Website to be database for acclaimed photography

[jan normandale]

Website to be database for acclaimed photography
Last Updated Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:49:33 EDT
CBC Arts


The George Eastman House and New York's International Center of Photography are collaborating on a project to create a massive online database of photography.

Go to the link below here for the complete story and DB URL

Just when everyone is on the CBC they do something worthwhile like reporting on the arts.

Jan

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/07/20/Arts/photowebsite050720.html

 

[RML]

"acclaimed photography".... IMO there's so much dros that's considered "acclaimed" but hardly worth the paper it was printed on that I'm a bit sceptical of the contents of this database. Why not just make a database consisting of everything GEH has, and let me decide what I find worthy of my interest?

 

[the lobster]

I think the Eastman house is up to enough good that it convinced me to join last month!

Aside from news of this database, they collaborate with Ryerson University in Toronto to offer a Master's Program in Photographic Preservation and Image Archiving (something like that!).

 

[RML]

I think the Eastman house is up to enough good that it convinced me to join last month!

The article states GEH has 400.000 prints of which 200.000 will appear in the database. And the other 200K? Those are not worthy? Are the 200K that are to be included? As much as I like to believe GEH is a top-of-the-bill institute, I also believe that they have agendas, insights and preferences that I perhaps don't agree with, care nothing for or fail to see the importance of. IMO most of the art critiqueing done is useless and more an exercise in how to write as indecipherable as possible instead of coming up with a thoroughly thought out and comprehensible theory (theory, meaning the theorist can show proof of his/her findings).

Was it not member Benilliam (sp?) who posted a reply in a different post that made fun of just such illegible dros? It was fun to read but sadly he hit the nail on the head.

 

[jan normandale]

Hi RML

You know that I like your work a lot! So this isnt a criticism okay. I have cut and pasted part of the article you are refering to below;

"Organizers hope to feature nearly 200,000 photos at the start and eventually add thousands more.

The venerable Eastman House museum, which holds more than 400,000 photos and related materials"

I believe that there are two key things, one is this is an ongoing project and initially they are targeting 200,000 photos with more to come, second is the fact that not all of the 400,000 items are photos they are photos and related materials.

Personally I like the idea of them doing something. They like most museums are limited by funding available so they can only do this with available funds which are limited. We all make choices some of us buy Zorki's because it is what we can afford some buy Leicas because that is what they can afford. I'm in the former category. Maybe the Museums are too.

It's a start, lets see what the project accomplishes and then we can tell if it is all it could be.

cheers, Jan

 

[canonetc]

Hmm. Interesting. A few knee-jerk comments:

1) PRO: Preserving and presenting works is good for photography, its history and as an artform; it will enable many people to see the works online (unless paying membership is required)
2) CON: With SO many images, "good ones" can get lost in the pile simply due to the huge numbers of images. Kinda like looking at Corbis all dayyyy long and picking out "the good ones".
3) PRO: Will be a great resource for seeing other images and works by photographers who have been given 2nd-3rd-best status due to the manipulations of the Art Market (who keep prints by Cartier Bresson at ridiculously high rates only available to the wealthy (and he, as far as I know, did not make limited-editions! That should tell you something)
4) Acclaimed: by who? the "experts"? the "critics"? the "public"? Acclamation is so subjective, and they probably mean images already famous and available for view anywhere on the net (Hindenburg explosion, Doisneau's Kiss, Feininger's (?) "The photographer", etc).

Anyway, I'm glad the Black Star classic archive will have a safe place to live. Black Star has provided some awesome photographers and images. Too bad they are not as well known to the general public. Go to their website. Interesting.

http://www.blackstar.com/

Cheers,

C.

 

[jan normandale]

RML and Canonetc

I agree that there are lots of very good overlooked/unnoticed photographers out there. Many are also under appreciated. The art market is a very fickle thing and is subject to fashion, hype etc. Still lots of name photographers have put out things that I am certain they would wonder about.

I am not a student of photography. I know very few names and have seen even less of their works. I was totally 'ignorant' of named photographers until I joined this site a little over a year ago. I see work here that is amazing and work that I have had to look up by big names and I truly believe the names had agents promoting , that seems to be the big difference.

Still as I get into this I enjoy seeing others work from time to time. Some leave me cold others charge me up. I'll never sell anything so I'm not terribly concerned about what others think, as the joke goes "I have a day job"

Now I'm going to burn some more film and see what I get.

cheers, Jan

 

[the lobster]

I understand some of the reservations but:

"Acclaimed" is a word chosen by the writer of the article for the title. I did not see it in any quote by anyone related to the project.

The 200,000 is stated to be the number at the launch. I do not think 400,000 refers to only prints at GEH. Maybe some are negatives, who knows.

And even if all 400,000 were prints and only half would make the database, why is that so terrible? I understand that people do not want others making decisions about what's "important" art-wise, but what's the alternative?- "We can't do it all, so don't do any."? Publishers make decisions everyday. Some seem wrong in retrospect, but what is the alternative? Not to do anything?

I think at this point that the database would do more good than harm for photography, film, and the medium's history.

 

[RML]

Jan, I'm glad you like my work. At least now 2 people do. 🙂

Indeed, it's an early start and ongoing project. No doubt it'll grow and no doubt the conservators (is that an english word?) will try to make well-founded choices. So, perhaps, I'm a bit too sceptical to begin with. It's just that I have very little faith in the results of these well-founded choices and decisions in the art world so far.

And even if all 400,000 were prints and only half would make the database, why is that so terrible? I understand that people do not want others making decisions about what's "important" art-wise, but what's the alternative?- "We can't do it all, so don't do any."? Publishers make decisions everyday. Some seem wrong in retrospect, but what is the alternative? Not to do anything?

I think at this point that the database would do more good than harm for photography, film, and the medium's history.

I'd like to see how much non-American photographers will be included. There are simply so many photographers past and present from all over the world who have never seen the light of day beyond their country's borders that I fear this database will just be another US-slanted thing. I, for one, would be much more interested in the little names of Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Latin America, and Australasia.

Anyone ever heard of G.H. Breitner? Jacob Olie? Bernard Eilers? Eva Besnyö? Sem Presser? Cas Oorthuys? Ed van der Elsken? Wubbo de Jong? Frans Lanting? Some big pioneers in that list but most-if-not-all hardly known outside Holland or their artistic current.