of battery life over bar lunches. Such a strange book; oddly, the main failure I felt it to show was in the descriptions of Agny´s romantic passion. It felt totally false; I couldn´t imagine a woman ever feeling that way, yet, it was written by one. Somewhere, either in her idea of how romantic sections should read or in mine, conditioned to expecting something else, it jarred. To be honest, I eventually found myself skipping over them in embarrassment at how awkward they felt. Perhaps it explains why beauty commercials are as they are. Also, she does seem to be making the same point over and over again, much like a dog with a soft doll between its teeth. (Much like some of the arguments here, in fact. Are there that many Ayn Rand fans on board?) However, with her being of Russian origin, I guess it isn´t difficult to understand what was driving her.
Rob C
Yes, I know about the long days the short weeks and even shorter months and shorter yet years. It's called growing old(er).
Congrats on the show and best of luck with it. I was supposed to have one here in Colorado Springs last year but shortly before it was to happen the gal who owned the gallery folded up and moved back east. Ah well, now I can think of all the work I didn't have to do to get ready for it. What comes to mind, though, from what you said, is something I read in a book about poetry back when I was sending in manuscripts and getting them published fairly regularly: "Having a poem published is like dropping a feather into a well and listening for the splash."
Yes, Ayn Rand was a weird woman. She knew what she was talking about because she'd lived it in Russia, but I never saw her as a very competent novelist. On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged is the kind of book that sticks with you, especially here in the U.S. as we go farther and farther into socialism. If you've read the book, reading the morning newspaper can be terrifying because what you read is echoed in your memory of the book. What's most terrifying, though, is that people not only have stopped reading Atlas Shrugged, they've stopped reading. They watch the tube instead. Sometimes I'm happy that I'm almost eighty and won't have to live the rest of the story. But then I think about my kids and grandkids and have to stop and pray.
-
Yes, I know about the long days the short weeks and even shorter months and shorter yet years. It's called growing old(er).
Congrats on the show and best of luck with it. I was supposed to have one here in Colorado Springs last year but shortly before it was to happen the gal who owned the gallery folded up and moved back east. Ah well, now I can think of all the work I didn't have to do to get ready for it. What comes to mind, though, from what you said, is something I read in a book about poetry back when I was sending in manuscripts and getting them published fairly regularly: "Having a poem published is like dropping a feather into a well and listening for the splash."
Yes, Ayn Rand was a weird woman. She knew what she was talking about because she'd lived it in Russia, but I never saw her as a very competent novelist. On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged is the kind of book that sticks with you, especially here in the U.S. as we go farther and farther into socialism. If you've read the book, reading the morning newspaper can be terrifying because what you read is echoed in your memory of the book. What's most terrifying, though, is that people not only have stopped reading Atlas Shrugged, they've stopped reading. They watch the tube instead. Sometimes I'm happy that I'm almost eighty and won't have to live the rest of the story. But then I think about my kids and grandkids and have to stop and pray.
Bang on the money, with Atlas Shrugged. That´s the worrying part about it, the experience of creeping socialism, part of the reason I had for quitting Britain all those years ago, and why so many more are doing the same. Many a day the UK TV services show groups of people standing in France, trying to catch the underside of a truck in an effort to smuggle themselves across the English Channel. Now ask yourself this: they have escaped from Africa or eastern Europe or wherever, are already in the mighty European Community, but that won´t do, for some reason. What reason might that be? Simple: the UK is being ruined by idiots with their hearts on their sleeves and turnips in their heads; the socialist/fellow traveller parties are wise to the fact that the greater the volume of the underclass, the larger the vote from that body to follow, so they have a vested interest in growing it, whilst paying lip service and lying to the rest of the populace. And who better to do their work for them than the dreamers? Not a month ago, the ruling party admitted that it really had no idea how many illegal immigrants it had let slip through its fingers... The various diasporas provide the perfect hiding place and, in time, social services jump in and deliver and then along comes the vote! And then the relatives, and on it rumbles.
In Spain, on the other hand, they are much more careful. If you haven´t worked you don´t collect. Unemployment benefit lasts for up to six months (we have folks in the UK who have NEVER worked). But, not surprisingly, race relations are a damn sight more friendly in Spain. I experienced an example of that recently. A chap who plays sax in jazz groups, whom I know slightly via a friendly Frenchman, was sitting busking at the top of the Calvario here. We exchanged smiles and I sat down on the steps beside him and chatted a little about music. Turns out he comes from Cuba and that there is/was a huge gap in Cuban musicians´ opportunities to hear jazz after the events of the late fifties. No music in and none out. So they missed a lot of the US music. But there you are, Scots, French, Cubans and Spanish getting along fairly comfortably together because nobody is holding a gun at any head dictating thou shalt love! It´s only ever going to be the way to make it fly.
But hey, folks prefer to think its all propaganda from the right. Miss Rand could have told them otherwise.
Rob C