Lenswork publishes inferior portfolio

<< the issue that didn't want to be published >>

I don't spend a lot of time on the LensWork website. Why did it not want to be published?

While I don't really care for any of the portfolios in this most recent issue (though the "Yangtze Remembered" was at least geographically and historically interesting), I don't see any "lack of professionalism, finesse and control." I'm not sure I even understand what you mean.

Could you elaborate a bit?

Sure Rob,

http://www.lenswork.com/overviewcurrentissue.htm

This link will take you to a posting by Lenswork explaining why the issue "didn't want to be published." In the upper left of this page, a link says "Download a PDF preview of this issue." If you download the pdf and go to page 13 you will see an excerpt of a portfolio done with 11x14 and 8x10 cameras of French countryside. Some of the images look fine, but a few show very careless burning and dodging, with dark edge and corner burning bleeding into the subject matter below the area intended to be burned. The image on page 13 is small, but you can see it if you look carefully. Other images in the portfolio are similarly poorly executed, almost arrogantly so, exhibiting a lack of care and craftsmanship I've never seen in professional and high quality publications such as lenswork.

Why do you assume the photographer didn't intend it to look that way? One person's creative liberties is another person's "appalling lack of professionalism."

I think you have to allow for a bit of artistic license. The work is by Olivier Mériel and printed on pages 35-49 of the magazine. IMO the pictures are stunning, I don't like all of the effects but on the whole I think his approach works. I am sure the presentation is deliberate.

I think you simply disagree with the stylistic aspects of this photographer's work. I do not think these issues you point out are mistakes. It does not have the earmarks of mistakes but more purposeful edge, sky, corner, and sometimes middle, dodging and burning.

Being a fan of Lenswork and it's great printing / appearance of each issue, I flipped through the issue with the portfolio of Olivier Meriel and had the same response as Doug. I had seen the book of Meriel's from the Nazaraeli press catalog, and wanted to see more of the images.

There does seem to be something wrong with the prints; I very much understand artistic license, burning at the edges for effect, etc. but this is something different. The skies with clouds are printed way too dark, burning effect is very noticable, as is the foreground burning in some other shots. It truly is surprisingly odd interpretation of a negative. That was the first effect of seeing these photos "what was this guy thinking with this printing?" I don't think this was due to the ink mix up from the first run-

Before we lynch Doug, take a look for yourselves at the issue in person- there are many more images there, and you can see the quality better.

Dave

My reaction in looking at the magazine yesterday and again this morning was that the quality of those images doesn't appear consistent with what I would expect from a photographer who has chosen to use 8x10 and 11x14 cameras. I cannot judge whether what I see was what the photographer intended, or a production anomaly, but the net effect is to create a negative impression about that photographer's work.

<< If you download the pdf and go to page 13 you will see an excerpt of a portfolio done with 11x14 and 8x10 cameras of French countryside. >>

I subscribe to LensWork and I've read this issue twice on the train this week. However, I don't often visit their website. I did read through the hardships of getting this issue out, thanks for the link.

I still do not agree that the dodging and burning is careless nor do I consider it "unprofessional." Olivier Mériel's printing was (to me) quite deliberate. I may not /like/ the resulting image, but I don't think you can call his work unprofessional or lacking finesse and control. In fact, I see a lot of "control" (which is not the same as restraint) in these images.

<< There does seem to be something wrong with the prints; >>

I think there is a difference between what you like and don't like in printing method and something being "wrong" with the prints. Something being wrong, to me, would indicate unintended results (ie. bad chemicals, cross-contamination, dog eating the final print, etc etc).

<< It truly is surprisingly odd interpretation of a negative >>

This is clearly the answer: it is an interpretation. It is not wrong or right it just is what the photographer saw in his minds eye. It is not what I would have done, but then again, I have very limited experience in the darkroom.

I'll be one of the first to say that an artist should be free to express his, or her vision, but I am not one to sit back and accept ~whatever~ they produce as quality work. In terms of darkroom craftsmanship, the images in question, in my opinion, are just unacceptably primitive.

Consider this exchange between Marc G and Bruno Tremator in Miguel Angel de Arriba Cuadrado's POW last week,:

Bruno: "If the photographer reached what he envisioned, discussing is useless. I had a look at Miguel's portfolio before posting my comment, and I had the impression that he knows what he does."

Marc G: "I disagree. Yes, Miguel knows what he does. So do many of us. But this doesn't mean we get it right all the time. And sometimes - quite often actually as far as I am concerned -, we get what we wanted, but wanted "the wrong thing" in the first place."

This is what I'm seeing, that this photographer wants the wrong thing. If his intentions are to produce images like this, then I think his aesthetics are bass ackwards, I'm sorry to say. Burning and dodging this blunt, this crude, is what I would expect from someone attempting it for the first time, not from a seasoned professional. I would truly like to understand the reasons behind this technique.

I begin to wonder if his success arises in small part from his subject matter, in small part from his eye for composition, and then in big part from his big camera. Another case of poor aesthetics disquised behind interesting gadgets?

I checked Meriel's website. His dodging/burning is generally really brutal. I don't mind someone going to the extremes in contrasts and being very dramatic. But looking a the photos it seems as if he's had a specific mood in mind BEFORE he took the picture. And no matter what was on film, he achieved it by brute force.

If he has a certain vision, ok, fine, yes, accepted. And if this vision can only be achieved by severe manipulation, fine too. BUT his results looks crude, because the printing is not done very skillfully, and his manipulations are too obvious without being a part of the message.

I apologaize for the nasty tone of my comments, I really should be more diplomatic, and more kind, but stuff like this gets under my skin.

one mans' ceiling...

LW seems to have really good reproduction quality, but without seeing the prints, I wouldn't make any serious judgment about tonality from a magazine, particularly when the magazine versions are reductions from 11x14" contacts.

Here's the guy's web page. Judge for yourselves.

http://olivier.meriel.free.fr/travaux.php

Click on each "voir les photos" and see.

Here are direct links to two.

http://olivier.meriel.free.fr/img/_tour.jpg

http://olivier.meriel.free.fr/img/_bois.jpg

Doug I see nothing nasty in your tone. You're entitled to be outspoken because here's a guy with an acredited display in Lenswork. Ideally I'd be viewing prints. But even so I clearly detect a common thread running through the pictures proclaiming (I would suggest) a voracious appetite for torture treatment in a dark room; a seeking out of toy camera consequences. I see the aim as having been a combination of large format and Diana possibilities. If that is so then there is an element of success. But I don't prefer them for it and I wonder why the photog thought such treatment appropriate.

I would regard a web page as an even less reliable guide to what the prints look like than magazine or a book.

Just my opinion, but they do seem to be pretty sloppy prints. Granted, I'm no master printer but I would have trashed these prints.

While I agree that each photographer has artistic license in the presentation of his/her photographs, this simply looks like a bad printing job. Rather than add to the presentation, it detracts from the photos. Worse, it's an affectation with no purpose in mind other than scream, "Look at me! I'm SO artistic!"

Is this what we've come to? All it takes is a portfolio of very poorly (caveman like) printed photos to be edgy? If so I have a whole group of 8th graders who are taking a beginning photography class who can easily print just as well... but then again they would never be offered a spot in Lenswork would they?

I guess that's my point. I'm not a critical person, I've seen many shows of prints I didn't like but respected that the artist at least had a vision and some basic controls of his / her processes, no matter the subject. This photographer doesn't appear to have that control of his medium. To see that celebrated and rewarded with a display in a magazine that traditionally features artists with a bit more in the darkroom skills is just plain depressing.

"...is not wrong or right it just is what the photographer saw in his minds eye. It is not what I would have done, but then again, I have very limited experience in the darkroom"

I see a lot of things in my minds eye' - the real "trick" is getting it onto paper and making it look stunning. That would be where the experience, skill, and talent comes into play. It is the people who do have thousands of hours in the darkroom that are generally better about producing exquisite prints. That's why it's a shame to see someone who obviously doesn't have these skills get a full spread in LW.

Again I'm not trying to rain on someones work, but at some point someone has to say "the king has no clothes".

Ask yourself this question - If this was your portfolio and you took it into a respected gallery and asked for a show, what do you think the response would be?

I just received my first issue of Lenswork and was surprized by the same photos. I believe that the photographer should have wide latitude in interpreting what he sees but the obvious over use of burning on some of these photos did not add but detracted from the photos in my opinion. I recently had the pleasure to attend on of John Sexton's workshops in Carmel and was criticized for my own "over burning" of the sky in some photographs. To each his own but they did not work for me.

AAAGhh, he got published and i didn't! This is what i seem to read in between the lines of the postings of the people whoare tearing this guy in pieces. For some people the standard of printing techniques was given by Adams , and nobody Must get away from his teachings, they think... If i like Meriel's work or not is not important, but i will say that one of the masters of photography, Giacometti, brought his dodging and burning much further than this poor crucified collegue is doing. let's leave some space to people who have the courage to express themselves in their own terms , and even though we don't like their work, let's admire them for it....

I love Lenswork and this edition is no exception. Olivier's work challenges me. The same way that Lenswork does, in pushing its 'duotone' over what I'm trying to learn about darkroom stuff.

To blare out 'Lenswork publishes inferior portfolio' and accuse a foreign photographer of 'an appalling lack of professionalism'. Who's unprofessional again?

Olivier's style doesn't conform to the normal expectations of traditional darkroom printing. As many posters have said, web and repro prints aren't an indicator of much and most reserve judgement instead of getting hamstrung. I don't aspire to print like Olivier. His images still stick in my mind. He expresses himself without the willy-nilly prettiness of most landscape photographers.

Merci beaucoup to Lenswork for bringing in such a controversial artist anyway.

"AAAGhh, he got published and i didn't! "

not the case with me, I've never submitted anything to lenswork, and it's a little bit more unlikely that I ever will, if this work is to exemplify their standards. More like, "aaaagh, he got published...but why? "

Domenico, I agree with what you say about Adams and his standards, and how Meriel is stepping away from that standard. I can see the good in that, and all concerned should rest assured that my petty griping will do little to stand in the way of his success. I just pity his images, which I feel could be so much better. It just seems such a waste to me.

Yes, Tom, I may have been hasty to post my question, but it had nothing to do with him being "foreign." I appreciate how Domenico refers to him as a colleague, which is important for me to remember. But I am continually distressed at the notion that we should hold everyone's images to be holy because they are art, or because they are from the self, or whatever. I may be guilty of insensitivity regarding the wording of my post, but is this to say that no one should be permitted to criticize the work of other artists?

<< and it's a little bit more unlikely that I ever will >>

That's a shame. I think LW would be lucky to publish a series of your work. I'm sorry to hear your response to one portolio in LW seems to be to write off the magazine.

This massage is crossposted.

I received my copy a few days back and I had only given it a cursory glace and I remember being impressed by the "moody" quality of Meriel's pictures. Until this morning, that is; over a few leisurely cups of coffee - Sunday morning stuff, I looked at the issue more closely.

I am no expert at printing, never spent any time printing in the darkroom, but plenty of time printing quad inkjets from MF and 4x5 scans. I must say the very first photograph (page 37) immediately caught my eye. I can clearly see a transition line just above the gate, going along the entire frame horizontally. The tree trunks in the vicinity of the gate below this line have detail, while above the line they go into black. Having no experience in the darkroom, my first reaction was "sloppy use of a graduated nd filter". Now I must say it did not send me into a paroxysm of emotion distress or anything so dramatic, but I noticed it in that one picture and others upon close examination.

I am not intending to create more "darkroom vs lightroom" wars here, but my experience is in the lightroom, so one of the thoughts that ran through my mind was "I would have shot these without the nd grad, pull-processed the negative and opened up the shadows in PhotoShop". It is so easy to affect changes to ceratin tonal regions digitally, irrespective of their spatial position in the image frame. Now I understand that Meriel may NOT actually have used an nd grad.

Too bad because I like the images otherwise.

I have to agree 100% woth Doug's comments RE: "foreigners" Tom Smith's quote " ...accuse a foreign photographer of 'an appalling lack of professionalism " - Tom - You're in fact the first (and ONLY) person in this entire discussion to bring up his nationality. I guess some people see politics in everything. Thanks a lot for accusing all of us of being snobby nationalists for debating an artists technique. We could use fewer people who characterize people by background / nation / or gender instead of artistic ability. Does Tom simply assume everyone here (and all LW readers) are from the USA?

And speaking of technique, I understand there are many interpretations of negatives, and that's fine, but here's a direct quote from the article from the artist himself:

" One must start my mastering the technique before one can make a work of art"

Hmmmmmmmm....

Diehl,

I'll have to ask you with all the respect in the world.

Are you thick or something?

A French photographer isn't going to be able to respond as well to an English language diatribe about his art.

If you read the posts, you'll see you actually were the first to bring politics into this discussion. Sorry if I offended you mate.

Doug - it's not a matter of seeing our 'colleagues' work as 'holy' and immune to rebuttals. Instead it's about slashing at our colleagues work claiming that it's all shit. It's good to know you didn't intend it that way.

All too often people tend to excuse technical flaws in an artwork. "It's done by an artist, so it must be good and intended." So, everyone questioning that is too narrow-minded/one- dimensional/stupid to get it?

Sure, breaking rules to realize one's personal vision in a specific way is a respectable means of expression, but it still should be possible to ask whether poor printing is art or simply poor printing - without being accused of nationalism, unprofessionalism, or even envy. (How ridiculous is that?!)

Tom, Doug didn't "claim everything was shit". He was talking about the execution of the printing. He never put the person into question. Nor did D. Diehl. I don't understand the problem you have.

The printing looks crude and sloppily done, that's a fact. What's wrong with posting one's opinion about that?

I agree with you Birgit on most of those scores. Asking about 'poor' printing is fine.

That wasn't what was being asked here: an 'inferior' portfolio and an 'appalling lack of profesionalism' was being stated outright.

By all means question. I see you don't read posts properly before you insinuated 'nationalism'. My point about Meriel being French is that he's not going to be able to respond to this post unless it's translated for him. In that case, it's a one-sided attack on a photographer who is disadvantaged.

And you are right to ask: "How ridiculous is that?"

Are you saying that French guys are generally unable to understand English? How do you know Meriel's English is bad? Chances are that it's better than mine...

To discuss / debate an artists work does not make us envious or nationalistic. Birgit put it perfectly above. This is a forum for just that; to debate, question, and ask why prints were printed a certain way, to understand someones "vision". To accuse someone of being unfairly biased because a photographer is a "foreigner" is just bizarre. Much of what LensWork publishes is truly work from around the world- French, Bristish, South American artists, all wonderful. Please Tom, in this day and age to label anyone as a "foreigner" is really more of a sign of ignorance.

I am not envious of Mr. Meriel's work. I will never be published or have a one man show, but that shouldn't dissuade all of us "non published" artists from discussing someone's work. Doug never referred to anyone's work as sh*t. He just brought up a topic and questioned (rightly so) a printing method. I doubt Doug really asked this question expecting Mr. Meriel to actually respond. Many topics of technique of photographers come up on Photonet, some living and some gone (Bresson, Adams). It's really ok to do this and respectfully ask, debate, and question.

Doug asked: "I wonder if anyone else has noticed this?" So the basic intention behind his post was to get opinions of others on the subject. Getting into a nice fight with the photographer (or you) over his work being crap or not was certainly not intended. I'm surprised that you still interpret it that way.

Maybe it's camera vignetting? Maybe he's using lenses that don't cover the huge format film he uses? It would be a lot easier to accept his images if this were the case, rather than it being a darkroom issue, which I equate with poor craftsmanship.

Maybe I should ask him?

sorry, D.Diehl posted earlier than me. My response was addressed to Tom.

Moderator's note: This has been, for the most part, a valuable debate with good points made on all sides.

Well, almost all.

Let's give the irrelevant charges of nationalism, etc., a rest so I don't have to start editing or deleting comments. In such a long thread it becomes difficult to maintain continuity when comments must be edited.

"Merci beaucoup to Lenswork for bringing in such a controversial artist anyway."

I suspect that this is the only attitude one can take and not get headaches/ulcers/heart disease. Good art is dense of ideas. Many don't fly. There's not much point getting bent out of shape over the lead balloons.

Lenswork (in the two years I've subscribed (56 hasn't made it to Japan, yet, though)) has published a few portfolios that were a _long_ way from anything I might, even in a very good mood, call "my cup of tea", but they also occassionally find things that very much are.

As long as Lenswork publishes stuff like the Wynn Bullock portfolio in 55, they're allowed a lot of lead balloons.

Did anyone notice how well done the PA Dutch/Amish shots were?

To be good art, why does the work (especially photographic work) have to be technically perfect or even close to perfect? Who establishes technical standards of perfection?

When I received my LW, I viewed the portfolio in question. My personal likes and dislikes did not enter into my mind. I viewed the portfolio as a body of work and actually found it interesting, provacative and engaging.

Are these the best printed images I have seen, of course not, but they are a portfolio and then were produced by a man with a vision. Some may find the images grotesque, mysterious and suggestive and who is to disagree.

Art is a poetic dialogue into the window life, a dialogue meaant to initiate a discussion of the artists viewpoint or vision. We may not agree with the execution of the medium, but that does not diminish the message.

Michael: All of us have visions or messages - even good ones from time to time - but does that make us artists? Does art generate from the message/idea/vision alone and has nothing to do with execution as well? Is a badly sung song still art? Is a technically inferior building still good?

Who's to say his images are "badly sung" or "technically inferior"? And people above saying things such as his images would have been pooh-poohed in their photography classes....if all artists or photographers did was do everything by the book we'd have some darn boring photography. Should we all use Auto White Balance? Because after all a "perfect B&W photo" has tones from pure white to pure black....what about high key shots? Clearly they are not "following" the rules? This is ridiculous. Bottom line is this guy got his photos published in one of the top, most respected and highest quality photographic magazines out there today. And whether anyone thinks he deserves it or not based on whether he did or did not follow established "rules" matters not a bit. Especially not to him, I'd imagine. It certainly wouldn't matter if it was me. This is really sounding like a bunch of jealous whiners.

"Who's to say his images are "badly sung" or "technically inferior"?"

There ARE objective criteria in this world, believe it or not.

A lot of good art deliberately draws attention to elements of the craft by executing those elements "badly". Ever seen the things people wrote about Godard's "Breathless" when it came out?

I know a famous musician whose highest compliment on something you've played is, "dude, that is so f**ked up!" To him (and he's a monster player) nothing is exciting unless it's openly antagonistic to some accepted notion of quality.

Not to say that everything subversive is good, but I can see what this photographer is trying to do here, and to me it's neither an "appalling lack of professionalism" nor particularly inspired.

Thinking that somebody must be good, because he was published in lensework, is as simple as thinking something it's true, because it was in the newspaper.

I'm not envious of anybodey as I am no photographer :-)

It's easier to dismiss an argument as invalid on the basis of jealousy than it is to support one's positions with facts and logic. I would be a "jealous whiner" if I were complaining about the Amish photos, or about Linda Butler's work, because these portfolios, in my view, are worth publishing, and are of the caliber I would expect in Lenswork. As I indicated, I'm just shocked to see work of this level given such prominence. Whether those who share my befuddlement are jealous, or not, is not the issue. Besides, anyone who has awarded 1's and 2's on the photonet ratings scale is what? Jealous? Or indicating a reaction based on a standard of some type.

Birgit is right, there are objective standards, and logical ones, too. Richard is also right regarding the breaking of rules, however, Richard left out an important follow-up, that breaking rules is ok if the result works, if the result remains aesthetically pleasing, or aesthetically viable. Centering subjects, placing subjects other than as dictated by the rule of thirds, foregoing a pure black on a high key, things like this are allowed because, in certain instances, they work. Foregoing a pure black could result in what we call a muddy print, and in most cases, most of us would agree that this would not work however, there are exceptions.

Are these images an exception to an established practice regarding burning and dodging? I hope we can agree that they are quite exceptional in this regard. Just refer to any basic manual on b&w printing and you are sure to see an explanation that specifically instructs how to avoid what we see in some of them. Do these images work? Apparently we are unable to agree that the effects of ham-handed and devil-may-care burning add to their aesthetic presence.

My feeling is that they do not work, that the artist, for reasons I fail to comprehend, has made a conscious choice to vignette portions of his prints to such a degree that some of the subject is obscured in a manner that is as unconventional as it is unappealing. As I examine the portfolio, it appears that the artist has chosen to darken certain elements within his compositions at the expense of others, and that he has done so expediently, rather than as a matter of craft.

I'm afraid the departure from conventional printing is so extreme, in some cases, that one may radically conclude, using logic, reason, and standards as discussed in any elementary book on printing, that neither he, nor the editors of Lenswork, know a good print from a bad one. Surely, this cannot be the case, but then, what is the answer?

Being published in Lenswork is a heck of a lot different than being in a newspaper. The analogy is lost with me. Newspapers are published every day with dozens and dozens of photographs by numerous photographers per issue (most of which the technical merit matters far less than the subjects caught)and newspapers mention hundreds of names per day. Plus there are hundreds upon hundreds of newspapers. Lenswork is published every two months, has three photographers in each issue highlighted, and there are perhaps a dozen or so B&W photography magazines in the entiure world with anywhere near the same quality and respect. BIG difference.

And as far as objective criteria is concerned I do not agree that it exists in the judgement of art, for the use of technical standards (in which perhaps objective measurement can be applied) in the application of art and the objective "judgement" of its use is simply not possible.

Anyway, based on your standard of comparing newspapers to Lenswork and saying that art can be objectively standardized I see we differ fundamentally in our opinions, so we should just agree that we disagree and move on....

Doug, I felt the "jealous whining" was in the replies to your post and not in your post itself, BTW. You stated your opinion and asked for comment. I see nothing wrong in that. But when people say the photographer was simply "wrong" in his technique and style because people should not burn and dodge that way or should not compose this way, then it simply does not sit right with me. In the end you are correct in that the breaking of the rules need to "work" in order to be "good art". And in your opinion they do not work in this instance. However, the publishers of Lenswork felt they did or they would not have published them in their magazine. I happen to think his work is quite good, and definitely interesting. Not something I'd strive for necessarily and not something I can see everyone liking either (which is obvious here). But one cannot simply look at it and say it's all wrong simply based on what's taught in photography class or how one is told they should burn, dodge and compose their photographs based on some imaginative "objective standard" for all photography. People can say they do not like it, as you did, and say why. And I have no problem with that. But to somehow imply that it's wrong and that everyone should agree it's wrong based on those same so-called "objective" standards make little sense IMHO. I see this tone in a few of the replies.

This is getting to remind me of the POW discussions. Ugh. Enough.

Thanks Richard, for that clarification. I was not offended, by the way, but felt the urge to respond. Call it a guilty conscience.

I think Birgit's point was missed. From your response, it appears to me that you're thinking she's equating pictures in Lenswork with pictures in newspapers, whereas I see her as saying pictures being in Lenswork should not automatically canonize them as being of high quality in the same way as we should be skeptical of what we read in the daily paper. I see her comment as comparing pictures in Lenswork and their supposed quality to words in the newspaper and their supposed veracity. I think you would agree with that, in fact you have said so in so many words.

I've emailed Brooks Jensen, Editor of Lenswork, and invited him to drop by and maybe offer a comment. Maybe he can clear up some of these questions. After so many negative remarks towards his work, I'm somewhat hesitant to mention this to Oliver Meriel, but maybe that would teach me a lesson in diplomacy as I might find myself angry to see some of the things I've written about his work applied to my own.

Thanks, Doug, for explaining to Richard what I meant. You got it right (once again). (Hey, it's nice to know that there are still men out there who UNDERSTAND me...)

It is perfectly fine to prefer the straight print and discuss its merits and failings, but to talk as though straight printing (or its cousin, the subtly interpreted print) is the ONLY legitimate photographic expression confuses preference with premise.

Evaluating Mériel's work in a context never intended can be a valuable exercise but pronouncements about "poor quality" and "lack of professionalism" are shallow.

D Poinsett, clearly I'm very puzzled by this artist, this body of work, and his intent. He's in Lenswork, therefore he must be good, right?

Doug,

Thanks for the invitation to respond.
First, let me say how gratifying it is to read so many thoughtful responses about our publication and our editorial choices. I've said for a long time that photography is a rich and rewarding discipline precisely because there are so many dedicated and passionate people involved in making and enjoying photographs. That there are so many sides to this particular discussion, that they are stated so well and so passionately, that such lively debate can grow from one person's artwork bolsters my faith in photography.
Why did we publish Meriel's work? Quite simply, we liked it. We thought some of you would find it interesting, too, and it looks like we were right. Did we think all of you would like it? Not a chance. We've been publishing far too long to think that we can please all the people all the time. Which brings be back to Meriel.
Is Meriel's work technically accomplished? This is a sticky question because to answer it you need to ask what that really means. It is clearly not "realistic" like the f/64 school (if you can call miniature, two-dimensional, monochromatic images realistic). His use of dramatic and even overstated dodging and burning is extreme, to say the least. Then, is it at least effective? This is clearly a matter of opinion. When I looked at his work I felt something -- something dramatic, Wagnerian, gritty, exaggerated, vociferous, even violent. Is it quaint? No. Is it pretty? Not really. Is it pastoral? Definitely not. Is it beautiful? I think it is, but in a non-standard sort of way. Does it follow the rules of good blank-and-white printing? Nope. Is it artistically consistent, powerful, emotional, and communicative? I think so. Just my opinions, but that is how I felt about the work. LensWork is, quite frankly, a personal publication and expresses the choices that Maureen and I make. All editorial decisions are our personal choices and we are fully aware that some might seem suspect to any given reader. Our hope is that, on balance, our readers appreciate LensWork enough to be patient with an occasional selection they may disagree with.
Does Meriel's photographic approach succeed? In trying to answer this question, one of the things we look for is consistency. When we see, as is evident in this body of work, an aesthetic that is consistently applied, I make an assumption that it is done on purpose, with creative intent. That is to say, in Meriel's case I don't believe he is a bad printer any more that I believe Bill Brandt, or Thomas Joshua Cooper, or Ralph Eugene Meatyard is. None of these photographers uses the medium the way Ansel Adams or Edward Weston did, but then again neither did Weegee, Alfred Stieglitz, or Diane Arbus. They are each different and have different fans.
Having said that, because I like it, am I likely to do work like this myself? Decidedly, no. As a creator of photographs, it's is not my cup of tea (either). But I can appreciate work that is very different than mine, even it is means I need to learn to see it, learn its palette, learn its challenging aesthetic. It might just change me.
There are two very interesting points about this:
1.) As a publisher, as a photographer, I have learned that I need to suspend my way of doing photography when looking at the work of others. This is absolutely critical. If I don't, I will miss a great deal that is valuable in other's work. This is the same as answering a friend's request for a photographic critique by offering the ways you would do the work if it were yours. This is silly. The work is not yours. To offer a meaningful critique, tell your friend how the work makes you feel, what you see, what it reminds you of, what you think it means. This is a meaningful critique and has the virtue of telling your friend what response their work is creating in you. This is feedback your friend might be able to use to improve the work.
So it is with this work of Meriel's. How I would have done it (or how any of you would have done it) is immaterial. What is material is how the work makes you feel, what it makes you think, how you respond to it. If you respond with a technical critique, perhaps that says something to Meriel; perhaps it says something about you. People who like only marching band music may think jazz is just awful, but that does not make jazz awful to those who love it. If you love marching band music, then by all means crank up the Sousa! If you like jazz, put on the Miles Davis! There is nothing to be gained when the jazz folks complain about the marching bands or vice versa.
2.) LensWork, by definition, is an anthology. It is not an advocate for a particular school of photography. Our highest responsibility to our readers is to try to show them work that helps them in their own creative process. That is, after all, our mission statement. Some will want to emulate Meriel. Some will not. We hope that both may at least find value in seeing his work, as we do with all the photographers we publish. We hope LensWork is not a mere popularity contest; if it was, we'd do "all sunsets, all the time" or nothing but pictures of Yosemite, nudes, or the Great Masters. I am sure such a magazine would thrive. It would not, however, be LensWork. We are unwaveringly dedicated to the single idea that photography is a wonderful method of personal, artistic expression. In addition, we hope we contribute to each reader's own creative process by publishing photographs and articles that walk the fine line between old-world traditions and new, creative expression. This is a bit of a fuzzy target, and some portfolios -- some entire issues of LensWork -- are more challenging than others. We know from the volume of feedback we receive that most people appreciate it when LensWork pushes them -- just a bit.
One final comment: When we reject work, it is almost always because it is too traditional (we've seen it all too often before), too cutting edge ("That's just plain weird!"), or too technically immature. We tend to be excited when we see a submission that is consistently executed and holds together as a body of work, unique in its artistic vision, explores a subject deeply yet is not internally repetitive, and makes us have goose bumps as we flip from print to print. After 56 issues of LensWork, we are more convinced than ever in the vitality of the creative process and photography's power to express the human soul. As long as you keep doing the work, we look forward to publishing it -- even if it causes some folks to scratch their heads and wonder why in the world we would choose to publish that work.
Sorry for such a long response, but this issue speaks to the heart of LensWork's reason for being and the center of an artist's creative explorations. These are such important issues! I may not have completely resolved the questions brought up in this thread, but I thank you again for the invitation to offer my thoughts!

Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Monday, January 10, 2005 at 6:53 PM.

I appreciate your well articulated answer answer Mr Jensen. You offer much food for thought.

Brooks, having read your explanation, I feel a little better about Meriel's work, and a little more at peace with it. I'm sure, as some have suggested, and as you have stated, it's much more impressive in person. I wonder, though, if there are other factors that compensate for what I consider bad printing, for example the detail of the large format image. Taken as a whole, the large format, the detail, AND the uncomfortable burning all together create an aesthetic that DOES have something to say. Thanks for taking the time come here. If the conversation continues, I hope you will continue to monitor and contribute as you see fit, but I think we all understand that your schedule may not allow it.

Having read Brooks posting only once, I see one thing that I am not sure about. Brooks writes of the futility of sharing with a photographer how I would have done the same shot differently, or how I would have approached the subject had the opportunity been mine. In this case, I am guilty (again) of imposing my aesthetics on Meriel's opportunity. It's true, I would have liked to have lured him away from his camera, made the exposure on his film, then processed and interpreted the negative as it seemed right to me.

I can understand the value of sharing how an image makes me feel, but sharing that alone seems incomplete, especially here, where the supposition is that many members are looking for instruction. Is it really such an affront to put myself in the photographer's shoes and imagine, out loud, what I would have done differently? The feelings sharing part is important, yes I agree, but it seems so passive. In this case, I would have said "Meriel, your work makes me angry." I'm reminded of the maxim, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," but in that case, how would we learn, or share our experience with others?

Personally, I don't mind when a colleague indicates how he or she would have handled a situation differently than I would have. In some ways, an image which brings to mind alternatives is indicative of a weakness within it, or within the aesthetic, while one which prompts no such commentary might be considered more aesthetically pure. To me, resisting this kind of suggestion seems insecure, and this whole culture of not questioning an artist's methods, or aesthetic seems overly ego protective.

Brooks, thank you very much for taking the time to answer some of the burning questions in this thread. (Thank you, Doug, for inviting him.)

There's still something unanswered for me. Brooks explained why Mériel was picked for Lensework, namely because his "dodging and burning is extreme, to say the least. ... When I looked at his work I felt something -- something dramatic, Wagnerian, gritty, exaggerated, vociferous, even violent."

Agreed. Meriel tries to be dramatic. But why does he chose a way of achieving it that counteracts his own intention? I simply do not believe the "drama" when I see it's only created by some fat black spots in the sky and lower corners. What's dramatic about that? I think I could better accept his crude burning techniques if he used it to create something really new, alienated, defamiliarized where technique and message go hand in hand.

The great thing about art and photography is that we all don't like the same things. How boring it would be if this photographer created his landscapes just as I do, or you do.

I enjoyed the portfolio as said earlier.

It's irrelevant whether we LIKE what we see or not. Why should we discuss each others TASTE here? Now THAT would be boring! If art is only a matter of taste - yaaaawn.

I agree, Birgit. While, yes, his prints may have a precense, it still seems the technique used is more than the effect. Personally, I would not like to be known for my technique, only to have my images forgotten. In this case, is the image the product, or the technique?

Michael, I say this somewhat in jest, but I think it would be great if eveyrone photogrphed like me. Then I would be able to appreciate all photography. I feel that way about my own poetry, too. After a few months have passed, I'll read some of it again and think to myself: "Wow, this poet really reaches me!" Well, of course, because he's me. So, if we all were the same, then we'd all appreciate each other's work. As said above, if a technique works, then no one will really care how it's done. My question still is, Does this technique work? In my case, it drew my attention away from everything except the technique itself. Away from the artist, away from the print, away from France, etc.

Peter, I've learned a great deal from this posting. Maybe I should have used "controversial," or "questionable" instead of "inferior," though.

Art is never about taste. Taste is something that we experience at a superficial level, it can be a piece of clothing , a particular dish, ... You cannot speak of taste in art because art resonates at a much deeper level, i would like to says in our soul, but i don't think it is correct. It resonates in our core . That is why many times to critique negatively the work of an artist can be an unjust action . A sensitive and trained person will see the depth and value of the work even though the work itself will not affect him or her as much as his or her favourite artist. We have been given the freedom to express our creativity in a truly infinite number of ways , but there will always be people who try limit it . And that probably also is a necessity , to create some kind of tension , who knows....

"People who like only marching band music may think jazz is just awful, but that does not make jazz awful to those who love it. If you love marching band music, then by all means crank up the Sousa! If you like jazz, put on the Miles Davis!"

In the context of this thread it might be more appropriate to use John Coltrane as an example. Miles Davis is accessible for most listeners, even those who aren't jazz fans.

Even many jazz fans are perplexed by much of Coltrane's music. I play him for Kenny G. fans just to piss them off.

Does the fact that many folks who think they like "jazz" because they listen to lite jazz mean that Davis, Coltrane and others produce inferior work simply because Kenny G. fans don't get it?

Eddie Van Halen may be a more accessible and relevant example for some. He's made a career of playing all the wrong notes in his solos yet pulling miracles nearly every time by making sense of chaos. Vernon Reid, formerly with Living Colour, was equally adept at that bit of magic when he chose.

I'm also reminded somewhat of Francis Bacon's paintings. He seemed to delight in confounding viewers with imagery that skirted realism in some areas yet was obscured for the most part, seemingly to deliberately knock the viewer off balance. Did those rough, almost careless lines and smudges make his work inferior? Or does he simply challenge us to try to comprehend that which doesn't just skirt the boundaries of the familiar but takes a piss on the fences?

Bacon never subordinated message to technique. His technique was part of the message. I cannot tell whether this also applies to Eddie van Halen, it certainly does apply to Coltrane.

In Mériels case I'm more than sceptical.

I just got an inspiration. A circular group urinating into a black hole and the showers finding a crook named Guido standing in the cross position who is wearing a T-shirt with the word TRITE emblazoned across his chest. Heavy man. Heavy. It really gets me out of my comfort zone. ......ah....what is communication? Ah....is that Warhol laughing?

If anyone is still reading, many defenses of the work (including part of Mr. Jensens') miss the point. The question isn't whether anyone "likes" the work. The question is whether it's possible to get past the in-your-face bad technique (deliberate or not) to even reach the point of determining whether you like it. Art and craft are usually impossible to separate. Sometimes the craft is so bad that you never get to the "art" part. IMHO that's the case here. How can anyone possibly say whether they "like" the photograph on p.43 for example when the technique is so bad that you can't get past it to even think about anything else? Technique that calls attention to itself and away from the art is IMHO bad technique whether the photographer did it intentionally or not.

Yes, there are objective standards of "good" printing. The standard isn't Ansel Adams or the Camera Club claim that all photographs need a good black, well separated midtones, and detailed highlights. One standard is that whatever technique is used, to be effective it must contribute to, or at least not detract from, the work in question. The horrible technique displayed in these photographs fails to meet that standard IMHO. It isn't a question of whether I "like" the photographs, I can't even get to that point because the technique is so bad. Much the same as I couldn't begin to know whether I liked a Beethoven symphony if it was played by totally inept musicians. The notes on the paper might be great but if I couldn't hear them properly played how would I ever know?

Here's another poser to ponder: Emil Schildt (and others) deliberately "ruin" their negatives and prints to achieve a certain effect.

I happen to like Emil's effect. But if I happened not to like Mériel's work does that make it inferior? Or is it possible that I simply don't understand him?

Deconstruction is a valid approach to art. But it pisses off a lot of people. They dismiss it as sloppy, self-indulgent or incomprehensible. (Hell, I know of some actors who've found the process of rehearsing a deconstructed play to be incomprehensible.)

Sometimes the artist's intent isn't merely to see what he can get away with. It isn't necessarily to break the rules. Sometimes it's to see how many people he can aggravate. In this case Mériel was more than successful, whether or not that was his intention.

If I wanted to find a group that would respond in a reflexively reactionary way to some variation from my usual photographic approaches, I couldn't do better than photo.net. There are enough sensitive buttons and hair triggers here to tempt any sadist.

"deliberately 'ruin' their negatives and prints to achieve a certain effect."

I am happy that people are still responding. I finally got a chance to look at the pictures closely.

I think that "achieving the effect" here has a mixed record.

The picture on page 38, looking across a stream, at first astounded me as to how he achieved the sense of depth in the photograph. But once he burned in so much of the sky, I was left wondering where the light in the reflection of the lower left part of the stream is coming from. The result, to my mind, was a distraction. If one does not see the bottom left corner of the photo, then the dark sky adds to the drama; but if one takes the picture as a whole, something is definitely off. If Meriel intended it, or was sloppy, is of little interest to me, here.

The pictures on pages 40 and 41 clearly use the extra burning to heighten the areas where there is light shining into the church. On page 41, the burning of the two poles on the right certainly add to the depth of the light shining on the chairs in the back. But why are the pillars so obviously dark compared to the statue on the left when light shining on the statue is not blocked from the pillars. Again, an effect is achieved in part of the photo at the expense of the whole.

The picture on page 43, just burns the sky as well as the top of the structure with no sense of differentiation between them, not that any cloud is in front of it. If there is a "vision" here, I know that I do not "see" it.

A number of the other pictures, pages 42, 46, and 47, for example, are more successful, to my eye and mind.

So I appreciate the complaints, and the defenses of the artist freedom of interpretation.

"I happen to like Emil's effect. But if I happened not to like Mériel's work does that make it inferior? Or is it possible that I simply don't understand him? "

Lex, I think the answers here are yes, and yes. If Emil's work pleases you while Oliver's doesn't, then whether you understand one is immaterial, in my opinion.

Clearly, one is superior because it has appealed to your own aesthetics, and has persuaded you to continue your viewing. "Or is it possible that I simply don't understand him? " " Are you compelled to understand?

I would say that if an image appeals to you, then it has succeeded, and is superior. If it does not, then it has failed and is inferior. Understanding, in my opinion, is an equal, but separate issue.

If I understand it, then it has succeeded. If I don't understand it, and don't care to understand it, then it can be said to have failed, but if I don't understand it, and am motivated to continue my view with an eye to understand, then it has succeeded in the greatest possible way. Meriel's work, to me, fails because it doesn't appeal to me, I don't understand it, and I'm not motivated to try to understand it. If his intention was to turn me away, then, and only then, would I say his work is successful, but then, what is the price of that success? Even Witkin's work, as gross and repulsive as it is, is compelling on many levels.

I've followed this thread with interest. When I first received my copy of Lenswork, Meriel's portfolio was the one that really sucked me in and took my breath away. The others are fine in their own ways, but they seemed to rely more on the subject matter for their interest, while Meriel's images were very powerful almost independent of subject. It wasn't until after I had looked at them a second time that I started to wonder about the printing, and concluded that some incredibly heavy-handed burning-in was responsible for the aesthetic. I talked to my wife about the portfolio (and of course she was thrilled to do so, as she rolled her eyes...thinking 'here he goes again...photography'...), primarily to voice my realization that the manner in which the images were created would have been unacceptable to me if I had made them. But I honestly thought the overall effect was quite powerful. I've showed the portfolio to all my non-photographer friends since the issue arrived. They all love it. They talk about how moody, surreal, or Gothic the images are. Not one of them has asked how he did it or wondered why the skies are so dark in relation to the foregrounds, or had any difficulty accepting the images as artwork.

So that returns us to our original question. If the images are powerful, does our own approach and aesthetic prevent us from appreciating them? I have to confess that I'd wrestled with the issues raised in this thread before it started here. And for me, I've come to the conclusion that the value of the final effect is more important than the method, technique, or aesthetic used to create it. The method and technique question has been hashed out repeatedly in this era of analog vs. digital. But the acceptance of a different aesthetic entirely is not so regularly addressed. For me, this was a tremendously thought-provoking portfolio, and this has also been a thought-provoking thread. My final analysis is similar to a few others above. I don't picture myself creating photographs that look like this, but I have very much grown to appreciate the work despite the approach, an approach I would have previously said was unacceptable.

It was definitely worth bringing this artist's portfolio to our attention, and I applaud Brooks' decision to do so.

Meriel's portfolio reminds me of the digital work of a good friend of mine, Paul Athey. Paul's work has much more impact on me when seen in the "grand scale" than when seen on the screen or small print. Much more so than with most other images I've seen.

I must say that I was initially underwhelmed by Meriel's images. But with my experience of Paul's work in mind, I would very much like to see Meriel's prints "in the flesh" before forming a final opinion. I don't think calling it unprofessional is appropriate. To me it looks more like a practiced style than amateurism. It's fairer to point to a lack of finesse, but again, I doubt he was looking for finesse or fine control when he created these works.

Doug - thanks for starting this thread. It's made me stop and think about a protfolio that I may have dismissed lightly if I hadn't read your comments first. Best regards.

I finally got my copy yesterday, and have now had a good long look at it.

And guess what: The only portfolio I found interesting as pictures was Meriels! The others are technically well-executed images attractive scenes, but there is nothing that lifts them above that. Meriels pictures are less technically smooth (I'm suspicious about his film developing technique, the edges seem overdeveloped), but far more visually interesting.

Thank you for a good magazine - this was my first issue, and it promises well for future issues.

"They all love it."

Troy, in quoting you I remind myself of another peeve, which I will share disguised as a question: How often does it happen that non-photographers, positioned appropriately in the Art establishment, ascribe value to work that many genuine photographers might find mediocre, or poor?

I don't think any photographer is capable of looking at a photograph without noticing or critiquing the craft. As to the success of the images, that would be determined by how the audience at large reacts to it. Does the vast majority walk away moved by the power of the image, or do they do nothing but ponder why it looked the way it did?

Hi Doug,

I agree that many times non-photographers don't have an understanding of the technical merit of an image. But I also find it worthwhile to occasionally remind myself that there are many more non-photographers than there are photographers. And while some would happily argue the point, I prefer the honest reaction of a non-photographer to my work almost every time. Photographers always ask how I developed it or what my shutter speed and aperture were. Non-photographers talk about the feeling of the image (at least in my experience), which is much more interesting to me anyway. So yes, I agree that the non-photo crowd will fail to see some things that a photographer would see. But I also think that they are much less likely to have a vision that's clouded by technical prejudice or diverted by process details. That's why I like to ask them what they think of my own photographs (after all they buy most of them), as well as what they think of other photographs that I am interested in. I understand that your approach may differ, but this has been my experience anyway. I should clarify, however, that about half of my circle of unwitting photo critics are painters, and the other half are fishermen. For whatever that's worth.

Troy

Troy, that's a really good point. I usually associate a lack of knowledge with things photographic as an all around indicator of a person's ignorance!

Ok, I'm joking just a little, but you make a very good point, for me at least.

Having now satisfied my sense of indignation at the photographically ignorant deciding what's good in photography, and still joking just a little, the only remaining irritation is that the photographically ignorant are, by and large, easy to please, as evidenced by the aforementioned success. Of course, with the public drooling over the most horrible images, I guess it doesn't matter whether one's own work is good, or bad, huh? It's not what you know, it's who you know, as the saying goes.

Worth. Value......I suppose it's up to you to determine the value of my comment should I blather incoherently. Perhaps if I do it with enough charm or whatever charms your psycho/search my little performance will find value. To you. Worth? The larger question begs an inclusion of Truth in its assesment. Is it answerable to a compelling maximum? Does the content intentionally point to a signifigant archetype by which one might aquire an embrace with meaning in its largest sense?..............I don't know.

It seems to me that what has been embraced as profound or moving, these days, has been by its nature trite and self centered while being justified by the most superficial under the guise of truth and freedom of expression. For every deconstruction there is a construction and Sisyphus still labours. But I think perhaps the larger 'we' are emerging from the days where tossing our trust to the convenient ie. easy, is becoming less acceptable under the rubric of pursuit....blah blah. Dylan and Morrison deserve a break. Rant rant rant. Sorry guys for wasting your bandwidth.......