ANYTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS CAN BE DISCUSSED IN COMMENTS.
One subject is SHARPNESS ?
As you can verify at http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/seurat_georges.html Georges Seurat is a famous French impressionist painter. There was recently an exhibition of Seurat drawings at the MOMA (in NYC) which included the image you can see by clicking http://www.flickr.com/photos/18453642@N04/2261040816/ . Look at it. The MOMA show was reviewed by John Updike, novelist and art major, who - in a way - gave "first place" to this image which is published in his article in the NY Review of Books, January 17, 2008.
Obviously, it is deliberately "out of focus." Out-of-focus is much less natural to painting than to photography, where we have a lens ready at all times to produce out-of-focus images. Yet this Seurat hangs in museums. My point is this: does a "tack-sharp" image (a favorite phrase of some judges) really represent a great achievement in this age of autofocus? Every xerox machine will also do it - every gorilla with autofocus - it is strictly mechanical - so what's so great about "tack sharpness."
Is it a virtue of a photograph to be sharp? The Seurat pictures could have been easily made with a camera. Should it be disqualified as "creative?" Is focusing more artistic?? In other words, should a creative entrant be free to submit out-of-focus work without "breaking rules?"
Indeed, the original Leica lenses included a 90mm f2.2 Leitz "Thambar" (see http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0405classic/) which was designed to produce out-of-focus pictures. Heresy in hidebound photo clubs?
Another issue: If you go to a library, or to http://www.newsweek.com/id/73349 you can look at a very recent issue of Newsweek where you will find an article entitled "Is Photography Dead?" by a journalist claiming that photography has "fractured itself beyond all recognition" and "seems to have lost its soul. Film photography's artistic cachet was always that no matter how much darkroom fiddling someone added to a photograph, the picture was, at its core, a record of something real that occurred in front of the camera. A digital photograph, on the other hand, can be a Photoshop fairy tale, containing only a tiny trace of a small fragment of reality."
The article includes a Cindy Sherman self-portrait which is blamed "for its factual validity that has been manipulated and pixelated to the point of extinction." You cannot see all the article illustrations on the Internet, but the author's prize exhibit, enlarged over two pages, is a photograph of supermarket shelves from a high perspective, with wonderful depth of focus, showing every product. It is blamed for the fact that "perspective has been manipulated" to make the supermarket look large.
Some say nonsense to this argument: the perspective is that of a longer rather than a shorter one. In pre-Photoshop days, anybody with an enlarger could incline lensboard, film holder and easel to intersect at certain angle laws (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle - isn't the Internet wonderful?) and change perspective at will in exactly the manner shown in the magazine. The journalist has not looked into film darkroom, and has probably not heard of Scheimpflug.
But some journalists have Luddite technophobia. Remember TA or transactional analysis, where if you said "I'm OK, you're OK" you were alright but if you said "I'm not OK, you're OK," you needed help? Well, today, using mathematics to design a lens is OK, using mathematics to design a Photoshop command is not-OK. Fertilizing with manure is OK, but science and technology are suspect and have no soul. On top of that, saying that this detailed supermarket picture that shows every bag of peanuts and every price is a "Photoshop fairy tale" and has only a "tiny trace of a small fragment of reality" is absurd. All of us are not free of blame either. Many are blaming digital photography for "manipulation" and few remember that manipulation has been practiced since the 1830's, and that manipulated and staged photographs by Henry Peach Robinson, Julia Margaret Cameron, Oscar Reylander, Man Ray, and others hang in museums. In the 1970's, many slides by very many members were derivations, either made by sandwiching or double-exposing unto color film different Kodalith positives and negatives through red, blue and green filters. Manipulation? Come on! Poor manipulating Cindy Sherman! Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother and her children were talked to before being shot with the children hiding their faces, Robert Doisneau has been blamed for asking couples to kiss in Paris street scenes, and Yusuf Karsh snatched a cigar out of the mouth of Winston Churchill to get the "angy bulldog" look. Manipulation? Hype!
We are also on thin ice for having coined the inappropriate word "creative" for manipulated photographs, and "reality" for everything else. In the early 1900's, when philosophers discussed whether photography was art, straight machine reproduction was considered "soulless." Today, machine reproduction is done by Xerox, or with a bank surveillance camera. There is total "reality" there. It seems that every good photograph has an element of selection and interpretation, and is different from the images in the surveillance camera. Should this be called manipulation? Is it creative? Is it reasonable to divide our competitions into two categories: "creative, manipulated, fairy tale" and "traditional, old-fashioned, reality?" A single category is where all the great photos are in the new edition of Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography" (ISBN 0-87070-381-1, $26 at Amazon). He was director of the George Eastman House in Rochester and involved with the MOMA in New York. Purchase his book and see whether you can meaningfully divide the many great photographs into arbitrary classes. You decide.
Click on COMMENTS, say what you think.
12 comments:
I think judges should ask themselves whether sharpness enhances the photo and consider whether the maker intentionally softened focus. Styles, (think F/64 group founded in 1932 vs. currently in vogue - cheap old Holga plastic cameras/LensBaby distorted i.e. limited depth-of-field effects) change and become subjective. Digital tech has stirred up our club, greatly enhancing it for the best. In order to continue keeping our club from becoming stale, maybe we should have some separate competitions & new categories with the themes such as "traditional" for the pictorialists, "non-traditional" for the contemporary artists. Of course the meaning of these labels would, by their very nature, change nearly every year; but would be up to the judges which would need to be chosen for their expertise in each genre.
In summary, I think there should be room for all styles in the club by selecting speakers & judges that are familiar with many types of photography so that although they must inherently judge subjectively, they at the very least "see" with an educated eye. In this way, the club can be a much richer experience for all involved. David Altman
An interesting topic... Here are some of my thoughts. I wish I could upload images to illustrate my points, but I'll try to describe them in words.
I think sharpness and depth of field, as all other aspects of photography, should be appropriate to what the photographer wants to present. Say the photographer is faced with a field full of wildflowers. If he/she wants to show an endless field of flowers with all their details, then maximum depth of field with "tack sharpness" throughout the image may be appropriate. But it's just as appropriate to focus on a single bloom with minimum DOF and let the rest of the field of flowers turn into a blurred wash of color in the background. Another equally appropriate presentation would be to completely defocus the lens near a dew-covered flower, resulting in a more impressionistic image of a vaguely flower-like shape with sparkling highlights from sunlight striking the dewdrops.
For a competition judge to evaluate whether the degree of sharpness is appropriate, the photographer's intent needs to be pretty clear. In the first case above, if 3/4 of the frame is sharp, but the nearest 1/4 of the scene is not, then it looks like the photographer misplaced the focus. With images that have an extremely limited DOF, it's important that the small portion of the image that's sharp clearly be what was most important to the photographer (and will be most interesting to the viewer/judge).
A completely out of focus image which will capture and hold the viewer's interest is more difficult to achieve, being much more subjective by its nature. But if such an image is well composed, making good use of design elements of line, shape, color, contrast, texture, etc. (however subtle they may be), and effectively conveys an emotional impact, then it should be judged a success.
Sharpness, depth of field, and point of focus are all tools at the photographer's disposal, to be used as he/she sees fit, to convey the intended message.
Chris
Interesting point for discussion. I think both (tack sharp/out of focus)are techniques that can be used to convey a different message. I guess, as a judge, it should be taken into consideration when viewing an image that's not tack sharp if the maker chose to make a statement with focus. If I was having my portrait taken, tack sharp auto focus would probably not make the most flattering shot. A misty morning also looks moodier when focus is soft. If I was shooting a hummingbird or a macro of a dragonfly however, usually I would not want out of focus, although I guess someone could make a point for it.
I also enjoy using photoshop on my images to produce an artistic or maybe even Seurat-like effect, but as a rookie, entering these also poses the risk of hearing the dreaded "can you focus that? -- oh, no, it's digital, okaaaaaaaaaaay, well, . . . (kiss of death)"
Maybe 'tack sharp' is commented on as a more measurable quality than the aesthetics of the shot. We can somewhat objectively rate the sharpness but the appeal of a shot relies on much more subjective qualities. There are so many (to me, anyway) amazing pictures at our competitions that there has to be some way to whittle the amount down and to compare apples to oranges (or butterflies to bridges, etc.) Maybe next time (or the time after that, because I don't think I want an out of focus nature shot), I'll go for an alternative focus - it might stand out from the rest!
That lens produced some great shots. I really liked the one with the little white flowers. (Do you know how it made the flowers more out of focus than the greenery?)
I couldn't agree more that sharpness should not considered as a binary thing: sharp implies good image, unsarp implies bad image.
In general I believe an image has to stand on its own merits, and it should be clear whether sharp focus is required or not. Just looking at Freeman Patterson’s images drives the point home. So I don’t see a need for another category, unless we want to have a “Fine Art” category which would encourage more controversial approaches.
As a related comment, I find it interesting when I hear a judge make comments that addresses technique or mechanics without commenting on the design principles (rather than rules). I view photography as art whether employed to document or simply to communicate an idea. When I see am image that I just naturally like I generally find that the maker has followed the principles of unity, emphasis, proportion, balance and rhythm ... regardless of the subject or sharpness.
But I’ve never had to sit in front of a room full of photographers and comment on an image!
There are many definitions of art. By my definition, art is a work (photo, painting, music, cinema, poem, etc, etc) that effectively communicates an idea or ideas from the mind of the maker to the mind of viewer/listeners. Whether the art is sharp or not sharp, big or small, expensive or inexpensive, new or old, does not matter. What matters is whether or not the maker has conveyed his thought(s) to the brains of others.
Another way of putting this is to ask myself, upon carefully viewing a putative work of art, "Has this thing affected me, had an impact of some sort? Has it cheered me, saddened me, inspired me, or even effectively disgusted me?" If for me the answer is Yes, then it's art, at least for me. If the answer is Yes for me and practically everyone else, it's probably outstanding art.
Sharpness is beside the point.
Ronn Nadeau
Now here's a thought. On the back of "The History of Photography," a great book with many photos that has gone through five editions, it mentions Talbot, Hill & Adamson, O'Sullivan, Cameron, Atget, Emerson, Stieglitz, Strand, Weston, Lange, Evans, Adams, Brassai, Cartier-Bresson, Callahan, Frank, Arbus, Eliot Porter, Ernst Haas, William Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz as great photographers. Now, in our or any small town photo club, what do we know about the work of these guys? We would all like to make pictures like theirs, we would like to improve - wouldn't we? Yet our judges dont help, especially when Tom, Dick and Harriet (our members) judge. When have you heard any judge mention any of these names - except for Ansel Adams? Should we not try to have people judge who teach photography?? Or are Tom, Dick and Harriet such good students that they can teach?
In the preceding post, after naming 23 acclaimed photographers mentioned in "The History of Photograhy", the blogger states:
"We would all like to make pictures like theirs, we would like to improve - wouldn't we? Yet our judges don't help ....", etc.
I ask, if we made pictures like the ones in "The History of Photography", would we be satisfied with them? I don't think so. Those pictures were good for their time and we can learn something from them, but people of this age should make pictures of this age, using better equipment and more advanced ideas and techniques than were available 50 or more years ago.
Fifty to a hundred years ago, acclaimed auto designers built cars that were quite impressive and wonderful for their time. Should car designers of today try to design cars like they were designed back then?
If we are to study photography, I think the best way is to study the outstanding photographers of our day (such as those we invite to our annual seminar), and the outstanding photographers in our club, and the quite intersting photographers who post at such sites as pbase.com.
This blog has great potential: not only can we discuss hesitancy about innovations, what the media says about photography, but also judging. What are our standards? My uneducated taste feels that my and my friends’ photos of Yellowstone Falls are really good - but I have never studied art or photography, so I gravitate towards teachers of photography. Our club has generally avoided people who teach at universities in our city, mainly because their judging is so “different,” it does not put up Yellowstone Falls unless it is the Ansel Adams version. Still, I go to museums, and what do I see? Photographs that are taught at universities and museums, and do not come from clubs. Perhaps it would help if we assembled, in this blog, some samples of “taught” classical and other photos. Each reader could then form an opinion, even if he did not stand in awe of universities and museums. I offer a modest collection of published classics below. Perhaps others can post “club” type photographs, which may well be better, and would give hand and foot to this discussion. Keep in mind that these are poor, small copies:
TO SEE THESE, GO TO http://pbase.com/eamc/image/93287552
References for published pictures: Uelsmann Symbolic Mutation
http://masters-of-photography.com/U/uelsmann/uelsmann_symbolic_mutation.html ;
Meyerowitz StLouis Arch http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photoarchive/index.asp;
Emerson Water Lilies http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=71426; Primoli Annie Oakley; Ernst Haas 38th Street http://www.sharontait.org.uk/haas.htm ;
Minor White Three Thirds http://www.home.eastman.org/taschen/htmlsrc11/m197202500001_ful.html ;Walker Evans Atlanta Garage http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2007/04/photo-from-old-master-photographer.html ;
Dorothea Lange Tractored Out http://www.houkgallery.com/lange/moma046.htm ;
Lartigue Woman Fox Fur http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/index.php?v=3&dept=7&artist=739 ;
Ansel Adams Mt. Williamson http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/mtwilliamson.html; Stieglitz Winter on 5th Avenue http://www.geh.org/fm/stieglitz/htmlsrc/m197201760001_ful.html
While my earlier post may have suggested that I questioned the camera clubs judging, I think it's the right model. I suspect that most of us in the club enjoy photographs that portray beauty or communicate the splendor of the environment about us. There are many photographers in our club that I admire and can learn from. In fact I learn something new at every meeting I attend, regardless of whether I agree with any particular judge.
A previous poster mentioned that we should focus on modern photographers and modern topics. I submit that Art and photography in particular, can not be compared to automotives or other societal artifacts whose primary purpose is one of utility. Now of course there is an aesthetic side to engineering, but fundamentally we engineer products for their utility and we produce works of art for their aesthetics or ability to communicate ideas. So I offer the notion that art is timeless ... Is Shakespeare out dated? Is a model T ugly? Do modern painters or photographers understand and represent light better than Monet? Or portray the atmosphere better than Van Goth? Or can modern photographers depict natural beauty better than Edward Weston? Or demonstrate mastery of the sublime like Imogen Cunningham? Or have an ability to document the human condition better than Dorothea Lang? How many modern photographers have been influenced by the painter J.M.W. Turner and try to reproduce his works?
The are many photographers that carry on with the styles and paradigms established by these early practitioners. Photographers like David Muench, Art Wolf and Freeman Patterson to name a few. Many of the modern fine art photographers are selling to art collectors and museums and making tons of money. These artists are following in the footsteps of these classic photographers but are still able to produce original, amazing and beautiful works (and it has nothing to do with technology).
Of course every artist wants to forge their own path, to create something new, Modern artists use photography with other media or use their camera to make political statements. A quick read of Aperture will likely highlight “modern” trends. I’m not a big fan of Friedlander or Winogrand even though they are very highly regarded and respected in the art community. I’m also not a big fan of self documentaries or other current approaches. I suspect that this sort of photography is not what most of the folks in the club aspire to either. This, I believe, is the academic side of the photography business.
How can we get judges to accept writing on images?
Recently, a club member who attended a Wash U seminar on the essence of digital photography, sais: The early discussion included how the huge number of photographers and cameras (camera phones, extremely low cost/image) and the images produced can be separated from the true digital artist/photograph/er. Where/is there a line?
Another member answered: Wasn't there a similar explosion with the invention of 35mm, with autofocus, with zoom lenses, with the cheapification of cameras, etc. Isn't that just steady progress of new technology, like the increasing use of electricity, of automobiles, of airplanes? I.e. is digital really a greater revolution? Many reject the argument of "easier alteration" in digital as a radical development. It is indeed easier, but that is due to bigger and better technology - just like a xerox machine is easier than wet document copying of the 1950's.
The "line" is one of talent. Just like in ditch digging, 10% of any group will dig bigger, better and faster. Talking of "talent" how can we in the club be inspired by a talented outsider, say Edward Weston, even Ansel Adams, rather than relying on the judgment of our own peons?
A NEW DEAL FOR THE CAMERA CLUBS - FROM “Say It with your Camera - An approach to Creative Photography” by Jacob Deschin, NY Times Photo Editor, ca. 1949
Camera clubs have been under fire for years on two fronts. One is the articulate and condemning attitude of progressive photographers, who see no hope for improvement and believe the clubs should be ignored as a factor in American photography. The other, equally destructive but inarticulate, manifests itself in a negative approach to the clubs by the members themselves.
Since the first is intolerant and offers no solutions, we may safely forget it. I am more concerned with the causes for apathy among the members. I recognize the many weaknesses of camera clubs, which have contributed to this attitude, and frequently have commented on them both editorially and verbally. At the same time, I am inclined toward optimism, for I see too much evidence of dissatisfaction to believe that club members will not change once they are helped to find the way.
True, this is happening only in scattered instances, with an individual here and there. The change, therefore, may come very slowly and sporadically. There may be frequent backslidings, and only the hardy may be able to weather the bludgeonings of pressure to stand by the cliches. But a start will have been made, which may in time have the effect of vitalizing entire clubs into more purposeful photographic activity.
What is wrong with the camera clubs? It is understood, of course, that nothing will be achieved toward their improvement until the clubs realize that lacks do exist. For to know “there's something wrong” is part of the battle, since this admission immediately opens the mind to the possibility of help in new ideas. Otherwise, the clubs will be in exactly the same position as the critics who see no good in camera clubs at all and therefore believe it futile to offer suggestions for betterment - even if they can think of any.
To begin with, it seems to me that camera clubs will not progress a single step until they recognize the premise that conformity with the established standards is wrong and that individuality must be noticed and encouraged. Progressive groups within camera clubs whose leadership insists on the status quo have this alternative: to start new' clubs in which the desired aim is introduced as the basic premise, namely, that photography is not merely the product of film, paper, and developer, duly processed, but the communication of ideas and honest feelings.
PICTORIALISM RULES CLUBS
Camera clubs throughout the country are ruled almost without exception by pictorial thinking. This makes for a deadly sameness of approach from coast to coast and an intolerance of any viewpoint that does not fit in with the traditional standards. The first step to camera-club betterment, therefore, would be to encourage members to make any kind of pictures they liked and to assure them of a fair hearing. Since pictorial-minded photographers for example, would in
the main be incapable of evaluating so-called “documentary” work with sufficient objectivity, commentators with broad photographic viewpoints would have to be called in to do the job.
The rubber-stamp similarity of the camera clubs shows up very markedly in gatherings of groups of clubs. What happens in the individual camera clubs also happens at the group meetings, only more of the same and involving a great many more persons. Nothing is learned because nothing is contributed, and the photographers return to their respective clubs no wiser or more inspired than they were before. Little is done to help amateurs move forward.
Take the 1948 convention of the Photographic Society of America in Cincinnati, for instance. Reporting that occasion in The New York Times, I wrote, “In the main, this year's convention reflected the overemphasis on technical matters that is the chief cause of weakness in contemporary picturemaking. With few exceptions, despite the longest roster of talks, demonstrations, and clinics of any previous PSA gathering, hardly any effort was made to examine the personal aspects of picturemaking. Lack of interest in this regard was pointed up in a scheduled discussion on the subject `Can the press photographer influence the course of history and improve the lot of mankind?' which was almost completely ignored and had to be canceled.
“The results of this attitude-the making of pictures lacking in meaning, in ideas, and in impact were seen in most of the prints at the exhibition. More than ever, the implication was evident that the only hope for raising the level of the amateur viewpoint in this country lies in a new, inspired leadership and the setting up of new, fresh, and living standards based on personal values to replace the static approach so prevalent today.”
POOR LEADERSHIP
Which brings up the second great weakness of clubs - the leadership. In most cases this is composed of the “elder statesmen” among the members, that is, members who have achieved some renown in the salons and whose opinions and examples therefore are held in the highest esteem by the rank and file of the club. Leadership has thus become almost dynastic in character and is looked to on every occasion for guidance concerning picturemaking standards.
Since individuality in the truly personal sense of the term is generally frowned upon in the clubs, this “guidance” is passed on and accepted whole, just as the present givers got it from those who preceded them. For that is the nature of the pictorial hierarchy, and that is the way it will continue to be until challenged. The challenge will come most effectively from club members themselves, once they realize the unwholesome restrictions and aimlessness of contemporary salon pictorialism and assume a critical attitude toward their leadership, based on a compelling need to produce pictures more expressive of their own feelings rather than “ready-to-wear” impressions manufactured for them by pictorialist tradition.
The third major weakness of the camera clubs is the lack of, and the need for, an atmosphere in which creative capacities can flow. Attempts should be made to dispel the fear of making pictures different from the “accepted standards” and to encourage experimentation in new directions. It should be recognized that members often do have ideas of their own but lack the self-confidence to carry them through; that, as a result, they distort or vitiate their ideas for the sake of the “standards” in order to win acceptance among their fellow members and success in the competitions and exhibitions.
Although clubs ostensibly are organized for the purpose of exchanging ideas among members and for the mutual benefits that should accrue in an association of persons with a common interest, these ideals are realized only in limited fashion. The intended spirit of mutual helpfulness is restricted to an exchange of formulas, of chitchat about point scorings, in competitions, and other equally trite information.
DISCUSSION NEEDED
The club's greatest opportunity, that of making the most of an association of persons of different backgrounds and with. varied experiences and ways of thinking, is largely wasted. Hardly any attempt is made to facilitate free discussion of ideas rather than mere techniques and to help members compare notes so that each can learn something of the others' attitudes toward picturemaking.
Thus, opportunities are cast aside that, if properly directed within each club, could be one of the most constructive factors in giving the “lift” they so sorely need. This is a big job for somebody - and that somebody is a composite of the president, as chairman of the meetings, of the program director who picks the visiting speakers, and of the print [or slide] director an his committee, who handle the competitions and club exhibits.
The first can go on announcing chitchat signifying nothing and stop there, as he usually does, or he can turn the meeting into something worth while by introducing discussion along lines intended to help the members find themselves as creative photographers.
The program director can do his job better by exercising more discrimination in the selection of guest lecturers and by organizing programs calculated to help members help themselves. Speakers should be selected who can make real contributions to the sum of the members' knowledge and ability to think along creative lines, not merely say the same old things in the same old ways and leave members exactly where they were before. Better to have no speaker at all than one who wastes the club's time in this way.
The print [or slide]director has, in a way, the greatest responsibility, for his selection of judges and types of club competitions can influence members for better or for worse. The way he handles these matters can mean the difference between progress within the club or stagnation; there is no middle ground.
Take the monthly club competitions, for example. Members are assigned a subject: “Portraits” one month, “Table Tops” another, and so on. Having been assigned a subject, the members are thereafter left to shift for themselves; But what is a club for, if not to help its members? Granted that photographers should make their own pictures and not be led by the hand, for an individual approach should be the aim of every serious photographer . . . . Still, where, a competition is concerned, it seems to me that every member should be given an equal opportunity with his fellows through a briefing on the essentials of this or that type of subject. The individual approach will come through in the way each photographer sees and handles the material.
A case in point is my experience as judge of a camera-club competition on “Architecture.” I gave first prize to a print which showed a corner of an old structure highlighted by a spot of late-afternoon sunlight. This treatment of the subject, which conveyed the feeling of old stone and the atmosphere of age that characterized the building, revealed a sympathetic understanding of the essentials involved. The other entries, however, however, showed that the photographers had completely misunderstood the assigned subject.
This fault was due largely to lack of interest, which came out in the common tendency among the pictures to evade the subject of architecture and to stress other features. In one picture, a snow mound in the foreground was so emphasized that the architecture became secondary. In others, human figures were introduced in an effort to supply interest, but each attempt invariably was a failure because the architectural subject itself was mishandled. The photographers seemed, in many instances, to be more intent on supplying a figure than on trying for a strong arrangement of the subject matter. The architecture thus became incidental, and since the figure appeared to have no other function than to fill an open space, the result was pointless.
This competition again pointed up the question of whether, assigned subjects in camera-club tests really serve any purpose other than to supply material for scoring points. Perhaps a far wiser and more productive program would result if the members were allowed to bring in their best pictures in any, category. The photographers would then make only the pictures they wanted to make, and since in that case there would ` at least be the incentive of personal interest, the general level of the entries might be raised.
CHOICE OF JUDGES
The print [or slide] director's second serious responsibility is in his choice of judges. This part of the job will become easier as pictures become better, as photographers work to a personal standard rather than base their efforts on the narrow premise of salon acceptability. Although we still have many old-line judges, who deny recognition to all prints that ignore the “rules” because the photographers try to think for themselves, such judges may easily be identified and their prejudices become known. The progressive print [or slide] director will avoid them and will select only those who, when the available prints give them the opportunity, show a real desire to favor pictures having imagination, feeling, and individuality.
The “main event” in camera-club relations remains the periodical meeting, which is the president's responsibility. This is a much harder task, when conscientiously assumed,
than it appears to be from the manner in which it is often handled. On the face of it, all the president needs to do as chairman is to open the meeting, read a few announcements about such matters as dues, perhaps introduce a speaker, and close the meeting.
Actually, his job is the much bigger one of exploiting the talent and viewpoint of each member for the general good. To this end, he, must use his power as chairman to minimize discussions about technical trivialities and the petty bickerings that arise when members lack interest and direction.
He will do the membership the greatest service if he turns discussion of techniques into such instructive channels as the uses for the techniques in helping photographers to realize thoughtful aims. He will help members to help each other if he draws them out in group talks to tell of their experiences in trying to get ideas across in their pictures. He should try to get them to say where they failed and where they succeeded and to explain as well as they can the reasons in each case. He should try to involve other members in the discussion, s that all may make whatever contribution they can to the topi , in hand. Thus, all will become personally concerned, and a
will be helped, because most photographic problems have universal application.
SHARING BY MEMBERS
Camera clubs attract members of varied intelligence, sensibilities, and artistic talent. People join camera clubs because they like the idea of pursuing a common avocation in the company of fellow enthusiasts. Many are eager to share with the less gifted the benefits of comparatively superior background and advantages. For example, a member who has had some art training will not hesitate to fill out another member's deficiencies in this respect; on the other hand, the artist wild seek and expect to receive information from a member who has experience and talent in fields of which he himself is ignorant.
But such sharing seldom happens by itself in the competitive environment prevailing in most clubs. It comes out in the atmosphere of mutual helpfulness and intelligent discussion that a meeting chairman can set in motion. If the president does not see this function as his main duty, then he does not know his job or is not equal to it, and he should be 'replaced by someone who is.
On the subject of competitiveness, it should be pointed out that the club president anxious to promote the welfare of the membership will devote much of his efforts toward minimizing the kind of competitive spirit that goes fax to undermine the morale of camera-club members by distorting their objectives. For instead of working together, member is pitted against member and club against club in the scramble for ribbons, medals, and point scorings in general. Eagerness to win top place and to accumulate points leads to overemphasis on rewards, to the detriment of personal achievement and the weakening of personal integrity. To such an extent, in fact, that sometimes I find it hard to tell the difference between camera clubs and the commercial world. The coin of the club realm happens to be points instead of money; otherwise, the similarity is marked.
Particularly does the chairman need to make the most of a guest speaker who has something important to say. So-called “lectures,” even at their best, can be greatly increased in value
through audience participation, as in the case of the student teacher relationship. The story is told of one well-known speaker who started his “talk” with the question “Well, what do you want to know?” His audience, who had settled back to listen to a long monologue, were stunned for a few embarrassing moments. When they came to, they started firing questions as fast as the speaker could answer them. Of course, the talk was a huge success because everybody - speaker and audience - was in on it.
This formula will not always work. The nearest equivalent in a camera club is for the speaker to make a few introductory remarks to “set the stage,” then invite questions. Whatever the method, whether this or the conventional one, where the speaker prefers to lecture first and answer questions afterward, the meeting chairman must be on his toes. He must make sure the lecture does not stay a lecture but is turned into a discussion from which, through the chairman's direction, the members get the maximum of help and inspiration.
“LENS EXPRESSION 12"
In this connection, I think clubs should find it useful to know about an unusual New York club called Lens Expression 12.
Starting with twelve members, which accounts for its name, the group elects officers, meets regularly, and invites guest speakers. But it differs from other camera clubs in that its meetings are organized as group discussions which deal with the members' work rather than with techniques in the abstract. The speakers participate in these discussions instead of giving formal talks. Routine is limited to the reading of the last meeting's minutes.
The club, whose members are all between twenty-five and thirty-five years of age, functions on the principle that a photographer must grow as a person, developing interests and understanding in several directions, if he is to grow as a photographer. Through group activity, members are encouraged _ to make use of their own experiences and ways of thinking to express their individuality instead of following a given style or point of view.
In fact, the ability to think and work creatively in photography is the chief requirement for admission to the club. This capacity of the applicant is decided on the basis of a group “interview.” The prospective member is invited to one of the meetings to show examples of his work and to join in a conversation not only about photography but about other matters as well. Later the club members base their decision on what the applicant has said and the pictures he has shown. Personality and the ability to work with a group are among the deciding factors.
Typical meetings, which are held once or twice a month, are preceded by informal talks about pictures and other topics, such as a current art or photographic show, a new play, book, or motion picture. From these are selected subjects likely to interest the group as a whole. At the formal start of the meeting, the president instructs the secretary to read the last meeting's minutes; the only other officer is the treasurer.
The president leads the discussion of the chosen topics. Members' prints are studied and appraised for content and effective expression of ideas. Technique is considered only when it might help to strengthen an idea, not when it would merely improve a picture mechanically. Composition, one of the favorite topics in other camera clubs, is mentioned only in terms of the whole meaning of the picture.
Post a Comment