Re: EW redu

From: SteveS ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/11/05-12:14:25 AM Z
Message-id: <007501c4f7a4$cfa9de90$2904e4d8@VALUED65BAD02C>

Can't resist inserts below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: EW

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, SteveS wrote:
>> I don't understand why Judy and others choose to rip Edward Weston.
> I don't rip Edward Weston, I rip the (insert blasphemic adjectival phrase)
> cult of Edward Weston.

Agreed, an iconoclast myself, not one of the Carmel insiders.

>The ghoulish reliquary for his every fingernail paring. He himself was an
>interesting person with a strong passion, and wide personal projectory.

He laughed and avoided his fame. In fact, he lost money on a photo
competition when they chose to 'fame' him insted of award him with the
$1,000 prize. His submission was so 'far abolve the competition.'

> His growth, or evolution, from early pictorial, soft focus, drippy
> sentimental photographs to his later explorations of seagull turds

Never saw the seagull turds. His pictures were meant to be non objective
landscapes. He was chasing his son, Brett who Diego Rivera thought was head
and shoulders above him. That haunted him intil his death.

>and sharp focus spread legged females is nice enough (though it shows a
>lack of imagination that nearly every one of his females, clad or unclad,
>has her legs spread).

I guess that's why the picture of Charis with her legs clenched, arms
wrapped around her torso, head down was so exceptional?

>Alas, Weston's presentation of women is STILL considered art, though
>whether entirely his influence, or simply his timeliness, I am not seer
>enough to say.
> I read his Daybooks too long ago to remember well, but whatever I'd think
> of them today they were obviously good PR.

Generally accepted as white washed. The 'good parts' still exist in the
actual Day Books. Pauline Weston, divorced by Cole just before his death
was about to re do them.

> On the 3rd hand, shooting everything sharp focus was a really ditzy idea,

It was the 'new thing' like braced feet???? I was told to run a lot.

> IMO. I mean here I am with the digital camera which automatically shoots
> everything in sharp focus & I'm desperate to soften things up in the
> background, which Photoshop so far has not obliged, at least not
> progressively, like a REAL camera.

I guess your camera got stuck on the Ansel Adams button, you might try the
EW or Brennan button. Let me know if you can't find it. I believe you can
manipuolate the or any digital camera by dropping it. Try it frequently and
the appropriate flagglant will occur.

> Reminds me of my Swiss pediatrician -- tho I may have mentioned this: When
> we revealed to him that during a stay in the US, our American pediatrician
> had prescribed those braces for the kids' feet at night supposed to turn
> their feet in, because they were supposedly going to be spread eagled, he
> said oh you Americans, this year you turn them in, next year you'll want
> to turn them out. But in this he was wrong -- we never turned them out,
> and today their feet are excellent.
> Which is more than I can say for Photoshop... see my next desperate plea.
> PS. I have the impression that Weston's practice of pre- or post-
> photographic sexual congress with his models has not been as widely copied
> as other photographers might like -- the movie Blow Up to the contrary
> notwithstanding. But then again I amnot inthat loop, maybe it's the new
> zone system.
> Judy

Yeah, me to neither.


Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
Received on Tue Jan 11 00:14:47 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST