I found that statement intriguing as well--too bad further explanation of
what Westerbeck meant isn't given. In what way is Maier "participating"
with her subject? How is "participation" typically (and, perhaps, not so
typically) revealed in a photographic frame? How is photographer
participation defined, and how is that definition different from a
photographer's personal vision?
Getting in close can't be a new trend; I mean consider Robert Capa's famous
line--if you don't like your pictures, you're not close enough--or something
like that.
Would be interested to know other views on this as well. Thanks for
mentioning it, Bruce. Cheers, Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Walker" <[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:14 AM
Subject: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I want to isolate one statement and ask a question, especially of the list
members grounded in fine arts:
On 11-07-19 11:28 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
From the Chicago Magazine article published earlier this year:
"Colin Westerbeck, the former curator of photography at the Art Institute
of
Chicago and one of the country's leading experts on street photography,
thinks Maier is an interesting case. He inspected her work after Maloof
e-mailed him. "She worked the streets in a savvy way," he says. "But when
you consider the level of street photography happening in Chicago in the
fifties and sixties, she doesn't stand out." Westerbeck explains that
Maier's
work lacks the level of irony and wit of some of her Chicago
contemporaries,
such as Harry Callahan or Yasuhiro Ishimoto, and unlike them, she herself
is
often a participant in the shot. The greatest artists, Westerbeck says,
know
how to create a distance from their subjects.
"The greatest artists know how to create a distance from their subjects."
Is this considered a fundamental truth, a given? Or is this merely one
man's (likely quite learned) opinion? Was old Leonardo truly distant from
his subject in the Mona Lisa (just to pick one old chestnut). Or is that
not an example of a great artist?
Seems to me that in street photography there's been a movement lately to
get in close with a wide angle and "get involved". Are none of those
practitioners any good? OK, good, but not great?
What about the famous portraitists, like Canada's fave, Karsh. He would
spend hours puttering around and getting to know his subject, even
affecting him (eg Churchill and the cigar incident) to get what he wanted.
What about that famous line about "the camera looks two ways"?
I'm not trying to preach, btw. I'm quite interested in this as my art
history education is sorely lacking.
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
