I returned from a two week vacation last Wednesday, and it has taken me a
long time to get through the digests. I was at first discouraged, as it
appeared that in the first few days of my absence, we had turned in to the
"guys that used to shoot OM, but now shoot Leica" group, and I can't keep up
with you financially for that. I was pleased to see that was a short
diversion.
To follow up the quick comment I made on lens hoods, the square shades for
my Hasselblad lenses and the rectangular one for my Xpan bayonet on, rather
easily. Also, the round hoods for my late, not lamented Contax G2 did have
caps for the hoods, a remarkably good feature.
Now to the meat. The recent exhibit and the 100th birthday of Ansel Adams
has inspired a lot of writing about him and his system, including a PBS show
about him, that had their trademarked long/shallow nature, much like the
jazz series. Let me weigh in.
Some of our members have been discussing the art/craft question. Am I an
artist or a photographer, several of you have asked. Some seem to want to
fall solely on one side or the other, but I suspect that most of us, like
myself, do both. There are places and needs for both. The question of art
and craft is hard to answer, and not all agree on the somewhat fuzzy
dividing line. Here's how I see the difference.
Imagine having a house built. The finish carpenters will carefully trim out
the house, and perhaps even build fine cabinetry in the kitchen. They are
careful, thoughtful, and accurate, and the results are quite good. They are
fine craftsmen.
Now, imagine the person who takes some of the same wood, and builds a unique
piece of furniture. That's art. He has combined fine craftsmanship with a
special vision to create a one-of-a-kind object.
Ansel Adams was a fine craftsman, perhaps the finest ever. He was also an
artist, as he had a vision, and realized it. It is indeed possible to be an
artist and be a so-so craftsman (Cartier-Bresson was certainly average
technically), but for most, a degree of skill is needed to realize artistic
vision.
Some of us feel that darkroom manipulations are somehow cheating. I can't
agree with this. Mother nature has provided us with a vast range of tones,
from very light to very dark, and the eyes to see them. Fathers Kodak and
Fuji have been unable to produce films that can reproduce all the little
woman has given us. Therefore, we use darkroom techniques, from processing
to printing, to make a print that represents as best as possible what we
saw, in real life, in Adams case, and in their minds, in some other artists'
case. It is always best to produce the best quality negative, and that
includes one that will print with the fewest manipulations, but to expect to
be able to make only straight prints will limit one to only certain scenes.
To try to make only straight prints is like trying to build that furniture
using saws and rulers, but no hammers and screwdrivers. There are many tools
at our hands, various cameras and lenses, different films and developers, a
variety of papers and printing techniques. Use them all, artist or
craftsman.
We have, really, stumbled into a minefield that has existed since
photography began. Too many people feel that photography is nothing more
than technique. Get the right camera you will get great photos (I read once
about a photographer who got the usual comment at an exhibit, but from a
fine artist. "That's a great photo. What kind of camera did you use?" At the
artist's next exhibit, the photographer said, "That's a great painting. What
kind of brush did you use"). I put a good deal of the blame for this at
Ansel Adams' feet.
Although Adams certainly didn't say anything like that, he was quite
eloquent and quite vocal about his methods. In writing his books, and in his
classes and lectures, he widely distrubuted what amounts to a system for
producing good photos. The first step in this system is previsualization,
but in a book or class, this amounts to something like, "Find something you
want to photograph, and imagine what you want the photo to look like." That
is followed by hours or pages of extensive technical detail. People then
remember what they see as the easy part (although I don't see anything easy
about the Zone System), and ignore the most important part. If only they
could master the technique, or buy a camera that would do it for them, they
could make photos just like (insert name here).
The CRAFT of photography seems, to most, just a matter of a bit of study and
practice, after all, you're just using a machine; while the CRAFT of
painting or sculpture or ceramics or whatever is, to most, simply voodoo.
What we sometimes forget is that painting can also be craft. Just look on
the average hotel room wall. In truth, photography is just another tool in
the artist's creative arsenal. I photograph, he paints. What is the
difference? While techniques may differ, it's the result that counts. And,
to reference a previous comment, it doesn't matter if I apply paint with a
brush or pallette knife. I'm either an artist or not, regardless of method.
So, when I shoot a photo at Christmas, or in my work, of a construction
project, I'm being a photographer. I'm simply recording, to the best of my
ability, an event. When I shoot something like the flower photo like the one
for the summer exchange, or some other subject for myself, I'm trying, again
to the best of my ability, to be an artist.
Oh, and again on the subject ot printing. It isn't necessary for a "fine art
photographer" to make his own prints, unless that's his desire. I compare
this to my training as a musician. Beethoven made the negative. Fritz
Reiner, and Leopold Stowkovsky, and Herbert Von Karajan, and Leonard
Bernstein, and Christopher Hogwood all "printed" from those scores, and each
quite distinctive "print" is as valid as the next. Each of us will have our
own preferences, of course, but each put a distinctive artistic stamp on the
performance.
Running for cover.....
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|