Show your Hunt and RMY photo wins

[Lordstan]

This is a great discussion, I agree.

It makes me wonder about the whole idea of creativity in sports photography. We think of these older "masters" as creating photos with an eye for some artistic aesthetic. I think the more I learn, the more it appears that they really were just guys taking photos to make money based on either current events that they could sell or specific assignments they were hired for. The artistic nature of the photos for the T205s are a good example. While everyone marvels are their beauty, the reality might have been that the tobacco manufacturer may have just asked for close up head shots that would fit the card medium. That requirement, along with the usual equipment of the day wound up creating the aesthetic that was produced. It makes me wonder if it may not have been some esoteric artistic decision made by the photograper(s).
It seems like the more modern photographers, like Iooss, might have more of a purposeful creative effort to their photos to make something beautiful rather than just something to run in a newspaper.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

This is a great discussion, I agree.

It makes me wonder about the whole idea of creativity in sports photography. We think of these older "masters" as creating photos with an eye for some artistic aesthetic. I think the more I learn, the more it appears that they really were just guys taking photos to make money based on either current events that they could sell or specific assignments they were hired for. The artistic nature of the photos for the T205s are a good example. While everyone marvels are their beauty, the reality might have been that the tobacco manufacturer may have just asked for close up head shots that would fit the card medium. That requirement, along with the usual equipment of the day wound up creating the aesthetic that was produced. It makes me wonder if it may not have been some esoteric artistic decision made by the photograper(s).
It seems like the more modern photographers, like Iooss, might have more of a purposeful creative effort to their photos to make something beautiful rather than just something to run in a newspaper.

Well yes... that is pretty much exactly what happened. These guys were not celebs.. they were guns for hire. That said, i think they still took pride in their work.

[sphere and ash]

I think artistic intent is secondary. Chuck Close once said that photography is the only medium in which it is possible to have an accidental masterpiece. I think that makes things more exciting rather than less so. It means the photograph you covet could be in any box or album, as yet undiscovered.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I think artistic intent is secondary. Chuck Close once said that photography is the only medium in which it is possible to have an accidental masterpiece.

I believe they went hand in hand. In 1910 there were many more components to taking a picture than there are now, and it took a lot longer. A good portrait photographer knew how to use depth of field, lighting, exposure, background and how to evoke a good expression. It was just as easy to do these things well as to do them as a hack would.

Sure, a hack will get an accidental masterpiece and a great photographer will shoot an entire roll that he thinks will be great, then get back a pile of garbage;however, there is a reason we collect Conlons and not Joe Schmoes.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Sure, a hack will get an accidental masterpiece and a great photographer will shoot an entire roll that he thinks will be great, then get back a pile of garbage;however, there is a reason we collect Conlons and not Joe Schmoes.

Well, I do have a photo by a Dork.