[RioRico]

THREADJACK! Delicious refreshing membrillo liqueur, aguardiente (raw cane rum) flavored with quince, has inspired fine (and not so fine) Mexican poets and artists and dreamers and their international friends for many generations. I have no evidence that Ansel Adams consumed membrillo liqueur but I have no doubt that he did during his long Mexican sojourns. Perhaps it was a major inspiration.

So, the challenge: How far do you want to go beyond Ansel Adams? HOW MUCH MEMBRILLO WILL TAKE YOU BEYOND ANSEL ADAMS? And once you get there, then what?

We await your answers.

Now that's funny, I'd give you a like, but if I do that, I'll never catch up with you.

In the words of Jerry Ragovoy (sung by Janis Joplin:

"Try.... just a little bit harder..."

[philbaum]

I do appreciate very much all the thoughtful replies, some truth in every one of them!

I've got a nasty cold and was feeling miserable when i opened up an email from the juried art show that is now ongoing. They told me I needn't bother to return to fetch my entry because its been sold . It was 2' x 3' BW picture developed in the A. Adams tradition. Now i'm not feeling so miserable, particularly since i found some cheap wine to celebrate with (don't know about membrillo - think i'll leave that to those with 2 R's in their name , unless its known to help with colds - God knows, nyqill ain't cheap either.)

Final parting shot:

Art is what you can get away with. Andy Warhol

[RioRico]

Art is what you can get away with. Andy Warhol

My version: Just as John Cage showed that MUSIC is any sound (or lack thereof) you can get people to pay attention to, Andy Warhol showed us that ART is anything you can sell. The value component is: the signature.

[TaoMaas]

And some of those photos of Lincoln were shooped early-on, putting his head on another body.

So your belief is that we DON'T have a better idea of what Lincoln actually looked like than we do of Washington? What about Brady's photos of the Civil War? Do they give us no more useable information than paintings of the Revolutionary War?

[normhead]

Some people just don't know when their chain is being yanked.

[jsherman999]

I think that done very skillfully, that method has some potential to create very arresting images, works of art even. However the potential for hackery is very high; it's much easier and is going to be more common to create horrible, laughable eyesores like that. We'll see many more eyesores than works of art, many more, and that will probably kill the movement, or discredit it.

[TaoMaas]

We get back to the same truism: Every photo is manipulated. Film or sensor or image orthicon or daguerrotype or whatever: none accurately captures the EMF spectrum in the visual region. Much happens outside the visible-spectrum slice that we don't see but appropriate cameras can. Every photo presents just a slice of the spectrum; the rest is excluded. Those who think they're shooting unbiased photos are deluding themselves.

My problem with this argument is that it assumes that if there is a small lie...then that makes a big lie okay. Sorry, but I just don't buy that. Lying to my wife and saying that I'd like to go visit her mom (when I may not really want to) does NOT give me license to cheat on her and lie about it. Some degrees of manipulation are accepted, such as Ansel shooting in B&W, and we still accept that the photo is relatively true to the scene. But, had Ansel routinely taken mundane landscapes and "shooped" Half Dome into them, I doubt anyone would be talking about him today. To me, past a certain point, manipulation of photographs simply becomes lazy painting.

[JimJohnson]

My problem with this argument is that it assumes that if there is a small lie...then that makes a big lie okay. Sorry, but I just don't buy that. Lying to my wife and saying that I'd like to go visit her mom (when I may not really want to) does NOT give me license to cheat on her and lie about it. Some degrees of manipulation are accepted, such as Ansel shooting in B&W, and we still accept that the photo is relatively true to the scene. But, had Ansel routinely taken mundane landscapes and "shooped" Half Dome into them, I doubt anyone would be talking about him today. To me, past a certain point, manipulation of photographs simply becomes lazy painting.

Ah... to quote our politicians "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". Or my corollary- a little make-up can improve a woman's looks (sorry, I know it's sexist, but that's the way I see it), but too much make-up can turn the same woman into a clown who is never taken very seriously.

[normhead]

It's all about the image. There's a whole category of "art" i like to call "Velvet Elvis" art. I'm guessing at some point some of it might be valuable. I can hear the auctioneer now "This rare portrait of a singer named Elvis, who was very popular at one point in his life during the 1959s, is in perfect condition. Painted on black velvet as was popular in the 60s it was found hanging above a shag rug in the back of a black van with horses painted on beside in a garage in Los Vegas." Will Velvet Elvis art survive the test of time? I wait with baited breath, whatever the heck "baited breath"means.

[GibbyTheMole]

There will always be the capture the moment guys, and there will always be the "painting with light " guys.

Depending on what I'm shooting, I can be either guy.

The camera is just a tool. Did you create the photograph that you intended to ? Your vision, your feeling, the "something" that made you stop and look and think. The camera, every camera, is limited in that regard, you as the artist have to finish the job. Be it with dodge and burn or photoshop does not matter it's the final image that counts.

Yep. I agree. Sometimes it's good right out of the camera & sometimes it needs tweaking, retouching, manipulation, etc. I use whatever works to get the image the way I want it.

[TaoMaas]

It's all about the image.

(I'm quoting you, Norm, simply as a jumping off point...not arguing with you specifically.) Yes, it is. But what gives an image it's weight? Using the heavily HDR'd photo of that band as a reference...why should we care about that image? Simply judged on its aesthetic qualities....it's a "so-so" image. Probably not very relevant as art. But as an image for the cover of their CD, it might be perfect. Why? Because it shows us what the band members look like. It's the ties to our common perceived reality that gives it any weight at all. The further we branch out and lose those ties, the less viable the image becomes.

[RioRico]

I know I've recently mentioned Velvis (Velvet Elvis) art, but I guess not on this thread. Darn.

Anyway, Ansel didn't need to clone Half Dome into various pictures. He could just burn-in the surroundings and dodge Half Dome to make it stand out. And yes, a photographed battlefield is more 'real' than a painted battlefield. Of course, some of Brady's toggers had no qualms about moving bodies around to the best positions for photographic compositions. And using emulsions sensitive only to actinic (UV-violet-blue) light produces images that only somewhat resemble what a non-color-blind male would see.

We can photograph for many reasons. Here we're dichotomizing between 'honest' documentation (faithful recording) and art (personal interpretation). But is staging a photo any more 'honest' than shooping it? Was a famous flap long ago of a National Geographic cover image where Egyptian Pyramids were photo-manipulated to appear closer together, just to make them fit on the cover. I suspect the same perspective could have been reached in-camera with proper lens and placement, ie staging. When you arrange subjects to fit your vision, you are staging the picture. Move to the right a little, honey. Smile.

Oh sure, photos can be shot with minimal manipulation. Traffic-light cams, security cams, they just shoot whatever is in front of them. Pretty exciting photos, eh? Well, they're surely more 'honest' than Ansel's productions.

[normhead]

It's the ties to our common perceived reality that gives it any weight at all.

My dog doesn't get abstract art but I think he likes it.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. But from a graphic designers point of view, there are certain shapes and patterns that catch the attention of the human brain just because we are hard wired that way, that is our internal reality. Photographers for the most part try and incorporate those things into their photos. They aren't looking for something that is a common internal reality, not an external one. We frame our images to push the genetically inherited buttons. It's all manipulation. Some people like a nice sunset with muted colours etc, some people want a painting with the same muted colours, lines and curves and textures but they want it as an abstract.

The common reality is one thing... the common shared attraction to specific shapes and patterns is another. Just another way of defining my original duality. Velvis art, is our shared reality. The Mona Lisa is a portrait that appeals to our genetic wiring. I'd argue that only the genetic wiring is important in more than the short term. There's already a lot of kids who don't know who Elvis was, or what a wall phone looks like. What was once a common reality is no more. But the attraction to lines shapes, textures, form etc that shape the way we interact with the world, those cut across time and make of lasting art. The problem for photographers is we have to find those things, and then use the correct lenses and stuff to produce a pleasing result. And abstract artist can just throw some paint on a canvas.

For some reason, people really appreciate things that are both images of the real world, and great art, at the same time. That's why we are in business. Some people have to feel it's real. Unlike my dog, they can't just look at a bit of paint splattered on a canvas and feel what it does to them. They need to think it's in some way more than their brain responding to shapes and patterns, they want to believe it is something more than that. They want to believe that they are in touch with something that on some level exists or at least existed.

RIght now, I believe I'll have another beer.

[TaoMaas]

Anyway, Ansel didn't need to clone Half Dome into various pictures. He could just burn-in the surroundings and dodge Half Dome to make it stand out.

Yes, he could. But this thread was asking about moving beyond Ansel...perhaps into the realm of adding Half Dome where it didn't exist before. Is that okay? Or in doing so are we leaving behind one of the principal qualities which separates photography from painting...that quality of "believability"? Btw, I am NOT opposed to heavy manipulation of photographs. I believe the work of Jerry Uelsmann is just as valid as art as that of Saint Ansel...maybe even moreso, IMHO. I just sometimes worry that if we're helping to feed our own demise.

[RioRico]

My dog doesn't get abstract art but I think he likes it.

See WHY CATS PAINT. All cats are master abstractionists. But elephants are more realistic.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. But from a graphic designers point of view, there are certain shapes and patterns that catch the attention of the human brain just because we are hard wired that way, that is our internal reality.

Westerners tend to look at a rectangular image from upper-left to lower-right to upper-right to center, and neglect looking at the lower-left. That's why copyright notices, surgeon-generals' warnings, and other paltry details are usually relegated there.

Studies suggest that people feel most comfortable with paintings with certain characteristics. Some artists specifically exploit this by employing ALL those within every painting. The perfect USA painting has mountains in the background, fronted by a forest divided by a rolling river, and up front is George Washington on horseback amongst cattle.

The Mona Lisa is a portrait that appeals to our genetic wiring.

Actually, Mona Lisa wasn't much appreciated till it was stolen in 1911 and recovered in 1913. The press made much of that, and fame ensued.

this thread was asking about moving beyond Ansel...perhaps into the realm of adding Half Dome where it didn't exist before. Is that okay? Or in doing so are we leaving behind one of the principal qualities which separates photography from painting...that quality of "believability"?

Again, photos have been manipulated since almost the very beginning. Any "believability" is and always has been a fantasy. One reason I always carry a 135 P&S is that if I *need* believable documentation of something, an undeveloped roll of film is a lot more convincing than any digital file. Only an unprocessed latent image has any credibility -- and even it could just be a capture of a staged shot.

As for adding features: I've seen montages where Half Dome has been inserted into urban photos. The viewer is expected to realize that it's a pastiche.

Btw, I am NOT opposed to heavy manipulation of photographs. I believe the work of Jerry Uelsmann is just as valid as art as that of Saint Ansel...maybe even moreso, IMHO. I just sometimes worry that if we're helping to feed our own demise.

I'm rather picky about the photos on my walls. I have a couple of Spanish Mission courtyards and a few I shot in Germany during my Army service (all in B&W, some hand-tinted); and some family snaps -- and three large Jerry Uelsmann prints at my office door, counter-balancing a roomful of MC Escher prints. I've taken down the Ansel prints. (Other stuff on my walls: signed pieces by Stanley Mouse, Larry Todd, Robert Crumb, Charles Schultz, and my sister. Plus much more.)

Uelsmann and Alfred Eisenstaedt are my photographic heroes. Uelsmann used an Argus C3 (The Brick!) with the standard Cintar 50/3.5 lens, and might employ 24 enlargers simultaneously to build the desired image. Shooping before shoop!

Feeding our own demise? Only in the eyes of those who think photos are true representations of reality. Are coin-op photo booths in Tokyo (so I have read) that project background imagery for the subject. Have yourself photographed in front of the Eiffel Tower, Sphinx, Kremlin, Niagara Falls, etc. Much cheaper than traveling, and hay, you have evidence!