Goyaesqe or Out of Focus?

[dazedgonebye]

Lenswork (http://www.lenswork.com/)is about my favorite photo magazine. There's usually at least two featured works that I like, and the Editor's Comments section has often sparked a worthwhile thought process in me.
In this month's End Notes, Bill Jay relates a story about actor/photographer Richard Gere that I found entertaining.

Actor and Buddhist Richard Gere is also a photographer. You may have seen his latest book of photographs, Pilgrim, an homage to Tibet with its fuzzy neo-Pictoralist images. One critic gushed, "Gere's photographs capture the motion that occurs even in stillness."
More realistically, and with better vision, the Dali Lama was not impressed with his protégé's work. Gere admitted that "His holiness has told me, urgently and repeatedly, that my photographs are crap. His exact words were 'These photos are of poor quality. Why is there no sharp focus? There is no clarity!' I said, 'But your holiness, it's Goyaesque.' And he said, 'No! It's out of focus!'"

[Pistach]

Very funny story.
I saw Gere's photos long time ago, I don't remember where. I had the same impression as his holiness. More than that. They were also badly exposed.
Did he use a contax ps?

[Prosaic]

http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/gere/gere.html

[RML]

http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/gere/gere.html

I don't think they're that bad, judging from the small images on that website. I'd be happy to have shot quite a few of them.

[ClaremontPhoto]

Goya's paintings are generally very clear.

Monet on the other hand... Way off focus and I wouldn't pay good money for one of them.

I don't know Richard Gere's photos; he uses a Leica Minilux Black (just like mine) so he must be good.

[ClaremontPhoto]

Later; the photos look just fine to me.

[oftheherd]

It is hard to tell from the small photos in the URL. However, as I seen them, the third one has a lot of grain, if not out of focus. It may be an enlargement of a small area in a larger negative. The third from the last is about the same imho. In number two from the top, the verticals are off. That may be an unavoidable consequence of a wide lens, but might have been corrected in printing. Number four seems to be an attempt to show the moon, not knowing it would be so small in the photo. Several seem to be poorly exposed, but they may have been difficult lighting situations for the film used and the altitude.

All have potential, but I would have wished to render most of them a little differently. Of course, that doesn't mean I would have been able to do so.

[mwooten]

http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/gere/gere.html

Down at the bottom, the large crowd, that's what it looks like when I show up at an opening...







...(and there's somebody famous there).

[FrankS]

Quote: "Gere admitted that "His holiness has told me, urgently and repeatedly, that my photographs are crap. His exact words were 'These photos are of poor quality. Why is there no sharp focus? There is no clarity!' I said, 'But your holiness, it's Goyaesque.' And he said, 'No! It's out of focus!'"

You just can't bull**** the Dali Lama. :)

[ClaremontPhoto]

But, Goya is very clear.

Look at 'The Nude Maja' and 'The Clothed Maja', two of his best-known pictures.

[dexdog]

As others have noted, it is hard to tell given that small size of the images,but on the whole, I think that there are a couple of very good photos in the bunch. A couple display a certain impressionistic character that I could understand being interpreted as crappy from a technical point of view, such as the one of the praying monk with the shaft of light on his face.

To each his own.

[ClaremontPhoto]

Yes, that's from Goya's black period, but it's still sharp.

[crawdiddy]

But, Goya is very clear.

Look at 'The Nude Maja' and 'The Clothed Maja', two of his best-known pictures.

Yes, they seem sharp enough. But what about Saturn Devouring his Son? That one seems a tad unsharp. And it's also very well known.

Still, I'm not sure why "Goyaesque" would mean out of focus in popular parlance. It's not one of the first things I think of when I think of Goya.

[crawdiddy]

A little fuzzy, yes?

[ClaremontPhoto]

Saturn Devouring His Son is sharp, it's just that it's a painting.

I agree that Goyaesque is an odd term for out of focus. Monetesque might be better. Mabe the Dali Lama needs some art education?

[crawdiddy]

Anyway, back to Gere's photos. I like them, personally. If they were in my portfolio, I'd keep them.

[dexdog]

Still, I'm not sure why "Goyaesque" would mean out of focus in popular parlance. It's not one of the first things I think of when I think of Goya.

The first thing that I think of Goya would be the dramatic use of highlight. The glowing shirt of the man being shot is the classic example

[Tuolumne]

Don't we use the term "impressionistic" for images that are out of focus and unsharp - dreamy, if you will. At least that's my usage. So a more apt painter to name might be Monet/Manet/Pissaro/Renoir.

/T

[ClaremontPhoto]

The first thing that I think of Goya would be the dramatic use of highlight. The glowing shirt of the man being shot is the classic example


Goya was a painter about two hundred years ago.

He has nothing whatsoever to do with the photograph of the man being shot.

Robert Capa's 'Falling Soldier' of 1936.

[crawdiddy]

The first thing that I think of Goya would be the dramatic use of highlight. The glowing shirt of the man being shot is the classic example

I agree, dexdog.

I think maybe it's Richard Gere who needs some art history.;)

[Sparrow]

In his era Goya was indeed considered “impressionistic” a lot of critics thought his work poorly finished, with some justification. In places it’s possible to see the canvas showing through a thin layer of paint or completely blank ground between brushstrokes, yet at a proper viewing distance they resolve into great paintings, a bit like photos really, technically perfect isn’t always best

[Tuolumne]

In his era Goya was indeed considered “impressionistic” a lot of critics thought his work poorly finished, with some justification. In places it’s possible to see the canvas showing through a thin layer of paint or completely blank ground between brushstrokes, yet at a proper viewing distance they resolve into great paintings, a bit like photos really, technically perfect isn’t always best

If I remember correctly he used his F/1 brush to achieve those effects. :)

/T

[Sparrow]

If I remember correctly he used his F/1 brush to achieve those effects. :)

/T
If you get up close you can see where he used his thumb, now that’s what I call a fingerprint…….and a distinctive signature to boot

:D

[FrankS]

Saturn Devouring His Son is sharp, it's just that it's a painting.

I agree that Goyaesque is an odd term for out of focus. Monetesque might be better. Mabe the Dali Lama needs some art education?

It was Geer, not the DL who called the out of focus photos Goyaesque.

[dazedgonebye]

I just wondered if the Dali Lama didn't get what Gere was trying to do, or did get it and still thought they were crap.

[NB23]

I'm astounded at the mild reaction to Gere's photos. I think they are excellent!

[lns]

Goya was a painter about two hundred years ago.

He has nothing whatsoever to do with the photograph of the man being shot.

Robert Capa's 'Falling Soldier' of 1936.


I think the comment referred to Goya's painting The Third of May, which depicts a man being shot. Much more clearly than the Capa photo does, actually. Perhaps Gere is really Capaesque.

[dazedgonebye]

The statement seems like something a teacher would say to teach a pupil humility. I think it is totally out of context.


Here is a better suggestion regarding Goya, sometime, if possible everyone who can, should visit Madrid, and spend days at the Prado looking at the Goyas, especially the drawings. They are simply breathtaking. go here--> http://museoprado.mcu.es/

:)

Well, I know he's the Dali and all...but don't you think wonder if he doesn't take a break from teaching now and again and just express an opinion?
If not, he wouldn't be much fun to be around.

[RML]

Well, I know he's the Dali and all...but don't you think wonder if he doesn't take a break from teaching now and again and just express an opinion?
If not, he wouldn't be much fun to be around.

I hear the Dalai (see the second letter A in their? :) ) Lama is quite a jolly and funny guy.

Dali was a designer and architect.

BTW, I once had the privilege to wait for the Dalai Lama pass by in his car. In 2006 he visited Mongolia, without prior knowledge of China (which caused quite a stir when he showed up in UB). One day I was in the bus on my way to I-don't-remember-what when we were stopped by police. A column of cars passed by, one with the Dalai Lama's flags fluttering from the bumper. That's as close I ever got to the Dalai Lama, though things could have been different. He spent a week or so in Mongolia, exactly the week that I spent 600 km away in a resort in the west of Mongolia. We were hoping the DL would visit the Erdene Zuu temple complex at Khar Khorin (Karakorum), only some 300 km away from where we were, but he didn't. If he had, we would have been just around the corner :) , and it would have been quite easy to see and approach him. It's one of my wishes to once in my lifetime meet him in person. My mom did already; she was even present at one of the closed session meetings with students of Buddhism. My mother-in-law is Mongolian and she respectfully greets every image of the DL. :)

[crawdiddy]

Well, I know he's the Dali and all...but don't you think wonder if he doesn't take a break from teaching now and again and just express an opinion?
If not, he wouldn't be much fun to be around.

I personally think the Dalai Lama is a swell guy. But that doesn't mean he's an expert on photography.

[Ducky]

The first thing that I think of Goya would be the dramatic use of highlight. The glowing shirt of the man being shot is the classic example

This makes perfect sense after seeing 'The Third of May. Nothing to do with Capa's photo.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Monet on the other hand... Way off focus and I wouldn't pay good money for one of them.
"Way off focus"??? wth? It's like declaring soup "way not solid", unlike potato chips.

[Gabriel M.A.]

The statement seems like something a teacher would say to teach a pupil humility. I think it is totally out of context.
I agree, Grasshopper.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Cool! I found a very sharp painting:

http://www.coloradomoments.com/gallery/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/6f85a316716a71b5bee04a2ca07879f0.jpg

Out of focus, I'm afraid.


Anyway...I took a look at Gere's photos, and not shabby at all. Much better than many I've seen from anyone who is quicker at criticizing a photo than to take a good one themselves.

And Buddhism teaches us to let go of our worldly possessions. An image of selective focus lets go of the worldly "sharp" possession of reality.

Peace.

[Sparrow]

The Third of May or The Third Way, who can tell, so many mysteries it the world

[tomasis]

For the first, Gere's pics are not good from art perspective. Really unispiring but it is no wonder that he didn't got time to commit into photography seriously. Just another famous person who happens to take some shots and doing advertising for a good purpose anyway :) I think that Dalai did mean that one has to make effort for shooting. If it is correct, he did carry Leica Minilux, huh? What a joke! It reminds me of that Holywoodishness. The pain would be paid better off if one carried Leica M with a collapsible lens or why not Noctilux :D Goyaesque? A load of bull**** and it is not paint here but only silver emulsions. It isn't about only technique either. I believe that through pain, sweat, blood one gets good shoots.