The writer writes well. Yet there is so much that is distorted in this article I can't begin to know where to start.
All photography is a distortion of nature. The first glimpse through the lens mars perfection.
In my view Mr. Stearn is actually discussing content-based documentation rather than "Fine Art". It is no small feat to re-define that moniker given all of the water that has run over THAT dam.
Mentioning Weston (a Group 64member) and Steiglitz (a proponent of pictorialism) in the same breath is odd. (The F/64 crowd with the attendant law of reciprocity)and hours used to make one exposure is the ultimate equivalent of saturation and vibrancy sliders.
("Group f/64 was more than a club of artists; they described themselves as engaged in a battle against a "tide of oppressive pictorialism" and purposely called their defining proclamation a manifesto, with all the political overtones that the name implies.")Using filters and graded papers in the darkroom shoots the theory that these guys were reproducing nature "responsibly" or "ethically" when in fact much of the work was bleeding edge experimental. They had a creative vision and they followed that vision using what techniques were available to them at the time.
Stearn writes:
"In support of creative experimentation, exaggerating these aspects may be appropriate if the objective is to create alternate realities and perspectives, and the resulting image is presented and classified as “Computer Graphics” rather than as photographs. But, often this distinction is not made. Failure to make it undercuts the longstanding tradition of nature photographs as honest and faithful portrayals of striking scenes and special moments."I don't think I've ever see a black and white image of nature that is an honest and faithful portrayal of nature. Last time I checked, the world was NOT black and white... nor have I ever seen a waterfall with billowing clouds spewing down and out where flowing water actually was.
"But, for some there seems to be a prevailing “anything goes” attitude that values concept more highly than craft, and sometimes prefers short-cuts over study and hard work. Those who prize both creative interpretation and craft, and who are also honest about the nature of their creations, are most likely to produce fine art. Lazier photographers may produce art, but rarely fine art."Art is as art does. I'm not quite sure what the motivation is to govern and standardize photography other than to qualify one approach over another to achieve market superiority." The market does ultimately make those distinctions despite the attempts of the real arbiters of taste, the art historians.
I find it ironic that Mr. Stearns mentions the Impressionists:
"Ironically, it also played a part in the development of the Impressionist movement that started in Europe, as painters had to find ways to differentiate their product from the new more efficient art form."The impressionists were a group of upstarts who railed against the government sanctioned salons, the "standardised" boring academic art institutions. The plein-air artists rejected past conventions in favor of a new way of seeing and painting:
"Scientific thought at the time was beginning to recognize that what the eye perceived and what the brain understood were two different things. The Impressionists sought to capture the former - the optical effects of light - to convey the passage of time, changes in weather, and other shifts in the atmosphere in their canvases. Their art did not necessarily rely on realistic depictions."As well written and presented as Mr. Stearns article was, I'm afraid there was a more than condescending tone about it, and I question, again, the motivation to "upgrade" what is granted, well crafted documentation work, over any other interpretation of a scene as being superior.
I suggest a "live and let live" attitude. On the other hand, jump out there and form a society of like-minded photographers who share in your views and approach to your vision of art. But before you can legitimately call what you and others make "Fine Art", superior to all other approaches, perhaps it would be best to authenticate that claim with evidence other than your opinion, backed by art historical documentation and extensive museum holdings of your claims.
There are good points in this well-written article. Yet I believe that to use a colloquial southern expression, it appears Mr. Stearn "has quit preaching' and gone to meddlin'."
"We work in the dark. We do what we can, we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art" -Henry James
[/i]