"What you've got are not photographers....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. This thread set off a lot of comments. Let me add mine. When I studied photography back in the 1960's when photography was not considered art. Ansel Adams was not mentioned. His books had been published but were not recommended. The photographers that were recommended were Cartier-Bresson, Hine, Strand, Kertz, Brassai, Cunningham, etc. I guess if you go to school in a large inner city photographing imaginary or disappearing landscapes or worlds that had ceased to exist was not recommended.
Personnally, I always thought that Ansel Adams considered photography painting with a camera. He missed the immediacy and the human contact. I have traveled through out the west and fell that postcards for 10 cents each would be just as good as anything that I could photograph.
Anyway, I can not count on how many people I meet that take up photography as a hobby and the first thing that they say is: "I want to take photographs like Ansel Adams." Is it possibly all those posters in Walmart, Target, etc. that inspire them?
That is why I enjoy rangefinderforum because I can see cutting edge photography.
 
it's not necessarily an insult... having a reason to shoot a camera is probably the defining characteristic of a photographer, even more so than having a camera
 
Ansel was instrumental, along with Beaumont Newhall, in getting the world at the time to forget about William Mortensen. Early editions of Beaumont Newhall's "History of Photography" is quite biased. Ansel hated Mortenson and Pictorialist photography. Funny, because I consider Ansel to not quite be as "representational" an image maker as he liked to claim. He certainly imposed his technical view on everything he did..... and the world did not forget about Mortensen.

http://thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/mortensen_images.html
 
Last edited:
I almost put up a comment earlier, but thought I would think about it for a while. Wow, this one stirred up a hornets nest. I just glanced at some of the replies, but see a lot of passion and reasoning going on. Here's my take on the whole subject.

When I'm out and about looking for cameras to buy (and around here they are few and far between), I'm often asked if I am a photographer. I simply reply "I am when I have a camera in my hand".

PF
 
Roger Hicks said:
They're a bunch of sociologists with cameras." Ansel Adams's description of the Farm Security Administration photographers, as quoted by Stryker and Wood in In This Proud Land: America 1935-1943, as Seen in the FSA Photographs page 8.
Click to expand...

I am about to do something very foolish - and make a comment. I'm a little late to the er, uhm... discussion. I was out of town a couple of days.

I am assuming the alleged statement is taken as some kind of insult to the FSA photographers? If so, I don't see how it is. It is my understanding that the FSA was created to highlight and fight against rural poverty. A basic definition of sociology is "the study of society". Sooooo, yes, FSA photographers were sociologists who used the medium of photography to highlight their cause. I think it may be fair to say they (or at least some) were sociologists with skill as a photographer.

As far as that goes, is it fair to say Ansel Adams was a naturalist first and a photographer second?

I don't care to debate any of these individuals, I don't know enough about them, but I will post an observation. There is a sentiment often expressed here that the path to great photos (as opposed to pretty pictures) begins with a passion for, or profound interest in your subject. If that is the case, then calling FSA photographers sociologists makes sense. It would also be reasonable for AA to be a naturalist.

Just my two cents worth. Back to the regularly scheduled... discussion.
 
Hmmm....I know very little about either AA or the FSA. But, is it fair to say that the photographers were taking photographs (which is what photographers do) and others were doing the commentary and pushing certain agendas? Or is their evidence of the photographers actually writing, speaking and pushing their agenda?😕
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Those words are just yours: I never said that.

I'll repeat: Adams created images after photographing. HCB didn't. Both in general and for most of their works, of course...

And I'll repeat for the third time: any forum member can consider any of both options more valid than the other one, or not... I don't care. I just see they're totally different.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Almost everyone does some post-processing of their digital photographs today. The processing AA did during printing was done by many before and after AA and well into the digital era. Often this is done to improve the dynamic range of the image that you can see with your eye but simply can't be picked up by film or sensor.
An argument can be made that post-processing often makes the image MORE life-like, not less.
And those who post-process can take great photos and those who don't can as well.
Why fuss over all this? AA was a great artist and had an amazing career. The same can be said for HCB. And there is nothing wrong with having a preference for one over the other.
Also, to say that AA's influence and admiration is only in the USA is just not accurate.
 
Great subject.

In my OPINION, Adams exemplifies a misguided approach to photography as a medium- emphasis ontechnical merit at the expense of the communication of ideas. You can trace his lineage directly to the pap that passes for photography on the internet these days - sterile overworked digital images, HDR, endless discussion of technical aspects of the craft. Its akin to judging a novel by its layout design.

Give me Dorthea Lange's MIGRANT MOTHER or any one of Walker Evan's Cuban stevedore portraits to Adam's entire oevre.

Of course, I respect conflicting opinions, as they are just that, opinions and not facts. There are no facts in aesthetic judgments.
 
Teuthida said:
Great subject.

In my OPINION, Adams exemplifies a misguided approach to photography as a medium- emphasis ontechnical merit at the expense of the communication of ideas. You can trace his lineage directly to the pap that passes for photography on the internet these days - sterile overworked digital images, HDR, endless discussion of technical aspects of the craft. Its akin to judging a novel by its layout design.

Give me Dorthea Lange's MIGRANT MOTHER or any one of Walker Evan's Cuban stevedore portraits to Adam's entire oevre.

Of course, I respect conflicting opinions, as they are just that, opinions and not facts. There are no facts in aesthetic judgments.
Click to expand...

I try to respect most opinions, but I have some difficulty in respecting one that says "These people are not photographers because they don't take the same kind of pictures I do."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I try to respect most opinions, but I have some difficulty in respecting one that says "These people are not photographers because they don't take the same kind of pictures I do."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I think you may have misunderstood me. I certainly don't claim what AA did isn't photography. I just don't like it and don't think its terribly relevant or interesting or possesses much vision. Its thw difference between an artisan and an artist. Both have criteria by which they can Be judged; its just different criteria.



Cheers.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I try to respect most opinions, but I have some difficulty in respecting one that says "These people are not photographers because they don't take the same kind of pictures I do."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you are condemning exactly theposition AA took when he called FSA photographers sociologists with cameras. which just goes to show that intellectual consistency can be ellusive in discussing aesthetics.
 
Hi jsrockit,

For some of us "photography" is done while shooting, and that's what's hard to do. AA found his way of making people consider his images interesting, was creating lots of internal contrast on his images while printing. His captures were not enough.

If you place 200 robots on a street, with 100 cameras with 35mm lenses on and 100 cameras with 50mm lenses on, and shooting in random places in AF and AE, I bet by the end of the day, after thousands of shots, we could find some good images. Are those robots photographers? Are they good street photographers? Today, the word photography is really wide, and you can call photography lots of things... I tend to consider photography the capture. But some other people don't... It's OK. In general, history of photography cares about the capture.

Cheers,

Juan
 
dave lackey said:
Hmmm....I know very little about either AA or the FSA. But, is it fair to say that the photographers were taking photographs (which is what photographers do) and others were doing the commentary and pushing certain agendas? Or is their evidence of the photographers actually writing, speaking and pushing their agenda?😕
Click to expand...

There is to different degrees and depending on photographer, Dave. Adams had projects, some funded, so yes, there was an "agenda". So did Stryker when assembling what became the FSA (see for instance http://johnedwinmason.typepad.com/j...a-photographers-great-american-road-trip.html).

Of course what others did (and why) when marketing the photos is a different story.
 
What's interesting to me is in this thread isn't the endless discussion of the merits (or not) of AA or HCB, but the way in which humans create categories, in this case, professions. If I know a doctor who's also an accomplished pianist, then what is he? What does his resume say, Doctor-Pianist? He'd be forced to go practice medicine with the doctor-clown. I think that any narrowly-defined profession, if that's all a person has to circumscribe their being, is not enough. If I was the FSA administrator, I'd damn want photographers who were also sociologists. And honestly I wouldn't ask a landscape artist to photograph a prison camp either.

When I have to introduce myself as a photographer, I always feel suddenly limited, like I'm not being honest. I'm a photographer. I'm an artist. I'm an astronomer. I'm a teacher. I'm an independent journalist and publisher. I'm a theater producer. And...I'm a...study abroad administrator. The last one happens to be my full time job, though the others are much dearer to my self-definition.

I think AA's comment is indicative of the way we sell ourselves short as creative beings, and the way we teach others to do the same. So, son, what are you? Photographer or lawyer? Doctor or Pianist? You have to choose.

I love the comment above that a person is a photographer when they are holding (or using) a camera. But all those other things are still there, and they (should) fill in the rest of the creative process. Otherwise it seems to me that photography is just an exercise is technique, composition, etc.
 
ferider said:
There is to different degrees and depending on photographer, Dave. Adams had projects, some funded, so yes, there was an "agenda". So did Stryker when assembling what became the FSA (see for instance http://johnedwinmason.typepad.com/j...a-photographers-great-american-road-trip.html).

Of course what others did (and why) when marketing the photos is a different story.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Roland. So I now have yet another interesting topic to research.:angel:

In regard to the overall thread...I think that trying to define what a photographer is, or photography itself, is a bit...ummm...too limited. Absolutes are a slippery slope. As soon as someone says a photographer is one who presses the shutter when a photograph is made, then, a counter is offered that an image made by the house cat who knocks the camera off the counter and an image is inadvertently made, or the electronic camera making a picture of one's car tag on the highway with no one actually pressing the shutter except an electronic device.

The definition of a photographer IMO is not a one-definition-fits-all as much as we would like to simplify things. Same with photography. And art. And beauty.🙂

If beauty and art is in the eye of the beholder, maybe who is a photographer is defined by the beholder.
 
Couldn't all this be very simple?

Possibly Ansel Adams said they were not photographers because in his opinion a photographer is someone who must show images being as sharp as large format and tripod allow, and decorated with unreal internal contrast from complex plans on dodging and burning... I mean, maybe his opinion was right to him, and it wasn't something he said without too much thinking, but something that he really believed.

To some photographers, though, what he said was and is totally wrong.
And to some photographers his opinion on what photographers should be, is not only totally wrong, but one that tries to get rid of the most interesting and difficult aspects of photography, and one that tries to convert photography into painting, to say it in a quick way... If Ansel Adams didn't like his negatives enough as to print them more directly, and needed to paint them to make them attractive to the public, why didn't he become a painter? Painting photographs and saying photographers were not photographers wasn't that great, was it?

This is not about who's better, but about what photography has been (or not) historically. And maybe this (his comment) implies his own personal fears/doubts/weaknesses as photographer: he found some people used to say "how sharp" and "nature is beautiful" and that's why he did another thing, a different one from what photography is or was... His slow ways of composing, and his almost infinite painting on prints, no doubt talk more about a painter's behavior than about a photographer dealing with reality, emotions and vanishing moments.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom