>
> Same-same Andrew Wyeth. One of the best ever with a brush, but
> universally trashed by the critical set, for whom anything with even a
> hint of appearance of success is considered the kiss of death.
>
Wyeth's Christina's World series is, in it's entirety, a masterpiece. Taken
individually, few of those paintings have stand-aloneability.
So many of Ansel Adams' images are "over-cooked" and are the posterchild of
"HDR". However, typically the technique is flawless, but the artistic
interpretation is not. I personally find the vast majority of his images to
be cold and calculating, not warm and inviting.
But let's seperate out a few things:
1. AA was a teacher and a writer. In this industry, anybody who has a book
published is automatically an "expert", unfortunately. At least in the
olden days you had to use a typewriter and come up with original text.
Nowadays, all a guy needs to do is copy and paste pages from Wikipedia and
come up with a book. Frankly, for most photographers, a book is nothing
more than a calling card. Even Art Wolfe acknowledges this.
2. AA was a technician. He was able to take a concept that others had come
up with and he turned it into a fine-tuned system. He did not invent the
concept, only the system. This system nailed a lot of jello (silver gelitan)
to the wall. Prior to this, exposure and development was so variable that it
was difficult for anybody, including the manufacturers, to figure out what
was going on.
3. AA used his own system he developed. Unfortunately, I think it limited
him because it "predefined" the image he was going to take prior to even
composing the image. When your tool is a hammer, all the world looks like a
nail. After a while, all his images start to look the same. I believe there
is a lesson here for all of us. I don't mean to name-drop the guy twice
here, but Art Wolfe is another example of a photographer who is "stuck" and
tends to rehash the same images over and over and over and over again.
4. AA was far too prolific. He understood something most of us just don't
get. His primary business wasn't taking pictures. His primary business was
selling pictures. He had a highly successful business model. Unfortunately,
we "purists" see that as a "sell-out".
5. AA's body of work has a distinct signature look. I would suggest that
this look is defined by where he lived (California) and the quality of light
there (harsh, edgy). This does not necessarily translate well to a viewer
from Massechussetts where it may rain 180 days a year and is always hazy.
6. AA treated every picture as though it was a landscape. Look at some of
his people pictures and you'll see a common thread.
7. AA was successful and a "rock star" in photography. We like to skewer
our stars.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|