Who defines masters?

I was listening to the older episode of “The Grid” earlier today. The topic of this particular episode was evolving around young photographers not knowing/not caring about past great photographers. And then somebody, I think one of viewers, made a comment that young people nowadays take inspiration from current masters rather then from past masters. And I was just wondering…

I am aware and know images of some of classic photographers- Cartier-Bresson, Lange, Adams. But none of them shoots subjects I am interested in shooting. I would like to look at work similar to what I want to create, at least by subject. But how do I know where to look for them? How do I find those photographers, either past or current? Yes, I might be (and I am not) looking at pictures on Flickr or 500px, but how do I know if those pictures are any good? I might be inspired or admire some of the photographers whose blogs I follow, like David DuChemin or Moose Peterson, but how can I know if they are today’s masters or are just skilled? Who decides who bears the title of master? Does having a picture in the museum count? Does it mean that Trey Ratcliff is a master, because his image hangs in Smithsonian?

I really don’t know answers to those questions right now. If you have any thoughts, I would love to hear from you.

Todays image was one of those you discover after some time. I came across it looking for yesterday’s image and it really jumped at me. It almost looks better in thumbnail then it does large. I was trying to make sun star burst, but it was first too high, and then too low, and it just didn’t work. Afterwards, I thought this image si s useless. But now, I see shapes. The half-circle of sun. The two lines of land, none of them horizontal, meeting on the right side of the image. And the boat, also moving in the direction of those lines. It looks so graphic. I like the contrast of yellowish sun and just about everything else in blues. It makes me feel calm, enjoy the evening on the lake along with the single fisherman, yet not interrupting his solitude.

3 Responses to "Who defines masters?"

Radek Kozak says:

December 8, 2011 at 10:08 am

First off – whaat ? had no idea Trey’s image hangs in Smithsonian.

Second. I was pondering on similar thoughts couple of months ago and i wish i had the answers for you.
Truth is, the more i was thinking about it the more i was convinced that those “master” labels are only that – labels – at least for me. It’s not saying that one should discard masters or have no idea of photography’s past. In fact i deeply believe photographer, as any other artist, need to recognize or be at least fluent in its field when it comes to past works or let’s call it artistic legacy if you will.

On the same note i think it there’s no harm in aknowledging that you don’t particularly care about one’s work – even if he or she is so called master. There’s only one condition – it has to be conscious choice, one that has been made after deeper look at one’s work . Only then i think we can say without being ignorant: “this guys work doesn’t do it for me”.

As to who decides and distribute “master labels” – i don’t know. It probably isn’t event who but what. May be this whole notion of artistic acceptance throughout time – global, cross-cultural appreciation of one’s work.

I know one thing – it doesn’t really matter to me. One should be able to appreciate art wihout retracting to titles, labels etc etc. This is exactly my approach.

For example Trey Ratcliff’s image may really hang in Smithsonian. Based on that some would call him a master, master of HDR or whatever. But for me, (event though Trey is a really cool guy and i’m very much familiar with Trey’s work) his work just isn’t to my taste.

Another one is Cartier-Bresson – master indeed – everyone will tell me that and that i should probably hail before his work. And i do sometimes! He really is a master to me but if i’m being frank i much rather like the work of Robert Doisneau or Erwitt. Both every little bit as good as Bresson in the notion of decisive moment, but i appreciate Doisneau more because of his uncanny ability to capture poetry side of ordinary moments, his work is more romantic and nostalgic, dreamy even and for that i love it. Erwitt on the other hand takes humor and irony into almost another level – it’s whole other interpretation of life. Everytime i see his work i remember that life isn’t really that serious.

I can also easily point people on 500px who’s work is amazing and they very much strike a chord in my artistic taste.
Nobody today would call them masters probably, maybe they just are skilled, as you said but, ultimately, does it really matter ?
Izabela says:

December 10, 2011 at 12:47 pm

Thanks for writing, Radek! Your thoughts make me think about it all ones more. I guess I have two competing takes on the subject. One is if I really need to know the old masters in order to create unique art and not repeating what they have already done- take the inspiration and move things forward. And I know people on both sides- people who look at as many photographers work as possible and those who refuse to look at any. Look for example at this post http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/study-photographers-work-discussion/. Secondly, I would like to look at other people work which was already screened by somebody more experienced then I am, thinking that looking at many mediocre images (like many on Flickr for example) will ultimately not help me develop. Or will it?
Radek Kozak says:

December 11, 2011 at 6:38 am

I guess it’s like Mr duChemin is often saying: “art is derivative”. It’s true – the odds of making something very unique are low. Best one can do, i think, is to create art in sync with one’s true self. As you said – take all the inspiration you can get and move on. For example when i’m looking at someone’s work i do two things: first i would inhale all the beauty that is there, beauty that attracted me in the first place but then i try to think what is EXACTLY that allured me to the image. What is that i like about it, what works for me in the picture in terms of composition and the like and what’s not. It’s a little analysis but it’s on more universal level. Through that i can gain more critical eye on my own work. I try to do all that in a balanced way. If i would do that too often i would probably end up subconsciously searching for similar things that works and that i and others like (i did that even this year and promised myself that no more!). I think that looking around (or back) all the time instead of creating on your own is rather futile. We should look for inspiration, without our ego getting in a way and ultimately being hurt (because we tend to compare our efforts anyway). This often leads to abandoning our art.

as to looking at mediocre images (whatever the definition) – i think it CAN help but in terms of what NOT to do :)

thanks for the link – i checked it although now i think i have already read that some time ago (i spy on Mr Thompson blog too hehe)

Comments are closed.