Alan, understand that when I use the word manipulation, I am not referring to dodging, burning, using filters, or even selective depth of field. These are legitimate techniques. Rather, I am speaking of deliberately making the entire image out of focus, ala the Douglas Brothers. This is the only area where my argument reaches into the area of 'fuzzy.' What I consider intellectually insulting is the sappy, sentimental efluent that tries to represent an emotion or 'feeling' with a photograph. Or the extraordiarily silly photos by Cindy Sherman in which she dresses up in period costumes and makes self-portraits with giant Polaroid cameras. In 'Crossroads' Ms. Abbott begged for better lenses and materials. That was in 1951. In 1997, we at last have those tools. I cannot understand why anyone would want to pervert the very defining quality of the camera, that it does not 'lie.' With the advent of digital manipulation, I fear that pictorialism will once again rear its hideous head.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 20, 1997

Answers

Just as no two people have the same life experiences, so no two see the same. If what I perceive as lousy technique satisfies the old 'pictorial' crowd, the so be it. I just don't buy their images. But even at that, there are a few of those 'fuzzy' & generally out of focus abominations that I find striking. I just don't generally shoot them or really like them. But, let each artist do their own thing & if it works, why not? Personal expression isn't something everyone really CAN do, too many are nothing but copycats. If one really does experess themself with this style, leave them to it. At least they are doing something rather than copying.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), September 20, 1997.

Response to Dan

Like I said above, everyone has the right to do whatever he wants; doesn't mean it will be worthwile to anyone else. This 'all paths lead to Rome' idea, however, is just so much egalitarian pap. Some art, like some ideas, is better than others. But photography is the great democratic art medium. Evryone who wants to can own a pretty decent camera and is free to express themselves with photography. It doesn't require art lessons. The fact that so many photograpers mimic the work of others is because they lack the guts to be individuals. Anyone for Ayn Rand?

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 20, 1997.

Response to Dan

Michael D Fraser wrote:

:The fact that so many photograpers mimic the work :of others is because they lack the guts to be :individuals.

You gotta start somewhere, and mimicing the masters is an acceptable way to find your own vision, IMHO.

-- Mason Resnick (mresnick@idt.net), September 22, 1997.

Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to photography or that I was born too late but can anyone give me some expamples of 'pictorialism'. It seems to really bother most 'straight' photographers so naturally I am intrigued. I always thought it was some fairly short-lived movement to purposely mimic the style of painting made popular in the Victorian era and was dying out well before the depression. I am sincerely curious to see some examples of it but it has been so thoroughly damned that it seems to have been wiped off the face of the Earth.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 20, 1997.

Response to Andy

I have cited several examples of pictorialist photographers in previous postings. Let's move on to what I call the "Great Photographic Divide." When you distill the argument down to its essence, there are two schools: the 'objective' and the 'subjective.' It is into the subjective school that contemporary 'pictorialists' fall. Most of us fall naturally into the objective school; we started out taking pictures of things around us, our families, our friends. We considered a photo a failure if we could not recognize what the picture was of! The subjective school delights in distortions, manipulations, and often fuzzy focus, qualities not natural to photography. To them, the clear 'straight' photograph is an artistic failure because "any fool" can appreciate it. They are the elite, the annointed ones; they know more than the common masses. BUT THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, THAT IT IS DEMOCRATIC! Everyone can play! Oh, how that angers the snobs!

As an example: imagine a photo of your aunt taken by your father decades ago. She is just entering her teenage years, dressed in her Sunday best, posed casually beside the shiny new '49 Buick Roadmaster in the driveway. The graceful curve of the fender complements the slope of her shoulders. The steering wheel, just visable through the reflections in the windshield, echoes the form of her hat. She stares gently into the lens with a soft.smile. Even though years have past, she is easily recognizable today. A common family snap-shot, right? A 'straight' photograph. The snob subjectivist would pass over this photo without a thought. But they swoon when Cindy Sherman plays dress-up and makes her Polaroids! No matter how much make-up and period costumes she dons, she will never be Queen Victoria or Marie Antonette! In the end, she's just Cindy Sherman all dressed up. Now who is the better photographer? Cindy Sherman or your father when he was a teenager with a box Brownie?

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 20, 1997.

Response to Michael

Michael, Thanks for your concise reply. I was able to track down only a few images from Cindy Sherman at this time but I do remember seeing a press release on one of her shows. I found her images somewhat amusing and perhaps more akin to fashion or commercial photography than anything else. I had no idea that she was such a threat to objective photography and quite frankly I don't understand why. It would seem that her style is minor in the scheme of things and given the huge numbers of Ansel Adams followers that grace most black and white pages I think that objective photography is safe. It would seem by your definition that objective photography would include just about all of the major players of this century like Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz, Roy DeCarava, Robert Frank, Diane Arbus etc. etc. Is this a correct assumption? I guess I am lucky to be relatively new to photography and still can appreciate all forms of the art including colour. Like anything else each group has it's own dogma, morals and paranoias. I must admit that most portraiture does little for me but every once in a while something will grab me and I can appreciate it for what it is worth. One question about categorization; if when taking that photo of my aunt, and the gorgeous 49' Roadster, my father decided to tilt the camera, thereby changing the whole mood, would that then fall into the subjective category? Another question; if you use a red filter on a landscape or long exposure on a waterfall or even using a 24mm lens aren't you distorting reality enough to be considered subjective?

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 22, 1997.

Response to Andy

Andy, I believe you are on the verge of understanding my argument! Allow me to clarify:

Cindy Sherman is not a 'threat' to photography. She came out of fashion and magazine work, where, quite frankly, she should remain. At least until she can lose her silly notions of what 'art' photography is. With gallery space so severely rationed, it is a shame to waste it on her work. The subjectivist school would not have our attention without the collusion of 'art critics,' the parasites of the art world. No one in his right mind would pay $17,500 for a Douglas Brothers photograph without a glowing review to guide him!

Yes, your assumption regarding the photographers you listed is correct. They meet the requirements of objective photography. And, with the exception of the cruel and ugly work of Diane Arbus, I admire all of them. (Compare and contrast the work of Helen Levitt!)

Ansel Adams was a preeminent objectivist photographer. It is from him that we got the Zone System and the craft of fine printing. His gorgeous landscapes define that genre of photography. Unfortunately, he produced an endless legion of clones who have dedicated their lives to 'following the MASTER!' Photography is not a religion!

The fact that occaisonally a portrait will 'grab' you indicates to me that you have yet to find the real geniuses of portraiture. Keep looking at them. Once in a while you will find a portrait that makes you feel like you could actually know the person. That is because the photographer reached past the mere physical appearance and captured the sitter's personality. A rare achievment. Berenice Abbott was able to do this.

On categorization: I'm assuming that your questions are facetious, that you really know that all would be answered in the negative. In that spirit, the ony way the photo of your aunt would fall into the subjective school is if the photo were so distorted or blurry that she would not be recognizable even as a person, or if your father dressed up in her clothes and pretended to be her.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 22, 1997.

Response to Michael

I think that most 'art' purchasers have way too much money, however if I could tap into their wallets I would and it seems that Cindy Sherman and the Douglas Bros. have done just that.

I've heard a few people condemn Arbus now but I was under the impression (Sontag's 'On Photography') that she was photographing these people with their full cooperation. I agree about Helen Levitt, I think she needs more acknowledgement.

Definitely not! I see little difference between the blurring of motion for effect (ie the waterfall) and soft or blurry focus. It's purposeful enhancement for emotional effect.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 22, 1997.

Response to Andy

"I think 'art' purchasers have too much money..." What gives you (or anybody) the right to decide how much money someone else has the right to? Tapping into their wallets is the act of a pick-pocket, not an artist!

Yes, Ms. Arbus' subjects did give her permission to photograph them. It is the final cruel presentation that holds them up to ridicule that I question.

On categorization: I'm sorry, I guess you're not getting it after all. 'Purposeful enhancement for emotional effect' doesn't tilt the photograph over the edge into the subjectivist school. That requires something like taking a picture that attempts to REPRESENT an emotion. Think about it a little more.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 22, 1997.

Response

Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 22, 1997.

Correction to response to Michael

These statements were in response to quotes from your previous posting that I included in the body of my reply. Unfortunately I put them in brackets and I guess that is part of the programming language and did not show up. The last statement was in response to my earlier questions being regarded as facetious.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 22, 1997.

Anyone who is interested in looking at pictorialist photography may I suggest starting with Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz, Margaret Cameron, and Clarence White. All of these photographers have books devoted to their work. Margaret Cameron is one of the most influential portraitists in the medium, hers are haunting revealing images often used to illustrate biographies of their subjects. Alfred Stieglitz's collection of portraits of Georgia O'Keefe is perhaps the seminal set of portraits finished in the 20th century in any medium. A new edition of several of these images is being hailed as possibly the most important and beautiful photography book of the 1990's. Steichen and White's images are classics of the style. Any photographer will gain from spending time with the work of these pioneers. They are classics of revelation, emotion and focus. They are viewed today because they were not copying but inventing their own way of photography. We stand on their shoulders, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Mr. Fraser mentioned something about photography being democractic. It is that and also free. In exactly the same way a camera can turn anyone into an artist it provides that artist with a multitude of ways of expression. Many people can, not only take pictures, but take pictures in their own style. The point about family photographs, in this case an aunt posed on an automobile, is beyond me. Insofar as it is just like any other picture of every other aunt and automobile it is probably of little interest to more than just a few. On the other hand insofar as it reflects an individual interpretation of an Aunt and a car which has not been seen before, that is fresh and revealing the photograph may be of great interest to many people. Uniqueness in subject, means, or vision is fundamental to evaluating the worth of a phtograph. The larger point is that photgraphy is multifarious. It is a technique which allows the photographer to express a point of view. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit it. Each work, each photographer should be judged on their own merits. Each of the above photographers has been judged worthy of almost 100 years of critical acclaim. their contribution to both the art and craft of photography is fundamental their images remain as powerful now as then. the application of terms such as "sappy and sentimental" amounts to little more than name calling and the disparagement of critics as snobs is a gross generalizaitoin. Many critics relect popular tastses and issues. It saddens me that such wonderful photographers as those listed above are smeared by an acidic bush which may discourage young photographers from looking at their work, or worse discourage them from using all the means of photography for creative expression.

-- jim ryder (JimRyder12@aol.com), September 24, 1997.

Response to Mr. Ryder's (non)response to me

In response to Mr. Ryder:

The photographers you cited are not, except for the early work of Steichen and Stieglitz, pictorialists. The portraits by White and Cameron are probably as sharp as the technology of the time allowed, rather than intentionally 'fuzzed' in an attempt to imitate painting. The Stieglitz portraits of Georgia O'Keefe are quite sharp and she is readily recognizable. In his siminal book "Looking at Pictures," John Szarkowski presents 100 pictures from the collection of the Museum of Modern Art and comments on them. The photographers Mr. Ryder refers to are included in this book. Also included is Eugene Atget, the realist photographer to whom Berenice Abbott refers in "It Must Walk Alone." Notice how similar in concept the examples from Steichen and Atget are.

Now for my main point: There is nothing more cheap and obnoxious than setting someone up by miscontruing and purposely misquoting him and then preceeding to attack that misrepresentation! Fortunately everyone is able to read the postings for themselves.

Mr Ryder states: "It saddens me that such wonderful photographers as those listed above are smeared by an acidic brush..." I NEVER mentioned those photographers! The photographers I smeared with my 'acidic brush' are: The Douglas Brothers, Cindy Sherman, Diane Arbus (for her cruelty, not her art,) and Jeffrey Koonz. And they deserve it! I did not call critics snobs, I called them parasites, which by strict definition, they are! And like parasites, some, like A.D. Coleman, are beneficial to the host (art community!) I called the practioners and followers of subjective photography snobs, which they are, for reasons already stated.

I'm perfectly willing to defend my opinions with historical and technical facts when necessary, but I resent having to defend a false representation of my opinions. And in any case, as I said before, these are just my opinions; no one is required to follow them!

The only point I want to get accross is that photography, by its nature is a realistic medium; that's why it is used for police evidence rather than drawing. To make it fuzzy and distorted is to pervert its very nature. Those who want to paint should use materials naturally suited to that means of expression and stop denegrating photography.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 25, 1997.

Re: Yet More Sharp vs. Fuzzy

Thank you for clarifying the only point you want to get across. I've been on the verge of posting a request for clarification as to what the entire discussion is really about. So your point is that "photography, by its nature is a realistic medium" and that "those who want to paint should use materials naturally suited to that means of expression and stop denegrating photography". I hope I got that right. Paper seems pretty much naturally suited to painting, and gosh, I can even buy paints that are created specifically for use on photographs. It is true, photography is a realistic medium, but once that shutter opens and closes, reality is already distorted by its conversion from a three dimensional to a two dimensional representation. As for denigration, I'm not getting the same meaning from Ms. Abbott's statement if it's quoted correctly in your September 13 post. There "the definitive argument" appears as "...'painterly' photographers denigrate the art of photography by apologizing for not being 'real' artists." Note that this statement attributes the denigration of photography to the act of apology, not the act of photographing in a painterly style.

IMHO, photographic materials are naturally suited to communicate through razor sharp, less than razor sharp, or even fuzzy wuzzy images. I don't find it difficult to lose focus at all.

Sarcasm aside, I really think there is no debate on what is "right" or "wrong" in photography; there is no answer suitable for all. However, discussions such as this one can be truly beautiful, because they highlight the passion of the participants for their craft. Sharp or fuzzy, fuzzy or sharp, isn't it more what it says than how it says it? True, many "ears" may be deaf to what your art may be saying; but with the billions of listeners we have on our planet, I think we've all got a chance to be heard without needing to criticize others' work to the point that we decide what they should or should not do.

-- Fred Schmidt (driko@ix.netcom.com), September 25, 1997.

Steichen

I had a look at some of Steichen's early pictorial work recently and I like some of it. I certainly can't see why so many are threatened by it. I didn't care for some of the more obvious attempts to be painterly but ones like the Orangery at Versaille were gorgeous and unique. It's hard to believe that it has caused so much furor.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), October 09, 1997.

Just a quick historical point. The cameras and lens available before the turn of the century were excellent not just for that time but for anytime. Anyone doubting this should look at any print from Mathew Brady's camera. They are extraordinarily clear and sharp. Much of the power of his work comes from this clarity. They have a presence which is almost impossible to achieve today because they were contact printed from glass negatives. Brady's most important work was in the American Civil War in the 1860's. Twenty or thirty years later when Steichen or White or Stieglitz or Cameron's photographs are not clear it is because they did not want them clear. The proof of this is that many of their images are clear and sharp. They went to great lengths to make them so. Of course all their work was not sharp they didn't want it to be. They used these wonderful 4x5 and 8x10 cameras that can far out perform most equipment in common use today. To suggest otherwise is to be compeletely unfair to them as artists. These photographers exploited the creative possiblilities of their equipment they were not limited by it.

-- jim ryder (jimryder12@aol.com), September 25, 1997.

"Photography is a realistic medium" isn't really accurate. The 'reality' is colored radically by your experience, personal attitudes and exposure to the medium. Take an aborigine with no exposure to images, photograph him & show the image and he won't know what that it is him because he does not have the experience to be able to recognize himself. Photography relies on the interpretation of the viewer in attempting to convey what the photographer intended. Without viewer education the images are lost in the morass. B&W is not accurate and never has been. We generally see in colors & B&W is outside the realm of our normal experience. All had to learn to 'see' and interpret that seeing to get to what they expect. Without interpretation on the part of each viewer you have nothing but tones on paper. As to whether or not those with 'too much money' waste it, let them buy what they want. Its their money & their taste. Whether we agree with either how much they have or how they spend it has no meaning at all & is a waste of time. Good images will last & there never will be agreement as to what good images really are, pictorialist or realistic photos. Interpretation starts with the photographer & only gets more complicated with everyone else who tries to reinterpret what they 'feel' the photographer tried to do.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), September 28, 1997.

Good point, Fred Schmidt. I agree that if you can do something with photographic materials, then it's suited to photography. I also think one should make a distinction in discussions between out of focus images and soft, or diffused focus ones. The pictorial photos I like and that I take(I also do sharp, "objective" photography)are not out of focus; they utilize spherical aberration to give diffused focus. This means there is always a sharp image overlayed by a glow(more or less depending on aperture). I try not to overdo the softness, but find a slight amount can be very pleasing with certain subjects, especially nature. Ansel Adams photos to me are too cold, with no feeling. He was a great technician, but should have loosened up once in a while. Clarence John Laughlin took mostly sharp photos, but his move me much more than Adams'.

-- Alan Magayne-Roshak (amr3@csd.uwm.edu), October 02, 1997.

Well, I've been away for a couple of weeks, doing some photography, and the conversation has certainly moved on.

We seem to have shifted from "pictorial vs. realistic" to "subjective vs. objective". I don't know the origin for these terms in this context, possibly Michael D Fraser's own mind. According to my dictionary, "objective" is concerned with the object independantly of the observer's (photographer's) consciousness, whereas "subjective" is concerned with the consciousness of the subject, ie the photographer.

Under this definition, police photographs should certainly be objective, as would be much industrial photography, but pretty much everything by Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz, Frank, Arbus, and many others are subjective. I would even include Adams as subjective: can we deny that so much of Adams comes out in his photographs? His genius was that he was not a "mere" technician.

With these definitions, both types have their uses. Many commercial photographers have to employ both styles. "Pack" shots are usually fairly objective. As has been said in the discussion, true objectivity is extraordinarily difficult; the camera always, always "lies". Some lies are technical (B&W, 2 dimensions, depth of field, etc), others are due to the selection and composition by the photographer, all the way through to the interpretation by the viewer. The photographer makes conscious (or subconscious) use of these lies. Hence subjectivity is what make photographs interesting. A good photograph is not a mere record of the object photographed. A snapshot of Great-Aunt Mabel doesn't just tell us something about her physical appearance, it might also tell us something about her as a person, and her relationship to the photographer.

Of course, if we ignore the dictionary, and say "objective=sharp, subjective=fuzzy", then we can just ask "Why take fuzzy photographs?" where fuzzy might mean out-of-focus, diffused or blurred. The answers might include: to remove distracting detail, to direct the viewer's attention, create impressions of movement, remove texture, concentrate on tone or colour. These techniques have many historical precedents, if anyone needs them, without resorting to imitations of sentimental paintings. A purist might say there must always be something in focus. The same purist might go on to talk about the "rule of thirds" or if more knowledgable, the "golden ratio". These are rules of thumb, guidelines for those who need them.

A quote seems appropriate here. Henri Cartier-Bresson, Introduction to "The Decisive Moment", 1952:

"I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique - a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this 'tromp l'oeil' technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be 'artistic.'"

And finally: can a photograph represent feeling, emotion? Yes, certainly. Great pictures (sorry, almost used the A*t word there) can communicate emotion from the photographer to the viewer. Beauty, love, horror, joy, terror, hope, hopelessness, can all be represented. Crudely by Victorian pictorialists, powerfully by photojournalists, abstractly by some. Emotional content is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a picture "great", but it does help.

PS. No-one has to agree with my ideas either; it would be bad for photography if we were all the same. We will, inevitably, go our own sweet ways, but discussions such as this help us to clarify our own thoughts.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), October 06, 1997.