Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] were you just baiting us?

Subject: RE: [OM] were you just baiting us?
From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 02:10:07 -0700
Oh Yes.....Great is defined by each of us and there will never be much
agreement except in small elite groups. I have frequently read discussions
about light by photographers of considerable merit. They think light is
important and so do I. It is not the only thing of importance. I do "get it"
and am entitled to my opinion. I just responded to what you said which I
thought was bullshit. By comparison, your follow-up makes the original
statement look better.

Galen Rowell was a great adventurer who used photography to show the rest of
us what he saw and wanted to share. He certainly manipulated light and
didn't enjoy universal acceptance. He did his work very well, even if the
artistic community looks down their noses at it. It sells very well.

I see some of the work of the old masters and find that it does nothing for
me. Other works cause me to have significant emotion and it's frequently
difficult for me to know exactly why. The prices that collectors pay for
some mundane images are truly amazing. I'm seldom satisfied with the
artistic nature of my own work but most of my photography has been
commercial so my artistic experience is limited. That's my excuse and I'm
sticking to it.

/jim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael Kopp
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:49 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OM] were you just baiting us?


At 11:40 -0700 15/1/03, James N. McBride wrote:

>Michael Kopp said:

>> > If a great photographer talks about light they're not a great
>> > photographer.

James McBride said:

>Absolute statements like this are usually wrong. Galen Rowell talked about
>light and his work is considered to be "great" by most people. /jim


Kopp replies:

My absolute statement was a response to another absolute statement, that
great photographers talk about light.

Obviously you didn't get it.

Galen Rowell was a fine photographer. He may even have been considered
"great" by "most people" -- but if so, "most people" don't understand the
meaning of the word "great", or they are using it -- as most people use
language today (there's another almost-absolute statement) -- in a degraded
way.

Greatness in photography means something transcendent about the images.

For all their beauty and depth of feeling about nature, Galen Rowell's
pictures are not considered "great" by people who judge photography
according to principles of artistic merit -- most of which have nothing to
do with light.

This is not to downplay the importance of light to good pictures or great
images.

But light, like all the other variables with which the photographer works,
is totally secondary to content, meaning and expression.

By these criteria, Galen Rowell was not a "great" photographer, and will
not be remembered as such by photographic history.

Hope this helps in the "absolute statements" department.

--
Cheers from Godzone,

Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz