Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have to jump in here, and say the dreaded, "Me Too!" Even though I admire the work of Karsh, it differs significantly from HCB's style, and while both have their own opinions about who might be the 'better', I find both to have merit. Each has their own style- Karsh rather formal, and 'posed', HCB with a relaxed, candid, style. Having done weddings, I can see the value in both styles- people enjoy, and expect that in addition to the 'posed' and somewhat formal shots, that you provide 'candid' shots of the party and guests in a more relaxed atmosphere. To compare Karsh with HCB on a point by point comparison is again like comparing apples to oranges, or kumquats to grapefruit, possibly. Am I too eclectic? I don't think so. If you consider the mindset- and here is where studying the 'pros' becomes interesting- not just copying their style, but trying to understand what they were seeing, and what they were thinking at the time. It makes more sense, and you can appreciate the differences! I used to take 'art' courses in college- mainly to keep my grade point average up as I sometimes took math courses that pulled the GPA down! I had no intention of being an artist, but I enjoyed the 'sandbox' sessions, and enjoyed drawing, painting, and doing the artsy-fartsy craft work. Gradually, I became aware that I could look at a Manet, Monet, or Ruebens- all different styles, and still appreciate what the 'artist' was trying to do. I had many a discussion with one professor who considered Norman Rockwell to be an 'illustrator' and who produced 'dreck' for magazine covers, never considering that Michelangelo 'illustrated' Bible stories on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for a much smaller audience. In the end, I could look at both and admire their work, and what they were trying to express. I am sure that many consider Dorothea Lange to be merely a documentary photographer, but she was a 'portrait' photographer who felt that she should not just photograph the 'carriage trade', but felt that a record of the pathos of what was then the common plight of millions of Americans needed to be made. Hines records of the children working in the mills of the south are the same. Not 'high art' but important nonetheless. I think that we spend a lot of time trying to, as someone once described in the 60s, "Nail Jell-O to a tree...." I admire both Lautersteins majestic landscapes, but I don't disparage his work in favor of the sensitive intimate landscapes that Nathan Wasjman does- Hans' delicate portraits are just as important an expression, as are the gritty tell all shots that Eric Welch has on his site. Please- we all have our own 'vision' of what is right, to be sure, but the beautiful thing about MOST of this group of whackos is that we can share our appreciation without rancor or animosity to ourselves or others- no need to let discussion break down into dissention. Hell, even though I think most of Maplethorpe's work would be better left in the wastebasket, I have seen one or two of his shots that I felt had merit, were well done, and had good visual impact. (Not the jar, by anymeans, however!). I have even tried to glean a few insights from Anthony's posts! personally, I think he has our number and is taking immense delight in 'tweaking' the noses of the 'purists', and old guard! ) It was much like the question I posed about the group's 'personal' thoughts about whether I should keep my Summicron -M 50/2 or not as I was getting an M6 with a Summilux-M 50/1.4. Even though I distinctly remember asking for 'personal'thoughts and impressions, I got many replies directing me to Erwin's site and his highly technical, and objective scientific evaluations! What I wanted was subjective opinions- which I am sure we as a group hold in spades! I was amazed, but not surprised that over half the responses directed me to Erwin's site! Gosh- I wish he'd let his brother Hubert have some space there! It was the same with my question about printers and scanners- when asking for subjective feedback, I had to wait a few weeks before Tim Atherto n put some very useful information on the list. Anyway- I realize that some of you have to pay dearly for the bandwidth, and I apologize if I have cost you in anyway, but I still think that among newsgroups and lists that this one, for all its bickering and nit-picking, is still a valuable resource, and point of contact with some really interesting and wonderful people, and is much more civil than most that I have visited. Now, that was one Helluva long 'Me Too!'; sorry, but I think that you all are too valuable a resource to have anyone at another's throat over some inconsequential matter. Like the old saying goes- "In six months- what the Hell difference will it make?" ask yourself that, and if it seems that important, and that earth shaking- comment or criticize it- otherwise, ponder and try to understand. Slips of the finger or spell check become non-issues! Respectfully, and appreciative of ALL of you yahoos out there!, Dan - ----- Original Message ----- From: <Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 4:40 PM Subject: Re[2]: [Leica] HCB Portaits at Washington Post site > > Having recently seen a book of portraits by Karsh, in which the people > are photographed so as to appear almost as if their heads were chisled > out of granite (the worst ones at least), I have a much higher opinion > of HCB's portraits than Bernard does, finding them refreshing, humane, > subtle, natural, and individual by comparision. If they don't possess > all the same qualities of his more typical so-called "decisive moment" > photographs, they are none the less very fine. (Just an opinion!) :) > > Art Peterson > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: [Leica] HCB Portaits at Washington Post site > Author: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internet > Date: 09/30/1999 12:03 AM > > > Paul Chefurka wrote: > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/museums/photogallery/bresson/inde > > > > x.htm > > > > Three galleries of portraits and an essay. > > Thanks for the link! On the Albert Camus portrait, it that incredibly > ugly bokeh, or is it me? The image doubles! > > And I'm afraid I must say that I find the majority of these photos > tremendously unremarkable. > > Bernard >