Latter day Pictorialism

[jl-lb.ms]

All - I posted this over in one of the flickr groups (Beyond the Photograph), but nobody was interested in discussing. OK, the group's aim: "A home for photographs that look like paintings.

This is not a group for images of actual paintings, nor images processed with heavy Photoshop 'paint' filters or overdone HDR-effects (where the HDR effect alone seeks to qualify the pic).
Tasteful, beautiful fine-art masterpieces sought..." http://www.flickr.com/groups/beyondthephotograph/


Now my question:

Below from Wikipedia. Do you think that the artistic aims of this group loosely parallel those of Pictorialism? I do see some parallels. We use Photoshop instead of etching the surface with needles!

"Pictorialism is the name given to a photographic movement in vogue from around 1885 following the widespread introduction of the dry-plate process. It reached its height in the early years of the 20th century, and declined rapidly after 1914 after the widespread emergence of Modernism.

Pictorialism largely subscribed to the idea that art photography needed to emulate the painting and etching of the time. Most of these pictures were black & white or sepia-toned. Among the methods used were soft focus, special filters and lens coatings, heavy manipulation in the darkroom, and exotic printing processes. From 1898 rough-surface printing papers were added to the repertoire, to further break up a picture's sharpness. Some artists 'etched' the surface of their prints using fine needles. The aim of such techniques was to achieve what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica termed, in discussing Pictorialism, 'personal artistic expression'."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Paintings differ... Do you have in mind a historic style or movement? Which one? Which artist or paintings as example?

I appreciate pictorialism, and consider it a very difficult field for a photographer... Lots of skills and taste required!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[jl-lb.ms]

No, I guess what I was after was that the digerati now are looking to explore an art form "beyond the photograph", and it seems to me that what they are looking for is something that was done 100 years ago!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yes, long ago done... And very well done, by the way!

 

[Stella Phoenix]

Modern day pictorialism...

Modern day pictorialism...

I totally agree with your assessment.... I would even add that just like last century's pictorialists, today's 'photographer/graphic artist' (aka pictorialists!) find themselves fighting for the same recognition from their peers. Most are shy to even mention the word Photoshop when speaking of their works, as if it becomes tainted somehow. I, myself, believe this is true pictorialism and is a noble art, well embedded in today's reality.

As for the 'easy fix' buttons on Photoshop, I will say this. You can possess the best cameras and imagery software, you can hold the best pencils, use the best paintbrushes and canvasses for that matter, it still does not make you an artist.

I believe we have to organize ourselves, define our art, argue proudly, or at the very least, stop apologizing for being with, even 'ahead' of our time. Pictorialism is based in a rich history of ground braking 'defiance' in style, aesthetics and process. The same movement IS taking life once again, a century later,unbeknownst to most artist I think. So.... This is not a new fight, as every new popular movement is almost always rebutted by the conventions.

I have been looking around for a while now(Flickr, etc.), you are the first person who actually sees the parallel/same reality with pictorialism. I felt really alone until last night! hahaha...

This said, I hope this message gets to you, and maybe we can bounce ideas off each other...? You can also find me at www.phoenixink.ca, Pictorial Art and imagery... 😉 Yes! I said it! 🙂))

Cheers,

Martine

 

[kbg32]

What is old, is new again.

 

[celluloidprop]

Pictorialism never really went away.

 

[peterm1]

I can't say I am all that much given to hanging titles of "schools" of work onto things. And as they say I may know nothing about art but I know what I like. So I am not sure if the Flickr group is into pictorialism or not.

But I am sure many of the images posted there would not be classed as pictorial (if that equates to making images that look like paintings). Many I saw are only too clearly just photos. Having said that there are quite a few very nice exceptions

Just for a hoot I will join and see if some of my more painterly looking photos rate. Such as


DSC00938a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

AND


DSC_1879ssd by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[willie_901]

I thought Pictorialism arose as a response to the idea that photography was not and could not be art. The original Pictorialists were talented photographers who performed a great deal of post-capture manipulation. Some of their works were as hard or even harder to produce than creating a painting.

Today many photographers struggle to find ways to distinguish themselves among a tidal wave of content. The result is heavily manipulated, but easy to produce imagery. I use to interpret this as an echo of Pictorialism. But I came to realize most digital manipulation is an ill-conceived attempt at differentiation.

Creating photographs that have the aesthetic feel of a painting is a worthwhile endeavor. After all there are painters who create canvases that look like photographs. However I don't think one has to resort to post-acquisition manipulations to create art with a camera.

 

[mrrobleyleica]

Creating photographs that have the aesthetic feel of a painting is a worthwhile endeavor. After all there are painters who create canvases that look like photographs. However I don't think one has to resort to post-acquisition manipulations to create art with a camera.

You make interesting points. Though painters who copy photos, really copy them - like the photorealists, couldn't have done this pre 1870 or thereabouts, obviously. Some super realists were reacting to 1960's minimalism too.
The compositional framework the old landscape painters worked with inform the way we take landscapes now don't they? Paintings then were sometimes seen as inferior to photographs, some painters became photographers. Early photographers were sort of trying to make 'paintings', they used the painters compositional skills as that was pretty much all they had to follow. I suppose one of the main contraints the early photographers had was scale, it would have been impossible to compete with the massive colourful paintings.

I suppose if the aim is to capture just what you see then painting it looks to be a more difficult, time consuming, whatever your approach is. In the 19C at the birth of photography it would have suddenly looked less accurate and must have seemed like an outmoded unfashionable medium.

When you look at the paintings of someone like Turner (slightly different period) they were heavily romanticised visions that bore little resemblance to the real scene. Most who saw the paintings would never visit the actual location, had nothing to compare it to. They were about the feeling of the place, and to me, the best landscape photographers feel for their subject and make it show - Bernd and Hilla Becher or Walker Evans. The gradually abandoned Ford factory here, and the wild areas around it appeal as much to me as the grand natural vistas, maybe more poignant too. Easier to visit as well!

 

[daveleo]

Using new tools to explore "old" themes and ideas is fascinating and fun and (can be) rewarding.

Whatever the concept is, someone should be out there experimenting with it.

I personally love a "painterly" image that started its life as a photograph from a camera.

Whether the "magic" was done in a darkroom, on a computer or by hand manipulation . . . who cares?

 

[Neare]

http://www.lenscratch.com/2010/04/hisaji-hara.html