Weston Quote Continued
The controversy reminds me of one which took place in the 16th
century: painting was on the defensive – the intelligentsia of the
day had placed it among the mechanical arts because it was done
with the hand, not the mind. Ironically, a similar attitude is now
held by the painters toward photography, – the hand, finally accepted
as a means to an end, after a fight in which
Leonardo da Vinci rose to defend painting, – the painters now assume
the hand omnipotent, and label photography mechanical because it
is done with a machine.
First of all, the weighty discussion might have been ended by
the very obvious, visual proof in my own exhibition, – for, standing
at one point where my oldest work, 1914, met my latest, 1931, there
was exposed work so different in technique, and conception, that
it was as though two radically different persons were exhibiting
together: but the same camera was used by "both" individuals. So
the camera is only a means to an end, it can see only, or whatever
the user sees. Carry on this thought: give the same camera and subject
matter, say an apple on dish, to ten photographers, tell them to
do what they will with it, and it will promise ten results as widely
varying, not only in arrangement and lighting, but in quality in
feeling for the thing, as any ten painters might produce.
But, someone objects, the camera, used in the field, where one
can't "arrange," takes in everything, – a painter can eliminate.
So can the photographer, by change of viewpoint, or change to a
different focal length lens: and if this does not solve the difficulty
he can find another subject "around the corner." Ever see a painter
search for the right viewpoint! Each medium has its own limitations.
The whole controversy seems to be concerned with the painter's
hand as a means to self-expression, his ability to add to, leave
out, or change nature at will (this includes the most abstract art
done in a room with blinds down: for we cannot conceive of a form
not already known in nature) while the photographer uses a machine
which reproduces exactly, everything toward which it is pointed.
But does it! I will even go so far as to say that the camera
is not mechanical unless the photographer's attitude be mechanical.
Lenses of a dozen different focal lengths can be used, completely
altering the viewpoint of perspective, changing, even distorting
nature at will, or revealing so much more than the average eye sees
that photography has opened the blinds to a new world vision.
Then carry on the possibilities of personal choice into the selection
of films and printing papers, dozens of manufacturers each making
dozens of varieties of films of different color or speed, sensitivity
to be used with or without filters which can actually cut out certain
colors entirely, and as many papers of infinite surface textures,
and grades of contrast, to shorten, lengthen or render exactly the
scale of gradation in the original view: add to these, chemicals
of widest possible choice, and one has far greater opportunity for
self-expression through material opportunity than is granted the
painter. The trouble has been with photographers, not photography!1
For more, go to
Edward
Weston.
1 Source
not identified.
