Why Were the Best Photographers So Good?

[Steve M.]

Yesterday I saw a photo by Lee Friedlander in a book that really got me thinking. It was "just" a street shot, but there was so much going on w/ the composition and subject matter it seemed spiritual, in the non religious sense. He had managed to capture something beyond what you could see if you were there in person. Art w/ a capital A.

There are others who managed this feat. The 1950's and 1960's seemed to be an extremely fertile period for photographers and painters. But it was Lee's shot that got me thinking. Why was he so good? How did he capture something on film that wasn't there in person? By that I mean he truly captured a moment in time, while we live in it's flow. There's more going on in some of his images than there should be, on a rational level. Looking at his work, and looking at mine and what we see here on our galleries and posts, it's real different. Not just here, but on other forums, and at contemporary art galleries too. Why was he so much better than us?

Photography isn't like drawing or painting. There aren't a lot of decisions being made over the course of an image's development. There's no time for that, and unlike a drawing, you never see what your image actually is until later. He simply went out and took a photo, had it developed normally, and somehow captured something that I'm sure wasn't there in real life EXCEPT for that one instant when he pressed the shutter. It didn't happen by accident, because it comes up again and again in his best work. How? I have absolutely no idea. It sure has me thinking.

Here's a link to a website at MOMA that shows one of his photos. A lesser one in my opinion than the street shot I saw, and one that seems carefully staged, but it still has that, well, presence that's in his best pieces. The photo seems to exist in a realm separate from what was there at the time. It's a better image than I'll ever make, I know that for a fact. I'm not sure what the forum's rules are on posting his photos, nor of the copyrights on his work, but a link should be OK I hope. The second link has a street shot (bottom photo) that is similar to the one I saw in the book. This is one, very very odd photo;

http://moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A2002&page_number=18&template_id=1&sort_order=1

http://www.mocp.org/collections/permanent/friedlander_lee.php

 

[tomalophicon]

Why were the photographers of the 1880s so much better than Freidlander? I'm not sure either.

 

[kossi008]

Maybe because they didn't spend their time obsessing about equipment, but trying to become better photographers? 😀

 

[_mark__]

Because he unashamedly wore a photo vest! All the greats did! 🙂 Seriously though, I don't know, judicious editing of thousands of rolls?

 

[Sparrow]

... they had a good publicist and editor?

 

[LeicaTom]

They were born with the "eye" for taking photos..........either you have it or you don't there's no really learning to be a good photographer, it's just trial and error that shows who has the "eye" and who hasn't...........people like that can shoot with a $25,000 whatever camera to a Diana F or real film or digital and shoot equally as wonderful pictures each and every time and they also worked very hard at what they did, back then it was "beat the streets" there was no internet to send digital photos over, everything was good ole hard copy and pushing your work!

And for the big well known shooters it also helped to have good editors and printers, look at H.C.B. prints to see that 🙂 OOOLALA!

Tom

 

[thegman]

I think the key is to simply convince people you're good. I think any field where aesthetics rather than technical are the priority you just have to convince people you're good. Or at least convince some influential people you're good, and they'll convince the others.

You've only got to look at high couture fashion to see what 99% of us would call ugly unwearable rubbish, but you'll find their designers hailed as geniuses.

I think also there is a "right place, right time" aspect. In today's world of huge amounts of imagery an information at our fingertips, HCB's work would be sat in Flickr being ignored by the rest of us, and even Ansel Adams' work would likely just get comments like "Great, but maybe too strong HDR?".

 

[Vincent.G]

Perhaps he was fortunate to have people help him make the implicit in his photos explicit. Just my two cents worth.

 

[bobbyrab]

I think the key is to simply convince people you're good. I think any field where aesthetics rather than technical are the priority you just have to convince people you're good. Or at least convince some influential people you're good, and they'll convince the others.

You've only got to look at high couture fashion to see what 99% of us would call ugly unwearable rubbish, but you'll find their designers hailed as geniuses.

I think also there is a "right place, right time" aspect. In today's world of huge amounts of imagery an information at our fingertips, HCB's work would be sat in Flickr being ignored by the rest of us, and even Ansel Adams' work would likely just get comments like "Great, but maybe too strong HDR?".

Have there ever been any great talents or was it all hype and spin?
If you struggle to follow the narrative and imagery of Shakespeare's Hamlet, is the failing in his writing?

 

[thegman]

Have there ever been any great talents or was it all hype and spin?
If you struggle to follow the narrative and imagery of Shakespeare's Hamlet, is the failing in his writing?

There of course have been amazing talents, and I'm not commenting on Shakespeare at all. I'm a fan of Ansel Adams, but I don't believe it's "great art" in the way Michelangelo or da Vinci created it. For me, there is a big difference between art created in a fraction of a second by pointing a camera at something, and something which has taken enormous skill and dedication.

That's just me though, some people would consider certain buildings works of art, some ugly eyesores. Some people consider HCB's photos great works of art, but I'm not one of them. Good photos, yes, "great" art, for me, no.

Obviously that opinion is controversial round here, but that's all it is, one person's opinion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think the key is to simply convince people you're good. I think any field where aesthetics rather than technical are the priority you just have to convince people you're good. Or at least convince some influential people you're good, and they'll convince the others.
. . . .

I think also there is a "right place, right time" aspect. In today's world of huge amounts of imagery an information at our fingertips, HCB's work would be sat in Flickr being ignored by the rest of us, and even Ansel Adams' work would likely just get comments like "Great, but maybe too strong HDR?".

I've been puzzling about this too. I've just been reading an essay about Edward Weston, propagator of a good deal of high-falutin' drivel about his own work. I've never liked much of his photography, and now I know more about him, I like even less. It falls into the category of "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing that they quite like."

This is sort of a mirror image to the OP's question, though. I genuinely don't believe LeicaTom's assertion that "They were born with the "eye" for taking photos..........either you have it or you don't there's no really learning to be a good photographer, it's just trial and error that shows who has the "eye" and who hasn't."

Some people may start out with an inherent aesthetic advantage, an 'eye', but there are always those who can get to the same place via hard work and (above all) practice. And, it's true, there are those who have the photographic equivalent of a tin ear (a glass eye, maybe), and are unlikely ever to be any good. But pure natural talent is totally inadequate without lots of hard work and practice.

As for his second assertion, that "...........people like that can shoot with a $25,000 whatever camera to a Diana F or real film or digital and shoot equally as wonderful pictures each and every time", I don't think that's true either. They may be able to take a good picture with a box cameras as a stunt, but the fact that they normally prefer something a bit more versatile suggests that equipment does, in fact, matter to some degree.

As for "equally as wonderful pictures," this makes the assumption that the Great Photographers never take bad pictures. The answer is that they do, but that our opinion of them is based on the good stuff that we see.

In other words, to answer the OP (at last), I believe that above a certain level of 'natural talent' (i.e. assuming you're not absolutely piss-poor as a photographer) the enormous difference is sheer application, hard work and, above all, practice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

... they had a good publicist and editor?

Bingo!


It's true in all Arts (and the Wannabe Arts): many famous painters and composers in the 19th century, for example, are largely forgotten or ignored (John Field, Pasquale Bona), and many ignored in their lifetime (i.e. Van Gogh).

Famous and/or "rich" seem to be equated with "good". There are many photographers who have been successful, yet I'd argue whether they're good.

Time tells.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There of course have been amazing talents, and I'm not commenting on Shakespeare at all. I'm a fan of Ansel Adams, but I don't believe it's "great art" in the way Michelangelo or da Vinci created it. For me, there is a big difference between art created in a fraction of a second by pointing a camera at something, and something which has taken enormous skill and dedication.

That's just me though, some people would consider certain buildings works of art, some ugly eyesores. Some people consider HCB's photos great works of art, but I'm not one of them. Good photos, yes, "great" art, for me, no.

Obviously that opinion is controversial round here, but that's all it is, one person's opinion.

Why? See previous post. And besides, there's a bit more than "a fraction of a second" involved in making a good print. There's a immense amount of craft in there, and there's getting to the point where you know which camera to point in what direction and when to press the shutter. And how to develop the film and how to make a print...

It's a bit like the plumber who charged $100 for hitting a pipe with a hammer. It cured the problem, but the homeowner was affronted by the size of the bill, and asked for an itemized bill. It read, "To hitting pipe: $1. To knowing where to hit: $99."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

• Natural talent
• Plus hard work
• Promoted by other people (whether cultivated by the photographer or not)
• Time. This can certainly cause images to become more 'magical' as the present and past diverge.
• Excellent editing! As Roger said, the greats had the sense to cut out everything but the best.
• Total obsession

. I think its hard to comprehend how much thought goes into some of the photography regarded as 'the greatest', but the more I learn about them the more I realise it has generally consumed them. Even the most dedicated amateur, or commercial pro, rarely gets within a country mile of the sort of intensity of thinking synonymous with most of the biggest names. Their thinking has often been extremely intense and narrow, broadening over many decades. An hour a night on RFF is not the same 😀

One thing I disagree with is this, "There aren't a lot of decisions being made over the course of an image's development. There's no time for that, and unlike a drawing." I think the opposite. I think great photographers are able to consider a plethora of factors in a split second when they frame and shoot.... as well as in the run up (preparation and agenda) and afterwards (editing and promotion).

I agree that hard work can compensate for a lack of natural talent to an extent but IMO the greats generally had lots of both! Hard work alone can only get a person so far.

 

[thegman]

Why? See previous post. And besides, there's a bit more than "a fraction of a second" involved in making a good print. There's a immense amount of craft in there, and there's getting to the point where you know which camera to point in what direction and when to press the shutter. And how to develop the film and how to make a print...

It's a bit like the plumber who charged $100 for hitting a pipe with a hammer. It cured the problem, but the homeowner was affronted by the size of the bill, and asked for an itemized bill. It read, "To hitting pipe: $1. To knowing where to hit: $99."

Cheers,

R.

I agree 100% with your logic, but for me, if I look at the Sistine Chapel, I would feel like a fraud if I tried to convince someone that a HCB shot was art on the same level, and every bit as important.

That said, I agree with you "on paper", but in my heart/head, I just cannot consider a photograph to be art in the same way as an act of sheer will and creation can be.

To take the the plumber example, I think this is exactly correct, and I see the same in my job as a software developer. However if photographers like HCB took thousands of photos and selected a few great ones, and they are the ones we see, then a similar plumbler would have 998 unhappy customers and 2 pleased with the work.

Anyway, I can't help but agree with you, but I doubt I'll ever "feel" like I agree with you!

 

[rxmd]

... they had a good publicist and editor?

This and this.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree 100% with your logic, but for me, if I look at the Sistine Chapel, I would feel like a fraud if I tried to convince someone that a HCB shot was art on the same level, and every bit as important.

That said, I agree with you "on paper", but in my heart/head, I just cannot consider a photograph to be art in the same way as an act of sheer will and creation can be.

To take the the plumber example, I think this is exactly correct, and I see the same in my job as a software developer. However if photographers like HCB took thousands of photos and selected a few great ones, and they are the ones we see, then a similar plumbler would have 998 unhappy customers and 2 pleased with the work.

Anyway, I can't help but agree with you, but I doubt I'll ever "feel" like I agree with you!

Oh, sure. On that level, I'm not sure how much I agree with myself! But it's something I've been thinking about quite hard lately, and it's hard to say why I (and you) feel this way. Look up Willy Ronis's Provençale Nude and tell me what separates it from a Rembrandt.

Incidentally, I know it's bad form to comment on typos -- we all make them -- but I love the word 'plumbler', as it sounds like a bungling or fumbling plumber. The analogy does indeed break down in the circumstances you describe but it still has a certain amount to commend it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Teuthida]

Because they typically were people who saw things a certain way before anyone else did.

Walker Evans, HCB, Wingrand, Arbus, Friedlander, D'Agata all come to mind. Anybody can do what they did; they just didnt until the possibility of doing so was created by them.

I'm a great drip painter, ala Jackson Pollock. My gallery has sold more than a few of my paintings. Do I have any talent? Probably not since I'm simp,y apeing someones style. Did Jackson Pollock have talent? Yes, unquestionably. He was a genius.

 

[mugent]

A lot of 'great' photos wouldn't seem so great if it wasn't for the added interest of the unusual, they are old, different. A street shot taken in Bangladesh might be very interesting to me, as a Londoner, but to a Bangladesh native, it's a snapshot, boring.

A lot of HCB shots are decent, but nothing amazing, but if we keep labeling it as amazing, it'll soon be considered that way. I feel the same wat about 'The Beatles', if you really listen to their music, imagine they aren't *THE BEATLES*, it's mostly quite blah.

MT

 

[maddoc]

... they did something at that time new AND unique ...