User:Pinkville/WikiProject History of Photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject History of Photography Preliminary Outline

Contents

[edit] Photographers

Here are some articles about individual photographers that we propose to raise to "Good Article" or "Featured Article" status — or that have already got there.

[please add sparingly, according to a combination of quality, fame, and quality (or ease of improvement) of the existing article. The number might be between 20 and 50. Without forgetting the earliest, the most recent, those who hail from other lands]

[edit] Subjects in photography

[edit] Processes

photographic processes

photographic printing processes

[and other processes and related subjects]

[edit] Techniques

[edit] Equipment

[please don't add individual products or brands]

[edit] History

[History of photography in various countries]

[edit] Theory

[Representation (arts) and photography]
[Realism and photography]
[Feminism and photography]
Photojournalism

[edit] Theorists and Historians of photography

[edit] Resources

A list of resources (links and bibliographic citations) both as an aide for work on the Project and as a "for further reading" reference.

A resource on an individual photographer or other clear-cut issue within photography, however good the resource may be, should not be listed here; it should instead be listed at the foot of the relevant article, or be recommended in that article's talk page.

[edit] General/unsorted

[edit] Mediterranean & Soutwest Asia

  • Perez, Nissan N. Focus East: Early Photography in the Near East, 1839-1885. New York: Abrams, 1988.

[edit] East Asia

[edit] Notes & Discussion

Good additions, Hoary. Pinkville 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Very sleepy additions, I'm afraid. And I'm still sleepy now. Hoary 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's 01:05 UTC! Pinkville 01:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The most celebrated photographers in the anglophone world ... but also neglected figures.... Erm, what's the benefit of separating the former from the latter? How about just trying to come up with a list of 20 or so photographers who (i) are really good, (ii) are at least moderately well published in the anglophone world, and (iii) get articles that seem to be within reach of "Good"? Some of those we list won't be as famous (or perhaps as "good") as some of those we don't; but I don't think that that's necessarily a problem. -- Hoary 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If we approach the photographers article in the way you suggest, then I don't see any problem. I added the point about neglected figures as a caution against including only the canonical figures. Following your suggestion with a rough guideline of: 10 or so celebrated photographers of the anglophone world and, say, 5 early photographers who have no (or stubby) articles; 5 articles on significant new photographers and 5 articles on photographers in a non-anglo (working) context might be a way to go. Numbers could certainly be altered, and the selections could be prioritised. Pinkville 14:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is more worrying than it was before. I was talking about photographers who are famous in the anglophone world. These don't have to be of/from the anglophone world, and (despite the usual parochialism of celebrity in our so-called globalized culture) many are not. I'd have to exclude people such as Kimura Ihei (despite his fame and popularity in Japan, he typically merits a chapter at most of a book in English) but I might include Atget, Doisneau, Cartier-Bresson, Sander and many others. ¶ I suggest not making "significant new photographers" conspicuous, as doing so might act as an invitation to vanity and charity (?) articles. (By the latter, I mean giving a leg up to a friend: I'm not the photographer Villarosa, honest; but I met him a couple of times at parties and he's a great guy and it's a pity he hasn't managed to get a book published since 2001, so I'll write him up for all he's worth -- that kind of thing.) ¶ Let's put aside even informal quotas for a time, and try to come up with any twenty or so photographers who meet my criteria (i)–(iii) two comments above; if the resulting list seems biased, we can then fiddle with it. -- Hoary 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No need for worry. The "quotas" were only intended as a loose reference point. I also wanted to be sure we are on the same page - which turns out to be the case (except, perhaps for Cindy Sherman, whom i similarly dislike, but have to acknowledge is still influential - I'd rather substitute someone else that "represents" a recent feminist/art orientation - suggestions?), thus the reference to "the canon" - which should also serve to ward off those who would add exclusively from conventional wisdom. Notably, I was about to add Nachtwey and Lange, myself. I also agree about significant new photographers - but again wanted to be sure we included some genuinely influential currently practicing photographers. So far this project is (in essence) only known to four editors, and eccentricities of vanity, etc. can still be easily curtailed - as has now effectively been done with the harder to manage List of photographers. Pinkville 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the notes you added above - esp. re; Resources (it took some time to remove any photographer-specific suffixes to those URLs). Pinkville 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sherman herself is a blank to me; it's the influence I dislike. Actually I know little about the "feminist" side of it; this kind of stuff just strikes me as narcissism, laziness and pretension all gussied up with carefully calculated sales points that click the right buttons. ¶ Are Misrach and Sugimoto influential? I rather hope not, because I can easily imagine mass-produced and indifferent seascapes and bridgescapes. But their work is fine, and they're contemporary. ¶ I guess we need one or two fashion photographers, too; I've dozed through the work of plenty of new people, which isn't a patch on Avedon or earlier stuff. More later, when I'm connected more cheaply. -- Hoary 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(5) I believe Misrach to be more important than Sugimoto, but less well known. I would include Hatakeyama before either - because his oeuvre is more diverse technically and visually, but he may be even less well known (oh dear). For fashion, etc.: Irving Penn, maybe. von Unwerth(y). Annie Leibovitz? I couldn't bear Scavulo. Helmut Newton? (Yeesh). Or Richard "coffee table" Avedon. As for Sherman, I believe her work is in earnest, not simply calculated to sell - but it is dead in a way that is more dead than intended. Other possibilities are Martha Rosler (not primarily a photographer), Barbara Kruger (more a user of photographs) or more recent figures like Rineke Dijkstra (limited oeuvre). Maybe Geneviève Cadieux? Or Carol Condé & Karl Beveridge? Pinkville 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never even heard the names of three of those, and four more are merely names to me. So, briefly: Penn would be fine (though I haven't even glanced at the article on him). Meanwhile, take a look at Bruce Davidson. Or perhaps don't do so. -- Hoary 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
(7) "Eventing"... could it be something like photography? Oh, no. It involves horsies. I would say Penn or Leibovitz are the best options. The former is more fashion, but diverse enough. The latter is rock culture and fashion/celebrity. Maybe both. That would cover a key "gap" that we wouldn't have to deal with for a while. Pinkville
Actually I think I remember correcting the link to Bruce Davidson (photographer) Pinkville

[edit] Enough sitting on our thumbs

I've launched it. -- Hoary 12:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/User%7EPinkville_WikiProject_History_of_Photography_6d7b.html"