Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Golden era for photography  (Read 25910 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2009, 02:41:59 AM »
ReplyReply

This is all very well, but simply illustrates the point that Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.

But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: for me, and here´s where the arguments will start, I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed, ideas that turned out to be the base line for most everything that followed, but a  period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business. In short, it was a living, growing time.

I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)

Rob C
Logged

Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2009, 07:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Looks as if we mostly agree that "golden" is in the eye of the beholder. It's an overcast morning here and instead of hitting the street with a camera I took the time to run back through this thread. What I find missing is any mention of the rise and fall of the photo-story magazines -- "Life" above all.

To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.

Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.

The art of still photography lost an important part of its heart when TV came along and captured the advertising revenue that had kept magazines like "Life" in business. Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.

I'm an admirer of HCB and Gene Smith. Some of their images left an indelible impression on my very young mind long long ago. For me, their ability to capture real life stories as they happen with artistry and feelings is what separtes them from the rest. Unlike most "objective" photojournalistists, they had no problem letting their "subjective" feelings towards their subjects show through in their work.

That era of photography is kind of like the movies of the '70s. They just don't make them like that any more.
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2009, 05:04:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
To me, if ever there was a golden age of photography it existed during the period when people like Gene Smith were able to do the kind of contemplative photojournalism he did in "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," "Nurse Midwife," etc. His picture of the dying baby picked up by a GI in Saipan will never leave my mind! All of the greats of that period were publishing in photo-story magazines, and a fair percentage of what they published was art.

Nowadays, as Chris pointed out, our standard of photojournalism is Abu Ghraib. In other words, "If it bleeds, it leads," but if it isn't sensational, forget it.

The art of still photography lost an important part of its heart when TV came along and captured the advertising revenue that had kept magazines like "Life" in business. Film (in the motion picture sense) is much better at capturing the bleeding, but it rarely, if ever, is able to capture the kind of fine art produced by people like Gene Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc. That golden age is gone.

I think you're really onto something there. Circa late 1930s to early 1960s, magazine photojournalism really was the prevailing social zeitgeist. Much of what we 'remember' from that period was shaped and created by Life, Look, Picture Post and similar periodicals. That whole venue for images started to die with the arrival of television, and it's clearly on its last legs now. Just look through an issue of Doubletruck to see lots of fantastic photography that will never see the light of day in the last remaining newsweeklies.
Ironically, the television journalism format is now also in rapid decline. I don't think television journalism ever reached a 'Gene Smith' level of storytelling skill, but things like Harvest of Shame (Murrow) could try. In the late 1960s Walter Cronkite could set the entire tenor of debate on a public issue; in the U.S. at least the three big television networks essentially created the visual reality most people experienced. But market fragmentation and the blind stupidity of the networks has obliterated this venue too; instead of television journalism we have 'reality shows' and endless true crime tales.
Now we have the Internet, an endlessly fragmenting and fracturing universe of tiny 'micro markets' each with their own visual sensibility, none large enough to permit a vision to resonate like Gene Smith's did. And now digital video is coming along to supplant the still image. Photojournalism today is much more likely to involve on-line video or multimedia 'content' than the beauty of the perfect still image or the photo essay. Immediacy and lapel-grabbing impact at the expense of interpretation and artistic staying power.

Just a bit of my caffeine-induced musings.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2009, 06:13:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course the Golden Age is seen from a point of view.  At it's peak, Life Magazine was probably viewed by serious word journalists as nothing more than a pretentious fru fru comic book, and those annoying photo monkies as guys who took pictures because they couldn't write.  Sorry, no citations, but based on my intimate knowledge of human nature I betcha...
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: June 18, 2009, 03:18:53 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='Geoff Wittig' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:04 PM' post='292069']
"I think you're really onto something there. Circa late 1930s to early 1960s, magazine photojournalism really was the prevailing social zeitgeist. Much of what we 'remember' from that period was shaped and created by Life, Look, Picture Post and similar periodicals. That whole venue for images started to die with the arrival of television, and it's clearly on its last legs now."

As I suggested, too, in post 41; we think alike sometimes.


"Just a bit of my caffeine-induced musings."

Whereas mine are due to caffeine deprivation! Off to make a cuppa now!

Rob C

Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 18, 2009, 10:32:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob C> …Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.

Agreed.

Rob C> But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: … I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed… but a period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business.

This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.

Rob C> I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)

…said the man who has redundant ‘blads and Nikons ;-) Actually I agree with the spirit of your statement. The most creative people absolutely do not depend on the state of the technology in equipment. But what they can do with a camera is absolutely conditioned by the general state of technology. Following is an illustration as to why: When school I did work with then 30 year old view cameras that produced wonderful results. But most genres of photography outside of the studio could not exist using that kind of equipment. It is too cumbersome, too slow, and expensive to operate. Clearly then, the flexibility and savings brought about by technological advances, absolutely helped to push the art foreword. Imagine trying to do candid, sports, or most photojournalism with an 8x10 view camera. The idea is laughable. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for technological advances in, as example, magazine printing technology, high quality images would not have gotten into the public’s hands. So technological advances has not only served to make several genres of photography possible but also improved the end product. My example from Klien (above) shows this clearly. No he didn’t depend on it, but it obviously opened doors for him, and everyone else too.
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 18, 2009, 10:38:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill T> At it's peak, Life Magazine was probably viewed by serious word journalists as nothing more than a pretentious fru fru comic book, and those annoying photo monkies as guys who took pictures because they couldn't write. Sorry, no citations, but based on my intimate knowledge of human nature I betcha...

Some may have but probably not a lot. Life competed with the top literate magazines. Life employed first rate if mostly very conservative writers. Interestingly it was also among the first to provide a long running series of gruesome war related photos – many not so different from images taken more recently at Abu Ghraib. Wasn’t that RSL’s metric for ‘if it bleeds it leads’ as a recent phenomena? Anyway Life has a loooooooooong list of noteworthy writers and a longer list of note worthy photographers.

BTW I found an archive of Life’s photojournalism here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life and a list of it’s cover photos here: http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 10:56:33 AM by Justan » Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 18, 2009, 01:43:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justan
BTW I found an archive of Life’s photojournalism here: http://images.google.com/hosted/life and a list of it’s cover photos here: http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life
Hey thanks for those!  Some great stuff there from many a Golden Age gone by.

Make up a good backstory, some of these 1880's shots would fit easily into any bleeding edge gallery today.

Pets were newsworthy...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...a5da43a3b920f9f

Lack of Photoshop was no obstacle to bizarre imagery as long as you had a fast shutter...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...98f44921de37657

Jacques Sturgis prefigure, or maybe Dianne Arbus...
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=1...b4e34b74584bed7
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: June 18, 2009, 04:04:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Shall try to post this again. In one piece!

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 04:05:31 PM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #49 on: June 18, 2009, 04:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='Justan' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:32 PM' post='292221']
Rob C> …Klein wasn´t a one-trick pony. His fashion stuff was anything but random and he had a definite style which was copied and formed part of a then contemporary ethos.

Agreed.

Rob C> But the notion of a Golden Age goes beyond being a measure of one man´s style: … I see it as representing a period when not only were new ideas being formed… but a period when the outlets existed and were actually growing - hardly now - and where a good living was to be had from being part of that business.

This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.


1.   I have no way of checking numbers working and such figures are, at best, irrelevant. When did quantity equate with quality, which is what a Golden Age is about? When I first entered full-time photographic employment in 1960 there used to be many pro magazines advertisng page after page of pro jobs. Now? Where, even, those magazines, if the trade is so healthy? Of the thousands of poor students released form art and/or photo schools ever year, how many ever land a single job in photographic employment? From a time when almost every pro had his own premises from which to work, why have so many over recent years had to give them up for the simple, unfortunate fact that they can no longer afford to hang on to them? That might be camouflaged with accountant´s bullshit, but the truth for any pro is that he wants his own space.


Rob C> I see it as having absolutely nothing to do with the state of photographic technology. That, to me, is simply technology and has little to do with photography in the sense of art or work and is the difference between driving petrol or diesel. Of course, if that´s what photography is all about for some, then that´s where the bias in their opinion will lie. But photography is so much more than its equipment, or so it used to be. In the Golden Age. ;-)

…said the man who has redundant ‘blads and Nikons ;-)


2.   Wish he still had - the 'blads went years ago in a bad decision based on the imaginary benefits of 6x7.


Actually I agree with the spirit of your statement. The most creative people absolutely do not depend on the state of the technology in equipment. But what they can do with a camera is absolutely conditioned by the general state of technology. Following is an illustration as to why: When school I did work with then 30 year old view cameras that produced wonderful results. But most genres of photography outside of the studio could not exist using that kind of equipment. It is too cumbersome, too slow, and expensive to operate. Clearly then, the flexibility and savings brought about by technological advances, absolutely helped to push the art foreword. Imagine trying to do candid, sports, or most photojournalism with an 8x10 view camera. The idea is laughable. Furthermore, if it wasn’t for technological advances in, as example, magazine printing technology, high quality images would not have gotten into the public’s hands. So technological advances has not only served to make several genres of photography possible but also improved the end product. My example from Klien (above) shows this clearly. No he didn’t depend on it, but it obviously opened doors for him, and everyone else too.


3.   There is no need to return to the Ark: my Golden Age already had photographers with all they needed in the way of equipment to do the ground-breaking work that they were doing.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6424



WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 18, 2009, 04:47:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Justan
This is an interesting observation. I don’t know if it’s accurate. I would ask what was the number of professional photographers during a 10 year span at the time of your supposed golden age, compared any 10 year span since? Census information would be revealing. I’d wager that there are more pros, and more pros making a “good living” during any 10 year span over the last 30 years than during any similar span from the end of WW2 until about 1964, which is your previously stated golden age. If true, that would negate your supposition, if not, it would prove it. I’d bet a $20 that the number of photographers has increased right along with the population.


Quote from: Rob C
1.   I have no way of checking numbers working and such figures are, at best, irrelevant. When did quantity equate with quality, which is what a Golden Age is about? When I first entered full-time photographic employment in 1960 there used to be many pro magazines advertisng page after page of pro jobs. Now? Where, even, those magazines, if the trade is so healthy? Of the thousands of poor students released form art and/or photo schools ever year, how many ever land a single job in photographic employment? From a time when almost every pro had his own premises from which to work, why have so many over recent years had to give them up for the simple, unfortunate fact that they can no longer afford to hang on to them? That might be camouflaged with accountant´s bullshit, but the truth for any pro is that he wants his own space.

What does the number of "professional" photographers around have to do with art? Most "professionals" don't do art; they do weddings. The number of professional photographers has about as much to do with a golden age of art photography, and I think that's what we're talking about, as the number of professional house painters has to do with a golden age of painting, in the sense of art.
Logged

bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2009, 05:13:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
What does the number of "professional" photographers around have to do with art? Most "professionals" don't do art; they do weddings. The number of professional photographers has about as much to do with a golden age of art photography, and I think that's what we're talking about, as the number of professional house painters has to do with a golden age of painting, in the sense of art.

Who would you list as the leading art photographers?
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6424



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 18, 2009, 08:53:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bdkphoto
Who would you list as the leading art photographers?

Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand. I've left out a lot of people who were and are fine artists but not quite in the top rank. Even with those people included the list would be far from complete. There also are others who are coming along, but it's too early in their careers for me to say where they'd fall in a list like that.

I think I know where you're going with your query. You've chosen to remain anonymous, but from your moniker I'd guess you're a pro. Yes, all of the people I've listed were professionals in the sense that they made their living from photography, but they'd be a miniscule fraction of the census of "professionals" Justan suggested as a way to identify a "golden age of photography." If you consider quantity the deciding factor, a census like that might tell you something worthwhile. I think I'd opt for quality instead.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I have nothing against pros. Two of my best friends are pros and both will quickly admit that what they're doing isn't art.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 08:55:51 PM by RSL » Logged

bdkphoto
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 18, 2009, 11:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand. I've left out a lot of people who were and are fine artists but not quite in the top rank. Even with those people included the list would be far from complete. There also are others who are coming along, but it's too early in their careers for me to say where they'd fall in a list like that.

I think I know where you're going with your query. You've chosen to remain anonymous, but from your moniker I'd guess you're a pro. Yes, all of the people I've listed were professionals in the sense that they made their living from photography, but they'd be a miniscule fraction of the census of "professionals" Justan suggested as a way to identify a "golden age of photography." If you consider quantity the deciding factor, a census like that might tell you something worthwhile. I think I'd opt for quality instead.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I have nothing against pros. Two of my best friends are pros and both will quickly admit that what they're doing isn't art.


The link to my site works fine.

Sorry your professional friends don't make art. Mine do.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6424



WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2009, 07:59:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bdkphoto
The link to my site works fine.

Sorry your professional friends don't make art. Mine do.

Well, I'm happy for you.
Logged

popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2009, 06:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Bdk, I've listed them several times already, but let's run back through an abbreviated list: Surely Henri Cartier-Bresson was the most influential photographic artist of the twentieth century. He was preceded by Eugene Atget, who, I would say, has influenced most photographers who've produced art since very early in the twentieth century. Walker Evans was the artist who influenced -- I might even say taught -- the photographers who produced the magnificent collection of the photographic arm of the Farm Security Administration. I'd add Elliott Erwitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Andre Kertesz, Brassai, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, and, probably Garry Winogrand.

Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.

To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 06:36:33 PM by popnfresh » Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2009, 11:52:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: popnfresh
Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.
To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.

His history is more than a little off.  Two names conspicuously absent are Mapplethorpe and Sturges.  Not that those two match anyone's taste in photographic art, but at least unlike HCB, they weren't afraid to take chances and do something different.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2009, 03:15:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
His history is more than a little off.  Two names conspicuously absent are Mapplethorpe and Sturges.  Not that those two match anyone's taste in photographic art, but at least unlike HCB, they weren't afraid to take chances and do something different.



Dale, now you gotta be joking!

Rob C
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #58 on: June 27, 2009, 06:43:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Dale, now you gotta be joking!
Rob C

I might have been pushing it a little with Jock S., but not with Robt. M.  I checked out the current bios on the wikis just to make sure.  Once JS passes from the living we'll get a better evaluation of his 'art', but certainly RM can be considered legitimate, and his work has had great influence in the art communities.  RM's photos of certain risky sex performance caused a major stir far and wide years ago, offending quite a few, but still, it's the kind of risk that I perceive as courageous, not the kind that's purely offensive like putting a crucifix in a jar of human waste. And RM's photos of the governator didn't hurt his election, amazingly enough.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6424



WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 27, 2009, 09:04:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: popnfresh
Your history is a little off. Atget didn't really influence other photographers until after his death in 1927 when Berenice Abbott began to evangelize him. While HCB was certainly very influential, particularly among urban photographers and photojournalists, my vote for the most influential photographer of all time goes to Edward S. Curtis. He's not my favorite photographer by any means, but he was first to make photography respectable as an art form and deliver it to a large audience. He was the photographer who inspired the greatest number of early 20th century fine art photographers. And I would place Alfred Stieglitz before any of those other names on your list. Curtis introduced photography as an art, but it was Stieglitz who elevated it to the level of great art and he was far more influential than his contemporary, Atget.

To the top tier of influential photographers of the mid-20th century I would add Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Minor White, Josef Sudek and Margaret Bourke-White, to name just a few.

Pop, I'd say that Atget's posthumous coming out via Abbott in 1927 took place early in the twentieth century, unless 1927 isn't "early." Curtis made some fascinating photographs of American Indians early on, and yes, he did deliver to a large audience of pictorialists, to whom I'm assuming you refer when you talk about early 20th century fine art photographers. Stieglitz was a great promoter, but I can't see that his photography influenced many successors. Strand was the one who got him to turn away from pictorialism, so, in that case, the influence was reversed. When you say that Stieglitz was more influential than Atget you mean that Stieglitz did more promoting than Atget, who did no promoting at all. The thing that makes Atget influential is the quality of his work. Stieglitz did two or three fine pieces, but his photography simply didn't some up to the level of Atget's.

Regarding HCB, who began photographing in 1931, most of the finest photographers in the latter part of the twentieth century have acknowledged his influence in their development. Sometimes the acknowledgment has been reluctant.

As I said, I left out a bunch of people when I named the top photographers. Penn, Avedon, Arbus, Minor White, Sudek and Bourke-White possibly should be on the list. There are others.

By the way, Rob, Dale may be right about one thing: Maplethorpe and Sturges probably have been influential among later twentieth century and early twenty-first century pornographers.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 02:50:07 PM by RSL » Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad