Thank you, Tim, for giving the historical context and putting my question in far more knowledgeable terms. While I am not sure I agree with all you say, I am keen to hear what everyone else has to say.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
PS apologies accepted.
BBC1 Tonight 10.40pm Harry Cory Wright
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
-
timparkin
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
- Contact:
Hi Nigel,
I can see where you are coming from but I do think it helps sometimes (at least it does for me) to expose our thinking to the light of day. Sometimes that thinking doesn't come across particularly clearly though but it's at those times when you have the opportunity to hone things in your own mind.
It's like when you try to help someone on a particular task and you find out that there is a lot of things you did where you don't really know the reason for them. The act of explaining helps you discover things for yourself.
In this case, the signal to noise ratio has been up and down a fair bit for the casual observer..
Tim
I can see where you are coming from but I do think it helps sometimes (at least it does for me) to expose our thinking to the light of day. Sometimes that thinking doesn't come across particularly clearly though but it's at those times when you have the opportunity to hone things in your own mind.
It's like when you try to help someone on a particular task and you find out that there is a lot of things you did where you don't really know the reason for them. The act of explaining helps you discover things for yourself.
In this case, the signal to noise ratio has been up and down a fair bit for the casual observer..
Tim
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)
Afraid I have to ask, Does it matter?
There will always be horses for courses and on a wet winter eavening this could prove an interesting distraction, however it is spring time the eavenings are light we should be out there exposeing film, remember the golden hours? There are only just enough darkness to develope the film I have exposed without printing the negs, so much to do no time to do it.
Interesting as some of the oppinions expressed are this is a no win argument and while it is useful to examine ones interest and style from time to time I belive it is inportent to let ones style develope naturealy. My images are very differant now to those I shot even 2 years ago, also my style of printing differs with my mood at the time.
Are the L/L style images all the authors images or just the ones for public consumtion, similarly the art photo brigade, there are many compromises in life,why do we assume there is no crossover here. I have little knowlage of the great artists or photographers but have spent half a centuary studying my fellow man and have found that if one were to put 6 experts into a sack, shake them up and tip them out, they would come out in 3 warring factions of2 each of whom would have their messionic following.
Just my 2penn'orth, now i have 2 sheets to dev and it will soon be dark.
Regards to all Paul.
There will always be horses for courses and on a wet winter eavening this could prove an interesting distraction, however it is spring time the eavenings are light we should be out there exposeing film, remember the golden hours? There are only just enough darkness to develope the film I have exposed without printing the negs, so much to do no time to do it.
Interesting as some of the oppinions expressed are this is a no win argument and while it is useful to examine ones interest and style from time to time I belive it is inportent to let ones style develope naturealy. My images are very differant now to those I shot even 2 years ago, also my style of printing differs with my mood at the time.
Are the L/L style images all the authors images or just the ones for public consumtion, similarly the art photo brigade, there are many compromises in life,why do we assume there is no crossover here. I have little knowlage of the great artists or photographers but have spent half a centuary studying my fellow man and have found that if one were to put 6 experts into a sack, shake them up and tip them out, they would come out in 3 warring factions of2 each of whom would have their messionic following.
Just my 2penn'orth, now i have 2 sheets to dev and it will soon be dark.
Regards to all Paul.
-
timparkin
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
- Contact:
Does it matter? It depends.. I'm of the opinion that people expressing themselves is important in life. I'd rather people talked than not and part of that is being able to express an opinion about something. After all, most of our theological and philosphical surroundings have come from people expressing opinions in adversity. These opinions have often formed the basis of democracy, politics and social evolution (the former are arguably not so desirable though).
Do our opinions about art vs beauty matter. Not really, but if we are to express why we like/dislike things, it would be good if we understood something about the reasons behind that (even if we fail often). By knowing what I like or dislike about a photograph or photographer I get to learn what it is I can do with my own photography.
As for win/lose, I'd hope this isn't about it as it would be a poorer world that lost either camp. And I agree that letting your own style develop naturally is good but I'd like to have some influence over my own absorption of the art I see, and understanding it, and my reaction to it, is part of that process.
The one definite is that there is no definitive.
On a more photographic note, here are a few pictures I took during a workshop with Richard Childs and David Ward on Saturday afternoon near Oban (Easdale) and a couple from the weekend before
These are just my digital finder snapshots - the LF ones are at Peak Imaging...
I'm out on Friday and Saturday in the Dales so hopefully we'll have more of the decent weather!!
Tim
p.s. oops.. sorry, I didn't realise they were so big...
Do our opinions about art vs beauty matter. Not really, but if we are to express why we like/dislike things, it would be good if we understood something about the reasons behind that (even if we fail often). By knowing what I like or dislike about a photograph or photographer I get to learn what it is I can do with my own photography.
As for win/lose, I'd hope this isn't about it as it would be a poorer world that lost either camp. And I agree that letting your own style develop naturally is good but I'd like to have some influence over my own absorption of the art I see, and understanding it, and my reaction to it, is part of that process.
The one definite is that there is no definitive.
On a more photographic note, here are a few pictures I took during a workshop with Richard Childs and David Ward on Saturday afternoon near Oban (Easdale) and a couple from the weekend before
These are just my digital finder snapshots - the LF ones are at Peak Imaging...
I'm out on Friday and Saturday in the Dales so hopefully we'll have more of the decent weather!!
Tim
p.s. oops.. sorry, I didn't realise they were so big...
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
Firstly an apology: I don’t have a BA, let alone an MA; I haven’t exhibited my work widely; I am not what one might call the “arty” sort, although I have occasional pictures and interests which leave my friends and family bewildered and impoverished. So, in short, I haven’t a clue what the “arty” sort would think of the “L&L” sort. Which is why I am asking – I am genuinely curious. Now having said all that, I am acquainted with a number of –isms relevant to the art world and can most often understand what an “arty” sort tells me. So I hope to benefit from these discussions.
Tim: I must take issue with your statement of “art vs beauty”. Objects can belong to both. Art, as a term, is misleading. One should say “the art of photography” and consider it as a craft like, let us say, boot-making. The proof of good photography is judged in the same way as a pair boots: in the performance of its function. The only snag is identifying the function. That will just lead to endless disagreement so let’s not waste our time on that. How that function then relates to beauty is another endless argument. However, I think that individuals can profit from agreeing within themselves what their individual definitions are. So reflection is a good thing.
What Nigel says is very interesting however: too much analysis isn’t always a good thing. There are times when a little simplicity can procure a great deal of pleasure. I will also say that I suspect that what I have called the “arty” style is a consequence of too much analysis: after so much intensive thinking, the land is barren. The fruit of these photographs are so poor that they need a lot of post-processing to nourish us or even yield a pleasant taste.
I also don’t think it wise to say which of “L&L” or “arty” is the more traditional: they both came from somewhere, and I have no doubt that if you seek far enough, you will find some cave art in there. If you look at Galerie Photo , you will see that Henri Peyre believes strongly that the “Tableau” style of Shore and Soth are direct descendents of institutional painting. In fact “L&L”’s use of points, lines and planes to make a self-contained, decorative surface is a positively 20th-century idea.
For whatever reason and in spite of the fact that everyone plainly understands what I am referring to, I will seek to clarify my definition of “L&L” and “arty”. For the former, go to the websites of JC and DW, yes, but also Baxter Bradford and Steve Lewis (all L&L’ers and all LF’ers). For the latter, go to the websites of Stephen Shore, Alec Soth, Richard Misrach and HCW (mostly LF’ers). Carry out a little interpolation between all the pictures you find in each group and work out the commonalities.
On Baxter Bradford’s site, there is a paragraph which I think neatly summarises the “L&L” approach:
Information on “arty” exists in plenty of articles which are more or less challenging. However, this paragraph on Soth’s work taken from the Daily Telegraph should help.
Tim, you say that HCW does not make beauty explicit. Yet, one could argue he does on the grounds that he shows everything within a scene in considerable detail. Isn’t that just as explicit as putting yourself within inches of a plant/rock and showing it close up with the wider context evolving behind it? The pictures can be utterly straightforward in both cases.
On the matter of intentions, I am very uncertain that the intentions of the photographer are any clearer in one case or the other ("Is it a leaf on a rock or a metaphor for loneliness?"). DW’s insistence on transcendence can make a picture as hard to comprehend as any of HCW’s and his insistence on capturing the feel of a place.
Both sides want to make an artistic statement, and both are achieving at least some commercial success, so that’s not it either. And for proof that the “arty” sort are not averse to publicity, take a look at this page .
“Arty” seem to favour bleached colours or B&W while “L&L” seems to favour strong colour, but I predict even that won’t hold up to scrutiny, not least given “L&L”’s purported B&W roots. But then maybe “L&L” is a style distinct from its roots and does require strong colour as a necessary but insufficient condition.
One cannot say that “arty” pics are without structure: one of the regular complaints is that the horizon is always slap bang in the middle. The subject tends to be placed very centrally, with little apparent artifice. This is just as much an affectation as the bl**dy-rock-in-the-foreground approach.
Just about the only element of distinction one can hang on to, is that the “L&L” style is heavily articulated, with a composition that is about a strong centre of visual interest around which are carefully and tastefully arranged elements of texture, descriptive context, etc. Although arrangement and framing (ie structure) matter to both “arty” and “L&L”, the way it is carried out, differs.
Is that what it boils down to – strong colour and a visual fulcrum versus neither? Possibly, but there is also the matter of content. “L&L” seeks to record the magic of the world and the glory of Nature, often making the most of striking composition (found or forced) and bold colour. “Arty” seems far more attracted to the common-place. I suspect that much of the dislike and disbelief felt by those who practice “L&L” comes down to this choice of subject matter. And that links back nicely to the suggestion I made above – that “arty” requires a lot more thinking to get something out of it. On Galerie Photo last year, there was a heated argument over a picture by Shore, showing a crag-face across some bog or other. No spectacular structure or bold lines – all very flat. I was non-plussed, until someone more “arty” than myself said that the picture was about the passing of time: seasons in the foreground, geological time in the distance. I learnt a lot that day. If that interpretation is correct, I can easily imagine that an “arty” sort would think of the “L&L” style as being unimaginative, over-articulated, old hat and dumbed-down. I still love it though.
Charles
PS how do you like the signal-to-noise ratio now?
And an old favourite:
Tim: I must take issue with your statement of “art vs beauty”. Objects can belong to both. Art, as a term, is misleading. One should say “the art of photography” and consider it as a craft like, let us say, boot-making. The proof of good photography is judged in the same way as a pair boots: in the performance of its function. The only snag is identifying the function. That will just lead to endless disagreement so let’s not waste our time on that. How that function then relates to beauty is another endless argument. However, I think that individuals can profit from agreeing within themselves what their individual definitions are. So reflection is a good thing.
What Nigel says is very interesting however: too much analysis isn’t always a good thing. There are times when a little simplicity can procure a great deal of pleasure. I will also say that I suspect that what I have called the “arty” style is a consequence of too much analysis: after so much intensive thinking, the land is barren. The fruit of these photographs are so poor that they need a lot of post-processing to nourish us or even yield a pleasant taste.
I also don’t think it wise to say which of “L&L” or “arty” is the more traditional: they both came from somewhere, and I have no doubt that if you seek far enough, you will find some cave art in there. If you look at Galerie Photo , you will see that Henri Peyre believes strongly that the “Tableau” style of Shore and Soth are direct descendents of institutional painting. In fact “L&L”’s use of points, lines and planes to make a self-contained, decorative surface is a positively 20th-century idea.
For whatever reason and in spite of the fact that everyone plainly understands what I am referring to, I will seek to clarify my definition of “L&L” and “arty”. For the former, go to the websites of JC and DW, yes, but also Baxter Bradford and Steve Lewis (all L&L’ers and all LF’ers). For the latter, go to the websites of Stephen Shore, Alec Soth, Richard Misrach and HCW (mostly LF’ers). Carry out a little interpolation between all the pictures you find in each group and work out the commonalities.
On Baxter Bradford’s site, there is a paragraph which I think neatly summarises the “L&L” approach:
When the human eye sweeps over the landscape, it records details far and wide, and builds up a composite image in the memory. This is "the View". But the camera cannot do this, so within the limits of the Ground Glass screen, I must find that part of the View which best conveys the feeling of the whole. Viewpoint is precisely chosen to enhance and conceal, as I assimilate the placement of the features and the play of light upon them, arranging them into an effective and balanced composition.
Information on “arty” exists in plenty of articles which are more or less challenging. However, this paragraph on Soth’s work taken from the Daily Telegraph should help.
So, what are the main differences?A great clarity, or grace, lights up each picture. The lack of artifice reinforces the charms operating in his photographs. In the Mississippi series I had the feeling that the pictures I found existed more within a projection of memory. Above all in still lifes, repeated doorways, landscapes in a state of decay: all this made me think of memories buried in Alec’s subconscious, perhaps from a book that he has read, the outlines of a phrase, a meeting, a perception that found its reality in himself.
Tim, you say that HCW does not make beauty explicit. Yet, one could argue he does on the grounds that he shows everything within a scene in considerable detail. Isn’t that just as explicit as putting yourself within inches of a plant/rock and showing it close up with the wider context evolving behind it? The pictures can be utterly straightforward in both cases.
On the matter of intentions, I am very uncertain that the intentions of the photographer are any clearer in one case or the other ("Is it a leaf on a rock or a metaphor for loneliness?"). DW’s insistence on transcendence can make a picture as hard to comprehend as any of HCW’s and his insistence on capturing the feel of a place.
Both sides want to make an artistic statement, and both are achieving at least some commercial success, so that’s not it either. And for proof that the “arty” sort are not averse to publicity, take a look at this page .
“Arty” seem to favour bleached colours or B&W while “L&L” seems to favour strong colour, but I predict even that won’t hold up to scrutiny, not least given “L&L”’s purported B&W roots. But then maybe “L&L” is a style distinct from its roots and does require strong colour as a necessary but insufficient condition.
One cannot say that “arty” pics are without structure: one of the regular complaints is that the horizon is always slap bang in the middle. The subject tends to be placed very centrally, with little apparent artifice. This is just as much an affectation as the bl**dy-rock-in-the-foreground approach.
Just about the only element of distinction one can hang on to, is that the “L&L” style is heavily articulated, with a composition that is about a strong centre of visual interest around which are carefully and tastefully arranged elements of texture, descriptive context, etc. Although arrangement and framing (ie structure) matter to both “arty” and “L&L”, the way it is carried out, differs.
Is that what it boils down to – strong colour and a visual fulcrum versus neither? Possibly, but there is also the matter of content. “L&L” seeks to record the magic of the world and the glory of Nature, often making the most of striking composition (found or forced) and bold colour. “Arty” seems far more attracted to the common-place. I suspect that much of the dislike and disbelief felt by those who practice “L&L” comes down to this choice of subject matter. And that links back nicely to the suggestion I made above – that “arty” requires a lot more thinking to get something out of it. On Galerie Photo last year, there was a heated argument over a picture by Shore, showing a crag-face across some bog or other. No spectacular structure or bold lines – all very flat. I was non-plussed, until someone more “arty” than myself said that the picture was about the passing of time: seasons in the foreground, geological time in the distance. I learnt a lot that day. If that interpretation is correct, I can easily imagine that an “arty” sort would think of the “L&L” style as being unimaginative, over-articulated, old hat and dumbed-down. I still love it though.
Charles
PS how do you like the signal-to-noise ratio now?
And an old favourite:
-
timparkin
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
- Contact:
Hi Charles,
Don't worry about lack of qualifications - only the arty sort place emphasis on pedigree
I think you might have misread me on art vs beauty. I didn't say that they were mutually exclusive, in fact most of my point is that they overlap significantly. What I did say is that the classic landscape photographer favours overt beauty whereas the classic "art" photographer avoids overt beauty.
Photography was essential to the birth of the modern art movement so I would expect that some of it's look is aligned with it (your mention of planes and abstraction).
Quoting Baxter is interesting as he declares that the view is a choice and what is excluded and included is a transformation within itself. Art photographers seem to think they can remove themselves from the photograph (possibly why HCW likes to have as little input into his pictures as possible - the archetypal point and shoot with maybe a little less of the point).
The Soth review where the writer compares his pictures to memories of Alec's (how he knew this I don't know) is interesting in that again it implies a lack of artifice or craft. Another point and shoot case - why this obsession with trying to be so anti-craft? It's definitely an art photographer thing (painters don't seem to have the same problem with having mastered their craft and use it overtly).
It seems most art photographers would like to think that their skill has arrived fully formed as a divine gift and any semblance of hard work would sully that impression.
How can one interpret what HCW does when he doesn't actually do much? The successful works by HCW are those that show a theme - his coastal shots are actually very good art in my book. They take a subject and explore very deeply and from that allow the viewer to draw conclusions and immerse themselves in a feeling or state of being - the lack of artifice here serves to emphasise the fact that the only things changing are the light and the weather, but how dramatically!
The classic landscape is about craft meeting art meeting soul, a triumvirate that portrays nature in it's most transcendent. What identifies this style is often it's lack of overt discussion about the reason - you don't get reviewers waxing pretentiusly lyrical like the Telegraph piece about Joe or David - but I think they could do so with equal validity. Being overtly beautiful and showing great craftsmanship does not mean that the pictures lack intellectual rigor.
Your mention of not understanding a picture until someone explained what the artist intended means that the artist must have discussed this meaning at some point - in other words the picture was supported by an intellectual narrative. The classic landscape photographer wouldn't do this on a picture by picture or project by project basis (perhaps they should - maybe that is what is missing).
Most arty sorts will react to overt displays of craft and beauty.. (apart from where the craft is handles by 'assistants' - Gursky/Crewdson for instance).
Anyway - I like the wild garlic, I love the textures where the ferns meet the garlic .. I stopped in Gower for some wild garlic recently - it's nice to see some pictures along with our anally retentive discourse...
Don't worry about lack of qualifications - only the arty sort place emphasis on pedigree
I think you might have misread me on art vs beauty. I didn't say that they were mutually exclusive, in fact most of my point is that they overlap significantly. What I did say is that the classic landscape photographer favours overt beauty whereas the classic "art" photographer avoids overt beauty.
Photography was essential to the birth of the modern art movement so I would expect that some of it's look is aligned with it (your mention of planes and abstraction).
Quoting Baxter is interesting as he declares that the view is a choice and what is excluded and included is a transformation within itself. Art photographers seem to think they can remove themselves from the photograph (possibly why HCW likes to have as little input into his pictures as possible - the archetypal point and shoot with maybe a little less of the point).
The Soth review where the writer compares his pictures to memories of Alec's (how he knew this I don't know) is interesting in that again it implies a lack of artifice or craft. Another point and shoot case - why this obsession with trying to be so anti-craft? It's definitely an art photographer thing (painters don't seem to have the same problem with having mastered their craft and use it overtly).
It seems most art photographers would like to think that their skill has arrived fully formed as a divine gift and any semblance of hard work would sully that impression.
How can one interpret what HCW does when he doesn't actually do much? The successful works by HCW are those that show a theme - his coastal shots are actually very good art in my book. They take a subject and explore very deeply and from that allow the viewer to draw conclusions and immerse themselves in a feeling or state of being - the lack of artifice here serves to emphasise the fact that the only things changing are the light and the weather, but how dramatically!
The classic landscape is about craft meeting art meeting soul, a triumvirate that portrays nature in it's most transcendent. What identifies this style is often it's lack of overt discussion about the reason - you don't get reviewers waxing pretentiusly lyrical like the Telegraph piece about Joe or David - but I think they could do so with equal validity. Being overtly beautiful and showing great craftsmanship does not mean that the pictures lack intellectual rigor.
Your mention of not understanding a picture until someone explained what the artist intended means that the artist must have discussed this meaning at some point - in other words the picture was supported by an intellectual narrative. The classic landscape photographer wouldn't do this on a picture by picture or project by project basis (perhaps they should - maybe that is what is missing).
Most arty sorts will react to overt displays of craft and beauty.. (apart from where the craft is handles by 'assistants' - Gursky/Crewdson for instance).
Anyway - I like the wild garlic, I love the textures where the ferns meet the garlic .. I stopped in Gower for some wild garlic recently - it's nice to see some pictures along with our anally retentive discourse...
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)
-
joolsb
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:58 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Zurich
- Contact:
It strikes me that in the art world it's the idea that's important and the finished object is merely something to which the idea may be conveniently attached. The 'L&L' approach, otoh, is to let the image take centre-stage and any ideas contained therein are left to the viewer to figure out by interpreting the given clues. This is very much the traditional approach - and the one that is most likely to pass the only test that matters: that of time.
Art that requires an external element to explain it is intrinsically vacuous and will be shown for the empty vessel it is once it is divorced from the explanation. This is the problem I have with so-called 'conceptual' art and it's the problem I have with much contemproary 'art' photography.
Getting back to HCW, my view is that he has a foot in both camps.
Art that requires an external element to explain it is intrinsically vacuous and will be shown for the empty vessel it is once it is divorced from the explanation. This is the problem I have with so-called 'conceptual' art and it's the problem I have with much contemproary 'art' photography.
Getting back to HCW, my view is that he has a foot in both camps.
-
timparkin
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
- Contact:
Totally agree Jools... HCW, when he's doing what he does best (series of concept shots) and he does make beautiful art.
What you say about external elements is spot on too - the artist is philosopher first and then tries to distil ideas into 'product'. If the philosophy is poor then it doesn't work and the 'product' can't stand up on it's own (and that is how most people see it).
I think HCW doesn't apply as much thought in explanation but when he works on strong series, the themes within the project allow this to come through. When he tours britain, the theme doesn't seem to be consistent and hence his talent isn't effectively applied. He does have a foot in both camps, but they are so far apart it does look rather painful
Tim
What you say about external elements is spot on too - the artist is philosopher first and then tries to distil ideas into 'product'. If the philosophy is poor then it doesn't work and the 'product' can't stand up on it's own (and that is how most people see it).
I think HCW doesn't apply as much thought in explanation but when he works on strong series, the themes within the project allow this to come through. When he tours britain, the theme doesn't seem to be consistent and hence his talent isn't effectively applied. He does have a foot in both camps, but they are so far apart it does look rather painful
Tim
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)
-
Baxter
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:15 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Lymington, South Coast
- Contact:
I am astonished that this conversation has gone on so much. Especially since Tim, Charles, Julian and myself all contributed on David Ward's blog http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/lost ... n#comments
For the record, I certainly don't consider myself 'L&L'. Certainly I learnt enormously from attending their courses and have lead courses for them. However looking at my 'Just In' gallery reveals images in colour (Bold and Muted), Black and White, restricted focus, a wider range of image styles than Rock in the Foreground - in fact whatever it needs, so that it 'best conveys the feeling of the whole'.
Who else produces such a varied array of images, often at the same location?
So way back in December my words were pretty much in defence of HCW:
Bax11/12/2007, 20:56
Well this discussion (or does this qualify as a lambasting?) has really taken off in rather a grand manner. I don't think that I am ever able to get out of the shallow end of the think tank, but am familiar with HCW's pictures. There was a feature on him a few years ago in the Saturday newspaper supplement and have sporadically checked his website. Until now I haven't been tempted to buy one of his books, but did so with JTTBI 3 weeks ago.
His use of colour neg film intrigued me early on and was an influence in my willingness to try this alongside other film types.
I have not had time to do much other than barely exist recently, but somehow when snatching a few minutes have managed to keep returning to HCWs book, fleetingly. An initial scan read of the text was perhaps too much, they are trying too hard - I had no idea that Landscape photography was such an ordeal or hard work.... if so, I'd never have started.
However the pictures - his is a different way of seeing from the L&L; cohort and I hope to learn from getting to know the pictures better. I want to learn from a wide spectrum of influences. His output from colour neg film is very different from that which I currently achieve and prefer. I would certainly prefer to look at this book than one comprising over-gradded HDR landscape images with distorted horizons from 10-15mm lenses on DSLRs.
Yes, it does appear that he has a horizon line etched on the Gandolfi Ground Glass at 40-45% from the bottom of the frame. But there is a quietness in his pictures I enjoy - almost as if he isn't trying too hard - I feel that he overcompensates here with his writing....
No, I am not trying to say that every picture is compelling, not even a small minority are! It is however a valid, albeit stylised, document of a journey he chose to make and take. But I do think that the better pictures have the potential to grow on oneself. Certainly given free rein, I would have printed the negatives differently, but then this would have corrupted his view of the British Ises.
Each of us would produce something unique and surely in our own humble opinions with the courage of conviction, better, if only we had had the idea of the journey (or one of our own) and made the commitment to complete the project. So why don't we?
And yes, harnessing some marketing of equivalent power to that of HCW may well come in handy.
Message ends.
Back to May 08 - Having seen, and enjoyed the Video, He came across as very articulate, but as for struggling/trying very hard to find the Bristol image it must have been edited out as I remained unconvinced.
Thanks for the diversion guys, I have some 30 prints to mount and some will be treated to a frame too for an exhibition in Falmouth next week....
For the record, I certainly don't consider myself 'L&L'. Certainly I learnt enormously from attending their courses and have lead courses for them. However looking at my 'Just In' gallery reveals images in colour (Bold and Muted), Black and White, restricted focus, a wider range of image styles than Rock in the Foreground - in fact whatever it needs, so that it 'best conveys the feeling of the whole'.
Who else produces such a varied array of images, often at the same location?
So way back in December my words were pretty much in defence of HCW:
Bax11/12/2007, 20:56
Well this discussion (or does this qualify as a lambasting?) has really taken off in rather a grand manner. I don't think that I am ever able to get out of the shallow end of the think tank, but am familiar with HCW's pictures. There was a feature on him a few years ago in the Saturday newspaper supplement and have sporadically checked his website. Until now I haven't been tempted to buy one of his books, but did so with JTTBI 3 weeks ago.
His use of colour neg film intrigued me early on and was an influence in my willingness to try this alongside other film types.
I have not had time to do much other than barely exist recently, but somehow when snatching a few minutes have managed to keep returning to HCWs book, fleetingly. An initial scan read of the text was perhaps too much, they are trying too hard - I had no idea that Landscape photography was such an ordeal or hard work.... if so, I'd never have started.
However the pictures - his is a different way of seeing from the L&L; cohort and I hope to learn from getting to know the pictures better. I want to learn from a wide spectrum of influences. His output from colour neg film is very different from that which I currently achieve and prefer. I would certainly prefer to look at this book than one comprising over-gradded HDR landscape images with distorted horizons from 10-15mm lenses on DSLRs.
Yes, it does appear that he has a horizon line etched on the Gandolfi Ground Glass at 40-45% from the bottom of the frame. But there is a quietness in his pictures I enjoy - almost as if he isn't trying too hard - I feel that he overcompensates here with his writing....
No, I am not trying to say that every picture is compelling, not even a small minority are! It is however a valid, albeit stylised, document of a journey he chose to make and take. But I do think that the better pictures have the potential to grow on oneself. Certainly given free rein, I would have printed the negatives differently, but then this would have corrupted his view of the British Ises.
Each of us would produce something unique and surely in our own humble opinions with the courage of conviction, better, if only we had had the idea of the journey (or one of our own) and made the commitment to complete the project. So why don't we?
And yes, harnessing some marketing of equivalent power to that of HCW may well come in handy.
Message ends.
Back to May 08 - Having seen, and enjoyed the Video, He came across as very articulate, but as for struggling/trying very hard to find the Bristol image it must have been edited out as I remained unconvinced.
Thanks for the diversion guys, I have some 30 prints to mount and some will be treated to a frame too for an exhibition in Falmouth next week....
Baxter
-
Charles Twist
- Founder
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:33 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Cleveland
- Contact:
Hello Jools,
The concept being more important than the representation is definitely not a modern idea. Look at all the symbols we don’t understand in medieval art or in the liturgy. How many people know the symbols for Jesus and the Apostles (pelican, eagle, angel, etc). These works require an a priori, external explanation, just as much as the modern work you mention.
You have to bear in mind that a lot of people do not get the point of DW’s pictures and also that a lot of people would not have picked up on the ferns in my wild garlic picture. We bring a lot to the pictures we see. They are all, whetever their style, passive objects which we invest with our vision as a spectator. Some people find “L&L” easier to comprehend; some people find “arty” easier. What are the clues which tell you how to interpret a picture? How do you know whether a photograph is meant to be interpreted as representation, graphics or symbols? How do you know whether it is a leaf on a rock or a metaphor for solitude (as I said above)? You bring prejudiced interpretation with you wherever you go. Is there such a thing as a naive interpretation?
What I love about “L&L” (as I understand it) is that it is our interpretation of magical and glorious as they stand now. I cannot see how these pictures will be seen as pointing out the magical and glorious in 500 years’ time or indeed how they would have 500 years ago. They cannot possibly hold the test of time. In contrast, when photographers are not committal and allow the viewer to invest the photograph with what matters to them rather than direct the viewer, the product of the art becomes intemporal (except obviously for what is shown). So if you want to be timeless, try ambiguity and obfuscation, or a lack of emphasis. But who would want that?
Hello Baxter,
It has taken a long slog to dot the I’s and cross the T’s for what was a simple question.
Your message made me in
a good way . It seems that everyone agrees there is a L&L style or a L&L cohort, but when you get near it, it just vanishes. Maybe we should talk about L&L mist 
. Anyway I was definitely not suggesting you were a slave to any one style, but you did have a paragraph which I thought very to the point. I must also say that if my pictures were said to overlap with the “L&L” style, the same tar brush could be heading the way of your pics.
Charles
The concept being more important than the representation is definitely not a modern idea. Look at all the symbols we don’t understand in medieval art or in the liturgy. How many people know the symbols for Jesus and the Apostles (pelican, eagle, angel, etc). These works require an a priori, external explanation, just as much as the modern work you mention.
You have to bear in mind that a lot of people do not get the point of DW’s pictures and also that a lot of people would not have picked up on the ferns in my wild garlic picture. We bring a lot to the pictures we see. They are all, whetever their style, passive objects which we invest with our vision as a spectator. Some people find “L&L” easier to comprehend; some people find “arty” easier. What are the clues which tell you how to interpret a picture? How do you know whether a photograph is meant to be interpreted as representation, graphics or symbols? How do you know whether it is a leaf on a rock or a metaphor for solitude (as I said above)? You bring prejudiced interpretation with you wherever you go. Is there such a thing as a naive interpretation?
What I love about “L&L” (as I understand it) is that it is our interpretation of magical and glorious as they stand now. I cannot see how these pictures will be seen as pointing out the magical and glorious in 500 years’ time or indeed how they would have 500 years ago. They cannot possibly hold the test of time. In contrast, when photographers are not committal and allow the viewer to invest the photograph with what matters to them rather than direct the viewer, the product of the art becomes intemporal (except obviously for what is shown). So if you want to be timeless, try ambiguity and obfuscation, or a lack of emphasis. But who would want that?
Hello Baxter,
It has taken a long slog to dot the I’s and cross the T’s for what was a simple question.
Your message made me in
a good way . It seems that everyone agrees there is a L&L style or a L&L cohort, but when you get near it, it just vanishes. Maybe we should talk about L&L mist . Anyway I was definitely not suggesting you were a slave to any one style, but you did have a paragraph which I thought very to the point. I must also say that if my pictures were said to overlap with the “L&L” style, the same tar brush could be heading the way of your pics. Charles
-
timparkin
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:40 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
- Contact:
I think they stand a very good chance of standing the test of time. They incorporate ideas that are fundamental to the planet and to humans. We'll still have plants (hopefully) in 500 years time. Possibly they will be all the more important by then and represent something even rarer. The emotional messages aren't externalised (there are no 20th century equivalents of Pelicans in David's pictures I imagine).Charles Twist wrote:Hello Jools,
The concept being more important than the representation is definitely not a modern idea. Look at all the symbols we don’t understand in medieval art or in the liturgy. How many people know the symbols for Jesus and the Apostles (pelican, eagle, angel, etc). These works require an a priori, external explanation, just as much as the modern work you mention.
You have to bear in mind that a lot of people do not get the point of DW’s pictures and also that a lot of people would not have picked up on the ferns in my wild garlic picture. We bring a lot to the pictures we see. They are all, whetever their style, passive objects which we invest with our vision as a spectator. Some people find “L&L” easier to comprehend; some people find “arty” easier. What are the clues which tell you how to interpret a picture? How do you know whether a photograph is meant to be interpreted as representation, graphics or symbols? How do you know whether it is a leaf on a rock or a metaphor for solitude (as I said above)? You bring prejudiced interpretation with you wherever you go. Is there such a thing as a naive interpretation?
What I love about “L&L” (as I understand it) is that it is our interpretation of magical and glorious as they stand now. I cannot see how these pictures will be seen as pointing out the magical and glorious in 500 years’ time or indeed how they would have 500 years ago. They cannot possibly hold the test of time.
So if we try not to include a message, it stands a chance of lasting for a long time? I'm not sure whether you're serious but I can't imagine a lack o message as being a desirable thing. Is it better for the meaning in a photograph to be explained on paper so that the we don't misinterpret? I'm not sure .. I'd prefer that the picture can carry it's own weight...In contrast, when photographers are not committal and allow the viewer to invest the photograph with what matters to them rather than direct the viewer, the product of the art becomes intemporal (except obviously for what is shown). So if you want to be timeless, try ambiguity and obfuscation, or a lack of emphasis. But who would want that?
Charles.. if you carry on talking about the L&L style you will wind people up. If you want to hold a good conversation about this then I'd try to choose a less 'emotiontally weighted' phrase (why not 'classic colour landscape' style?)Hello Baxter,
It has taken a long slog to dot the I’s and cross the T’s for what was a simple question.
Your message made me in
Charles
Tim
Waiting for the developing bill - 2 hours (and it's so small now!)
-
joolsb
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:58 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Zurich
- Contact:
Well, quite. What is modern is that the work is made and then the artist appears to look for a convenient concept to attach to it as justification. My point is basically that artworks which have stood the test of time are entirely self-contained. That is, they do not require any kind of external explanation for those versed in the visual language employed. In other words, the original audience. For a modern audience, they are a puzzle - but one that can be decoded by anyone willing to make the effort.The concept being more important than the representation is definitely not a modern idea. Look at all the symbols we don’t understand in medieval art or in the liturgy. How many people know the symbols for Jesus and the Apostles (pelican, eagle, angel, etc). These works require an a priori, external explanation, just as much as the modern work you mention.
Can we say this about a soiled, unmade bed or a carefully preserved bisected dead animal, for example?