I'll chime in here.
There are two sides to the photographic coin IMHO: technical and artistic.
Technical -ie the ability to understand how light relates to film, the
dynamic range of film, the operation of the camera, how to work in the
darkroom (or in photoshop), etc - is pretty much all that's needed for
calendar, most Nat Geo, etc type photos. Artistic 'talent' I'll call it,
must be added to move past this genre. Some people have both, some one or
the other, some neither (they're the ones who buy the Wunderbricks:>). You
can be a fine photographer and printer with only technical understanding.
But you'd be better off as a painter if all you have is the artistic side:>)
If you add the two together, voila: you get work like that of Adams,
William Neil, Caponigro, Christopher Burkett to name just a few.
Personally, I learned a great deal about the technical aspects of
photography from Galen Rowell's books. And I thanked him personally for that
the one time I accidently met him in Yosemite. (Also, of course, much
technical knowledge gleaned from Ansel's trio.) The first book of Galen's I
read, "Mountain Light", was given to me in the mid Eighties by my brother.
His timing was perfect as I had just begun my obsession with photography.
This one book was instrumental in propelling my technical understanding.
I've always loved much of Galen's work, was envious of his physical
abilities which helped him make images I have zero chance of ever taking,
and draw inspiration and knowledge from his books to this day.
That said, I don't think of his work (at least the work I've seen published)
as especially 'artistic'. For that side of the equation, my learnin' and
inspiration comes from others, mainly B&W'ers. For example Ansel Adams of
course (though I think Ansel was heavily weighted toward the technical
side), but even more so from some of his proteges: Sexton, Barnbaum, Neil
and, in large part, the relatively unknown but brilliant B&W photographer
Ray McSavaney. (If interested in Ray's work I think his self-published
book, "Explorations" is still on Amazon.com) I took several workshops with
Ray and they were undoubtedly what changed my focus and photo-think away
from Galen-type Nat Geo photos to something hopefully more meditative,
spritual, artistic and perhaps meaningful. See, eg, my TOPE 12 entry.
Definitely not influenced by Galen. I haven't completely forsaken Galen's
influence, just back-burnered it I guess.
I'm not laying claim to both sides of the coin, but I do aspire toward that
direction, I accept input wherever I find it and I try not to worry about
opinions.
George
>
> At 13:17 -0800 16/1/03, AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> >I just can't leave this subject alone. I've got to pipe in
> >here.
> >
> >Regarding Galen Rowell: What he lacked in specific photographic
> >technical skills, he made up for in other areas which will allow
> >his reputation to transend generations. He will remain one of
> >the all-time greatest "Adventure Photographers". I think that
> >most of his stuff had little to do with specific artistic or
> >technical talent (he learned through the years what worked and
> >didn't work) than with "being there" with the right mental
> >working attitude.
> >
> >Will he go down in the anals of time and be referenced in the
> >same breath as Ansel Adams or Monet? Hardly. In no one single
> >category did he excell, but as a package, he truely was great.
>
> Now I think we are getting to the heart of the matter, thank you
> very much.
>
> Galen Rowell was by all accounts a wonderful person, a courageous and
> caring adventurer, knowledgeable and erudite, and a fine professional
> photographer. His photographs were charming, interesting, beautiful,
> educative, and crafted with excellence. Many of them embodied values about
> wild things.
>
> But I maintain that they were not great photographs, and he was
> not a great
> photographer.
>
> As a package, as you put it, he may have been a truly fine human
> being (the
> term great when applied to a total person being fraught with even more
> emotional baggage than when applied to photographs and photographers, I'll
> not venture into Rowell's "greatness as a package") but his pictures are
> not memorable (no one has met my challenge to recall any and discuss their
> greatness without reference to books, etc.).
>
> I don't share this view completely, but photography critics of my
> acquaintance view Rowell as a super-chocolate-box image maker.
>
> >
> >Regarding Photography being about Light: Hogwash!
> >
>
> [snip well-said defence of this claim, with which I agree]
>
> >
> >It's all about balance. Put too much emphasis on "light" and
> >the photo will fail. Too much emphasis on the subject will
> >cause the composition to fail. Compositions without interesting
> >subjects fail. Too much emphasis on equipment/film/working
> >methods will cause everything to fail.
>
> Yes, all true. But you demean the idea of great photographs by bringing
> them down from their lofty perch of meaning to "packages of
> greatness" in a
> similar way to your characterization of Rowell as a "great package".
>
> And, you introduce a primary substitution of the term "subject",
> which is a
> camera-club, photo-magazine, competition-category word, for my view that
> "content" is the most important thing in great photographs. Content being
> far more than simple "subject matter"; content being the result
> of depth of
> experience by the people in front of the lens and behind it, and the depth
> of intellect, feeling, response and expression by the photographer.
>
> This is exemplified by, for instance, Ron Jackson's quest to rise
> above the
> pack of competent hack pros. This is a laudable goal, but it can
> be nothing
> more than achieving the kind of "photography package" skills and abilities
> to make commercially and visually slick and even interesting, exciting
> pictures.
>
> What I've been on about since beginning this discussion with Ron
> and others
> is the matter of going beyond those professional considerations, to the
> matter of actually using the camera to delve deeply not only into the
> meaning of the world around us, but our reaction to it and our expression
> of ourselves.
>
> None of what I'm on about has anything to do with craft,
> professionalism or
> artifice -- or packages, human or otherwise.
>
> --
> Cheers from Godzone,
>
> Michael Kopp
> Wellington, New Zealand
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|