Who? Never heard of them....

[jsrockit]

This whole “going out with Leica and summicron to shoot me some decisive moments” is ridiculous, really..

It's only ridiculous if you think there is nothing but the decisive moment. Stopping motion at the right time and making a good composition is never out of style.

 

[bojanfurst]

Keith,

this is almost certainly not the article you were referring to, but this interview with Richard Sennett is interesting and speaks about some of the things that have been brought up in this thread: http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/1733/craft-works-laurie-taylor-interviews-richard-sennett

Great thread, BTW.

 

[MIkhail]

Stopping motion at the right time and making a good composition is never out of style.

I would probably agree with that..


P.S.
On the other hand, here is one of many, many examples of what modern photgraphy (to me) is all about:
http://issuu.com/monochrom/docs/7ub357312h153212s?e=2097834/4190971
Julia Borissova »The Farther Shore«
2013 International Photobook Dummy Award
http://2013.fotobookfestival.org/project/dummy-award/
There are no decisive moments here.

 

[kbg32]

Someone like Larry could not have existed in a vacuum, without his knowledge of Frank and others. I seem to remember him talking about it.

Bravo, by the 90s, was pretty much in retirement and trying to maintain his legacy and a then returning interest in his work. I met him on a couple of occaisions. A true gentleman in every sense of the word.

 

[L Collins]

One of my clients is studying "photojournalism" at a prestigious university in North Carolina. I noted my background and asked her if she knew of HCB and his work. Blank stare. Robert Frank? Nope. Walker Evans. No.

When I was a graduate student at this same "prestigious" Univerisity, (It bills itself as The Harvard of the South) I roomed with two graduate students from Arkansas. Neither could find North Carolina on a US map.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Decisive moment is only one of many concepts in photography, in my opinion.
It is nice theory, and HCB definitely perfected it too. But it is still one of many, not the only thing.
Jeff Wall, amongst many others, comes to mind for a completely different example. Or Saul Leiter.
This whole “going out with Leica and summicron to shoot me some decisive moments” is ridiculous, really.
Still, it gets you out of the house… Good for retirement, I suppose.

Surely no-one would disagree with you. The opening paragraphs of the link are

There is always an element of luck involved in photography. Even when everything is perfect, it is possible that at the precise moment that the shutter release is being gently depressed, the camera will suddenly break down or the photographer will be struck by lightning. Neither is outstandingly likely, it is true, but we all have experience of all kinds of other things happening, whether it be the result of our own stupidity in forgetting to wind on or cock the shutter, or pure ill luck from someone walking in front of the camera.

Controlling the decisive moment is, to a very large extent, a question of taking control of everything that you can, then trusting to luck for the things you can't control. You need to reduce the influence of luck to a minimum. This is why the famous saying goes, "The more I practice, the luckier I get."

The best book I know on the subject is Willy Ronis's last book, Derriere l'Objectif de Willy Ronis.

Cheers,

R.

 

[YYV_146]

One of my clients is studying "photojournalism" at a prestigious university in North Carolina. I noted my background and asked her if she knew of HCB and his work. Blank stare. Robert Frank? Nope. Walker Evans. No.

When I was a graduate student at this same "prestigious" Univerisity, (It bills itself as The Harvard of the South) I roomed with two graduate students from Arkansas. Neither could find North Carolina on a US map.

If you mean what I think you mean, I am studying at the same school, doing a photography program. In my courses I read critique, looked at works from virtually every great photographer of the 20th century and learn both to shoot color film and use photoshop.

My professors were very professional people, and always stressed the point of learning from the past. One of them even suggested that I buy and use Garry Winogrand's street 28mm kit, just to better appreciate his work. What you are suggesting may have happened at some time in the past, but is certainly not a feature of modern photojournalist schools.

 

[Roger Hicks]

One cannot live without Frank [Rossellini].

One probably can. I have, so far.

Cheers,

R.

 

[YYV_146]

It is very easy to simply assume that a student needs to know, but given the specific constraints and work scope of modern photojournalism, the importance of reviewing works such as HCB's is questionable. There are many more practical things to learn, although that may or may not be a valid excuse.

I would say that if you want to be a "pro", you should be very familiar with the great photographers in your field. A fashion shoot ought to have at least heard of Richard Avedon, and a National Geographics guy of Ansel Adams. But journalism is very different, and I've seen people hold wildly different views about how much history one needs to know.

 

[Brian Legge]

So what photographers or visual artists do the photographers know? Is it possible that some of this is a immediate relevance issue? Or the art landscape changing? Or are they not being introduced to the work of others at all?

 

[L Collins]

One probably can. I have, so far.

Cheers,

R.

You certainly "can."

But IMO opinion you forfeit your right to be an "expert" about 20th century photography. then again, I've never seen you claim to be, but if you ever do, somebody should call you on it.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

But IMO opinion you forfeit your right to be an "expert" about 20th century photography. then again, I've never seen you claim to be, but if you ever do, somebody should call you on it.

Such certainty is awe inspiring, or something like that.

Not having any idea who he is, I turned to Google and found nothing about a photographer called Frank Rossellini. So, who is he?

Or did I just walk in on a Monty Python sketch?

 

[DominikDUK]

Thank you Roger for bringing Derriere l'Objectif de Willy Ronis to my attention.
Photomoofs comment made me think why do we have to know the big names I mean seriously what makes Robert Frank a more important photographer than say Joe Blow who documented the struggle of a family in the Times Picayune yesterday.

I personaly believe it's more important to know the history of the medium as a visual history than as a history of big all important names. Photography is a visual medium names are not important, images are. Visual history gives the photographer a tool knowing names does not. So should we really care whether Teeny Joe Public knows HCB or not. I think not, should we care whether Teeny Joe Public had access to lots and lots of visual influences from Caravaggio to Mondino or not I thing we should.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Since the subject at hand here is a photography, I would be much more concerned with the lack of knowledge of basic visual arts, painting being the most important in my opinion.
Not knowing who Paul Strand or Gary Winogrand was- is strange, but really not critical.
Not knowing the basic principles of composition (I am NOT talking about “horizon has to be straight” bull_**** rules ), roots of harmony, if you will, you will be bound to reinvent the wheel every step of the way. And it’s all in painting, sculpture, drawings, all this info available really…

How about this point of view - Not seeing others photographers work you could escape patterns. After some time you will want to compare and will discover classics of photography.

These two thoughts are "my way".

It just happens I was literally growing with common access to world known paintings, but no big names photos.
OP message is kind of "how come you don't know those and others photogs?" and as in first quote, I say - you have to understand the basics first and it comes not from photogs, but from world famous artists.
Like those who lived and passed away around time Mexico was discovered, for example. Try to draw the clear and simple picture first, before learning about exposure. Or at least, try to understand first the basics of perspective and proportions.

And as in the second quite, if you don't have gift of self discovery, looking at someone pictures might help with basics, might be educational for how to do the same, but who needs second HCB.

 

[Sparrow]

I fear I'm with Roger on the Frank thing, I've seen some but if I honest Our Man and Simon Sunlight do better work

 

[charjohncarter]

I had a conversation with a young photographer earlier yesterday. This person did not know who Edward Weston, Tina Modotti, or Manual Alvarez Bravo were. Never heard of them of them, and they apparently "studied" photography in college. Never heard of Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, or Lee Friedlander.

I've met people before who didn't care or know about history. Their reasoning, "Why should I care about things that happened before I was born? How could it possibly affect me?"

Really?

I found it confounding that some people involved in a discipline, an activity, an art, life, don't care about the hsitory of what they are involved in. How can one move forward?

Reminds me of a news story some years ago when one of the major news networks setup a map of the world on a major street of midtown New York and asked random passersby, from all walks of life and ages, where certain countries were. Ninety percent of those people did not even recognize the United States or Europe on the map. Most had no idea where the Mid-East or Southeast Asia were. Where China was or the then Soviet Union.

I can remember being in elementary school and being handed blank maps of the world and asked to identify where certain countries/regions were.

Scary, or I am just being silly.

**(Please, I am am not dissing the young or any specific age group)

Was he/she from California?

 

[Roger Hicks]

You really have never seen Robert Frank's work? Maybe it's time?

Robert Frank, yes -- though he's far from as widely worshipped outside the United States as he is inside the country, which is why a single name rang no bell. It was the Rossellini that threw me. I though you were referring to a photographer called Frank Rossellini, which explains my confusion. I still miss the Rossellini reference: sorry.

As for L. Collins, why would I claim to be an expert on 20th century photography? Even if I did (which I don't) I'll refer you to the paragraph above.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Photomoofs comment made me think why do we have to know the big names I mean seriously what makes Robert Frank a more important photographer than say Joe Blow who documented the struggle of a family in the Times Picayune yesterday.

He changed, with a few others, the accepted aesthetic of photography (at the time) and showed America as it didn't want to see itself...and he did it over 55 years ago.

 

[Roger Hicks]

He changed, with a few others, the accepted aesthetic of photography (at the time) and showed America as it didn't want to see itself...and he did it over 55 years ago.

This book matters a lot more to Americans than to non-Americans.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

Showed an America.... didn't Bourke White do that some 20 years earlier I mean "The Time of the Louisville Flood- Margaret Bourke-White-1937" is for me still the single best image to destroy the american myth of equality and standard of living. The Aesthetic okay but would Frank be as famous had he demystified the Swiss I think not the whole view of important photographers is America Centric and based on Szarkowki and Newhall. Both extremely overrated individuals imo