Sally Mann's "What Remains," a 2003 photographic collection, is considered pictorialism and is well regarded. Others still attempt similar manipulations. Pictorialism may not please everyone, but it is stil a worthy pursuit. I personally attempt to record moments in time and generally subscribe to that schoool of photography insofar as my meager talent will allow. (In fact, I've been called a voyeur and sniper for not wanting to impact those moments.) But I can be open minded about any artistic pursuit. Nothing is unworthy or outdated. It is possible to achieve artful communicatin in a variety of ways. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I must have missed the first part of your rant, and I'm still not sure > what you're saying here. Is this part "But the vigorous amateur verité > **style [...] the gift of photography was the instantaneous reality" > something that you're saying, or something the documentary is saying? > > You haven't included a link to the NYPD crime scene either, so we > don't know what you're comparing to the Steichen picture or, indeed, > which you prefer. > > What I'm inferring from your so-called rant is that you disagree with > the claim that pictorialism was an artistic dead end. But this is > true, and quite clear from the history of art photography. You, and > many other people, might like or be moved by pictorialism above other > forms of photography, but that doesn't alter the fact of the matter > which is that nothing worthwhile has developed from pictorialism as > far as capital A art photography is concerned. I have the very highest > regard for the founders of pictorialism when it was at the very centre > of art photography - people like P H Emerson, Steichen, Steiglitz and > so on, but nobody in the world of art photography has done > pictorialism for a century. > > This statement "the gift of photography was the instantaneous reality" > is also unarguably true. I can't tell if it's your claim or the > documentary's claim, but it is a proposition that I have argued for > many times in the past, including on this forum. The single thing that > distinguishes photography from all the other representational media is > precisely its ability to capture an instant in time completely > unmediated by the 'artist' or operator or whatever you want to call > the person. > > What is the amateur verite **style, and what does it have to do with > pictorialism? And why have you used 2 asterisks in front of style? > > Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Derby Chang > > Sent: 12 February 2008 09:34 > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: The Genius of Photography > > > > Sorry for continuing on my rant. The seed was sown a little > > while ago by > > this dastardly BBC series > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/ > > > > One of the strong themes in an early episode was "Pictorialism was > an > > artistic dead end". But the vigorous amateur verité **style has > been, > > and still is, the driving force of photography as a medium. Whereas > > Steiglitz and his movement withdrew into smaller and smaller > > ranges of > > subject matter and styles, the gift of photography was the > > instantaneous > > reality. The photos of the NY Police Dept Crime scene in > > comparison with > > the most expensive print on the planet > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pond-Moonlight) is > > startling. I know > > which one moves me. > > > > D > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
