Mortensen and pictorialism

Then I must have misunderstood the OP, who I thought asked for our pictorialist pictures, and showcased a portrait taken recently with a Thambar lens. The respect is mutual 🙂
 
Interesting thread. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who's bothered by the f/64 group's hostility towards the pictorialists and I believe Roger's comment:

the reason why f/64 vs. pictorialism was so poisonous and vituperative was because both were being superseded by 'miniature' cameras (including Rolleis as well as Leicas) so they were fighting a rearguard action.hit the nail on the head regarding possible reasons

hit the nail on the head.

Some may consider this blasphemy, but I was never a big fan of Ansel Adams. While I do admire some of his work and his technical skills, I much prefer the work of Cartier-Bresson, Margaret Bourke-White and the other great photo essayist's from Life magazine and their followers. Not that I don't like a good landscape, but after a while it becomes what Brooks Jensen (I believe) calls ARAT - another rock, another tree. At least that what it becomes when practiced by thousands of amateurs, like myself, imitating Adams and Weston.

I do admire some of the pictorialist's work, especially those that are more akin to Impressionism, to my eye, than the neoclassical stuff with models draped in costumes and melodramatic poses. That's just a bit too posed, too banal, too - is cheesy the right word? Their use of soft lenses doesn't bother me at all.

I also like the point someone made that for someone who complained so bitterly about the manipulations of the pictorialists, Adams sure did a lot of manipulation in the darkroom. He was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but I know of many people who have mastered the technical aspects but never developed an eye for composition. Admittedly, Adams mastered both, but for some reason, many of the photographs that speak to me most strongly are those that are technically flawed but very strong compositionally.

I don't claim that this is a great picture, but it is one of my efforts that I do happen to like. It was taken with a point and shoot digital camera. It's not very sharp, not well exposed, but I like it. I also enjoyed the photos posted earlier by some of you - the chickens through the glass, the flower taken using a copier lens and others.

3996916036_b028497d90_b.jpg
 
One of my old clients would have a lot to discuss on this.

I also knew of AA's antagonism toward pictorialism in general, and Mortensen in particular, but I never realized how crazed Adams got about this. Doesn't reflect too well on the man, to put it mildly.


- Barrett
 
amateriat said:
One of my old clients would have a lot to discuss on this.

I also knew of AA's antagonism toward pictorialism in general, and Mortensen in particular, but I never realized how crazed Adams got about this. Doesn't reflect too well on the man, to put it mildly.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

It wasn't JUST him, you know. Beaumont Newhall and his wife Nancy made a concerted effort to keep Mortensen out of galleries, books, and museums. They nearly succeeded in erasing his name from history.

http://photo.net/photography-education-forum/005fZU

And not to you, Barrett, but to those who keep interpreting 'pictorialism' as 'soft focus' or 'blurry lens'. That's not the entire thing.

Soft-focus lenses were used, yes. However, the effect was to be 'painterly', and in particular, impressionist. The lens was one of many tools used to achieve that effect, but much work was also done in the darkroom, scraping and physically altering the negative and great attention was paid to the print itself, even down to distressing it and damaging it intentionally.

From Wikipedia:


 
I guess these fit under the pictorialist description...

I used a mensicus lens in front of a speed graphic (which I dont own anymore), and shot them on paper negatives. I see the first photo as one of the best I've ever made.

3222866382_7259c04646_o.jpg


3222012731_41ea2fb2df_o.jpg
 
Fascinating , seems I have some reading to do !
However the point that most of us ever see a shadow of the original work / print etc is all too valid ... how can anyone pass judgement on a poor reproduction or anything scanned for the web ? If an original is seen and not liked , fair enough , but I will never be in a postion to make a fair assesment [ where do those SSS go ? LOL ]
Frankly , I am all for experimenting with any genre , and it's always so that some photos work and others do not .
 
If events do not conspire against me, I think I shall venture down to Ann Arbor this weekend:

http://www.umma.umich.edu/view/exhibitions/2009-lens.php

The Lens of Impressionism: Photography and Painting Along the Normandy Coast, 1850–1874

The project will showcase paintings, photographs, and drawings by some of the most treasured artists in the Western canon—Gustave Courbet, Edouard Manet, Edgar Degas, and Claude Monet among them—as well as pioneering photographers such as Gustave Le Gray and Henri Le Secq. Inspired by the scenic Normandy coast of France, these works—including representations of beach scenes, seascapes, fishing villages, resorts, and the region’s pastoral beauty—will be brought together with archival materials related to early tourism and regional expressions of French nationalism from popular culture for an innovative examination of the impact of the then-new medium of photography on ideas of image making, the recording of passing time, the capacities of painting, and the rise of Impressionism itself.
Click to expand...
 
Roger Hicks said:
the the reason why f/64 vs. pictorialism was so poisonous and vituperative was because both were being superseded by 'miniature' cameras (including Rolleis as well as Leicas) so they were fighting a rearguard action. It's a bit like the Life of Brian: the Judaean People's Liberation Front and the People's Liberation Front of Judaea fighting each other more than the Romans.

.
Click to expand...

First, I must admit I didn't know about the pictorialism. Maybe because I wasn't raised in the US??
I know a little bit about AA's work, and I admit to be quite insensitive to it.
After having had a very quick look at some pictorialist pictures on-line, I must say that for me the little war between the two movements seems as relevant as some fierce middle age debate about the sex of angels.
I find both styles, and lomography, anf bokeh shots, boring.
Please don't flame me, it is really my feeling only, just as I could say that I like or dislike opera.
For my sensitivity, the magic of photography is defined on the line traced by HCB, Kertesz (not the deformations please), Koudelka, Penn or if we are talking landscapes, Kenna.
I resonate much more to two landscapes from HCB that I know (the road and two rows of trees and the cite island) shot with crappy tecnical means than to all the AA perfection.
It's not about pursuiing technical perfection, nor about pursuiing technical imperfection. It should be about harmony and equilibrium, and I don't resonate to the equilibrium found in what I just saw (or maybe just a little bit to some of the ladies pictures...🙄)

Bill, care to meet on this weekend at the museum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom