Does Ctein have 100 true fans?

[RSL]

Ctein is the classic definition of the guy that works for art not money. The classic starving artist that is discovered long into life. like Ansel, Like Weston, etc.

Almost missed this one. After I stopped laughing I remembered the Peanuts strip where Rerun is out trying to sell one of his drawings. He knocks on a door, a little girl pops out and asks him, "Are you a starving artist?" Rerun steps back and says, "All I had for breakfast was a waffle." The idea that there's such a thing as a "starving artist" in 2009 is beyond absurd.

[DarkPenguin]

Almost missed this one. After I stopped laughing I remembered the Peanuts strip where Rerun is out trying to sell one of his drawings. He knocks on a door, a little girl pops out and asks him, "Are you a starving artist?" Rerun steps back and says, "All I had for breakfast was a waffle." The idea that there's such a thing as a "starving artist" in 2009 is beyond absurd.

Could you please explain?

I'm reminded of the joke what do you call a guitarist without a girlfriend?  Homeless.

[RSL]

Could you please explain?

I'm reminded of the joke what do you call a guitarist without a girlfriend?  Homeless.

Dark, I guess you have to see the strip itself, but I like your joke.

[DarkPenguin]

Dark, I guess you have to see the strip itself, but I like your joke.

Actually, I remember the peanuts strip.  (Although I probably didn't see it on first run.)  I was referring to the starving artist thing in 2009.  With the current economy I would assume that the life support system of the majority of artists (a working spouse) is under fire.

Edit:  Actually, I might be thinking of a different comic strip.

[RSL]

Actually, I remember the peanuts strip.  (Although I probably didn't see it on first run.)  I was referring to the starving artist thing in 2009.  With the current economy I would assume that the life support system of the majority of artists (a working spouse) is under fire.

Edit:  Actually, I might be thinking of a different comic strip.

Anyone who considers himself a photographic artist or aspires to become one needs two things: (1) A day job, and (2) A careful read of Brooks Jensen's Letting Go of the Camera.

Consider who the great photographers were. Ansel might have made a living on his art, but he also was a concert pianist. Of the Magnum members I'd consider to be great photographers all either were independently wealthy or had day jobs. Several had day jobs as photographers, but they were doing their art in their spare time. Walker Evans had his day job at Fortune and also as a Yale professor. Robert Frank was a fashion photographer for Harpers Bazaar. He was able to do The Americans was because he got a Guggenheim grant. Etc...

Show me a photographer who's a "starving artist," and I'll show you a guy who's not willing to do the grunt work necessary to support his art (or hobby). (And maybe his girlfriend has thrown him out to boot.)

[ndevlin]

To sort of nudge this back towards the original topic, Ctein is a unique human being with a unique vision of the world. Once in a while, that vision translates into some really lovely photography. While few would say he is a master-class photographer, he is undoubtedly a master printer. Moreover, as Michael said, he is a lovely person...something which is mildly unusual amongst people with his raw IQ.

The photography-by-subscription experiment is a wonderful attempt to bough make his own art financially viable and to broaden the the accessibility of art-collecting. It is a refreshingly innovate approach to making the art-commerce connection in challenging financial times.  
For this, he is to be saluted, irrespective of what ones opinion of his artistic talent may be.

- N.

[Anthony R]

The photography-by-subscription experiment is a wonderful attempt to bough make his own art financially viable and to broaden the the accessibility of art-collecting. It is a refreshingly innovate approach to making the art-commerce connection in challenging financial times.  
For this, he is to be saluted, irrespective of what ones opinion of his artistic talent may be.

- N.

here here. I salute him and I fall into the category of finding his photographs of questionable merit. I'm almost tempted to sponsor him just for the sheer audacity and creativity of his experiment.

[RSL]

here here. I salute him and I fall into the category of finding his photographs of questionable merit. I'm almost tempted to sponsor him just for the sheer audacity and creativity of his experiment.

I certainly agree with that sentiment -- especially the audacity part. Have you read his "artist's statement?"

[Greg D]

It sounds as if Ctein probably has a lot more than 100 fans. By tomorrow the rest of them probably will have logged on.

Okay. I'll concede that what we're talking about is a subjective thing. I happen not to think Ansel Adams is that great a photographer. He certainly was a master of his equipment, materials, and darkroom -- probably the best printer of his day. In the sixties I used to go into the mountains west of Colorado Springs with a view camera and walk around with a Weston Master, getting zone readings. In the darkroom I'd mix a separate batch of developer for each sheet of film -- or sometimes for more than one if several had a similar zone spread. I made good prints; not as good as Ansel's, but good enough: the best I could do under the circumstances. During the same period I did a lot of street photography with three Leicas -- rolling my own cassettes from 100 foot rolls of Ilford HP-4 and developing in four-roll tanks in the kitchen. Now, the carefully zoned rocks and stones and trees are long gone but the street shots live on. After a while rocks and stones and trees lose their interest but people never do.

To me, Walker Evans was a better artist than Ansel Adams. At the top, along with Evans I'd include Eugene Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Robert Frank and Steve McCurry. At the next tier I'd include Paul Strand, Dorothea Lange, Garry Winogrand, Gene Smith, Andre Kertesz, Robert Doiseneau, Brassai, Manuel Alvarez Bravo... I'd put Edward Weston somewhere in between since for the most part he photographed rocks and stones and trees and peppers, but sometimes also people.

So there you have it. I guess that's why we disagree. To me, photographing rocks and stones and trees is a cop out. The human condition is what cameras are for. Landscape is for painters.

Not meaning to be catty, really, but then why spend time and energy on the Luminous LANDSCPE forum?

[Rob C]

Not meaning to be catty, really, but then why spend time and energy on the Luminous LANDSCPE forum?

Because, thank God, there are other subjects and discussions going down.

Rob C

[Stuarte]

The original poster has done Ctein a great service by raising this topic.

I went to the linked site, perused and read it and found it extremely gauche and amateurish.  After all on the Internet anybody can claim anything.  But then comments by some contributors - not least of them Michael - made me think again about Ctein's credentials and bona fides, and his offer.  Because some people here have taken the man and the offer seriously, I have felt it worth my time and effort to do so too.

Even while writing this comment, revisiting the offer, I realised that Ctein is offering real physical prints.  In point 2 of his offer he talks about digital prints and I assumed this meant just a digital download.

All in all Ctein's site and marketing on their own didn't work for me.  Far from it.  But thanks to the LL forum I'm now interested.

[tony Rosca]

Thanks to this forum I saw Ctein's work. I did not like anything I saw  and I dare somebody who liked his work to say what piece and why he liked it. I am sorry if I am hurting anybody's feelings but I wasn't impress at all in fact was a waste of time. Thought the marketing idea was genius

[ckimmerle]

Thanks to this forum I saw Ctein's work. I did not like anything I saw  and I dare somebody who liked his work to say what piece and why he liked it. I am sorry if I am hurting anybody's feelings but I wasn't impress at all in fact was a waste of time. Thought the marketing idea was genius

Well Tony, I dare you to say why you DIDN't like any of his work, and to do so in a mature and intelligent manner rather than the above diatribe which is reminiscent of an eight-year-old dismissing his vegetables.

[DarkPenguin]

lol

[sananjana]

intersting dear  

[DS420]

I did not like anything I saw  and I dare somebody who liked his work to say what piece and why he liked it.

I have two of his dye transfer prints, and they are totally unique. On the screen the subject isn't amazing, but the prints are. The surface texture is very similar to a silver FB print done on Kodak Elite or Ilford Gallerie, and what really gets me is the subtly of tone in the colours. Think of the best B&W traditional print done from a large format negative, with its subtle gradatations of grey, and the dye transfer does the same for the colour.

Due to the process, there is a slight softness to everything, which suits his subject matter very well. It's the exact opposite of many oversharpened digital images that I've seen. Like it or not, I've never seen another colour print with similar qualities..

Craig

[Geoff Wittig]

I have two of his dye transfer prints, and they are totally unique. On the screen the subject isn't amazing, but the prints are. The surface texture is very similar to a silver FB print done on Kodak Elite or Ilford Gallerie, and what really gets me is the subtly of tone in the colours. Think of the best B&W traditional print done from a large format negative, with its subtle gradatations of grey, and the dye transfer does the same for the colour.

Due to the process, there is a slight softness to everything, which suits his subject matter very well. It's the exact opposite of many oversharpened digital images that I've seen. Like it or not, I've never seen another colour print with similar qualities..

Craig

Quite so. Dye transfer prints are not like anything else you'll see. The purity of color from the dyes is remarkable, and impossible to explain unless you've seen it in person. George Eastman House has a huge collection of dye transfers, including classics from Nicholas Murray and Elliot Porter, and it's worth making the trip to see some of them when they're exibited. The red in Judy Garland's dress in one of Murray's prints is insane; it's not just the saturation, but the color purity that is so striking. I also own the two dye transfer prints Ctein offered through Mike Johntson's Online Photographer blog, and they are simply beautiful. The green tones in the ginger plant are stunning, and impossible to duplicate via inkjet.

[DarkPenguin]

I also own the two dye transfer prints Ctein offered through Mike Johntson's Online Photographer blog, and they are simply beautiful. The green tones in the ginger plant are stunning, and impossible to duplicate via inkjet.

Ditto.  I bought them with intent to give one or both away as gifts.  That isn't going to happen now.  They can have them as gifts when I'm dead.

[TimG]

The idea that there's such a thing as a "starving artist" in 2009 is beyond absurd.

You're kidding, right?  I know plenty starving artists here in Chicago.  They've lost their jobs, been evicted from their apartments and work studios, and had to sell most of their possessions just to they can a) get a hot meal and a bed every couple of days and  keep making their art.

I'm happy you're living so comfortably, but please don't make such absurd sweeping assumptions about how the other half lives.

[alainbriot]

You're kidding, right?  I know plenty starving artists here in Chicago.  They've lost their jobs, been evicted from their apartments and work studios, and had to sell most of their possessions just to they can a) get a hot meal and a bed every couple of days and  keep making their art.

I'm happy you're living so comfortably, but please don't make such absurd sweeping assumptions about how the other half lives.

That is a very good point.  Many artists only make a few thousand dollars a year...