No BS

I agree with you. I know a lot of folks will take exception to his opinion, but I think he is right on. I know a lot of photographers who should read this.
 
Odd, 4 of the 12 examples he uses are stills taken from some sort of motion picture source (film/video).
 
Bill, that essay was full of the same old tired arguments that were settled nearly a century ago, and the arguments showed a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art. Stieglitz will be forgotten. Sure. He only pioneered the idea of photography as art and the fact that he introduced Picasso, Marin, and many other painters to America means nothing too. He'll be forgotten.

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you to promote it, is beyond comprehension. There are a lot of people on RFF who absolutely hate the idea that photography can be art. In most cases, this is simply sour grapes from those who either have no talent, or who have failed to get any notice for their work. That's not the case for you, and Johnston has been a big promoter of fine art photography. The only explanation that I can think is that he often lets people write things he disagrees with to stimulate conversation, or to show a respect for other viewpoints. Some simply don't need rehashed.
 
Bill, I've been reading your stuff since the late '60s and consider you one of the finest photo-writers around. But in the matter of Mr. Camp's article, I only partially agree with you (and with him).

The greatest strength of photography is that it doesn't depend on the imagination of the artist (or photographer). As I wrote in an article some years ago:

Dorothea Lange kept a quotation by the English essayist Francis Bacon on her darkroom door: “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention."

As Fred Picker said in the March 1994 issue of Shutterbug, "This Koudelka (print by Czech photographer Joseph Koudelka) on the wall contains the most amazing combination of things that I know happened, because when he made that photograph there was no electronic imaging. Here are two horses, standing in a certain position, a boy sitting on a bicycle wearing an angel suit with angel wings, here's an old lady scolding him, all in magnificent light and beautifully composed. Today, that picture could be made by some guy sitting in front of a computer. Knowing that would take all the wonder out of it."

In actuality, it isn’t likely “some guy sitting in front of a computer” would make such a picture, nor is it likely a painter would paint it, because they are limited by their imaginations. They can only do what they can conceive. But photography goes beyond human imagination. As novelist Tom Clancy has said, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense.” The magic of photography is that life holds so many amazing and wonderful things that are entirely unanticipated, unexpected, even unimagined in the deepest sense; that is, that no one would ever have thought of such a thing happening. And then, suddenly, right out of the fabric of life, there it is. "I can do a beautiful illustration, but it doesn't have that 'instant of wonder' that a photograph will have." (Art Director Tony Anthony, quoted in "Photo District News," February, 1987.)

Photography shows us things that lie beyond our imagination and compel our amazement because they really happened. It revels in the beauty, the mystery, and the strangeness of life. It is the most powerful purely visual medium ever created.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Bill, that essay was full of the same old tired arguments that were settled nearly a century ago, and the arguments showed a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art. Stieglitz will be forgotten. Sure. He only pioneered the idea of photography as art and the fact that he introduced Picasso, Marin, and many other painters to America means nothing too. He'll be forgotten.

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you to promote it, is beyond comprehension. There are a lot of people on RFF who absolutely hate the idea that photography can be art. In most cases, this is simply sour grapes from those who either have no talent, or who have failed to get any notice for their work. That's not the case for you, and Johnston has been a big promoter of fine art photography. The only explanation that I can think is that he often lets people write things he disagrees with to stimulate conversation, or to show a respect for other viewpoints. Some simply don't need rehashed.
Click to expand...
Dear Chris,

Well, not so much a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art as a complete disregard for it.

Along with a complete determination to apply the criteria of one art form (such as flower arranging) to another (such as poetry). Yes, 'synaesthetic' criticism (for want of a better word) can be extremely valuable and interesting. But it ain't the be-all and end-all.

Cheers,

R.
 
"It's possible to make fine photographic landscapes, portraits and all the others, but I doubt that they will ever rise to the level of skillful paintings."
-- from the Article

Take Karsh's portrait of Churchill. No painted portrait of Churchill that I've seen captures the man's forceful personality like that photograph.
 
I don't see the good old "is photography an art form?" question, here.
Just a question about what is the strength of photography, and what type of photograph may stay meaningful and relevant after several generations.
I'm not sure I agree with the point, but it's definitely interesting.
 
Doesn't this depend heavily the sort of photography?

Photography like that of Gregory Crewdsons seems like it is striding the boundary between the arguments presented in the article. The staging of the scene and the presentation is building a reality that doesn't exist. If photography is purely defined as the use of a camera independent of the construction of a subject, the argument presented in the article makes more sense. That seems like a limited scope though.
 
Dave Jenkins said:
...in the matter of Mr. Camp's article, I only partially agree with you (and with him).

The greatest strength of photography is that it doesn't depend on the imagination of the artist (or photographer). As I wrote in an article some years ago:

Dorothea Lange kept a quotation by the English essayist Francis Bacon on her darkroom door: “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention."

As Fred Picker said in the March 1994 issue of Shutterbug, "This Koudelka (print by Czech photographer Joseph Koudelka) on the wall contains the most amazing combination of things that I know happened, because when he made that photograph there was no electronic imaging. Here are two horses, standing in a certain position, a boy sitting on a bicycle wearing an angel suit with angel wings, here's an old lady scolding him, all in magnificent light and beautifully composed. Today, that picture could be made by some guy sitting in front of a computer. Knowing that would take all the wonder out of it."

In actuality, it isn’t likely “some guy sitting in front of a computer” would make such a picture, nor is it likely a painter would paint it, because they are limited by their imaginations. They can only do what they can conceive. But photography goes beyond human imagination. As novelist Tom Clancy has said, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense.” The magic of photography is that life holds so many amazing and wonderful things that are entirely unanticipated, unexpected, even unimagined in the deepest sense; that is, that no one would ever have thought of such a thing happening. And then, suddenly, right out of the fabric of life, there it is. "I can do a beautiful illustration, but it doesn't have that 'instant of wonder' that a photograph will have." (Art Director Tony Anthony, quoted in "Photo District News," February, 1987.)

Photography shows us things that lie beyond our imagination and compel our amazement because they really happened. It revels in the beauty, the mystery, and the strangeness of life. It is the most powerful purely visual medium ever created.
Click to expand...

Dave -

I agree with both you and Mr. Camp and don’t feel uncomfortable about it.

The current rage in the art galleries that deal with photography is “conceptual photography,” images that do have their start, not with what is in front of the photographer, but a vision in the photographer’s mind. There are a handful of photographers that do this well - - David Hockney, Jerry Uelsman, Francesca Woodman, e.t.c., e.t.c..

And there seems to be a much greater number of conceptual artists filling the galleries with unexceptional conceptual work. Hey, and it’s all the rage; it sells. It doesn’t look like regular photography and it’s big and it’s in a gallery. It must be “art.” And if galleries don’t sell, they disappear.

But, most of us benefit from having something interesting in front of our cameras. At its best, this can be a double whammy - a powerful subject well photographed.

We deal in a moment. A painter takes a little longer. In a sense, we are the sketch artists; they are the sculptors. It gets complicated. But I think much of the best of photography is somebody saying, “I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”
 
hendriphile said:
"It's possible to make fine photographic landscapes, portraits and all the others, but I doubt that they will ever rise to the level of skillful paintings."
-- from the Article

Take Karsh's portrait of Churchill. No painted portrait of Churchill that I've seen captures the man's forceful personality like that photograph.
Click to expand...

I think this is the crux of the issue. A painter fabricates the image, a master painter will recreate something of the essence or create something new. A photographer captures the image, a good photographer (or a lucky one) will also capture something of the essence. In the former case, the painter is solely responsible for the creation of the image, in the latter, it is a symbiosis between the photographer and the subject.

A photograph is not a painting and a painting is not a photograph. Sure they have much in common, but they are distinct.

I suppose all that you can really say is that in someways a painter has more 'ownership' of the creation of their work. A photographer has more of a share in the final image.

The example of the portrait of Churchill is a great example, juxtaposed with the Albrect Dürer piece in the article. Photographs can show us something more than any painting can. Conversely paintings can show us something more than any photograph can.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Dave -

I agree with both you and Mr. Camp and don’t feel uncomfortable about it.

The current rage in the art galleries that deal with photography is “conceptual photography,” images that do have their start, not with what is in front of the photographer, but a vision in the photographer’s mind. There are a handful of photographers that do this well - - David Hockney, Jerry Uelsman, Francesca Woodman, e.t.c., e.t.c..

And there seems to be a much greater number of conceptual artists filling the galleries with unexceptional conceptual work. Hey, and it’s all the rage; it sells. It doesn’t look like regular photography and it’s big and it’s in a gallery. It must be “art.” And if galleries don’t sell, they disappear.

But, most of us benefit from having something interesting in front of our cameras. At its best, this can be a double whammy - a powerful subject well photographed.

We deal in a moment. A painter takes a little longer. In a sense, we are the sketch artists; they are the sculptors. It gets complicated. But I think much of the best of photography is somebody saying, “I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”
Click to expand...

Wonderful post, Bill!

Cheers,

Juan
 
"The problem, from an artistic point of view, is that photography starts with an external point—a subject—and a mechanical capture, from which it can't escape.
Painting starts with an internal, artistic response, from which it can't escape, but which is considered the nexus of all real art."

this simply is not true of either medium. how many magnificent portrait paintings hang in museums that were commissioned by the subject(s)? tons, and not one of them started from an internal, artistic response. most likely they started with the sound of a pen scratching out a check. take HCB's photo of the man leaping across the puddle. hcb was in position because of an internal, artistic response to the lighting, framing, etc. then the man leaped, completing the photo. it would not have been made without that original internal, artistic response to the scene ...
 
I don't see why photographs like Avedon's "Dovima and the Elephants" or Sander's "Three Farmers on Their Walk," would not have that power Mr Camp references, just to recall a couple that are for me quite unforgettable. There's something brittle about his categorical exclusions that I can't appreciate.

I think Bill is getting at the heart of the thing with his "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.

Bill, I hope I can quote you. Oops, I see I just did ...
 
Last edited:
My feeling is that the ideas expressed in his artical are too prescriptive, and that he is trying to "nail down" that which is too ethereal and in flux to allow itself to be pigeon-holed thusly.

Man attempts to make sense of, and define everything. Art resists/defies that effort, IMO. That is the beauty/mystery of art. I'm an art agnostic, I guess.
 
Last edited:
paulfish4570: I completely agree with your arguments.

I think the article is simply his own personal opinion. Fine by me if he's not as moved by fine art photography as he is by painting.

In my case, however, fine art photography moves me in the same way as a sculpture or a symphony or... a painting. :)

Carrying his line of reasoning to an extreme, one could argue that music is a 'higher art form' than painting or sculpture simply because it has ALWAY dealt with the intangible representation of feelings as sounds.

Or that architecture is a lower form of art because it has to comply with function, not only with form.
 
stratcat said:
paulfish4570: I completely agree with your arguments.

I think the article is simply his own personal opinion. Fine by me if he's not as moved by fine art photography as he is by painting.

In my case, however, fine art photography moves me in the same way as a sculpture or a symphony or... a painting. :)

Carrying his line of reasoning to an extreme, one could argue that music is a 'higher art form' than painting or sculpture simply because it has ALWAY dealt with the intangible representation of feelings as sounds.

Or that architecture is a lower form of art because it has to comply with function, not only with form.
Click to expand...


I agree with both of you. Just an opinion, certainly not an immutable truth that has been uncovered/revealed.

It's a valiant attempt, and useful in furthering debate and the understanding of art/painting/photography as much as can be understood.
 
Last edited:
“I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”

what a wonderful line...i hope you don't mind if i quote you!!
this sums up (so very well) what much of photography is for me.

as to art...thank god i have no opinion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom