Great, if not controversial, quote from a great photographer of the 60s

neil_r wrote in post #10806412
In your opinion that is wrong and I am happy to accept that, Duffy has an opinion that differs from yours (as do I) and I hope you find that equally acceptable.

I think technically he has a point. If hes talking visually then he is dead wrong.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10806415
I think technically he has a point. If hes talking visually then he is dead wrong.

Watch the programme, it is fascinating. He is a very interesting guy. Unfortunately he died in May this year.

You can see it HERE

neil_r wrote in post #10806292
"So what" is a valid view, I was just interested by the fact that two mould breaking photographers of the 60s, Duffy & Bailey, thought it interesting enough to be chatting about.

Both went to art school and had an education in fine art before they picked up a camera. When Duffy was asked why he did not pursue fine art (painting) he said "Because I realised that the people who produced great paintings were geniuses, I picked up a camera and thought, this is easy"

I am not saying he is right, or that I necessarily agree with him, but whatever way you cut it, he was a great photographer.

To clarify, I am not saying "so what" to his comment, or even your desire to post it. His point is actually at the base, or at least partially, of the broader argument of whether photography is art or not; a debate that has followed photography since its inception.

My "so what" is more directed at the causal assumptions between mechanics and art. On POTN, the gear versus photographer debate ranks right up there with the 24-70 versus 24-105 conflict, but I would go a step further and note that it is not even just a matter of skill or the equipment.

You can have an expensive guitar and be extremely skilled at playing it, but this does not mean that you will actually be able to produce worthwhile music (and yes, I understand I am wading through a thick gunk of subjectivity here). Really , though, I’ll choose the Sex Pistols over Yngwie Malmsteen any day, despite Malmsteen’s greater instrumental virtuosity.

Whether it takes just five days or five years to proficiently use an instrument is arbitrary in the overall goal of producing an admirable product.

Duffy possibly found it easy because he was likely already artistically inclined, unquestionably, a trait that was easier to express through photography than painting. But this certainly doesn't mean it would come as easy for other people (like me!) who are struggling just to come within one-tenth of the quality of my favorite photographers.

I'm not into fashion photography, but I am familiar with both of Bailey and Duffy…why? What made them stand out? After all, there are more folks with cameras than with violins. And yeah, sometimes it good self-promotion and marketing, but this element doesn't negate talent; they can coexist…and Bailey and Duffy were talented…Bowie's "Aladdin Sane" remains one of my favorite album covers.

And remember, Mozart was composing by age five…

neil_r wrote in post #10806412
In your opinion that is wrong and I am happy to accept that, Duffy has an opinion that differs from yours (as do I) and I hope you find that equally acceptable.

It's totally fine that we disagree.

However, did you just see me say that it was wrong and stop reading? You are getting some people to disagree, and we've all given some reasons why we do. I'd really like to know why you think the quote is "brilliant, and insightful"!

bjyoder wrote in post #10806481
I'd really like to know why you think the quote is "brilliant, and insightful"!

For the same reason that many people find other peoples views brilliant and insightful, because they alight with their own, in this case mine .

Of course I find his view brilliant and insightful, other will think it is complete tosh.

neil_r wrote in post #10806506
For the same reason that many people find other peoples views brilliant and insightful, because they alight with their own, in this case mine .

Of course I find his view brilliant and insightful, other will think it is complete tosh.

Well he had me until he said there was no such thing as art photography. He's dead wrong and history shows how wrong he is. Maybe he believes that of his world but even in fashion or with fashion photographers art has been created at times and again history not opinion proves him wrong.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10806528
Well he had me until he said there was no such thing as art photography. He's dead wrong and history shows how wrong he is. Maybe he believes that of his world but even in fashion or with fashion photographers art has been created at times and again history not opinion proves him wrong.

I agree with you there, there is definitely art photography, I also think that original art photography is not widespread, there are a lot of great photographers and they do great work, but true originality is something else, we could all make lists of truly great artists that used the medium of photography to express their art, but they were all artists first and photography was simply the medium they used.

I would include Duffy in that list even if he would not himself.

There has been a lot of similar work produced over the last 40 years, for me, it's the fact that he was in the vanguard that defined a style that has been a huge influence on many people that makes him an artist.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10806367
The equipment is even easier to use now but the real trick is the vision. Its the vision and the ability to capture that vision that is the infinitely difficult part. Yeah anyone can push the button and get a reasonable image under average conditions but the mojo is usually in those conditions that fall out of average.

Here's what a couple of the TRULY greats had to say about it.

"The photographer’s most important and likewise most difficult task is not learning to manage his camera, or to develop, or to print. It is learning to see photographically – that is, learning to see his subject matter in terms of the capacities of his tools and processes, so that he can instantaneously translate the elements and values in a scene before him into the photograph he wants to make."
Edward Weston

"Photography is a medium of formidable contradictions. It is both ridiculously easy and almost impossibly difficult. It is easy because its technical rudiments can readily be mastered by anyone with a few simple instructions. It is difficult because, while while the artist working in any other medium begins with a blank surface and gradually brings his conception into being, the photographer is the only imagemaker who begins with the picture completed. His emotions, his knowledge, and his native talent are brought into focus and fixed beyond recall the moment the shutter of his camera has closed."
Edward Steichen

"For us the camera is a tool, the extension of our eye, not a pretty little mechanical toy. It is sufficient that we should feel at ease with the camera best adapted for our purpose. Adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car. The real problem is one of intelligence and sensitivity."
Henri Cartier-Bresson

"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."
Ansel Adams

The technique has always bee the easy part. Its the vision and the expression of that vision that is so difficult and making images like only you can make and having the ability and the courage to see that, capture it and show it. The hardest thing in becoming a great photographer is truly finding your own voice.

allen
BINGO
when i was a young man i had a photography teacher William Barksdale who would make us meditate before we would critique photographs of other classmates. with our eyes closed he would set up the picture for review so when our eyes were opened we would get a rush from the image and then discuss the emotional responce to that image. So through this approach to seeing, with a strong dash or technical competence photography became an emotional if not spiritual journey into the object we were photographing and with our vision to try to tell its story or our story through it.

neil_r wrote in post #10806580
I agree with you there, there is definitely art photography, I also think that original art photography is not widespread, there are a lot of great photographers and they do great work, but true originality is something else, we could all make lists of truly great artists that used the medium of photography to express their art, but they were all artists first and photography was simply the medium they used.

I would include Duffy in that list even if he would not himself.

There has been a lot of similar work produced over the last 40 years, for me, it's the fact that he was in the vanguard that defined a style that has been a huge influence on many people that makes him an artist.

I think in terms of commercial photography which has been written about a lot by most of the greats also it only occasionally moves into the realm of art because there is many other motivating factors instead of the factor that is present in all art. But the argument of whether photograph can be art was answered about a century ago.

It is easier now to produce photographs but just as challenging as ever to produce art. Thus the lack good work while more two dimensional work especially photographs being produced than at any time in history. You would think that the quality would also increase in the same proportion but it hasn't. In fact I would argue its decreased. Heres what the great Ralph Gibson had to say about it. The piece is only about 7 mins or so but really interesting.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=NzMQcE2E-1o

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10806367
The equipment is even easier to use now but the real trick is the vision. Its the vision and the ability to capture that vision that is the infinitely difficult part. Yeah anyone can push the button and get a reasonable image under average conditions but the mojo is usually in those conditions that fall out of average.

Heres what a couple of the TRULY greats had to say about it.

"The photographer’s most important and likewise most difficult task is not learning to manage his camera, or to develop, or to print. It is learning to see photographically – that is, learning to see his subject matter in terms of the capacities of his tools and processes, so that he can instantaneously translate the elements and values in a scene before him into the photograph he wants to make."
Edward Weston

"Photography is a medium of formidable contradictions. It is both ridiculously easy and almost impossibly difficult. It is easy because its technical rudiments can readily be mastered by anyonwith a few simple instructions. It is difficult because, while while the artist working in any other medium begins with a blank surface and gradually brings his conception into being, the photographer is the only imagemaker who begins with the picture completed. His emotions, his knowledge, and his native talent are brought into focus and fixed beyond recall the moment the shutter of his camera has closed."
Edward Steichen

"For us the camera is a tool, the extension of our eye, not a pretty little mechanical toy. It is sufficient that we should feel at ease with the camera best adapted for our purpose. Adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car. The real problem is one of intelligence and sensitivity."
Henri Cartier-Bresson

"I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster."
Ansel Adams

The technique has always bee the easy part. Its the vision and the expression of that vision that is so difficult and making images like only you can make and having the ability and the courage to see that, capture it and show it. The hardest thing in becoming a great photographer is truly finding your own voice.

I disagree with none of this, in fact I would go so far as to say that I absolutely agree with nearly all of it, the only thing I am not so sure about is your use of capitals in the word TRULY as it implies that the likes of Duffy, Bailey and Donovan were not great, and for their time and for me they were.

neil_r wrote in post #10806651
I disagree with none of this, in fact I would go so far as to say that I absolutely agree with nearly all of it, the only thing I am not so sure about is your use of capitals in the word TRULY as it implies that the likes of Duffy, Bailey and Donovan were not great, and for their time and for me they were.

I wouldn't put them with the likes of Adams, Weston, Steichen or Bresson. Not saying that they didn't do interesting fashion work but only time will tell how history sees them but its clear how history see the ones I mentioned.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10806723
I wouldn't put them with the likes of Adams, Weston, Steichen or Bresson. Not saying that they didn't do interesting fashion work but only time will tell how history sees them but its clear how history see the ones I mentioned.

LoL they have had a longer history.

I actually agree with him but its not a bottom line. I've seen people who doesn't have a passion for photography take inspring pictures. It could be a random picture using a point and shoot camera of their grandfather kissing their grandmother on a porch under an ideal lighting condition or it could be someone trying to take a picture of a landscape shot of a sun setting down on a beach. Someone who has a passion for photography may deem those pictures as a quality image. At the same time not anyone who picks up a music instrument can produce inspiring music. The beauty of photography is majority of its followers and lovers rely on natural lighting to create outstanding images, and thankfully it is not exclusive to people who owns a DLSR, so anyone who owns a camera can go out and enjoy photography, you cant say the same with music where its standards of whats cconsidered good are much higher.



But I want to be clear that there is a huge seperation with talented photographers who has the ability to create outstanding images consistently at any lighting condition or scenario. I know how hard it is to create excellent and correct exposures and I tip off my hats to those exceptional individuals. This is where a line is drawn between casual or good photographers versus professionals or phtographers who has mastered the art of natural/artificial lighting.

neil_r wrote in post #10806737
LoL they have had a longer history.

Some of those were the very ones that helped get the world to except photography as an art form on its own. The death of pictorial photographs really brought by 3 of those listed and the other (Bresson) was a leader in helping keep the straight movement moving forward.

As far as fashion which is a commercial endeavor I do find some of their work interesting. Art hmmmm maybe in some cases. But history is usually not as kind to those that only work commercially. Most of the greats had to take commercial assignments and some of that was really good work but most would never consider that side of their work, with a few exceptions of course, as art.

^ No disagreement here. Commercial work can be iconic but the fact that something is iconic does not make it art and art is not necessarily iconic.