Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: KF Peters on April 19, 2009, 07:34:42 pm
-
Landscapes are inherently boring. They are mostly about weather conditions. Long ago I was a museum guard and could examine Ansel Adams prints all day long, they were boring as hell. Yes you could count every pine needle on every tree, but they were emotionally un-involving. It was all about mastery of the medium which I suppose is fine but in the end it was more about Ansel and his advocacy for the environment than about his photographs. The highest priced landscapes are the photos from Mars and once the novelty of those wear off they become mundane too.
In classical romanticism the landscape was central to the notion of the sublime.
The landscape as an expression of an inner state dates back to 16th century British landscape painting. I think that by adopting this notion, photography took a wrong turn. Stieglitz's Equivalents and the whole Minor White oeuvre is a self referential dead end.
I'm all for romanticism, now more than ever but there is very little humanity in the current landscape photography compared to someone like John Constable's paintings.
-
Landscapes are inherently boring. They are mostly about weather conditions. Long ago I was a museum guard and could examine Ansel Adams prints all day long, they were boring as hell. Yes you could count every pine needle on every tree, but they were emotionally un-involving. It was all about mastery of the medium which I suppose is fine but in the end it was more about Ansel and his advocacy for the environment than about his photographs. The highest priced landscapes are the photos from Mars and once the novelty of those wear off they become mundane too.
In classical romanticism the landscape was central to the notion of the sublime.
The landscape as an expression of an inner state dates back to 16th century British landscape painting. I think that by adopting this notion, photography took a wrong turn. Stieglitz's Equivalents and the whole Minor White oeuvre is a self referential dead end.
I'm all for romanticism, now more than ever but there is very little humanity in the current landscape photography compared to someone like John Constable's paintings.
I guess the emotion(s) that Adams' photos evoked in people just didn't connect with you. There are factors of course, too many to name here - lighting, mood, what you ate last, how you feel about awe-inspiring landscapes in B&W, etc. etc. I have one video interview of Adams, and his humility, almost childlike excitement in his work, and sense of humor came across well (to me anyway). Probably the only way you would appreciate him (if you had the interest) would be to trace his development from beginning to end. I know I won't be developing any more B&W in the wet darkroom, but I sure haven't forgotten the magic of what I could do with film and paper, after taking the shots.
-
Have you seen Sally Mann's landscape work ? It is all about emotions and memories.
-
Landscapes are inherently boring. They are mostly about weather conditions. Long ago I was a museum guard and could examine Ansel Adams prints all day long, they were boring as hell. Yes you could count every pine needle on every tree, but they were emotionally un-involving. It was all about mastery of the medium which I suppose is fine but in the end it was more about Ansel and his advocacy for the environment than about his photographs. The highest priced landscapes are the photos from Mars and once the novelty of those wear off they become mundane too.
In classical romanticism the landscape was central to the notion of the sublime.
The landscape as an expression of an inner state dates back to 16th century British landscape painting. I think that by adopting this notion, photography took a wrong turn. Stieglitz's Equivalents and the whole Minor White oeuvre is a self referential dead end.
I'm all for romanticism, now more than ever but there is very little humanity in the current landscape photography compared to someone like John Constable's paintings.
I'm with you. One big difference is that Constable's paintings had people in them. They were about people and the landscape was incidental, even though it was very beautifully done. Most of the world's important photographers are or were important because they dealt with people or with artifacts created by the hand of man. Ansel was an exceptional technician. Photographers of my generation learned a lot from him, but the photographs of people like Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, etc., etc. are where the real art resides.
-
I'm with you. One big difference is that Constable's paintings had people in them. They were about people and the landscape was incidental, even though it was very beautifully done. Most of the world's important photographers are or were important because they dealt with people or with artifacts created by the hand of man. Ansel was an exceptional technician. Photographers of my generation learned a lot from him, but the photographs of people like Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, etc., etc. are where the real art resides.
IMHO this just goes to show that different people's likes, dislikes, interests, and biases are going to influence what they consider boring and what they consider art. I personally find almost all documentary/street photography boring, including Cartier-Bresson. The ones with some humor or irony in them can be a bit amusing, but I would never hang them on my well as art.
-
Landscapes are inherently boring. They are mostly about weather conditions.
Hmmm. Well, different strokes and all, I guess.
If you don't personally feel any emotional connection with a sublime sunrise in a remote and beautiful location, or a quiet moment alone in a fog-shrouded forest after spring rain, then you have my condolences. You're missing out on something wonderful. There are many folks who can appreciate a successful attempt to capture such a moment photographically, and lots of us here at this site who try to achieve that goal. I mean, in case you hadn't noticed, that's sort of what the entire site is about, no?
Probably the best take I've seen on Ansel Adams and the landscape was John Szarkowski's eloquent description of what Ansel was after in his work, which is available on the PBS DVD. To Adams, the experience of a sublime wilderness moment was the closest he could get to whatever spirituality he knew. He was just attempting to distill that experience into a photograph as well as he could. If his prints just don't sing for you, that's your loss.
I'm not sure what you're after when you want 'humanity' in your landscape photos. Do you literally mean human beings in the photograph? Or are you trying to see something of the hand or mind of the photographer at work? There are plenty of working landscape photographers whose work I find sublime enough with no evidence of humanity in sight. If you can't see the eloquence or mystery or value in a beautiful landscape photograph on its own merits, you're probably at the wrong website.
-
IMHO this just goes to show that different people's likes, dislikes, interests, and biases are going to influence what they consider boring and what they consider art. I personally find almost all documentary/street photography boring, including Cartier-Bresson. The ones with some humor or irony in them can be a bit amusing, but I would never hang them on my well as art.
Thank you so much for writing this! It's exactly how I've always felt but I have been too worried about being denigrated as an unaesthetic philistine to say so. Now at least I know I'm not alone.
Geoff's comments above are, I think, spot on.
Jeremy
-
One of the famous quotes from Ansel Adams is "There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. " so I am curious on what's my contribution....
Definitely each one has some affinity to an specific kind of photography and in this specific type we have a path of learning to enjoy it, somehow like refining senses to perceive and relish its subtleties. Not that I am an expert at all, just I'm feeling very small steps towards that. I think that liking or disliking something is not inherently good or bad, just a matter of affinity and interest enough as to walk that route.
-
There are city folk ... and country folk ... and city folk who wish they were country folk ... and country folk who wish they were city folk ...
... and some people still have JFK on the wall ... and some people Jesus ...
... and some people just like a nice Ansel Adams - go figure ...
I love flipping through my photography books full of people and street shots, but if you aren't in my family or play for the Yankees, you probably aren't gonna get on my wall ...
-
My interest in photography started with AA's and HCB's work, in part because of their popularity. From their books, I learn most of my techniques and aesthetics. Today they remain my favorite photographers. Currently, there seem to be a lot more AA want to bes than HCB want to bes, especially among the amateurs. With the huge number of landscapes, only the really great ones can catch attention. Perhaps that's one reason why some would consider landscapes as "boring".
Instead of focusing on one genre, I shoot both landscapes and street portraits. Some may consider me as "undisciplined". After first seeing my landscapes exhibit and then my street portraits exhibit, one viewer bluntly told me, "You should leave the landscapes to others, and focus on your street work!" But I look at it as someone who lives in the city, but owns a country cabin. Or, someone who enjoys wonton noodles as well as fetuccini alfredo, provided they are both nicely done.
In my own work, I find that my better landscapes depend more on great lighting conditions than on the subjects, while my better street portraits depend more on the subjects than on the lighting. While the shooting techniques are very different, I find that it also takes a certain personality and how one looks at the world to be able to shoot people well. Perhaps that's why HCB said, "The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks! "
-
Perhaps that's why HCB said, "The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks! "
That's also why Walker Evans said something to the effect of: "That's a very beautiful sunset... So what?"
-
In my experience, most of the people who are left cold by landscape photos have never seen (or at least never paid attention to) landscapes of the sort, so it means nothing to them. Why some of us love landscape photos so much is that we've been to beautiful and/or interesting places like that, and the photo reminds us of the experience. Without that experience to fall back on (or, in some rare cases, enough imagination to imagine it), it's just a bunch of colors or shades of grey. As someone said above, "There are two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." The past experience of the viewer matters.
Lisa
-
In my experience, most of the people who are left cold by landscape photos have never seen (or at least never paid attention to) landscapes of the sort, so it means nothing to them. Why some of us love landscape photos so much is that we've been to beautiful and/or interesting places like that, and the photo reminds us of the experience. Without that experience to fall back on (or, in some rare cases, enough imagination to imagine it), it's just a bunch of colors or shades of grey. As someone said above, "There are two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer." The past experience of the viewer matters.
Lisa
Lisa,
I live in the west, at the foot of the Rocky Mountain Front Range. Pikes Peak is just above me. To the east of me are the Colorado and Kansas prairies. I frequently shoot landscapes on the prairies -- landscapes that almost always include artifacts created by the hand of man. I also shoot landscapes in the mountains, but, again, they almost always include the hand of man. I'm no city boy. To see landscapes, all I have to do is step outside. But I also agree with what HCB said. I learned a lot about wet photographic technique from Ansel Adams's prints and books, but I never saw, and still don't see Ansel's subject matter as important stuff.
Some landscape painting is very moving, but that's partly because of what it leaves out. What the pictorialists never understood is that painting is outside time and place. It's in the mind of the painter. If a painting is really good, it gives you a transcendental flash because of what the painter managed to convey, not only through good composition but through simplification.
Photography, on the other hand, is about time and place, and can't subdue detail without pretending to be something it isn't. A photographic landscape can be very beautiful, but it's still, in Walker Evan's and HCB's terms, a "so what?" It may be true that someone who's lived all his life in Manhattan can't truly appreciate landscape because he's never seen a real landscape, but even though he's never seen a farmhouse he'll respond immediately to a picture of a deserted farmhouse with abandoned toys on the floor. On the other hand, someone who's lived all his life on the prairies can respond very strongly to a street photograph from Manhattan that conveys something important about human life -- even if he's never been to Manhattan.
I think the difference lies in the degree of significance. That's why street photography, going all the way back to Atget, survives and continues to stimulate, while early landscape photography largely has been forgotten. It's true that Ansel hangs on, but mainly because of the technical perfection of his prints.
-
Photography, on the other hand, is about time and place, and can't subdue detail without pretending to be something it isn't.
Russ ... this is where I'm going to disagree.
I appreciate what you are saying about the hand of man and the interaction of the landscape and human life ... that's a very valid theme.
But ... you CAN create timeless landscapes with a camera. AA proved that ... and it is more than just his technique that has stood the test of time. It is a sense of majesty that rises above petty human emotions and thought ... the mountains don't give a rat's a$$ about "subprime mortgages".
That's often exactly what goes through my mind as I compose a shot in the woods ... ie that there is a world and universe beyond humanity ... that there is a natural order that speaks with the voice of rustling leaves and bending trees ... where it could be today or 5 million years ago ... and to bring some of that back into our homes and lives reminds us of where we really sit in the big picture ...
Just my 0.02.
-
Russ ... this is where I'm going to disagree.
I appreciate what you are saying about the hand of man and the interaction of the landscape and human life ... that's a very valid theme.
But ... you CAN create timeless landscapes with a camera. AA proved that ... and it is more than just his technique that has stood the test of time. It is a sense of majesty that rises above petty human emotions and thought ... the mountains don't give a rat's a$$ about "subprime mortgages".
That's often exactly what goes through my mind as I compose a shot in the woods ... ie that there is a world and universe beyond humanity ... that there is a natural order that speaks with the voice of rustling leaves and bending trees ... where it could be today or 5 million years ago ... and to bring some of that back into our homes and lives reminds us of where we really sit in the big picture ...
Just my 0.02.
Jeremy,
Okay. I’ll concede I may be exaggerating a bit to make a point. There was a time when I was very taken with Ansel’s work, and I’m still taken with it as far as technique is concerned.
But I’m not talking about subprime mortgages. I’m talking about the kind of penetrating human truths you see exposed in, say, Helen Levitt’s picture of the three kids in masks on the New York stoop. Those three children are projecting their now into the future in a way that tells me something important about the human condition.
I was born and raised in Michigan and from the time I was five until I left University of Michigan for pilot training I spent my summers next to a lake in the deep northern woods. In those days they were the deep, very deserted, very quiet woods. As a result I have an overwhelming appreciation for the natural order of which you speak. But I question whether or not you can experience that through photographs. Nowadays I return to that “universe beyond humanity” by going up into the Colorado mountains and hiking the high trails. I have plenty of photographs from those retreats, but the photographs can’t take the place of the real thing.
I predict that in another generation or two Ansel’s pictures will be pretty much forgotten. The reason I say that is that Ansel pushed his art well beyond the normal capabilities of the equipment he worked with. We’ve now reached a point, and we continue to exceed the point, where people with greatly advanced equipment can go back into those mountains and not only repeat what Ansel did, but better it. The mountains will still be there and the trees will still be there.
But no future generation will better what Helen did with the kids on that stoop, because Helen captured time in that photograph. There is no “better” in that kind of situation because the stoop and the kids are long gone. Time has moved on.
-
I hear ya ... you make a strong argument.
Maybe someday ... when human beings live in space and earth is just a collection of photographs and other recordings ... someone will say the exact same thing about AA's collective work.
I also shoot underwater ... and, unfortunately, the "time" element is there too ... those "landscapes" are far from everlasting and under direct assault. Capturing that beauty and sharing it with others can hopefully slow that a bit ...
-
Lisa,
I live in the west, at the foot of the Rocky Mountain Front Range. Pikes Peak is just above me. To the east of me are the Colorado and Kansas prairies. I frequently shoot landscapes on the prairies -- landscapes that almost always include artifacts created by the hand of man. I also shoot landscapes in the mountains, but, again, they almost always include the hand of man. I'm no city boy. To see landscapes, all I have to do is step outside. But I also agree with what HCB said. I learned a lot about wet photographic technique from Ansel Adams's prints and books, but I never saw, and still don't see Ansel's subject matter as important stuff.
Some landscape painting is very moving, but that's partly because of what it leaves out. What the pictorialists never understood is that painting is outside time and place. It's in the mind of the painter. If a painting is really good, it gives you a transcendental flash because of what the painter managed to convey, not only through good composition but through simplification.
Photography, on the other hand, is about time and place, and can't subdue detail without pretending to be something it isn't. A photographic landscape can be very beautiful, but it's still, in Walker Evan's and HCB's terms, a "so what?" It may be true that someone who's lived all his life in Manhattan can't truly appreciate landscape because he's never seen a real landscape, but even though he's never seen a farmhouse he'll respond immediately to a picture of a deserted farmhouse with abandoned toys on the floor. On the other hand, someone who's lived all his life on the prairies can respond very strongly to a street photograph from Manhattan that conveys something important about human life -- even if he's never been to Manhattan.
I think the difference lies in the degree of significance. That's why street photography, going all the way back to Atget, survives and continues to stimulate, while early landscape photography largely has been forgotten. It's true that Ansel hangs on, but mainly because of the technical perfection of his prints.
Street photography is easy. Most of the "meaning" people see in it is the anguish in the faces of those poor, desperate peasants crowded together in immigrant communities in places like L.A. and New York. And even when you shoot someone who is well off, chances are they got that way by fighting their way up out of the miserable streets. So what. My father-in-law painted for 55 years, some good stuff, won many awards, hung out with some of the rich and famous in the Northeast, etc. Again, so what. Millions of people paint - put their engrams and childhood traumas onto canvas, like therapy or something. But Ansel Adams wasn't trying to run away from his demons, he was a creator, in the sense that an erstwhile creator of a universe would pass some of that passion and creative spirit onto a lesser being like Ansel, or any of the other great masters. Many years ago on TV, Flip Wilson did a skit where he played God and tried to explain why he had the urge to create. I'm still trying to find that clip - I think it would help explain a little of what's inside a guy like AA. Real creativity.
-
Street photography is easy. Most of the "meaning" people see in it is the anguish in the faces of those poor, desperate peasants crowded together in immigrant communities in places like L.A. and New York. And even when you shoot someone who is well off, chances are they got that way by fighting their way up out of the miserable streets. So what.
Dale, If you actually believe that then evidently you haven't looked at much street photography. I guess the problem is to define street photography. I've been using the term too loosely -- mainly because I can't find a better term for the general class of photography that deals with the human condition. But if you believe what you said, then you aren't familiar with Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Walker Evans, or the many others who've caught people within their milieu in a way that can expand the horizons of those who examine their photographs.
Can anyone on this forum come up with a substitute for "street photography," a term that's too restrictive if you take it literally? We need a term that can cover the whole range of human-oriented photographs from Robert Frank's picture of the girl elevator operator to Ansel Adams's "Moonrise, Hernandez?" Both photographs share at least two elements: both included humans, or artifacts created by humans and both were grab shots -- or, in the case of "Moonrise," the closest you can come to a grab shot with a view camera.
By the way, if you think street photography is easy, try it. Anyone can go out on the street and shoot a picture of the street with people in it, but to catch something that matters is very, very difficult.
-
Dale, If you actually believe that then evidently you haven't looked at much street photography. I guess the problem is to define street photography. I've been using the term too loosely -- mainly because I can't find a better term for the general class of photography that deals with the human condition. But if you believe what you said, then you aren't familiar with Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Walker Evans, or the many others who've caught people within their milieu in a way that can expand the horizons of those who examine their photographs. By the way, if you think street photography is easy, try it. Anyone can go out on the street and shoot a picture of the street with some people in it, but to catch something that matters is very, very difficult.
I find that different photographic genres have different challenges. But that's a moot point. Should a photograph's merit be based on how difficult it was made? I think not.
The vast majority of landscapes are intended to be "beautiful", and most of the artist statements are about the love/preservation of nature. Nothing wrong with either. But when a genre becomes so popular, and with most of the photographers treating it the same way with the same intent (not to mention at the same locations), the sheer volume of sameness can numb the viewers' sensitivity and appreciation.
This is not the case with other genres. Street photography, for example, can range from beautiful to ugly, from joyous to painful, each telling a different story with a different intent. Through their work, these photographers show the gamut of humanity, and express how they react to them. OTOH, viewers of the vast majority of landscapes can only get to know the photographers as lovers of "rocks".
-
I hear ya ... you make a strong argument.
Maybe someday ... when human beings live in space and earth is just a collection of photographs and other recordings ... someone will say the exact same thing about AA's collective work.
I also shoot underwater ... and, unfortunately, the "time" element is there too ... those "landscapes" are far from everlasting and under direct assault. Capturing that beauty and sharing it with others can hopefully slow that a bit ...
I guess one problem with Ansel's stuff is that, as Chris just pointed out, it's an invitation for his followers to re-shoot his stuff and create cliches. Unfortunately, once a cliche exists Ansel's original becomes a cliche too -- except for the incredible quality of the prints he was able to produce.
I really like the underwater thing. I've never done it, but I'm sure you're right that it's preserving things that are vanishing. That's always worthwhile.
-
Unfortunately, once a cliche exists Ansel's original becomes a cliche too -- except for the incredible quality of the prints he was able to produce.
Maybe ... but I think AA is more like Citizen Kane ... every film made since owes something to Orson Welles and Citizen Kane ... something somewhat similar is in play with AA in my view.
I really like the underwater thing. I've never done it, but I'm sure you're right that it's preserving things that are vanishing. That's always worthwhile.
I'm a real novice underwater ... but I love it.
I'll post a couple on another thread for kicks ...
-
Maybe ... but I think AA is more like Citizen Kane ... every film made since owes something to Orson Welles and Citizen Kane ... something somewhat similar is in play with AA in my view.
No question about it. But every photograph most of us makes owes something to Atget. Still, there's no prospect of an Atget become a cliche but there's every prospect of an Adams becoming a cliche. In fact, I'd say the Adams cliches already are out there in abundance.
-
Sorry, but you can't tell me the genre of street photography doesn't have plenty of cliches of its own: from the gnarled old homeless guy with the gap-toothed grin, to the crowds of disinterested workers hurriedly bustling to their destination along crowded sidewalks, to the long shadows and rising steam when the sun breaks through the clouds after a rain shower. The "seen one, seen them all" attitude can apply just as much to street photography as to landscapes.
I don't think "documenting the human condition" elevates street photography to some higher purpose either, especially given how given how narrow a view of the human condition most street photography focuses on.
-
Sorry, but you can't tell me the genre of street photography doesn't have plenty of cliches of its own: from the gnarled old homeless guy with the gap-toothed grin, to the crowds of disinterested workers hurriedly bustling to their destination along crowded sidewalks, to the long shadows and rising steam when the sun breaks through the clouds after a rain shower. The "seen one, seen them all" attitude can apply just as much to street photography as to landscapes.
I don't think "documenting the human condition" elevates street photography to some higher purpose either, especially given how given how narrow a view of the human condition most street photography focuses on.
Jeff. It's true that anyone can make cliches on nearly any subject. But do you really believe that the best of Cartier-Bresson's photographs or the best of Elliott Erwitt's photographs, for instance, have been turned into cliches? How about a contemporary -- Steve McCurry? There are dozens of photographers who've photographed the same kinds of subjects Steve has photographed, but have they turned Steve's photographs into cliches? I don't think so. The copyists simply can't bring it off. But you can go back to the exact positions where Ansel stood when he shot his photographs and pretty much reproduce what he shot, though you may have to wait around for the right weather conditions. On the web your shots will look very much like the work of the master. You'll only see the difference when you look at the actual prints.
I won't argue with you about a higher purpose. That's a subjective thing. But we're not talking about "most" street photographers. We're talking about the great street photographers. Everyone's a photographer and there are thousands and thousands banging away with their cameras who haven't a clue what's important about the photographs of, say, a Steve McCurry.
-
Dale, If you actually believe that then evidently you haven't looked at much street photography. I guess the problem is to define street photography. I've been using the term too loosely -- mainly because I can't find a better term for the general class of photography that deals with the human condition. But if you believe what you said, then you aren't familiar with Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Walker Evans, or the many others who've caught people within their milieu in a way that can expand the horizons of those who examine their photographs.
Can anyone on this forum come up with a substitute for "street photography," a term that's too restrictive if you take it literally? We need a term that can cover the whole range of human-oriented photographs from Robert Frank's picture of the girl elevator operator to Ansel Adams's "Moonrise, Hernandez?" Both photographs share at least two elements: both included humans, or artifacts created by humans and both were grab shots -- or, in the case of "Moonrise," the closest you can come to a grab shot with a view camera.
By the way, if you think street photography is easy, try it. Anyone can go out on the street and shoot a picture of the street with people in it, but to catch something that matters is very, very difficult.
Have you ever taken a long stroll down 5th street in L.A.? You can find a lot of anguish to photograph there. How difficult is that? I have lots of street photos - good stuff IMO, if not technically superb. But replicate what AA did? Even at a lesser technical quality? Not that easy. Very difficult in fact.
-
Have you ever taken a long stroll down 5th street in L.A.? You can find a lot of anguish to photograph there. How difficult is that? I have lots of street photos - good stuff IMO, if not technically superb. But replicate what AA did? Even at a lesser technical quality? Not that easy. Very difficult in fact.
Dale, Sorry. If you were familiar with the work of Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Robert Frank, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Robert Doisneau, or any of the other people I've been talking about you'd realize how bad both of these "street" photographs are. "Anguish" isn't what makes a good street photograph. As I've said, above, anyone can go out and shoot a picture of a street with someone in it. That's not street photography. Try finding a copy of Bystander, A History of Street Photography. What you learn from that book might surprise you.
-
Most of the world's important photographers are or were important because they dealt with people or with artifacts created by the hand of man. Ansel was an exceptional technician. Photographers of my generation learned a lot from him, but the photographs of people like Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson, etc., etc. are where the real art resides.
I am personally a practitioner of nature landscape photography (not only) and have a lot of appreciation for the genre, however I cannot help but notice that from the point of view of the US and European art museum, all the way to magazines such as Aperture or publishers such as Steidl, all which think of themselves as at the forefront of contemporary art photography, indeed there is not a lot of interest for nature landscape. I use the term nature landscape to differentiate it from landscapes that include the hand of man.
-
Dale, Sorry. If you were familiar with the work of Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Robert Frank, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Robert Doisneau, or any of the other people I've been talking about you'd realize how bad both of these "street" photographs are. "Anguish" isn't what makes a good street photograph. As I've said, above, anyone can go out and shoot a picture of a street with someone in it. That's not street photography. Try finding a copy of Bystander, A History of Street Photography. What you learn from that book might surprise you.
And why would you think I don't know? I've been around artsy-photo circles with their fanboys for several decades. I rarely do night photos, and I don't do film noir, but that doesn't make my images *bad*. If I were going to exhibit street photos next month, I would shoot some newer material, but yes, you wouldn't recognize it. Too much light for your taste.
-
And why would you think I don't know? I've been around artsy-photo circles with their fanboys for several decades. I rarely do night photos, and I don't do film noir, but that doesn't make my images *bad*. If I were going to exhibit street photos next month, I would shoot some newer material, but yes, you wouldn't recognize it. Too much light for your taste.
Quoting myself (why not?), to add another thought: Yes, these guys get good at what they do with a lot of practice, and I haven't practiced street photography since the 1960's. More to the point, these guys have a fan base, and most of their fans wouldn't like what I do, even if I practiced a lot and turned out some "really good stuff".
OTOH, there are a million interesting photos to be gotten on the streets of L.A., but how many landscapes? And it's easy to snap some on the streets and crop here and there to get what you want, but try that with landscapes, and you get undifferentiated mush.
-
And why would you think I don't know?
Because I saw your pictures.
-
And it's easy to snap some on the streets and crop here and there to get what you want...
Which is exactly what you've done here with these people who, basically, are street performers. A snapshot of a performance is not "street photography."
-
Because I saw your pictures.
You saw all of my photos? You're amazing.
-
Which is exactly what you've done here with these people who, basically, are street performers. A snapshot of a performance is not "street photography."
Street photography is photography on the street. And we're all performers on the street where I go, but then, you may never have been to a big city, sticking to books mostly, based on your comments.
-
Which is exactly what you've done here with these people who, basically, are street performers. A snapshot of a performance is not "street photography."
In the three photos, only the man with the birds is a street performer. Actually, scratch that, just the birds. This is probably too subtle for you, but the people in front of the store are store workers and musicians who do not do street performance - they're doing a special to advertise their product. The religious cleric is not a street performer - he's a synagogue worker who is doing a special outreach, and lastly, the lady feeding the birds is an ordinary person in a moment of spontaneity.
-
You saw all of my photos? You're amazing.
I saw the photos you presented as examples of street photography. What else do I need to see? I'd say that evidence is conclusive.
-
I saw the photos you presented as examples of street photography. What else do I need to see? I'd say that evidence is conclusive.
Your willingness to conclude your analysis on almost no information (did you expect me to post 100 images?) is evidence of your lack of analytical ability, nothing else. I don't have to prove anything to someone whose head is in a tiny artspace where not much light gets in. I suspect all members who've been here awhile know what street photography is - it was well covered on one or more LLVJ's, and I have 1 through 17.
-
Your willingness to conclude your analysis on almost no information (did you expect me to post 100 images?) is evidence of your lack of analytical ability, nothing else. I don't have to prove anything to someone whose head is in a tiny artspace where not much light gets in. I suspect all members who've been here awhile know what street photography is - it was well covered on one or more LLVJ's, and I have 1 through 17.
Dale, I'm going to drop the whole thing here. I'm sorry my response agitated you so drastically, but I assume that when someone puts photographs on the web for evaluation he wants a truthful response, not a diplomatic pat on the back. I realize that's not always true, but I've found it usually is.
Best regards,
-
Jeff. It's true that anyone can make cliches on nearly any subject. But do you really believe that the best of Cartier-Bresson's photographs or the best of Elliott Erwitt's photographs, for instance, have been turned into cliches? How about a contemporary -- Steve McCurry? There are dozens of photographers who've photographed the same kinds of subjects Steve has photographed, but have they turned Steve's photographs into cliches? I don't think so.
That's certainly true, but I would say the same is true for many of the truly great landscape images. I just don't think think the fact that some of Ansel's most famous (though not necessarily best IMHO) images are taken from well-known locations that millions of people photograph every year doesn't invalidate landscape photography as fine art, or make it less relevant or important than documentary/street photography.
I'll grant you that many of the iconic landmarks in the national parks have been overshot. But there are plenty of landscape masters shooting lesser known or less accessible locations, as well as venturing away from the classic 'big' landscape to find their own interpretations of the landscape. And I don't necessarily think landscape has to mean wilderness ; I have great admiration for what I would call rural landscapes such as some of the work by folks like Charlie Waite or Joe Cornish.
The copyists simply can't bring it off. But you can go back to the exact positions where Ansel stood when he shot his photographs and pretty much reproduce what he shot, though you may have to wait around for the right weather conditions. On the web your shots will look very much like the work of the master. You'll only see the difference when you look at the actual prints.
Well, I would say that without regular access your chances of truly duplicating or bettering those previous works is going to be pretty slim, because the chances of getting those perfect conditions on a single visit to an area are very small. I've taken some of those shots myself though, because even though they won't make it into art galleries I think it's still worthwhile to take them, if I gain enjoyment or learn something in the process. I consider it a form of training, part of process of finding my own voice and eventually creating my own style and vision.
I won't argue with you about a higher purpose. That's a subjective thing.
It is subjective, and I'm certainly not saying that street photography isn't art or isn't important just because it's not my cup of tea. I guess what irks me a bit is that in some circles the definition of art is considered to be absolute even though it's just one viewpoint. I just don't like the elitist thinking that says anything that is popular can't be be real art, or that art must challenge traditional definitions of beauty to be taken seriously (but please note that I'm not accusing you of thinking that way).
But we're not talking about "most" street photographers. We're talking about the great street photographers.
Fine, but if you want to single out the best of street photography you should do the same for landscape. I would argue that both genres have more than their fair share of cliches, as well as examples that truly define the genre and will stand the test of time.
-
Dale, I'm going to drop the whole thing here. I'm sorry my response agitated you so drastically, but I assume that when someone puts photographs on the web for evaluation he wants a truthful response, not a diplomatic pat on the back. I realize that's not always true, but I've found it usually is.
Best regards,
Like the previous posts, this accusation is unfounded. I value your opinions, but I have to read between the lines and re-interpret them, since on their face they don't have much merit. But please keep trying. And I'm neither agitated nor offended. Thank you.
-
That's certainly true, but I would say the same is true for many of the truly great landscape images. I just don't think think the fact that some of Ansel's most famous (though not necessarily best IMHO) images are taken from well-known locations that millions of people photograph every year doesn't invalidate landscape photography as fine art, or make it less relevant or important than documentary/street photography.
I'll grant you that many of the iconic landmarks in the national parks have been overshot. But there are plenty of landscape masters shooting lesser known or less accessible locations, as well as venturing away from the classic 'big' landscape to find their own interpretations of the landscape. And I don't necessarily think landscape has to mean wilderness ; I have great admiration for what I would call rural landscapes such as some of the work by folks like Charlie Waite or Joe Cornish.
Well, I would say that without regular access your chances of truly duplicating or bettering those previous works is going to be pretty slim, because the chances of getting those perfect conditions on a single visit to an area are very small. I've taken some of those shots myself though, because even though they won't make it into art galleries I think it's still worthwhile to take them, if I gain enjoyment or learn something in the process. I consider it a form of training, part of process of finding my own voice and eventually creating my own style and vision.
It is subjective, and I'm certainly not saying that street photography isn't art or isn't important just because it's not my cup of tea. I guess what irks me a bit is that in some circles the definition of art is considered to be absolute even though it's just one viewpoint. I just don't like the elitist thinking that says anything that is popular can't be be real art, or that art must challenge traditional definitions of beauty to be taken seriously (but please note that I'm not accusing you of thinking that way).
Fine, but if you want to single out the best of street photography you should do the same for landscape. I would argue that both genres have more than their fair share of cliches, as well as examples that truly define the genre and will stand the test of time.
Jeff,
That's about as reasonable a response to a slightly overstated argument as I've seen anywhere. I especially appreciate: "I just don't like the elitist thinking that says anything that is popular can't be be real art, or that art must challenge traditional definitions of beauty to be taken seriously (but please note that I'm not accusing you of thinking that way). I'm glad you're not because I have a real beef with what our current elitists have done to art. For me it started with poetry. I've written and had poetry published since I was 19. At University of Michigan it was my favorite subject. I subscribed to Poetry magazine for decades and watched it go down hill until I finally received an issue with nothing in it worth reading and dropped my subscription.
The same thing's happening to visual art. I used to think the problem peaked with "Piss Christ," but I've since had to revise my opinion. It just keeps on getting worse and worse. Sometimes I wonder if it's because I'm getting older and older. May be.
In any case, though it may sound as if I'm dissing landscape, I'm not. If you're willing to include the rural landscape, I'm with you. Probably that's why a very large poster copy of Ansel's "Moonrise, Hernandez" occupied the premier space above my computer table for about 15 years -- until I substituted this:
[attachment=13254:Egret_on...atlakaha.jpg]
But week after next, when I get back to Colorado and my office I'm going to substitute this:
[attachment=13255:River_St...t_Sweets.jpg] Unfortunately the red of the awning seems a lot more unsaturated when I check the preview on Luminous Landscape than when I look at my local computer copy or the print that's hanging on my wall. There's a truer copy at FineArtSnaps.com, provided your monitor is calibrated.
If you include artifacts from the hand of man then I've shot a lot of landscapes. You can see a few at my commercial web: www.FineArtSnaps.com
By the way, it's really unfortunate that Ansel got typecast as a wilderness photographer. Actually, he was very versatile and very good at things like group portraits. The sad part is that only his wilderness shots get shown with any frequency.
Best regards,
-
The same thing's happening to visual art. I used to think the problem peaked with "Piss Christ," but I've since had to revise my opinion. It just keeps on getting worse and worse. Sometimes I wonder if it's because I'm getting older and older. May be.
I don't think it's any of us, or age and perception changes. I think it's a natural outgrowth of computerization and automation - making things more efficient. We have the ability now to control and predict in narrow demographic ranges that we couldn't do a decade ago, and so we can pander in the worst ways to nearly every taste. We have to keep finding ways to stay ahead of the bean counters, so we can keep some real art alive in the 21st century.
-
But you can go back to the exact positions where Ansel stood when he shot his photographs and pretty much reproduce what he shot, though you may have to wait around for the right weather conditions. On the web your shots will look very much like the work of the master. You'll only see the difference when you look at the actual prints.
That is a statement built simply upon arrogance and ignorance. Location is the LEAST critical factor in landscape photography, not the most important. Had you any serious experience, you would have known that. Instead, you repeat a shallow argument - since dismissed by even secessionist leader Steiglitz - from a 100-year-old copy of Camera Work magazine.
It's not difficult to find the exact locations from which Ansel Adams (or John Sexton, Clyde Butcher, Charles Cramer, Bruce Barnbaum for that matter) photographed. Hundreds and thousands of photographers have stood in his very boot prints and copied his exact composition. Why, then, is the world of photography not filled with images that exceed the beauty and power of Mt. Williamson, Yosemite, or any moonrise? The answer....because the photographer is too important a factor to be summarily dismissed as you have done. Photography, even in landscapes, is more than f/stops and filter factors. It's about vision and meaning and purpose. To think otherwise, is an exercise in idiocy and shows disrespect for all serious photographers.
This argument, after more than 100 years, is tired. If this is the best you've got, you have my sympathies.
-
By the way, it's really unfortunate that Ansel got typecast as a wilderness photographer. Actually, he was very versatile and very good at things like group portraits. The sad part is that only his wilderness shots get shown with any frequency.
Best regards,
Group portraits like in Even Ansel Adams Has to Earn a Living by Ted Orland (http://tgartworks.com/tedorland/scenes-of-wonder-and-curiosity/image.tedo90359.html) ? He made his living as a commercial photographer and therefore was able to shoot a variety of subjects. He also liked to think of himself as a versatile photographers, thus including a variety of subjects in his portfolios. But eventually, his real love was for the land, and that's where he produced his best work. This is explained well for instance in Szarkowski's introduction to Ansel Adams at 100.
-
Before anyone starts nailing the coffin shut on landscape photography, be sure to visit Chuck's site. Ansel completely missed most of those locations.
http://www.chuckkimmerle.com (http://www.chuckkimmerle.com)
-
Why should photography have to document to become art or to stand the test of time? Seems extremely narrow minded.
-
Why should photography have to document to become art or to stand the test of time? Seems extremely narrow minded.
Photography always "documents." It can't avoid that. Unless you're talking about something like the kind of abstractions Man Ray made without a camera, photography always captures time.
-
Photography always "documents." It can't avoid that. Unless you're talking about something like the kind of abstractions Man Ray made without a camera, photography always captures time.
Which means you can think about not just what audience you address your photos too, but what TIME that audience will reside in. If I include a recognizable modern building or car in a landscape photo, I will be told that "messes up" the scene. But the presence of such things in very old landscapes enhances their interest (and value). Contemporary street photos that I find to be unbearably banal descriptions of the present will be of great interest in The Future, even to me. Nobody can compete with Cartier-Bresson, Atget, etc...they have the advantage of the unreproducible patina of time.
-
Photography always "documents." It can't avoid that. Unless you're talking about something like the kind of abstractions Man Ray made without a camera, photography always captures time.
If you believe that photography "always captures time", how can you be so dismissive of landscape photography in general, and Ansel Adams in particular? You stated earlier that simply standing in the footprints of Ansel Adams was enough to recreate the depth and feeling of his work. But, if you truly believe photography captures time, then simply standing in the same location is clearly NOT enough.
-
Why on earth should photography have to capture time unless you are trying to make it do so? You are bringing your biases to the table and trying to push them on the medium as a whole to discount certain genres because you don't appreciate what they are bringing to the table as art.
-
If you believe that photography "always captures time", how can you be so dismissive of landscape photography in general, and Ansel Adams in particular? You stated earlier that simply standing in the footprints of Ansel Adams was enough to recreate the depth and feeling of his work. But, if you truly believe photography captures time, then simply standing in the same location is clearly NOT enough.
So you believe that mountains change. Of course they do but unless you come back many millions of years later you won't notice the difference. Adams's photos captured time all right, but he was working with a very, very slow clock.
-
So you believe that mountains change. Of course they do but unless you come back many millions of years later you won't notice the difference. Adams's photos captured time all right, but he was working with a very, very slow clock.
If giant monoliths were all that comprised his images, then that would be true. However, his images contained much more, all of which were integral to the image: trees, lakes, streams, towns, people, etc. One of my favorite images of his was of a tree alongside the Merced River, which has now fallen. It's gone. Not a loss on par with Dodo birds or passenger pigeons, but a loss none the less. As well, the road on which he photographed his famous moonrise/Hernandez is gone, or at least very difficult to locate. Nor is the town anywhere near the same. Stieglitz and O'Keefe are both dead.
His clock was not all that slow.
-
If giant monoliths were all that comprised his images, then that would be true. However, his images contained much more, all of which were integral to the image: trees, lakes, streams, towns, people, etc. One of my favorite images of his was of a tree alongside the Merced River, which has now fallen. It's gone. Not a loss on par with Dodo birds or passenger pigeons, but a loss none the less. As well, the road on which he photographed his famous moonrise/Hernandez is gone, or at least very difficult to locate. Nor is the town anywhere near the same. Stieglitz and O'Keefe are both dead.
His clock was not all that slow.
I'll concede the point. I'm 79 and I've been looking at Ansel's prints since I was pretty young, so I have a reasonable familiarity with them. In the fifties, when I was really cranking up on photography I was pretty taken with his stuff. In the sixties I read his five books on photography and did a lot of shooting in the mountains with a 4 x 5 view camera. I'd develop those film sheets individually, and even, in a few cases, make modifications in the developer according to Ansel's ideas. I shot a lot of what Wordsworth called rocks and stones and trees -- and rivers and narrow valleys and landscapes from the top of Pikes Peak. Here's something like that. It's from 2004, shot with a D100, and not up to the quality of a 4 x 5, but it's the kind of thing I used to shoot back then.
[attachment=13271:From_the_Peak.jpg]
I had a bunch of rocks and rivers and landscapes hung in my house. Eventually, though, the bloom faded from the rose. For some reason that point coincided with the realization that people were a lot more interesting than rocks or stones or trees. I've never lost that feeling, and nowadays my office has more pictures of the fading glory of small prairie towns than anything else.
Speaking of prairie towns brings me to the question: where in North Dakota? In the late fifties I used to fly a Beaver out of Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls -- all over what we used to call the "highline:" the radar sites we had along the northern border of the U.S. and southern border of Canada. When I left Great Falls I was stationed at Beausejour, Manitoba for about two and a half years and used to fly a Beaver back and forth from the radar site outside Beausejour to the RCAF base in Winnipeg and down to Grand Forks. I still love that country.
-
I had a bunch of rocks and rivers and landscapes hung in my house. Eventually, though, the bloom faded from the rose. For some reason that point coincided with the realization that people were a lot more interesting than rocks or stones or trees. I've never lost that feeling, and nowadays my office has more pictures of the fading glory of small prairie towns than anything else.
Either way you go, it's better you do it your way rather than just try to do what someone else did. I think when someone says we walk in the footprints of those who went before, we should at least wear our own shoes. Think what some of those old guys would do with a D3X.
Kirk: "Whose engrams did you impress on that computer anyway?"
Dr. Daystrom: "Why, mine, of course."