Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 2011-07-20 17:34 , Bob W wrote: For me the essence of street photography, when it's good (which is very rarely), is what my film teacher referred to as 'the poetry of everyday life'. Kertesz, I think, talked about 'small moments'. Elliott Erwitt said that good photography 'is about noticing things'. All of these refer to the same thing. a name my father, among others, used for this was ordinary magic -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? William Robb Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. photography photographers have no more (or less) obligation to change the world than any other activity or practitioners. In the context of art, which is where the discussion began, people can photograph anything they want, and they don't have to justify it except by the resulting work itself (it should be good, in some way which I can't define). In the context of journalism, or documentary or reportage or whatever, it should be news. That's all. In the context of travel photography it should tell you something about the place. I had an argument in India with a Brahmin who tried to stop me photographing beggars outside the Jaganarth temple in Puri, and wanted me to photograph only the beautiful parts of India. Bloody idiot. In the context of advocacy or campaigning, it should be effective. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I think it is worth mentioning that photojournalism can be SIMULTANEOUSLY exploitation and exposé. Seeing it only as one or the other is not seeing the whole picture. I think of the famous photo of the people falling from the collapsing fire escape of the burning building (one to their death). http://www.pigbird.com/images_press3.html The decision to take (and publish) that photo turned out to be a powerful motivator for changing the building codes regarding fire escapes in a great many cities. Photojournalism informs public opinion which in turn can drive public policy (in a functional world). One of our motives (or perhaps simply a side benefit) of turning our camera on the unfortunates is not to take advantage of their misfortune, but to help make others aware of it. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 11-07-20 12:36 PM, Bob W wrote: The greatest artists know how to create a distance from their subjects. I read his statement as being about street photographers, not about artists in general, although I may be wrong. Any given statement about what art is or what artists do will receive an immediate fusillade of protest challenge from everyone else who takes an interest in the subject, regardless of their actual grounding. No harm in that - it is only opinion and a pleasant way of passing time until we hear the scratching sound of the Reaper honing his scythe. In some ways this is what art is: a long argument about what art is. Every statement about the nature of art necessarily limits it, puts a boundary on it. In response, someone else will produce a work that refutes it, breaks the boundary, yet is still undeniably art. Trying to define art is like trying to pin quicksilver to the ceiling. I think he means something similar to the notion that every writer has a splinter of ice in the heart. That whatever situation you are involved in, however closely, there is still a part of you that is watching ironically from the shelter of a doorway, and laughing quietly at the foolishness of it all. I do think this is present in some of Maier's pictures, and I think it may be a necessary condition of great art, but not a sufficient condition. B Thank you for that, Bob. Your last point resonates deeply with me as I'm still struggling to break through the pretty snapshot ceiling. I needs spend more time in that doorway with my inner cynic. -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
- Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] On 7/20/2011 11:57, Christine Aguila wrote: Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine Will that be on the next exam? :-) How many words do we have to submit? But seriously, I don't think anything is served by photographers, or any artists , for that matter, over intellectualzing their approach.. I agree one shouldn't *over intellectualize*, but some thought mightn't be bad for the exercise--writers, photographers, whatever should know what artistic techniques are at their disposal to create their work. Technique, seems to me, is the primary realm of the artist; understanding how technique is used to achieve some end and how that end is understood can--and often is--of concern to the artist, but it seems most certainly to be the primary realm of the critic. I got hammered by Gene Frankel for doing that in the acting days - getting involved in what the playright's intent was instead of using my humanity and instincts to identify with the character to bring her to life. write what you know was the mantra I grew up with... so it was the opposite of intellectual distance. I also considered /thought that street photography was basically photo-journalism but you do it for yourself, rather than on an assignment... where the distance fades away... you wouldn't be photographing something with which you had absolutely no gut connection, would you? Well, you can use your creative skills (whatever they are) to do a study on something you have great affinity for, but you can also use them to discover something you don't know anything about. The *write what you know* mantra is often early advice young fiction writers and poets get--a familiar starting point where *what they know* is allowed to mingle greatly with their imaginations to achieve and inform some creative end. But I wouldn't agree that the artist is forever stuck in that place--though it is true many, many artists never leave that place; it becomes their creative obsession. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/21/2011 12:45, Christine Aguila wrote: - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] On 7/20/2011 11:57, Christine Aguila wrote: snip snip ann wrote: I also considered /thought that street photography was basically photo-journalism but you do it for yourself, rather than on an assignment... where the distance fades away... you wouldn't be photographing something with which you had absolutely no gut connection, would you? Christine replies Well, you can use your creative skills (whatever they are) to do a study on something you have great affinity for, but you can also use them to discover something you don't know anything about. Point taken. certainly exploring a strange place with a camera is something I've done often and is truly my favorite thing to do... But there is lots more good no visual art out there , especially in the written word, where the artist knows what he is writing about well rather than on something he has to book up on to write about. I'm putting this in the context of any artist wanting to publish, wanting to share the experiences with others. Forgive this odd example but it does make my point - On several different occasions and times the owners of Scrabble made special editions of the physical set over the years. two noteworthy ones were designed by artists who had never played the game and no serious player was ever consulted in the construction / re design. Had they done so, they could have made lots more money on the sets. The Franklin Mint set had gold metal tiles - The board was elaborate but still useable. However the tiles had the letters etched into the gold... this presented two problems, you couldn't see the letters from most angles but you could braille them... to photograph the set for advertising they had to blacken the letters. The current deluxe set did something even more stupid .. they changed the colors of the premium squares - to make them prettier. oy. The *write what you know* mantra is often early advice young fiction writers and poets get--a familiar starting point where *what they know* is allowed to mingle greatly with their imaginations to achieve and inform some creative end. But I wouldn't agree that the artist is forever stuck in that place--though it is true many, many artists never leave that place; it becomes their creative obsession. Cheers, Christine Well in the cases of some great artists , a magnificent obsession. You can evolve creatively without taking leaps and bounds away from what your gut responds to, don't you think? cheers back, ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change Cruel to sneaky if you wish. But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change Cruel to sneaky if you wish. But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. ann Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an interesting discussion. Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely can search the web for another that will do as well. I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created as exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a power thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the underprivileged person. When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to take some pictures of him and his dog. He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well. In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him out at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight. My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing, even if you get a warm feeling from doing it. Was Shel sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell? Was Paul sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the background just the way he wanted? How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar light? How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/21/2011 14:05, William Robb wrote: On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change Cruel to sneaky if you wish. But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. ann Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an interesting discussion. Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely can search the web for another that will do as well. I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created as exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a power thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the underprivileged person. When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to take some pictures of him and his dog. He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well. In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him out at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight. My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing, even if you get a warm feeling from doing it. Was Shel sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell? Was Paul sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the background just the way he wanted? How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar light? How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? It's a bit of a conundrum... I stand by sneaky but that isn't always bad... I do sneaky whenever I take photos of people... using the fake I'm through taking pictures now technique, or the apparent aiming past the subject. And I dont say no one should shoot the downside of the human condition... and if someone besides Shel had taken the photo maybe I'd feel differently about it ;-) ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I have no problem with your referencing my photo, and I don't think Shel's photo is particularly cruel. Although I'm not fond of homeless pics in general. They're easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel -- or shooting cats curled up on a chair. No value judgement, but I've come to see pics of homeless as a waste of time. That being said I still like my SM Jesus pic, because I found him to be a unique individual in many ways. My subject actually did make more than a professional model would earn: $% for 2 minutes work translates to $150 per hour Not bad. And while this fellow lives on the street, he's a professional pan handler who owns the best corner in Santa Monica. He also seems to be rather intelligent, although angry. I suspect he earns in excess of 20K per year. He probably sleeps on the beach and gets fed both by the free feeds that a local charity group holds in the park on Ocean Avenue and by people exiting restaurants. (It's the custom in Santa Monica to request a to-go box then give it to one of the homeless outside the door.) Santa Monica is probably the best place in the world to live if one is homeless, and while it's a beautiful city. it probably boasts more homeless residents per square mile than any other in the U.S. If my wife kicks me out, I'm heading there. Paul On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:05 PM, William Robb wrote: On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change Cruel to sneaky if you wish. But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. ann Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an interesting discussion. Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely can search the web for another that will do as well. I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created as exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a power thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the underprivileged person. When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to take some pictures of him and his dog. He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well. In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him out at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight. My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing, even if you get a warm feeling from doing it. Was Shel sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell? Was Paul sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the background just the way he wanted? How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar light? How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? William Robb Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 21/07/2011 2:27 PM, Tom C wrote: Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. Better, I think. We seem to live longer if allowed the opportunity to do so. Of course, we have also found much more efficient ways to kill each other as well. Neither of which has anything to do with photography. However, I believe the FSA and photographers like Dorothea Lange may have influenced things somewhat towards helping the indigent during the depression with her documentary photography, certainly the photojournalism that documented the Vietnam war had a lot to do with turning the tide of opinion in America against that war and helped to end it. I suspect that the photographs taken of Nazi death camps and the victims within had a lot to do with the formation of an independent Jewish state (whether this has helped the human condition overall is debatable, but certainly it has influenced it). A few examples, anyway. Sometimes it takes being slapped in the face by imagery of suffering to make people realize that the world isn't all cute little puppies cavorting in verdant fields under white fluffy clouds. And sometimes that imagery gets them off their asses and makes them work towards making things better. And sometimes, they just get used in philosophical discussions by people who are blessed to never know what it feels like to be shit on by an angry God who doesn't give a damn about whether you live or freeze to death in the dark. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/21/2011 16:27, Tom C wrote: How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? William Robb Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. Plus ca changes ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
Tom, I do think photography has helped with our vision of distant situations. It's easy to see the rung on the ladder just above us, and the one just below us. But it's harder to see many rungs below where things are more desperate. We tend to organize our lives to avoid confronting these situations. Photography helps bring the situations into our comfortable little bubble and give us a chance to look carefully at what we try to avoid. Sometimes it even moves us to action. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? William Robb Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
Are talking on average or in small populations? More importantly is the question weather Photography really had any effect, or if it was just coincidental. On 7/21/2011 4:27 PM, Tom C wrote: How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? William Robb Has the human condition improved since the invention of photography or worsened? Not making a correlation at all. Just food for thought. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I have no problem with your referencing my photo, and I don't think Shel's photo is particularly cruel. Although I'm not fond of homeless pics in general. They're easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel -- or shooting cats curled up on a chair. No value judgement, but I've come to see pics of homeless as a waste of time. That being said I still like my SM Jesus pic, because I found him to be a unique individual in many ways. My subject actually did make more than a professional model would earn: $% for 2 minutes work translates to $150 per hour Not bad. And while this fellow lives on the street, he's a professional pan handler who owns the best corner in Santa Monica. He also seems to be rather intelligent, although angry. I suspect he earns in excess of 20K per year. He probably sleeps on the beach and gets fed both by the free feeds that a local charity group holds in the park on Ocean Avenue and by people exiting restaurants. (It's the custom in Santa Monica to request a to-go box then give it to one of the homeless outside the door.) Santa Monica is probably the best place in the world to live if one is homeless, and while it's a beautiful city. it probably boasts more homeless residents per square mile than any other in the U.S. If my wife kicks me out, I'm heading there. My friend Candice does the $2 portrait project: http://thomashawk.com/2008/06/introducing-christopher-and-start-of-my.html http://www.flickr.com/groups/2dollarportraits/ The premise is that if someone asks for money you give them $2 in exchange for being allowed to take their photo. But, you also spend a bit of time talking to them and getting to know a little bit about them. Which was the backstory on this photo when she and I were doing a photowalk in downtown LA: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5852038093/in/set-72157627004162622 Ross got into having his photo taken and specifically asked Candice to email him a link or copy to the shot she got of him. He was bumming around, looking to move to Portland. I can't find her version of the shot online, I used a bit of fill flash so the neon sign in the background wouldn't blow out. Paul On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:05 PM, William Robb wrote: On 21/07/2011 11:36 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: On 7/21/2011 12:59, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. That you paid him, and that perhaps Shel didn't pay his subject (though it's entirely possible that Shel bought him that coffee, and perhaps some food) is beside the point. The point was, since both were taken with permission, how is one more cruel than the other? If payment is the only reason, did you pay him the going rate for modelling? For that matter, would my TFCD studio work be considered cruel (not commenting on how I tend to butcher things, just the act of taking the images in the first place)? Ok don't jump on Paul for what I said about Shel :-) I used cruel a bit losely... and personally. change Cruel to sneaky if you wish. But I just could never do either what Paul did or Shel did. ann Sorry, not meaning to jump on anyone, but I am finding this to be an interesting discussion. Paul, if you want me to stop using your image as an example, I surely can search the web for another that will do as well. I realize that a lot of people see the type of image that Shel created as exploitative and cruel. I think often we see the photograph as a power thing, with the photographer taking unfair advantage of the underprivileged person. When I was travelling in the USA a number of years ago, I came across a young man on a pier in Oregon. Just him, his dog and a backpack. He was obviously down on his luck, and I paid him a few dollars to allow me to take some pictures of him and his dog. He freely admitted that he was going to spend the money on booze and tobacco, so I went and bought a bag of dog food for his Rottie as well. In this instance, the act of paying the subject wasn't going to help him out at all, and would more than likely just add to his plight. My point here is that paying the subject isn't necessarily a good thing, even if you get a warm feeling from doing it. Was Shel sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the picture that would tell the story that he wanted to tell? Was Paul sneaky because he waited for the decisive moment to get the background just the way he wanted? How about any street image that shows the subject in less than stellar light? How do we alter the human condition for the better if we hide the parts of the condition that can be improved on from the light of day? -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
I won't mind if history proves me wrong! In what ways do you disagree? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Well, probably more accurate to say, I don't know what my position is-- it's just to early to tell. that's what Chiang Kai Shek said about the French Revolution. [...] You may be interested in Colin Westerbeck's (Bystander: History of Street Photography with Joel Meyerowitz) view: 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. I have that book. I hadn't seen those comments before - they are very interesting and close to my own opinion, although he expresses it better than I did. Yet Westerbeck admits that he understands the allure of Maier's work. She was a kind of mysterious figure, he says. What's compelling about her pictures is the way that they capture the local character of Chicago in the past decades. I agree with that. One of the things running through my mind as I looked at the exhibition was how interesting it was to see the world and how it has changed. It's a curiosity of this type of photography that mere rarity gives it value, regardless of any aesthetic considerations. So run-of-the-mill pictures of Victorian life have great value as records of a disappeared time, and it is just so of these pictures of Chicago. And some interesting selected comments about Westerbeck's quote; you have to scroll down a bit to the comment section: http://tinyurl.com/434sddo I don't know anything about Colin Westerbeck, so I don't know if he really is a hack curator as one of the comments states. Cheers, Christine That's just an ad hominem attack by some internet know-it-all with a chip on his shoulder. We should invite him onto the PDML. Westerbeck's opinion is perfectly valid and he is able to back it up. Everybody is free to disagree with it and give their own reasoned opinion. This is not science, it's the arts. I agree that the jury is still out while we await more of her work, and some different editing, but I don't really see her as a Great Photographer on the evidence so far. I think she is good, but probably no better than many of us. If our photos are discovered in 60 years time the best of them will look fantastic and very interesting, but to be great they'd have to stand up well alongside people like HCB, Kertesz, Brassai, Doisneau, Stieglitz, Erwitt, Munkcasi and so on. They are the greats, and I don't think Maier or any of us are in that company. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 7/20/2011 04:22, Bob W wrote: .. . That's just an ad hominem attack by some internet know-it-all with a chip on his shoulder. We should invite him onto the PDML. .. Mark! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 7/20/2011 04:22, Bob W wrote: I won't mind if history proves me wrong! In what ways do you disagree? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Well, probably more accurate to say, I don't know what my position is-- it's just to early to tell. that's what Chiang Kai Shek said about the French Revolution. [...] You may be interested in Colin Westerbeck's (Bystander: History of Street Photography with Joel Meyerowitz) view: 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. I have that book. I hadn't seen those comments before - they are very interesting and close to my own opinion, although he expresses it better than I did. Yet Westerbeck admits that he understands the allure of Maier's work. She was a kind of mysterious figure, he says. What's compelling about her pictures is the way that they capture the local character of Chicago in the past decades. I agree with that. One of the things running through my mind as I looked at the exhibition was how interesting it was to see the world and how it has changed. It's a curiosity of this type of photography that mere rarity gives it value, regardless of any aesthetic considerations. So run-of-the-mill pictures of Victorian life have great value as records of a disappeared time, and it is just so of these pictures of Chicago. And some interesting selected comments about Westerbeck's quote; you have to scroll down a bit to the comment section: http://tinyurl.com/434sddo I don't know anything about Colin Westerbeck, so I don't know if he really is a hack curator as one of the comments states. Cheers, Christine That's just an ad hominem attack by some internet know-it-all with a chip on his shoulder. We should invite him onto the PDML. Westerbeck's opinion is perfectly valid and he is able to back it up. Everybody is free to disagree with it and give their own reasoned opinion. This is not science, it's the arts. I agree that the jury is still out while we await more of her work, and some different editing, but I don't really see her as a Great Photographer on the evidence so far. I think she is good, but probably no better than many of us. If our photos are discovered in 60 years time the best of them will look fantastic and very interesting, but to be great they'd have to stand up well alongside people like HCB, Kertesz, Brassai, Doisneau, Stieglitz, Erwitt, Munkcasi and so on. They are the greats, and I don't think Maier or any of us are in that company. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
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 bruce.wal...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 9:14 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: 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? I also think the greatest artists know when not to create a distance from their subjects, but I freely admit to knowing absolutely nothing about art history, or even art for that matter. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 9:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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. I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I don't think there is any one correct way to create art. But true artists understand the kind of links and visions that others find appealing. Personally, I prefer photography that maintains a distance from the subject. My most successful people pics, which are by no means art, are those where the subject is unaware of me and the camera. That distance affords an opportunity to capture genuine emotion and a slice of life. A comparison to portrait painting doesn't work, because distance can't be achieved in that scenario. But in street photography, distance is possible. Paul On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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 bruce.wal...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
- Original Message - From: William Robb anotherdrunken...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:50 AM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] On 20/07/2011 9:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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. I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
Don't be so hard on yourself, some of your images rise to mediocrity. Sorry, I screwed up my knee and I'm in a small amount of pain On 7/20/2011 11:50 AM, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 9:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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. I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
That line has been like a burr under the saddle for a lot of
photography aficionados.
From a commenter on this page: http://blog.kevinmoloney.com/?p=775
{
“The greatest artists, Westerbeck says, know how to create a distance
from their subjects.”
Lets hope that Mr. Westerbeck gets a chance to clarify this soon.
As a thought, it’s incomplete at best, and it does not seem to apply
to Stieglitz, Callahan, Gowin, Levitt, Agee, Davidson, Weston, Frank,
Hare, Arbus, Model and a lot of other “advanced amateurs” whom I have
admired for forty years.
Bob Cooper
}
- - -
And from: https://sites.google.com/a/lfcsinc.org/photography/vts-images/p147b
{
What? I'm afraid I have to agree with Tiffany Jones here. That sounds
like a complete load of shit. First of all, these photographs are as
witty and cleverly constructed as any street photos out there. They
may not be ironic, but since when is irony a requirement for quality,
especially in mid-century photography?
Not distant enough from their subjects? I suppose that would discredit
Arbus, Model, Hine, Atget, Sander, Weegee, Brassai, etc. Sorry guys,
you'd be great artists if only you'd created more separation. Maybe
Maier isn't as cool and calculated as Callahan or Ishimoto, but I
actually view that as a plus. She's so present in her photos. It's an
amazing gift. In short, critique is fine but please comment on what
she is rather than what she isn't.
I suspect Westerbeck's assessment may have gotten sidetracked by
Maier's storybook bio. Treasure trove nearly lost, found in an estate
sale, etc. It's a great drama regardless of the photos.
But to me the story of Vivian Maier isn't that her work was lost and
rediscovered. It's the work itself that matters. Her photographs are
among the most vibrant street shots I've ever seen. I'm not sure which
photos Westerbeck has already viewed, but I suggest he devote more
hours to looking through Maier's archives. The quality and consistency
of vision will prove impossible to miss.
The danger is that Westerbeck's Chicago Magazine opinion will set the
tone for future appraisals. Once someone of his stature has chimed in
other critics are likely to follow his cue. Worse, it may pave the way
for misappreciation by society at large. Most folks are like Phil
Donahue. They need a curator to tell them which photos are important
and which aren't. To a layman writing or reading a magazine profile
Westerbeck becomes the voice of authority.
The X factor in all of this is John Maloof (and now to a lesser extent
Jeff Goldstein). Not only does he determine which images Westerbeck
will judge, he controls which images any of us see. Although there are
a few similar cases in history in which the fate of a photographer
hinges on just one gatekeeper, this seems like an extreme example. To
date, Maier's legacy has been completely tied to and dependent on
Maloof. So far the editing has been wonderful. The images in this post
—plucked at random from recent posts on Maloof's blog— are testament
to that.
But I can't help wondering about the process. How much weeding out is
occurring? How active is the curating? How much of what we are seeing
is Maier's vision, and how much is Maloof's? Book, show, and film are
forthcoming. I for one am looking forward to all of them.
}
From: http://www.theincoherentlight.com/2010/12/vivian-maier.html
{
Now there's no doubt that addressing any criticism to words quoted in
a magazine article is a fool’s errand as things are often taken out of
context, or misunderstood, but it seems clear enough that upstarts
working in isolation and unrecognised are only welcome in the art
world if they are discovered through its own (dubious) machinations
and not by a private individual gaining attention and support for this
otherwise unseen work on the internet, as opposed to through the
efforts of some established cultural institution. Westerbeck’s
assessment of the work, despite his reputation as a critic, is frankly
unbelievable, obviously confusing style and substance in a way that is
most unfortunate.
}
From the original Maloof flickr discussion:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622552378986/72157625615667186/
{
The greatest artists, Westerbeck says, know how to create a distance
from their subjects.
What do people think of this assessment?
I would argue that Vivian Maier's connection with her subjects is a
large part of what makes the work compelling. Westerbeck implies there
is only space for ironic and witty pictures in the canon of street
photography. But then he's an 'expert' so what do I know?!
}
Darren Addy
Kearney, Nebraska
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine I disguise myself as a living statue so I can be assured no one will look directly at me. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I wonder if Westerbeck hasn't kind of painted himself into an intellectual corner v Maier. Apparently, he was offered a chance to define the presentation of Maier's work to the rest of the world and declined to do so because he didn't see merit in it?? And now he's stuck justifying his judgment. There just seems [to me] to be an underlying snobbery in his comments; an impression of I didn't discover it, so it can't be any good. I am NOT an art historian, nor a critic and I am not an aficionado of street photography. But to the extent I know anything of it, I found Maier's photography competent, if for nothing else, for what it reveals of the time and place. And there's an interesting story that goes along with it. From: Christine Aguila 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 bruce.wal...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net 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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3775 - Release Date: 07/19/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Walker I want to isolate one statement and ask a question, especially of the list members grounded in fine arts: 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? I read his statement as being about street photographers, not about artists in general, although I may be wrong. Any given statement about what art is or what artists do will receive an immediate fusillade of protest challenge from everyone else who takes an interest in the subject, regardless of their actual grounding. No harm in that - it is only opinion and a pleasant way of passing time until we hear the scratching sound of the Reaper honing his scythe. In some ways this is what art is: a long argument about what art is. Every statement about the nature of art necessarily limits it, puts a boundary on it. In response, someone else will produce a work that refutes it, breaks the boundary, yet is still undeniably art. Trying to define art is like trying to pin quicksilver to the ceiling. I think he means something similar to the notion that every writer has a splinter of ice in the heart. That whatever situation you are involved in, however closely, there is still a part of you that is watching ironically from the shelter of a doorway, and laughing quietly at the foolishness of it all. I do think this is present in some of Maier's pictures, and I think it may be a necessary condition of great art, but not a sufficient condition. B 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 10:07 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: Don't be so hard on yourself, some of your images rise to mediocrity. Sorry, I screwed up my knee and I'm in a small amount of pain I'm sorry to hear that Peter. I see it is affecting you on more than one level. You have never justified dissing my imagery before this :) HAR!!! -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
- Original Message - From: John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com To: pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] I wonder if Westerbeck hasn't kind of painted himself into an intellectual corner v Maier. Apparently, he was offered a chance to define the presentation of Maier's work to the rest of the world and declined to do so because he didn't see merit in it?? And now he's stuck justifying his judgment. A plausible point to be sure, John. He should have taken the Christine Aguila route--evade commitment until more work is seen :-)--of course, how much more work must I see before I come to the table and testify? Har! Oh, gosh, I'm HAR-ing myself. Must be the heat. Hot one today. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 9:57 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine I don't really think it is so much of a photographic technique as an operational technique. As Paul mentioned, the subject being unaware of the photographer is what works for him, and while I am by no means an aficionado of street photography (quite the opposite in fact, I just don't get much of it), I do know from my wedding photography days that I do get different expressions from people when they are being posed compared to when I am shooting pictures of the reception line. I have an unenviable knack of catching people at their worst in candid situations, making the most attractive people look like retards and the plain people looking like retarded trolls. Unfortunately, often my portraiture isn't much better. We had a guy on the list here somewhat before your time named Shel Belinkoff. I found his street work to be quite compelling, though he had more of a knack for capturing pathos than anything else. He described his method as engaging the subject until they were comfortable with having a guy with a camera nearby and then he would snap a few photos. I've always found this image of his to be quite touching, and his description below describes what was often his way of working: http://pug.komkon.org/00apri/bobangel.html Others will think it quite banal, overdone, or perhaps a bit too affected, but there is no way he was keeping any sort of distance from his subjects. At the same time, I see a lot of genuine emotion in the example given, anyway. It seems to me that in street photography, it is fairly important to have the subject unaware enough of the photographer that he or she is not mugging for the camera. What Paul suggests is one way, and I think in many respects, it is the easiest way as well (no offence intended, Paul). I'm shy enough that on the very few occasions I attempt the genre, it is my way also. Paul has much better timing than I do, and he seems to get at least decent results, whereas I never seem able to rise out of the gutters of street photography. I suspect that what is important is to not put on a dog and pony show and expect to get images of people who are not affected by your presence. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On Jul 20, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: - Original Message - From: William Robb anotherdrunken...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:50 AM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] On 20/07/2011 9:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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. I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine Simply by not becoming part of the photo. When the subject sees the camera and photographer, the nature of the encounter changes, and the subject reacts to the camera. When the camera and photographer are unobserved recorders of the scene, the true nature of the scenario is preserved. That's akin to a writer not injecting himself or herself into a story. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine Simply by not becoming part of the photo. When the subject sees the camera and photographer, the nature of the encounter changes, and the subject reacts to the camera. When the camera and photographer are unobserved recorders of the scene, the true nature of the scenario is preserved. That's akin to a writer not injecting himself or herself into a story. Paul that's not possible, either for the writer or the photographer. It's what the literary theorists have been banging on about for the last 60 years. The best writers and photographers know this, and work with it. The ones who don't know this are by definition naives and primitives, in some sense. I don't mean this disparagingly, but people who are consciously working within the art tradition - or against it - are aware of it. Nowadays that awareness extends very much to knowledge of the place of the author and his/her relationship with the work. I'd go so far as to say that in contemporary street photography perhaps the subject _ought_ to be aware of the camera, and that the irony of this is important within a genre which has traditionally emphasised the candid snapshot, because the true nature of the situation includes a photographer, and we all know that. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
- Original Message - From: William Robb anotherdrunken...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] On 20/07/2011 9:57 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine I don't really think it is so much of a photographic technique as an operational technique. That's a good distiction to make, Bill. Thanks! As Paul mentioned, the subject being unaware of the photographer is what works for him, and while I am by no means an aficionado of street photography (quite the opposite in fact, I just don't get much of it), I do know from my wedding photography days that I do get different expressions from people when they are being posed compared to when I am shooting pictures of the reception line. I have an unenviable knack of catching people at their worst in candid situations, making the most attractive people look like retards and the plain people looking like retarded trolls. Unfortunately, often my portraiture isn't much better. We had a guy on the list here somewhat before your time named Shel Belinkoff. I found his street work to be quite compelling, though he had more of a knack for capturing pathos than anything else. He described his method as engaging the subject until they were comfortable with having a guy with a camera nearby and then he would snap a few photos. I've always found this image of his to be quite touching, and his description below describes what was often his way of working: http://pug.komkon.org/00apri/bobangel.html Others will think it quite banal, overdone, or perhaps a bit too affected, but there is no way he was keeping any sort of distance from his subjects. At the same time, I see a lot of genuine emotion in the example given, anyway. I don't photograph street people because I don't think I would do it well, and I don't feel comfortable doing it. Also, I often don't like the way other photographers photograph street people, but I agree that in this picture the expression of the subject is compelling. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I should have brought this to the table sooner--sorry about that, but-- I wonder if Westerbrook's comments in the Chicago mag article are really best understood in the context of his chapter, The Chicago School, in his book, Bystander, where he explains the Bauhaus movement--coming out of the Institute of Design--as established by Moholy-Nagy, Callahan, and Siskind--and later students Joespheson, Metzker, and Barabra Crane. The way these photographers used *photographic technique*--multiple printings exposures, photograms, composition of light and shadow etc--yeilded greater abstraction (as you would expect of this modernist/constructivist movement), and hence, greater *intellectual distance* as Westerbrook *might* say. So when Westerbrook says, Maier is no Callahan, he is, in fact, right, but so far, it looks as if she never intended to be, so it's really an unfair comparison in my view. I absolutely love Harry Callahan's picture Alley, which you can see here. http://www.geh.org/ne/str085/htmlsrc9/m198111310002_ful.html To me, this is s Chicago! I love it. To my eye he, has used the *photographic technique* of multiples--multiple printing- to great effect. What I also find interesting about the Chicago School, as Westerbrook explains, is their interest in light; the interest lay not so much in the specific subject, but rather in the structure of light around the subject--it's angles etc! I can see in my own mediocre body of work that I pay so little attention to the specific kinds of light in my native location--oh, I bow my head to magic hour light and morning light occassionally, but virtually none of my work incorporates the unique charcter of the shafts of light that occur here, especially in the downtown area. To pay so little attention to light seems to miss the point; kind of like a writer not being that interested in words. Well, be assured, I'm embarrassed enough! One last interesting point about Callahan; at one point he began to reject the Bauhaus movement: Everything was Bauhaus this and Bauhaus that. I wanted to break it . . . I got tired of expermination. I got sick of the solarization and reticulation and walked-on negatives. What I was interested in was the technique of seeing. . . . I introducded problems like 'the evidence of man,' and talking to people--making protraits on the street. . . .I thought [the students] should enter into dealings with human beings and leave abstract photography. I felt that social photography would be the next concern. Seems to me Maier followed that concern! cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/20/2011 12:36, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bruce Walker I want to isolate one statement and ask a question, especially of the list members grounded in fine arts: The greatest artists know how to create a distance from their subjects. Bob replied... I read his statement as being about street photographers, not about artists in general, although I may be wrong. .. snip snip Lots of stuff there thats good to read but I want to respond to just the next paragraph.. I think he means something similar to the notion that every writer has a splinter of ice in the heart. That whatever situation you are involved in, however closely, there is still a part of you that is watching ironically from the shelter of a doorway, and laughing quietly at the foolishness of it all. I do think this is present in some of Maier's pictures, and I think it may be a necessary condition of great art, but not a sufficient condition. B That's damned profound, Bob. Which is to say, I agree that sounds like what he meant... and that it is necessary. But not if the splinter is too large... I really liked more of her stuff than not - of her things that we were permitted to see because someone had selected them. Some of his choices puzzled me, but don't ask me which ones at the moment. Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/20/2011 11:57, Christine Aguila wrote: Writers establish what's called psychological distance between the work and the reader primarily through point of view (language itself can contribute to this)--1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov, and all the shades thereof. Through what photographic technique does a photographer minimize or maximize intellectual distance? Cheers, Christine Will that be on the next exam? :-) How many words do we have to submit? But seriously, I don't think anything is served by photographers, or any artists , for that matter, over intellectualzing their approach.. I got hammered by Gene Frankel for doing that in the acting days - getting involved in what the playright's intent was instead of using my humanity and instincts to identify with the character to bring her to life. write what you know was the mantra I grew up with... so it was the opposite of intellectual distance. I also considered /thought that street photography was basically photo-journalism but you do it for yourself, rather than on an assignment... where the distance fades away... you wouldn't be photographing something with which you had absolutely no gut connection, would you? ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
Don't be so hard on yourself, some of your images rise to mediocrity. MARK ! Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London] Don't be so hard on yourself, some of your images rise to mediocrity. Sorry, I screwed up my knee and I'm in a small amount of pain On 7/20/2011 11:50 AM, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 9:34 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: 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. I suspect, in reality, he is talking about intellectual distance, not physical distance, which is what Capa was talking about (and probably what got him killed). I find if I am not at least somewhat intellectually connected to my subject, my pictures are complete crap rather than just mostly crap. -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
I absolutely love Harry Callahan's picture Alley, which you can see here. http://www.geh.org/ne/str085/htmlsrc9/m198111310002_ful.html To me, this is s Chicago! I love it. To my eye he, has used the *photographic technique* of multiples--multiple printing- to great effect. What I that was the HDR of its day. David Douglas Duncan did a whole bunch of stuff like, and with tricksy filters. It's embarrassing to look at in the context of his other work. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
write what you know was the mantra I grew up with... so it was the opposite of intellectual distance. but in order to write what you know, or at least to write it successfully so that other people can actually read it, you have to put some distance between yourself as a writer, and whatever it is you're writing about. Otherwise you just produce mush. I also considered /thought that street photography was basically photo-journalism but you do it for yourself, rather than on an assignment... where the distance fades away... you wouldn't be photographing something with which you had absolutely no gut connection, would you? For me the essence of street photography, when it's good (which is very rarely), is what my film teacher referred to as 'the poetry of everyday life'. Kertesz, I think, talked about 'small moments'. Elliott Erwitt said that good photography 'is about noticing things'. All of these refer to the same thing. The poetry, the small moments, the things you notice, may be little looks between people, or the chance juxtaposition of odd elements (also part of surrealism and Dada), the play of light, or as someone else said, recognising in a fraction of a second and at the same moment an event and the rigorous organisation of visual forms which express and give meaning to the event (HCB of course, who was much given to prolix windbaggery about his photography). At its best (eg Erwitt, HCB) it gives you a witty, caustic or ironic insight that somehow shines a light on the absurdity of the human condition, if I dare use that phrase. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 20/07/2011 2:02 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel. I'm going to challenge you on that one Ann. Lets presume for the sake of discussion that the story under the picture is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, and neither should you). With that in mind, the subject new the camera was present, and I expect new he was being photographed. Without going back and looking, I believe Shel mentioned he had shot most of a roll of film on that subject. So, the subject was knowingly being photographed in what had unfortunately become his natural environment. I'll agree with the maudlin part, but cruel? There had to have been at least a tacit approval on the subject's part regarding the image being shot, and one would presume that had he objected, the image wouldn't have been made (though this would depend entirely on how sensitive Shel was that day). How is Shel's picture, taken with the subject's permission any more cruel than this one by Paul, more obviously with permission I'll admit, for example: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/20/2011 19:34, Bob W wrote: write what you know was the mantra I grew up with... so it was the opposite of intellectual distance. but in order to write what you know, or at least to write it successfully so that other people can actually read it, you have to put some distance between yourself as a writer, and whatever it is you're writing about. Otherwise you just produce mush. Well you read the poems ... and I think you said it wasnt msh but you had feard it would be :-) I also considered /thought that street photography was basically photo-journalism but you do it for yourself, rather than on an assignment... where the distance fades away... you wouldn't be photographing something with which you had absolutely no gut connection, would you? For me the essence of street photography, when it's good (which is very rarely), is what my film teacher referred to as 'the poetry of everyday life'. Kertesz, I think, talked about 'small moments'. Elliott Erwitt said that good photography 'is about noticing things'. All of these refer to the same thing. The poetry, the small moments, the things you notice, may be little looks between people, or the chance juxtaposition of odd elements (also part of surrealism and Dada), the play of light, or as someone else said, recognising in a fraction of a second and at the same moment an event and the rigorous organisation of visual forms which express and give meaning to the event (HCB of course, who was much given to prolix windbaggery about his photography). HE said it - he did it _ I try At its best (eg Erwitt, HCB) it gives you a witty, caustic or ironic insight that somehow shines a light on the absurdity of the human condition, if I dare use that phrase. B Too late, you just did! a -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 05:50:45PM -0600, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 2:02 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel. I'm going to challenge you on that one Ann. Lets presume for the sake of discussion that the story under the picture is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, and neither should you). With that in mind, the subject new the camera was present, and I expect new he was being photographed. Without going back and looking, I believe Shel mentioned he had shot most of a roll of film on that subject. So, the subject was knowingly being photographed in what had unfortunately become his natural environment. I'll agree with the maudlin part, but cruel? There had to have been at least a tacit approval on the subject's part regarding the image being shot, and one would presume that had he objected, the image wouldn't have been made (though this would depend entirely on how sensitive Shel was that day). I've shot with Shel on a couple of occasions, and I don't think I would ever believe him to be anything but considerate of his subjects at any time. He had a degree of involvement that I personally could never achieve - I'm always self-conscious about the differences in our situations (for one thing, I'm shooting with camera gear that cost thousands of dollars, while many homeless people wonder where the price of the next meal is coming from). But the one thing I have learned is that the trick is to get to the situation where your subject knows you are there, but doesn't have a problem with that. In my (rather different) experience I managed to achieve the same sort of separation with Ashley Judd at an IndyCar race. When she first saw me point a camera at her I could see all the defensive walls go up. But when she realised that my main purpose was to photograph Dario Franchitti, and she was only of interest as Dario's girlfriend (as she then was), she relaxed. (Paul Newman was the same way; he was happy to be photographed as a team owner, but wouldn't sign autographs as a celebrity) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On 7/20/2011 19:50, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 2:02 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel. I'm going to challenge you on that one Ann. Lets presume for the sake of discussion that the story under the picture is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, and neither should you). Story under the picture?... I didn't see anthing but the photo... hmmm. With that in mind, the subject new the camera was present, and I expect new he was being photographed. Without going back and looking, I believe Shel mentioned he had shot most of a roll of film on that subject. So, the subject was knowingly being photographed in what had unfortunately become his natural environment. I'll agree with the maudlin part, but cruel? (well, projecting here... you know why) There had to have been at least a tacit approval on the subject's part regarding the image being shot, and one would presume that had he objected, the image wouldn't have been made (though this would depend entirely on how sensitive Shel was that day). Difference between what Shel chose to show others and someone knowing he was taking their photo... How is Shel's picture, taken with the subject's permission any more cruel than this one by Paul, more obviously with permission I'll admit, for example: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html Well for one thing, the guy is looking straight at Paul... for another, unless you read Paul's story about it, he is just a guy who kinda looks like some peoples idea of what Jesus looked like or would have looked like and I certainly couldn't tell he was holding money.. looks like note paper since he has a pen in his hand. I can't tell he is begging from looking at the photo. I don't remember the photo tho I surely should becuase of where it is.. that is in the LX gallery. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Distance [was Re: V. Maier exhibition in London]
On Jul 20, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: On 7/20/2011 19:50, William Robb wrote: On 20/07/2011 2:02 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Like Christine , I feel uncomfortable shooting the unfortunate and while that photo of Shel's is powerful it is also maudlin (skipping around to referencing other posts here - sorry) and cruel. I'm going to challenge you on that one Ann. Lets presume for the sake of discussion that the story under the picture is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, and neither should you). Story under the picture?... I didn't see anthing but the photo... hmmm. With that in mind, the subject new the camera was present, and I expect new he was being photographed. Without going back and looking, I believe Shel mentioned he had shot most of a roll of film on that subject. So, the subject was knowingly being photographed in what had unfortunately become his natural environment. I'll agree with the maudlin part, but cruel? (well, projecting here... you know why) There had to have been at least a tacit approval on the subject's part regarding the image being shot, and one would presume that had he objected, the image wouldn't have been made (though this would depend entirely on how sensitive Shel was that day). Difference between what Shel chose to show others and someone knowing he was taking their photo... How is Shel's picture, taken with the subject's permission any more cruel than this one by Paul, more obviously with permission I'll admit, for example: I paid the guy five bucks to take his photo. He wasn't being taken advantage of. He earned some money. Paul http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/Gallery_index.html Well for one thing, the guy is looking straight at Paul... for another, unless you read Paul's story about it, he is just a guy who kinda looks like some peoples idea of what Jesus looked like or would have looked like and I certainly couldn't tell he was holding money.. looks like note paper since he has a pen in his hand. I can't tell he is begging from looking at the photo. I don't remember the photo tho I surely should becuase of where it is.. that is in the LX gallery. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila Interesting comments, Bob--especially the points about how she might end up fitting into photog history. Not sure I agree, but I appreciate the validity of your points. As you say, it will be interesting to watch the story unfold. I watched the video on the web site and also thought the exhibition space was wonderful. Cheers, Christine I won't mind if history proves me wrong! In what ways do you disagree? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. B - Original Message - From: Bob W p...@web-options.com To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:01 PM Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a- life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
- Original Message - From: Bob W p...@web-options.com To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:26 AM Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila Interesting comments, Bob--especially the points about how she might end up fitting into photog history. Not sure I agree, but I appreciate the validity of your points. As you say, it will be interesting to watch the story unfold. I watched the video on the web site and also thought the exhibition space was wonderful. Cheers, Christine I won't mind if history proves me wrong! In what ways do you disagree? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Well, probably more accurate to say, I don't know what my position is--it's just to early to tell. There's a lot of friggin negs to go through. I agree with you that in the exhibition I saw, not every photo was superb (I don't know if we saw the same shots), but I certainly liked a lot of what I saw, and the world is just learning about her body of work, so I'm not really ready to commit either way, but as I said, you make valid points. You may be interested in Colin Westerbeck's (Bystander: History of Street Photography with Joel Meyerowitz) view: 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. Yet Westerbeck admits that he understands the allure of Maier's work. She was a kind of mysterious figure, he says. What's compelling about her pictures is the way that they capture the local character of Chicago in the past decades. And some interesting selected comments about Westerbeck's quote; you have to scroll down a bit to the comment section:http://tinyurl.com/434sddo I don't know anything about Colin Westerbeck, so I don't know if he really is a hack curator as one of the comments states. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
Interesting comments, Bob--especially the points about how she might end up fitting into photog history. Not sure I agree, but I appreciate the validity of your points. As you say, it will be interesting to watch the story unfold. I watched the video on the web site and also thought the exhibition space was wonderful. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Bob W p...@web-options.com To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:01 PM Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 7/17/2011 13:01, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. That's what is a bit scary about someone editing photos after the demise of the photographer . V M may have well considered some of them meh as well.. and another editor may have selected a totally different set. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. THey are a great capture of what the scene was like there in the 50's and certainly familar to me. ann The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
What about her influence now? Many younger street shooters will see her work because it's popular now and emulate he work. -Original Message- From: Bob W p...@web-options.com Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:01:24 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'pdml@pdml.net Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
What about her influence now? Many younger street shooters will see her work because it's popular now and emulate he work. I'd think it's more likely to lead them to the work of the other Chicago photographers B -Original Message- From: Bob W p...@web-options.com Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:01:24 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'pdml@pdml.net Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
Well, that's not a bad thing either. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: What about her influence now? Many younger street shooters will see her work because it's popular now and emulate he work. I'd think it's more likely to lead them to the work of the other Chicago photographers B -Original Message- From: Bob W p...@web-options.com Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:01:24 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'pdml@pdml.net Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: V. Maier exhibition in London From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Chris couldn't make it yesterday, so I went to the exhibition today because I had something else to do in that area. The exhibition space is really good. It's some sort of Victorian railway building that's been converted as part of the enormous regeneration taking place around Kings Cross St. Pancras. There is an architect's model of the whole site on the ground floor of the exhibition building. The exhibition itself is quite small and I thought the pictures were rather variable, from superb to meh. Many of them are top class, whatever the back story, but I made an effort to evaluate them without the back story influencing me, trying to think If I saw this without knowing who took it, what would be my reaction?. Meh, in a few cases. The good ones, however, are great and I look forward to seeing many more as the backlog is whittled away. It's a great shame though that Maier was not in contact with other street photographers of the time. If her pictures had been known in the 1950s she would stand alongside some of the top names from that school, but now she can only be a footnote and a curiosity. The influence of that school of photography has already been made, and I don't think she will go on to influence anyone significant, expect perhaps to learn more about the Chicago influence on street photography. The exhibition is part of London Street Photography week. After it I went to London's former Little Italy, which is centred round the church of San Pietro. Today is when they have their annual procession, which I'd never heard of until a few weeks ago, so I went along to photograph it. Lots of street photographers had obviously had the same idea because I saw many of the same faces I'd seen earlier at the Maier show. I'll post some photos of the procession later. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
I'll see if I can get to it. I'm on holiday for the next two weeks, but going away. May be able to get some time though. B -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Christine Aguila Sent: 15 July 2011 05:39 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: V. Maier exhibition in London To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 15 July 2011 05:39, Christine Aguila wrote: To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Wow! I missed that. I can go tomorrow (16th) or Sunday 24th. Happy to go on my own, but would appreciate company. Any takers? Chris I can't do either of those but I might be able to do Tuesday 19th. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 15 July 2011 05:39, Christine Aguila wrote: To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a- life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Wow! I missed that. I can go tomorrow (16th) or Sunday 24th. Happy to go on my own, but would appreciate company. Any takers? Chris I can't do either of those but I might be able to do Tuesday 19th. B Actually I can do tomorrow as long as it's relatively early - could we meet before lunch? B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 15 July 2011 08:21, Bob W wrote: On 15 July 2011 05:39, Christine Aguila wrote: To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a- life- uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Wow! I missed that. I can go tomorrow (16th) or Sunday 24th. Happy to go on my own, but would appreciate company. Any takers? Chris I can't do either of those but I might be able to do Tuesday 19th. B Actually I can do tomorrow as long as it's relatively early - could we meet before lunch? B It opens at 11:00 - could we meet in the vicinity just before that? CM -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
V. Maier exhibition in London
To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life-uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
- Original Message - From: Christine Aguila christ...@caguila.com To: pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:39 PM Subject: V. Maier exhibition in London To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life-uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! P.S.S. The space looks great! There's a video on the page. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: V. Maier exhibition in London
On 15 July 2011 05:39, Christine Aguila wrote: To all our British PDMLers: Check this out: Vivian Maier is by you guys! Cheers, Christine http://londonstreetphotographyfestival.org/diary/vivian-maier-a-life-uncovered P.S. How about a report for the list from one of you guys!?! Wow! I missed that. I can go tomorrow (16th) or Sunday 24th. Happy to go on my own, but would appreciate company. Any takers? Chris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
