- Messages
- 457
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
but that is the point they got themselves into that position... as Weegee siad f8 and be there...
and please use their services
Do you know who ansel adams is?
- Thread starter joescrivens
- Start date
- Status
but that is the point they got themselves into that position... as Weegee siad f8 and be there...
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
It does, it makes you ignorant of matters concerning David Bailey, which was all the initial point in the thread was, wasn't it?
I don't know 99% of the actors in Eastenders or Coronation Street, does that make me ignorant I wonder
Yes, it makes you ignorant of them. I don't know 100% of them, making me more ignorant of the situation than you.
I have no idea why people struggle so much with this word and make it out to be more than it is.
- Messages
- 9,066
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
Spare a thought for the English photographer, Eadweard Muybridge who, amongst the first few artists and photographers there, did some spectacular shots of Yosemite on 5 x 8 glass plate (about the same size as Adams used) on months-long expeditions in the late 1860s. Adams at least had the advantage of not having to prepare his chemistry in the field.
Muybridge did some more in the early 1870s, shooting on 20" x 24" glass plates.
Yes, I'm reading a book about him at the moment.
- Messages
- 2,104
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Luton's not that bad lol. Ok so we got no Grand Canyon :thumbsdown:
- Messages
- 2,104
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Anyway back to topic yes I know who Ansel Adams, for me though its the contemporary photographers of the moment, and the modern day version of Ansel for me (slightly twisted to wedding photography) is Jeff Ascough. Kevin Mullins another PJ shooter I admire though not known him long.
On the wedding portrait side of things Jerry Ghionis, Monte Zucker...
On the wedding portrait side of things Jerry Ghionis, Monte Zucker...
- Messages
- 9,066
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana, The Life of Reason: the Phases of Human Progress, 1905
The thread that inspired this one is proof of that. There is very little that is truly new under the sun.
Personally, I take my cue on this from my study of Art (A level) and Architecture (degree).
Seriously, I cannot begin to imagine setting pen to paper for either without having studied how other people approached similar problems before. You learn from their achievements and also from their mistakes. Over time you build a mental library of what works and what doesn't, which, combined with your own direct experience, informs the development of your own language in the medium; a style, if you like.
Just as in architecture, understanding the different ways that Brunelleschi, Frank Lloyd Wright or Richard Meier use space informs how I might organise a building, understanding how Eugène Atget, Cartier-Bresson or William Eggleston might organise life within a frame helps me make decisions when I'm composing pictures myself. I'll include also the study of painting: there's much to be learned about composition by studying anything from Leonardo's Last Supper through to Picasso's Guernica.
It might be that I reject it, but at least I have the option of doing so from a position of knowledge and understanding. Unless I go seek out the stuff that inspires me, I'm a hostage to chance and ignorance.
I also play bass: I pay close attention when I'm listening to Charles Mingus, Paul McCartney, John Entwistle, Tony Levin or Norman Watt-Roy. There's stuff there I can use.
That's the practical and didactic argument for studying other photographers.
Perhaps we live in an age of over-saturation of visual imagery and the easiest way for some people to deal with it is to blinker themselves to what has gone before. I know I can't think that way.
Frankly, though, I love photography. I love looking at great pictures. I love working out what makes them tick just for the pleasure of it. I can spend hours looking at Atget's photos of Paris streets or David Bailey's portraits (every once in a while I need to remind myself how damn good they are). I don't need any excuse.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't know 99% of the actors in Eastenders or Coronation Street, does that make me ignorant I wonder
Not at all, if you are not remotely interested in soap operas or don't watch TV.
However, if one of your 'hobbies' is watching soap operas then you would indeed be very ignorant if you didn't know who Ken Barlow was.
Maybe ignorant is the wrong word as people get insulted by it. Better to call it a lack of interest and general awareness.
OP
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or maybe people should stop feeling insulted by a word that perfectly describes what they are.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
The problem is, a lot of people aren't interested in Photography. They're interested in cameras, and they're interested in taking photographs, but that's not the same thing. No.. you don't need to know anything in order to take a photograph.. and if all you want to do is just that, then fine, but that doesn't make you a photographer any more than drawing a house makes you an architect.
Besides, I don't really shoot landscape.. not in the conventional sense anyway but I still know who he is because of his contributions to the medium technically. He was very important for many reasons. You don't have to be a landscape photographer to appreciate, and have knowledge of the subject. You should be drawing inspiration from everything around you otherwise you will have no idea if what you are doing in relevant, or done before. If you work away in your own little bubble of ignorance your work can very well look naive, or worse still, you just end up doing stuff that's been done to death already.
I don't know 99% of the actors in Eastenders or Coronation Street, does that make me ignorant I wonder
It makes you ignorant of Eastenders, yes, as ernesto above says, although that's probably because you have no interest in soap operas, so that's fine. To be ignorant of something you profess to have an interest in is not fine. To be ignorant of a subject you WORK in is unacceptable.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
(wikipedia)
Therein lies two issues IMO:-
1) The 'insult' aspect, depending on how it is used and/or the sensitivity of the recipient.
2) The "important information or facts" ... does anyone believe that a lack of knowledge of Ansel Adams amounts to a lack of "important information or facts"?
For me there may be a lack of 'information' per se but as to whether it is "important" is questionable - it could be extremely important to someone wishing to follow his particular style but for another person some other information/study/style may be what is important.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I love the way you just use ONE definition of the word as if that's the only one... and one from Wikipedia at that.
However... if you use a dictionary, you'll see something else.
ig·no·rant
[ig-ner-uh nt]
adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
No one's using it as an insult in this thread that I can see.
The OED lists Ignorant as an insult as an informal use of the word.
2 informal discourteous or rude: this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist
Last edited:
- Messages
- 194
- Name
- Gavin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find it hard to understand the point of view that old photographers are not relevant now. Interviews with film directors or musicians generally ask about past influences. The vast majority have influences and are keen to share them. Why not photographers. Have we lost sight of where we came from and who inspired us into photography?
Maybe we want to simply be responsible for your own work and don't want to give credit to anyone else for a touch of inspiration. Personally I love having been influenced by some old masters. Henri Cartier-Bresson is perhaps my greatest influence. I don't take many 'street photography' images, but he still influenced me with his passion for people and picture taking.
Having influences and idols is a good thing and in my opinion will add to your photography.
Maybe we want to simply be responsible for your own work and don't want to give credit to anyone else for a touch of inspiration. Personally I love having been influenced by some old masters. Henri Cartier-Bresson is perhaps my greatest influence. I don't take many 'street photography' images, but he still influenced me with his passion for people and picture taking.
Having influences and idols is a good thing and in my opinion will add to your photography.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to use a definition you didn't like - however it fits the discussion perfectly as there are those here who are suggesting that a lack of knowledge of Ansel Adams is effectively some sort of defect, even a crime in photographic terms!
That is clearly nonsense and just an exaggerated opinion.
Any lack of knowledge of a person or fact can be described as 'ignorance' specifically of that person or fact, but that in itself does not make the person without that knowledge somehow defective or necessarily lacking in their photographic ability or success.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Precisely what I was thinking...
OP
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's not that you used one that he/we didn't like. It's that you went and found one that fitted your theory, rather than consulting a dictionary. I mean why would anyone looking for a definition choose wikipedia instead of an actual dictionary?
- Messages
- 7,945
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Frank Sutcliffe has always been a fave of mine, he never had to moan about noise and iso performance
I agree there, he was a natural genius who hardly moved out of his parish.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually I didn't search for one I liked, I simply went to Google and searched 'definition of ignorance' (or some very similar term) and up it popped top of the list ... it never occurred to me to trawl through loads of definitions to find one I liked
So do you think it is vital for everyone who takes photographs to know of and about Ansel Adams?
- Messages
- 7,945
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I honestly find it amazing that those who claim to be 'pro' and critique images on the forums have not heard of the 'masters' of photography? If we strive to have photography given its fair recognition as an art form then we should treat our approach the same as modern painters do. By studying from those who have gone before.
You might hate Damien Hurst work and much of the YBA's ( and I do) But he had an excellent art education at Goldsmiths, Even if he did struggle at school (E in Art)... He is now on the rich list.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder how aware of Mozart or Beethoven such as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys etc etc were
I actually have no idea, but assuming they weren't that fussed, or that they were "ignorant" of them, how do you feel that 'ignorance' affected their music?
OP
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No I don't.
But I deplore the attitude of "I will deliberately avoid obtaining any knowledge of it"
That really is pure ignorance. If presented with an opportunity of knowledge then take it, it won't do you any harm
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would put money on them at least knowing who they were but they were more directly influenced by Bo Diddley, Delta Blues guys, other garage bands and the like so the point is they would still be looking to others for inspiration and ideas.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
I wonder how aware of Mozart or Beethoven such as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys etc etc were
I actually have no idea, but assuming they weren't that fussed, or that they were "ignorant" of them, how do you feel that 'ignorance' affected their music?
Gramps - why are you limiting the question to classic composers?
Pink Floyd's Rick Wirght was influenced by John Cage and Miles Davis.
The Beach Boys were influenced by the Four Freshmen
The Beatles were influenced by the Beach boys...
And that is far from a definitive list, i'm sure if you asked each band member who they were influenced by the complete list for the band would go on for pages!
The point is that particularly bands mentioned above were cultural 'sponges', absorbing ideas from other musicians.
I wonder how aware of Mozart or Beethoven such as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys etc etc were
I actually have no idea, but assuming they weren't that fussed, or that they were "ignorant" of them, how do you feel that 'ignorance' affected their music?
The Beach Boy's Lady Linda was based on a composition by Bach.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Because I was answering a question that referred to those classic composers, so it seemed a reasonable thing to do
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Because I was answering a question that referred to those classic composers, so it seemed a reasonable thing to do
Fair point, should have scrolled up further!
- Messages
- 1,407
- Name
- Mac
- Edit My Images
- No
I like all the historical photographers, Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson & Robert Doisneau being one of my favourites. I also like some modern day photographers too because I like contemporary photography, particularly street stuff. Magnum is a great source of all the masters and the photos are pretty spectacular. Im not just interested in having good equipment, for me it goes deeper.
- Messages
- 9,066
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder how aware of Mozart or Beethoven such as Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys etc etc were
I actually have no idea, but assuming they weren't that fussed, or that they were "ignorant" of them, how do you feel that 'ignorance' affected their music?
Difficult to set aside the input of their producer, George Martin, who was classically trained, on the Beatles' music - he did many arrangements for the band, such as the strings on Yesterday (for which Martin played the song in the style of Bach to show McCartney how it might be approached).
One song that springs to mind is The Beatles' Because, which was based on the chord sequence of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata played backwards.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/because.asp
And I think the influence of Indian classical music upon George Harrison is undeniable.
- Messages
- 9,066
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
Roll over Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news
- Messages
- 25,404
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Back to the point though, there's a massive difference between someone being unaware of something and someone showing pride in their ignorance. It's the wallowing in ignorance like it's something to be proud of that strikes people as not right.
There's tons of stuff I know nothing about, some of it I'm proud to know nothing about, but I'd be ashamed to know nothing of something that was so important to photography, or rallying, or 60's rock music - because they're things I'm interested in. So it seems obvious that my interest would lead me to learn stuff about them.
There's tons of stuff I know nothing about, some of it I'm proud to know nothing about, but I'd be ashamed to know nothing of something that was so important to photography, or rallying, or 60's rock music - because they're things I'm interested in. So it seems obvious that my interest would lead me to learn stuff about them.
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 42,154
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Is anyone doing that? From what I can see most are just saying that they don't feel the need ... sort of like ...
I think that you can be interested in photography, as an amateur/hobbyist for example, without feeling the need to research it's history and 'past masters'. I do understand that maybe as a pro or one studying photography you might need to learn about Ansel Adams or as an individual you might feel moved to want to.
For me, just wanting to maybe improve or learn technique, it's quicker and easier to go to the likes of Kelby Training, youtube or buy some books or go on a one-to-one
- Messages
- 6,918
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I honestly find it amazing that those who claim to be 'pro' and critique images on the forums have not heard of the 'masters' of photography? If we strive to have photography given its fair recognition as an art form then we should treat our approach the same as modern painters do. By studying from those who have gone before.
I'm not saying that I'm a Pro, or at a Pro level, but I can have an opinion about a picture can't I? Should I have had to have seen the work of 'the masters' to make a comment? :shrug:
I don't have to have heard the Beatles, or Mozart, or whoever, to know whether I like a song or not. :shrug: Yes, my tastes will have been influenced by what I have heard/seen before, but I don't need to have heard/seen specific artists to know whether I like something.
And it is not revelling in ignorance, it is choosing a different path. I rile against the populist route by default. I have never seen a Disney film, I have never heard Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin albums. I've heard loads of Beatles songs, but I've never felt the urge to listen to a whole LP. We like what we like. I acknowledge that they have contributed a great deal to music, but they are not to my taste. By all means be aware of history, but don't tell everyone that they 'need' to see or hear something. Make them aware of things by all means, but it is up to the individual what they want to be interested in or not.
If you're doing photography or music as an academic subject, then the history may be required reading, and that is a specified route you have chosen to follow, but for the rest of us, make your own decisions.
And who strives for photography to be recognised as an art form? After seeing what passes for photographic 'art', I don't think I'd want to be associated with the 'art' world and the BS that exists there. :shake: This image is the most expensive ever at £2.7m, and I find myself saying wtf!
As I do with a lot of art it has to be said. It should be up to the individual what they consider to be art, and the work should stand on its own. If it needs to be described or explained, then the point has been missed imho.- Status