Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does Ctein have 100 true fans?  (Read 45771 times)
DarkPenguin
Guest
« on: March 13, 2009, 11:47:08 AM »
ReplyReply

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-true-fans.html
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5755



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 12:18:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe, but I'm not one of them. When some guy with a woolly beard tells me about his multiple degrees and concludes that his credentials make him an artist I tend to back away. Evidently he's written some how-to books. That probably qualifies him for something, but not fanship as an artist.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2009, 12:45:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Uh, no.  But his artistry does.

Quote from: RSL
Maybe, but I'm not one of them. When some guy with a woolly beard tells me about his multiple degrees and concludes that his credentials make him an artist I tend to back away. Evidently he's written some how-to books. That probably qualifies him for something, but not fanship as an artist.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5755



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 02:56:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Uh, no.  But his artistry does.

Well, I guess I'm just not into what Wordsworth called "rocks and stones and trees" and tourist shots of Canaveral. I realize that many, many people are. That's why photographers are able to sell this kind of stuff at art fairs. I'll also happily admit that from what I can tell on an lcd screen at 92ppi he's a very good printer. He certainly makes what art fair attendees call "clear" pictures. So if that adds up to "artistry," then I'd have to concede the point.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2009, 03:24:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Well, I guess I'm just not into what Wordsworth called "rocks and stones and trees" and tourist shots of Canaveral. I realize that many, many people are. That's why photographers are able to sell this kind of stuff at art fairs. I'll also happily admit that from what I can tell on an lcd screen at 92ppi he's a very good printer. He certainly makes what art fair attendees call "clear" pictures. So if that adds up to "artistry," then I'd have to concede the point.

I thought the "or doesn't" would be implied.  Guess not.
Logged
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 616


« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2009, 04:42:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Well, I guess I'm just not into what Wordsworth called "rocks and stones and trees" and tourist shots of Canaveral. I realize that many, many people are. That's why photographers are able to sell this kind of stuff at art fairs. I'll also happily admit that from what I can tell on an lcd screen at 92ppi he's a very good printer. He certainly makes what art fair attendees call "clear" pictures. So if that adds up to "artistry," then I'd have to concede the point.

I would love to see any Ansel Adams, any of the Weston family, Elliot Proter or any of the other "Masters" original prints sold at "art fairs". Didn't they photograph "rocks and stones and trees"? It's such a pity that they are represented by reputable art dealers around the world and sell for such mundane prices into the thousands of dollars.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 04:45:45 PM by KeithR » Logged

The destination is our goal but it’s the journey that educates us.
whawn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2009, 05:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KeithR
I would love to see any Ansel Adams, any of the Weston family, Elliot Proter or any of the other "Masters" original prints sold at "art fairs". Didn't they photograph "rocks and stones and trees"? It's such a pity that they are represented by reputable art dealers around the world and sell for such mundane prices into the thousands of dollars.
I can't say about the others but I don't think Adams sold at art fairs, but he did sell for cheap in tourist shops at Yosemite and elsewhere.  I've heard prices as low as six dollars for an 8x10.  The lowest I saw, in 1967, was $15.  I bought it, as I had just finished "The Camera" and "The Negative" and was mightily impressed.  And, FWIW, IMHO, if Weston was an artist, then Ctien is a master.  The first step toward artistry is the thorough understanding of the chosen medium.  Ctien understands and applies.  He's got a good eye, and he thinks deeply about his work.  What else do you need?
Logged

Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming
JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2009, 05:43:29 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting experiment by ctein. I hope it works out. In (the deep) past, art thrived on the patron system. That was when a select few had 99% of the money, and would support artists at their "courts". It would be interesting to see a sort of patron system spread over a larger base like this.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2009, 05:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, call him "some guy with a woolly beard" if it makes you feel superior, but Ctein was once called "The world's greatest color printer", by Kodak. He has been a respected book author and magazine columnist for a couple of decades, and is one of the few remaining dye transfer printers in the world, if you know what that process is.

In other words, he's one of the most respected pros in his field. He also happens to be a really decent, kind and generous human being, and is highly regarded by his peers.

As for his art, as with all art it's a matter of personal taste. I think enough of it to own one of his original dye transfers, which I purchased, not traded for.

Just thought I'd mention this.

Michael
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 05:45:33 PM by michael » Logged
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 616


« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2009, 06:50:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: whawn
I can't say about the others but I don't think Adams sold at art fairs, but he did sell for cheap in tourist shops at Yosemite and elsewhere.  I've heard prices as low as six dollars for an 8x10.  The lowest I saw, in 1967, was $15.  I bought it, as I had just finished "The Camera" and "The Negative" and was mightily impressed.  And, FWIW, IMHO, if Weston was an artist, then Ctien is a master.  The first step toward artistry is the thorough understanding of the chosen medium.  Ctien understands and applies.  He's got a good eye, and he thinks deeply about his work.  What else do you need?
Let's keep things in proper perspective concerning money and the economic times back when Ansel sold for cheap. By todays standards $6 or $15 isn't much, but back in the 60's, if you were making $15k a year you were doing very well. Not rich but but you weren't poor by any means.  My parents bought a home in a young, well to do suburb for about $16k back in '66 and my stepfather almost balked at the price as being too high. Last I heard, that same 3 bedroom rambler last sold for about $225K!
And yes, I do consider Ctein a master, but remember also that it was Adams who was impressed with the elder Westons'(Edward)negatives that led to the development of the zone system.
Logged

The destination is our goal but it’s the journey that educates us.
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2009, 07:07:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael,

I'm glad you spoke up. I was getting pissed as I read the original post. Ctein is the classic definition of the guy that works for art not money. The classic starving artist that is discovered long into life. like Ansel, Like Weston, etc.

He may be at a loss on how to market himself well, but his art sings up close and personal.

so what have you done RSL as an artist???

<removed expletive>

bob



Quote from: michael
Well, call him "some guy with a woolly beard" if it makes you feel superior, but Ctein was once called "The world's greatest color printer", by Kodak. He has been a respected book author and magazine columnist for a couple of decades, and is one of the few remaining dye transfer printers in the world, if you know what that process is.

In other words, he's one of the most respected pros in his field. He also happens to be a really decent, kind and generous human being, and is highly regarded by his peers.

As for his art, as with all art it's a matter of personal taste. I think enough of it to own one of his original dye transfers, which I purchased, not traded for.

Just thought I'd mention this.

Michael
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 08:43:25 PM by bob mccarthy » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5755



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2009, 07:20:55 PM »
ReplyReply

It sounds as if Ctein probably has a lot more than 100 fans. By tomorrow the rest of them probably will have logged on.

Okay. I'll concede that what we're talking about is a subjective thing. I happen not to think Ansel Adams is that great a photographer. He certainly was a master of his equipment, materials, and darkroom -- probably the best printer of his day. In the sixties I used to go into the mountains west of Colorado Springs with a view camera and walk around with a Weston Master, getting zone readings. In the darkroom I'd mix a separate batch of developer for each sheet of film -- or sometimes for more than one if several had a similar zone spread. I made good prints; not as good as Ansel's, but good enough: the best I could do under the circumstances. During the same period I did a lot of street photography with three Leicas -- rolling my own cassettes from 100 foot rolls of Ilford HP-4 and developing in four-roll tanks in the kitchen. Now, the carefully zoned rocks and stones and trees are long gone but the street shots live on. After a while rocks and stones and trees lose their interest but people never do.

To me, Walker Evans was a better artist than Ansel Adams. At the top, along with Evans I'd include Eugene Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Robert Frank and Steve McCurry. At the next tier I'd include Paul Strand, Dorothea Lange, Garry Winogrand, Gene Smith, Andre Kertesz, Robert Doiseneau, Brassai, Manuel Alvarez Bravo... I'd put Edward Weston somewhere in between since for the most part he photographed rocks and stones and trees and peppers, but sometimes also people.

So there you have it. I guess that's why we disagree. To me, photographing rocks and stones and trees is a cop out. The human condition is what cameras are for. Landscape is for painters.
Logged

JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2009, 07:30:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
To me, photographing rocks and stones and trees is a cop out. The human condition is what cameras are for. Landscape is for painters.
I guess I better pack it in, then. That's what Canada is... rocks and trees, with only a few people spread around amongst and between. Oh well.
Logged

Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2009, 08:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDClements
I guess I better pack it in, then. That's what Canada is... rocks and trees, with only a few people spread around amongst and between. Oh well.

I guess you're right, Dan, as I live on rock, surrounded by trees and water....

Mind you, they were here somewhat before man was and will likely still be here when we're history...unless we destroy our environment along with ourselves!

Bill
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2009, 08:49:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't this forum "Luminous LANDSCAPE".

Don't get me wrong I really enjoy street, documentary, social commentary, and other forms of photography,

but rocks and trees are pretty much the mother earth of a landscape photographer.

Too call a guy wooly bearded describes a bunch of us.

What were you thinking....


bob

Logged
whawn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2009, 10:36:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KeithR
Let's keep things in proper perspective concerning money and the economic times back when Ansel sold for cheap. By todays standards $6 or $15 isn't much, but back in the 60's, if you were making $15k a year you were doing very well.
No question, but he was still cheap, comparatively... this inflation calculator puts $15 in 1967 at 92.20 in 2007.  At the time, I wrote newspaper copy for a dollar a foot, so I can tell you $15 was a pretty penny to me.  It helped that I was still in HS, so my basic living was taken care of by the parents (who, between them, as teachers, brought home just over 6g), but it was a large outlay for me.   Try to find good, artful, hand-printed landscape renditions at that price, today.  You can find high-quality commercial lithographs for around $40, but real, actual, superbly realized silver prints?
Quote from: RSL
So there you have it. I guess that's why we disagree. To me, photographing rocks and stones and trees is a cop out. The human condition is what cameras are for. Landscape is for painters.
I swear I saw some rocks and trees on your website, Russ.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 10:45:01 PM by whawn » Logged

Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 869


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2009, 03:29:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I saw a photograph of a human condition once. And it was alright I suppose , if you like that sort of thing. But rocks and stones and trees are damned hard to photograph well, and it's damned hard being out at all times of day and in all weathers. AND I'M NOT A GUY WITH A WOOLLY BEARD. I'm a chap with a woolly beard.
David
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2009, 04:23:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Look, this is the LuLa but that does not preclude other genres of photography. For what it´s worth, I´d be willing to bet that were it in fact restricted to the another rock another tree genre that it would probably die a natural death of boredom.

This is not to criticise the landscape photograph - the landscape photographer is fair game - but only to state that the very eclectic mix of cultures that comes to roost here is what gives it its vitality. And I´m pretty sure Big Daddy is more than aware of that! Where else do you get this blend of car, fashion, nude, architectural, rock´n´tree , pro and amateur mix working so well together?

If there is a problem, it is the knee-jerk reactionaries who feel obliged to defend every icon, however flawed impartial observation might reveal him/her to be. Loosen up a bit: in the final analysis ALL photographers have might hefty feet of clay - you just have to know where they hide them.

Rob C
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2009, 04:58:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting experience.

Regular income and the pressure of a done deal are obviously two things many artists need/strive for.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5755



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2009, 08:58:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JDClements
I guess I better pack it in, then. That's what Canada is... rocks and trees, with only a few people spread around amongst and between. Oh well.

Easy there, Dan. I was born and raised just across the river from Canada -- a place where you go north from Canada to get to the U.S. I also was stationed at Beausejour, Manitoba for nearly three years. There are lots of rocks and trees in Canada -- some very beautiful ones by the way, but there are also a lot of warm, wonderful people there. If all you can see and photograph are rocks and trees, you need to look around. As Cartier-Bresson said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad