diptych # 3 ~ a carrion call for Pictorialism.

To sit, perchance to eat ~ Bainbridge, NY • click to embiggenLet's start this entry with a caveat: Anyone who might take offense at my labeling something "narcissistic and insipid sentimental dreck", or words to that effect, might want to consider going no further. While I might not use that exact phrasing, I will make it known (emphatically) that I disagree with an expressed opinion/theory and, IMO and to my eye and sensibilities, find the pictures created thereby to be, other than their pure technique / technical virtuosity which is everywhere apparent, rather without merit - even though technique / technical merit is what they are based upon.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself .... so let's start with a definition of sorts:

Pictorialism is the name given to an international style and aesthetic movement that dominated photography during the later 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no standard definition of the term, but in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it.

From its inception, the medium of photography has had its status as an Art form challenged by the accusation that the medium was little more than a lowly artisanal (or mechanical) trade that produced 'documents' - detailed 'copies' of the contingent features of the actual world (plagiarizing nature). 'True' Art (idealized forms that were not copies of imperfect nature), it was said, was always characterized by its distance from the contingent features of the actual world and the amount of obvious mental/intellectual effort the Artist infused into the work. None other than the Royal Academy in London and the Academie Royal de Peinture et de Sculpture in Paris declared this to be so.

The result of all of this, photography-wise, was the movement known as Pictorialism. Pictorialist Art was intentionally and self-consciously "artistc" and the pictures most often displayed a soft-focus technique that suppressed the contingent features of the actual world. Pictorialists also favored 'difficult' printing techniques and they used brushes, sponges, pencils, etching needles, etc., on the negative and print to add layers of 'handcrafting' to their work. Pictorialists were driven to even greater heights of retched excesses in an effort to separate themselves from the hordes of snappers that George Eastman unleashed upon the photographic world with his easy-to-use Kodaks. Cameras which, as much as the medium and its apparatus allowed at the time, were all about "recording" the contingent features of the actual world.

Pictorialism drifted out of most picture maker's fancy in the early 20th century, primarily as a result of ideas about a new vision of the medium and its apparatus as expressed by Alfred Stieglitz (circa 1910). Stieglitz was a practitioner of and advocate for Pictorialism in his early days but he came to the conclusion that:

"It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow ... Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph."

Now I can almost hear the groans and protestations that, "Here he goes again, ragging on things (photography wise) that he doesn't like. What an asshole." While there is some truth in that sentiment, I'm here to tell you that one of the primary reasons I climb up on my little soapbox here on The Landscapist nearly every day is to stand as a counterpoint to the prevailing "wisdom" (as expressed by the "how-to" purveyors) and as an advocate for pictures which are "straight and beautiful - a true photograph".

I believe, as do many others, that a "true photograph" is one which, in fact, relies in their making on the one characteristic of the medium and its apparatus which distinguish from all of the other visual arts - it's inextricable and inherent characteristic as cohort of the real. I also believe that the best picture makers are "seers" who are incredibly proficient in the personal and mysterious act of selection. "Seers" don't need no stinking cheap tricks to make the results of their act of selection shine.

All of that said and getting down to brass tacks, what tripped my narcissistic and insipid sentimental dreck button was my reading of an essay entitled, Creating Meaningful Photographs which, quite frankly, reads like little more than Let's Get Back to Pictorial Picture Making cheerleading.

In the essay, the author makes the case that because all of the new tools available to picture makers today - especially software tools which can be used to manipulate a picture all to hell and back again in order to "distance" a picture "from the contingent features of the actual world" - a picture maker would surely be lacking in the "artistic" department not to use them. Further more, using these tools to the max, the author writes, will set a picture maker apart from those who make pictures which do not "go beyond being a documentary recording of the subject".

The author also includes a list of his favored manipulation tools - stretching and warping of significant features in the image such as mountain ranges, radical modification of the color palette present in the image captured by the camera, removal or moving of significant elements of the photograph such as rivers, trees, rocks, etc., and duplication of significant elements - a list of digital tools / techniques that would make any 19th century Pictorialist drool. Apparently the author believes that layering a ton of whipped cream on shit will produce art. And, in the layering of all that whipped cream, a picture maker can most certainly rest assured that all the world will recognize all of the "mental/intellectual effort the Artist infused into the work".

Now, truth be told, my naisd button might not have pushed if the author had not written in unambiguous fashion that, "Today, for us to be surprised by a photograph, for us to take a second look, the image must go beyond what we see everyday around us." It was also written that one must "transform the subject from what it looks like to everyone into what it looks like to you".

Or, in the cause of naisd avoidance, he could have simply titled his essay, Creating Meaningful Photographs According to Pictorial Theory, or Digital Pictorial Theory 101. Either title would have stopped me dead in my tracks with no particular place to go. And, he wouldn't have annoyed the pig (that would be me).

Say what? Get real (pun intended).

I don't know in what universe the author resides but the simple fact is there are plenty of pictures that do not go beyond what we see around us and/or are not transformed into something they are not. And those pictures are inciting surprise and garnering second, third, fourth (and beyond) looks. Many of those pictures can be viewed not only in galleries, museums, private collections, and the like, but also in the portfolios / folios, self-published books, online photo galleries / blogs as well.

Now, it should go without stating that, just because I believe the picture making "theory" espoused by the essay's author has gone straight to my naisd circular file, a given picture maker should not subscribe to it. As I have written many times, whatever floats your boat / for every pot, there's lid / if one likes it, just do it. That doesn't mean I have to like it or even respect it - I'm referring to the theory and work that might result from subscribing to it, NOT the maker - and, quite frankly, that should be no skin off the noses of anyone who disagrees with me.

Hell, even the author of the regressive essay agrees with that idea when he writes, "Criticism is a reality ... I receive my share of criticism regularly ... I don’t pay much attention to the criticism. I pay attention to the positive comments I receive" - the single bit of advice he dispenses that I agree with.

As always, I reserve the right to critique and offer dissenting opinions about anything that is hung out to dry in the court of public opinion.

Comments

[Sven W]

Yeah, I read the article by Mr AB and was equally unimpressed.

I find his articles subversive, especially to people not attuned to the tactics of the marketing crowd. He bends definitions and invents problems that don't exist. For example:

"In order to create expressive photographs (as opposed to documentary photographs) you have to bring at least as much to the subject as the subject brings to you"

This is patently false. There are many documentary style images that are very expressive. Just have a look at the images from a recent post over at TOP, Final Salute.

Mr AB is not really writing about photography or Art. The article is merely a vehicle for his true intent:

"The goal of our workshops, tutorials and other instructional materials is to give you the tools, the exercises, the practice and above all the methodology to become unique, to stand above those who take the 'easy road' because in art the easy road leads nowhere except to where others have gone before"

Talk about laying on a guilt trip!

Mark, you are absolutely correct in calling out the article "Creating Meaning Photographs" as baloney (using the American phrase; the English would say "bollocks").

[Frank]

At first glance I thought you had used the wrong word - you meant to say clarion call. But then I thought maybe you actually meant carrion (dead or rotting flesh)to express what you actually felt about the said article.