Book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155

UC wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155

From the few pages I read I think the book has a lot to offer.

It speaks in a way to something that I have been giving thought to for
some time now. There seems to be two broad groups of photographers,
those who set out to take a pretty photo and those who wish to capture
the life and times around them.

The idea of spontaneous witness would seem to not only be foreign to
many on the photography news groups but also viewed with a degree of
disdain.

Scott

Amazingly, the author, as I have just found out, lives in the same city
that I do.

I have to get together with her. She may be the ex-wife of a former
philosophy professor of mine, Richard Garner.

Anyway, she points out exactly the same thing that I have been saying:
photographers have been moving farther and farther away from recording
and trying to be 'artists'. Since photography is not and cannot be art
(n the same sense that painting and sculpture are), this has resulted
in a bunch of crap being produced by deluded morons who think they are
artists, all under the thumbs of the zonazis, who dominate the
educational system.

In the first chapter of my own book, I cover this.

I am very surprised, thouh, that she covers primarily American
photographers, because the humanist/reportage approach was primarily a
European one, made possible largely by the widespread acceptance and
adoption of the Leica by the German and F_____ intelligentia, many of
whom found themselves unemployed after 1929.

The comparative importance of Americans in this trend was rather small,
in my opinion. A few may have made their way to the US after Hitler's
seizure of power, (Eisenstadt comes to mind) but by no means did most.
Leni Riefenstahl's Will to Power and Olympia actually have more in
common with the still photography of the period than with the
motion-picture. A collection of stills from Olympia has been published,
which will make this abundantly clear.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/382...lance&n=283155

Scott W wrote:
UC wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155

From the few pages I read I think the book has a lot to offer.

It speaks in a way to something that I have been giving thought to for
some time now. There seems to be two broad groups of photographers,
those who set out to take a pretty photo and those who wish to capture
the life and times around them.

The idea of spontaneous witness would seem to not only be foreign to
many on the photography news groups but also viewed with a degree of
disdain.

Scott

I noticed that the author, Gretchen Garner lives in Columbus Ohio, do you
know her?

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155

UC wrote:
Amazingly, the author, as I have just found out, lives in the same city
that I do.

I have to get together with her. She may be the ex-wife of a former
philosophy professor of mine, Richard Garner.

Anyway, she points out exactly the same thing that I have been saying:
photographers have been moving farther and farther away from recording
and trying to be 'artists'. Since photography is not and cannot be art
(n the same sense that painting and sculpture are), this has resulted
in a bunch of crap being produced by deluded morons who think they are
artists, all under the thumbs of the zonazis, who dominate the
educational system.

Have you ever read "Naturalistic Photography For Students Of The Art" third
edition, by Peter Henry Emerson? In Book I (about 190 pages), he discusses
art and why photography can never be one.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:00:00 up 3 days, 4:26, 5 users, load average: 4.25, 4.26, 4.20

Keith Tapscott wrote:
I noticed that the author, Gretchen Garner lives in Columbus Ohio, do you
know her?

See my last post.



"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155

She mentions that work in her book, the first chapter of which I looked
at last night at B&N.


Jean-David Beyer wrote:
UC wrote:
Amazingly, the author, as I have just found out, lives in the same city
that I do.

I have to get together with her. She may be the ex-wife of a former
philosophy professor of mine, Richard Garner.

Anyway, she points out exactly the same thing that I have been saying:
photographers have been moving farther and farther away from recording
and trying to be 'artists'. Since photography is not and cannot be art
(n the same sense that painting and sculpture are), this has resulted
in a bunch of crap being produced by deluded morons who think they are
artists, all under the thumbs of the zonazis, who dominate the
educational system.

Have you ever read "Naturalistic Photography For Students Of The Art" third
edition, by Peter Henry Emerson? In Book I (about 190 pages), he discusses
art and why photography can never be one.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:00:00 up 3 days, 4:26, 5 users, load average: 4.25, 4.26, 4.20

UC wrote:
Keith Tapscott wrote:
I noticed that the author, Gretchen Garner lives in Columbus Ohio, do you
know her?

See my last post.



"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080...lance&n=283155


" There seems to be two broad groups of photographers,
those who set out to take a pretty photo and those who wish to capture
the life and times around them."

Is it inconceivable that one could set out to capture the life and
times around them in a way that communicates one's appreciation for,
and recognition of the beauty of the world around them? I don't see the
two as mutually exclusive.

Jay

wrote:
Is it inconceivable that one could set out to capture the life and
times around them in a way that communicates one's appreciation for,
and recognition of the beauty of the world around them? I don't see the
two as mutually exclusive.

I agree, if you go out to capture the life and time around you, you
should see the beauty and try to capture that.

But does it work the other way, if a photographer goes out trying to
make a pretty photograph, even one that is aesthetically pleasing, will
he or she automatically capture anything of the life and times around
them, looking at many photos I would say not. There is nothing wrong
with taking photographs who's sole purpose is to look good, but
photography is a tool that can do more.

Instead of capturing the life and times around them many photographers
would rather photograph that one perfect blade of grass with a perfect
drop of dew refracting the morning light just so. Or a forest covered
in snow with sunlight filtering down through a light fog. There is
nothing wrong with these kinds of photos, but there is no sense of
place and time.

The part that is a shame is that I get the feeling that there are some
photographers who are so frightened that they might take a photograph
that looks like a snapshot that they miss photographing what is
important around them.

Scott

"The part that is a shame is that I get the feeling that there are some

photographers who are so frightened that they might take a photograph
that looks like a snapshot that they miss photographing what is
important around them. "

I guess the question is; important to whom? It seems that you're
questioning the sincerity with which some photographers image the world
around them, and castigating those who sink so low as to make a pretty
picture, or even aknowledge aesthetics. I would argue that there is
nothing of inherent value in a purely documentary image void of
aesthetic consideration. It seems to me that one extreme is no better
than the other.

Jay