"'Purity' is conceived to consist in limiting photographic expression to the mechanically objective representation that is inherent in the uncontrolled camera … [but] Imagination is a wayward and willful wench, and when she is on the loose she is not to be held in check by any arbitrary boundaries that divide one medium from another."
"'Purity' is conceived to consist in limiting photographic expression to the mechanically objective representation that is inherent in the uncontrolled camera … [but] Imagination is a wayward and willful wench, and when she is on the loose she is not to be held in check by any arbitrary boundaries that divide one medium from another."
brilliant.
A very interesting and probably accurate description of what many would consider "Purity" to be. YOu will note that this is followed by the comments of the author relative to "Imagination", and since these do not seem to be inclusive, therein lies the problem.
One could argue that in this venue the majority of the players suscribe to the "Purity" approach when dealing with challenges and that the "Imagination" aspect of things ought to be limited to side challenges where those interested in that type of activity can partake to their hearts content.
You may not agree with the rule of the majority, but as things currently stand majority rules.
In time, you may get this majority you seek, but for now you are stuck with what is.
"It was swell to hear from you—and I look forward to the picture of the corpse. My only regret is that the identity of said corpse is not our Laguna Beach colleague." The "colleague" Adams referred to was William Mortensen,
I won't. You have a right to your opinion -- and after I read everything in context I might even agree with it -- I just want you to express it within the bounds of the site's rules and overall "good taste" ... maybe take it as a language side-challenge. :-)
I realize it takes more creativity and imagination to convey an insult using "standard" language. Two of my favorites are from an unknown Quaker:
"I trust thy mother will punish thee when thou hast returned to thy kennel."
and from the ever-reliable Oscar Wilde:
"I was pleased to hear of the publication of your last book, until I realized you meant your latest book."
[quote=Mike] "'Purity' is conceived to consist in limiting photographic expression to the mechanically objective representation that is inherent in the uncontrolled camera … [but] Imagination is a wayward and willful wench, and when she is on the loose she is not to be held in check by any arbitrary boundaries that divide one medium from another."
One could argue that in this venue the majority of the players suscribe to the "Purity" approach when dealing with challenges and that the "Imagination" aspect of things ought to be limited to side challenges where those interested in that type of activity can partake to their hearts content.
You may not agree with the rule of the majority, but as things currently stand majority rules.
In time, you may get this majority you seek, but for now you are stuck with what is.
Ray
Maybe we can agree that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this. There should be room for the purist and the imaginist (yes, I made that word up). Both are photography. Both have been around since the first person figured out how to manipulate a negative.
Maybe we can agree that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this. There should be room for the purist and the imaginist (yes, I made that word up). Both are photography. Both have been around since the first person figured out how to manipulate a negative.
unfortunately according to the purists, there will never be room for both because once the imagination style is accepted (or worse encouraged), an impurity exists and that's contrary to the beliefs of the purist. at least here at dpc the imaginist (we can continue with that term) can accept what the purist has to offer, the contrary can not be true (at least by definition) and is evident in that Ray thinks the style he (and others) doesn't prefer should be relegated to side challenges, whereas i have yet to hear a call for any expulsion from any on the other side.
which may infer two things- one, the purists are not in the majority (thankfully) and two, that the imaginists are a bit more open minded.
It's all about history, anyway. At that time, and since its inception, photography had been dominated by romantic pictorialists. It was the red-headed stepchild of the painterly arts, and tried to live up to painterly ideals. The "f/64 Group" was founded by Adams, Edward Weston, and others to attempt to create a modernist aesthetic for photography, something which had not existed at that time. So all of what's being discussed here in terms of "intolerance" was, in fact, typical revolutionary hyperbole.
I assure you the Ansel Adams we came to know and love wasn't a photographic bigot. He didn't demand that all images follow the f/64 credos, and dismiss as worthless those that didn't.
Maybe we can agree that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this. There should be room for the purist and the imaginist (yes, I made that word up). Both are photography. Both have been around since the first person figured out how to manipulate a negative.
unfortunately according to the purists, there will never be room for both because once the imagination style is accepted (or worse encouraged), an impurity exists and that's contrary to the beliefs of the purist. at least here at dpc the imaginist (we can continue with that term) can accept what the purist has to offer, the contrary can not be true (at least by definition) and is evident in that Ray thinks the style he (and others) doesn't prefer should be relegated to side challenges, whereas i have yet to hear a call for any expulsion from any on the other side.
which may infer two things- one, the purists are not in the majority (thankfully) and two, that the imaginists are a bit more open minded.
Would Matthew Brady posing dead bodies during the civil war count as both? ;)
I think we can have the paradoxical condition where we understand there is no "right" or "wrong" on this issue, but also allow for and even embrace strong opinions as if one side IS right and the other is wrong. If Ansel "hated" (probably a strong word) this photographer and his genre, good for him. At least he was a man of convictions. If you happen to like the genre, don't be offended that he didn't.
Maybe we can agree that there is no "right" or "wrong" in this. There should be room for the purist and the imaginist (yes, I made that word up). Both are photography. Both have been around since the first person figured out how to manipulate a negative.
unfortunately according to the purists, there will never be room for both because once the imagination style is accepted (or worse encouraged), an impurity exists and that's contrary to the beliefs of the purist. at least here at dpc the imaginist (we can continue with that term) can accept what the purist has to offer, the contrary can not be true (at least by definition) and is evident in that Ray thinks the style he (and others) doesn't prefer should be relegated to side challenges, whereas i have yet to hear a call for any expulsion from any on the other side.
which may infer two things- one, the purists are not in the majority (thankfully) and two, that the imaginists are a bit more open minded.
Would Matthew Brady posing dead bodies during the civil war count as both? ;)
which may infer two things- one, the purists are not in the majority (thankfully) and two, that the imaginists are a bit more open minded.
Being of an open mind suggests that one is receptive to a variety of positions and interpretations, something which one could argue does not exist in a venue where neither side is prepared to concede that they might not be the exclusive holder of the truth.
