Mortensen and pictorialism

[ZorkiKat]

Anyone heard of "Monsters and Madonnas"?

Anyone heard of "Monsters and Madonnas"?

Found this really really old ad for W. Mortensen's Books published by "Minicam". This ad was on the inside-back cover of the January 1940 issue of "Minicam Photography"

He also wrote about technical stuff like AA....

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's a shame that sexual preference plays such a big role in what art is acceptable and what remains hidden, but it seems even more so in photography. There are plenty of novelists, poets, painters, etc. that are known to be gay or lesbian and nobody is afraid to write about it. Photography seems to be off limits.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Found this really really old ad for W. Mortensen's Books published by "Minicam". This ad was on the inside-back cover of the January 1940 issue of "Minicam Photography"

He also wrote about technical stuff like AA....[/QUOTE]

But much more readably!

Not only have I heard of the book: I have a copy, bought NEW (very old stock) a decade or so ago. It's the 1967 (!) edition. Frances is a great Mortensen fan and we have half a dozen of his books.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's a shame that sexual preference plays such a big role in what art is acceptable and what remains hidden, but it seems even more so in photography. There are plenty of novelists, poets, painters, etc. that are known to be gay or lesbian and nobody is afraid to write about it. Photography seems to be off limits.

Dear Al,

Mapplethorpe?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Roger, I'm not about to "out" anybody but Maplethorp is only one of many.

 

[Sparrow]

Roger, I'm not about to "out" anybody but Maplethorp is only one of many.

david bailey and andy warhol, :wink: :wink:

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

It's now the 'dragging from the closet' thread! LOL

 

[hawkeye]

I have to agree with Roger that the f/64 vs/ pictorialism feud was more about their moment passing. It was at the peak of their antagonism that a whole slew of new photographers arrived using Rolleis (Imogen Cunningham and others ) and Leicas (HCB) and redefining the image.

It was I believe Marshall McCluhan who pointed out that every new medium copies the previous medium before it finds its own way.

In a way we can apply this to digital photography which is copying film photography and has yet to find its true form.

Sevral years ago I got one of Mortensen's books and found that no matter what you think of his pictures his warmth, enthusiasm and sense of fun shines through.

Hawkeye

 

[zenlibra]

Great discussion. I have much to learn about the history of photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

porn from the start of the 20th century was based on Victorian classicism, so was almost free of the erotic to our eyes.

by the 20's the photographers had learned how to portray erotic , and we had learned how to interpret it

It's difficult to believe those photos are probably only about 20 years apart, sorry but somebody has to study this stuff you'll understand

P.S. it’s interesting that the second one has true Pictorialists tendencies

Dear Stewart,

I think the second one is late 30s: look at the hair and the eyebrows. I waited until I could ask Frances (who has two degrees in theatre and studied costume closely) and her immediate diagnosis was 30s, too: apparently the style of garter belt is not 20s either. It could even be early 40s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

I think the second one is late 30s: look at the hair and the eyebrows. I waited until I could ask Frances (who has two degrees in theatre and studied costume closely) and her immediate diagnosis was 30s, too: apparently the style of garter belt is not 20s either. It could even be early 40s.

Cheers,

R.

I snatched them off the interweb without research, sorry; and while I concede hyperbole in this case I deny exaggeration.

I would still contend that at the start of the century pornography was the driving force in photography until Capa HBC et al took over in the 30’s when the publics’ interests became more sober

 

[Spider67]

OK-folks a little sidetrack....

OK-folks a little sidetrack....

I got those two just today....
Enjoy and guess.
They are somewhat pictorialist

.....eeeevil porn (I must admit I don't know the profession of these tow ladies. porn in the strict meaning of the word could only be the description of prostitutes)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I snatched them off the interweb without research, sorry; and while I concede hyperbole in this case I deny exaggeration.

I would still contend that at the start of the century pornography was the driving force in photography until Capa HBC et al took over in the 30’s when the publics’ interests became more sober

Dear Stewart,

Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not one that is serious enough to argue about. Certainly more important than either Pictorialism or f/64.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sojournerphoto]

On Adams, 'I've often looked at prints by Ansel Adams and they seem to be made up of a collection of disparate parts.' - James Ravillious (paraphrase). Adams did so much darkroom manipulation that it is far from reality to think he sought accuracy in his prints. he had an agenda that was about conservation and a view of the land. His legacy lives on in a lot of current (digital) landscape photography where one could believe one was failing if one didn't undertake great manipulation to ensure the maximum impact. Obviously, (extreme) manipulation of images extends far beyond landscape photorgaphy. Being interested in the way a lens projects an image on a piece of film or sensor, and how the film or sensor records it is pretty old hat nowadays

The first two were shot on tmax - 3200 at 400 and 100 respectively and the latter two are digital zone plate picture - part of a current project. I don't know if you will count it pictorialist, but they are expression of some current interests.
Mike

 

[Sparrow]

I got those two just today....
Enjoy and guess.
They are somewhat pictorialist

.....eeeevil porn (I must admit I don't know the profession of these tow ladies. porn in the strict meaning of the word could only be the description of prostitutes)

Pornography is the product of the English gentleman's "Grand Tour" it's a definition that's intended to avoid the staff enjoying the licentious whoring of their masters abroad.

Defined by the High Court pornography is "that which would tend to corrupt and deprave" those women are quit clearly models.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not one that is serious enough to argue about. Certainly more important than either Pictorialism or f/64.

Cheers,

R.

There you go Roger, a better example, the textiles are mid 20's, but it's definitely an image in the modern idiom.

 

[ferider]

So, ... how pictorialist are some bokeh shots ?

 

[Sparrow]

So, ... how pictorialist are some bokeh shots ?

not at all, really, they pre-dated "out of focus" by 15 or 20 years, and "bokeh" by many more years and a whole culture, bokeh is more a fukinsei visual idiom than a Mortensen Pictorialist one

 

[ferider]

not at all, really, they pre-dated "out of focus" by 15 or 20 years, and "bokeh" by many more years and a whole culture, bokeh is more a fukinsei visual idiom than a Mortensen Pictorialist one

Understand the history, different equipment, modern bokeh craze, etc., but the basic emotional effect on the viewer when used now is related, no ? In that parts of the picture, created by (technically "imperfect") equipment are used as part of the photographs message.

 

[Sparrow]

Understand the history, different equipment, modern bokeh craze, etc., but the basic emotional effect on the viewer when used now is related, no ? In that parts of the picture, created by (technically "imperfect") equipment are used as part of the photographs message.

It's hard to say, there wouldn't have been that concept, no idiom, at the time .. remember the first impressionist exhibition took place in photographer's studio to "prove they could portray the modern world in the same way" bokeh is our concept not theirs.

With respect, the question is irrelevant