You're ALL wrong about "Equivalence"

Started 1 week ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,143
Like?
You're ALL wrong about "Equivalence"
1 week ago

Sorry, DPReview! Sorry, Great Bustard! You're just plain wrong about what "equivalence" means in photography. You have misappropriated a term that Steiglitz first used (and, I would argue, derived from his "exposure" to Marcel Duchamp) some 90 years ago. It would be a travesty of biblical proportions if this REAL meaning of "equivalence" in the context of photography was forever buried under the weight of thousands of mostly pointless internet postings!

We are already dangerously close to Great Bustard's equivalency essay* being ranked higher on Google than the Wikipedia entry on Steiglitz's "Equivalents". I'm sad to say that it has already risen above the definitive essay on equivalency published by Minor White fifty years ago. But perhaps we can do something to stem the perverse Google page-rank tide by linking to, reading and discussing White's amazing (and historically significant) essay. Regardless, it will be a FAR more productive discussion for advancing our collective photographic skills!

Check it out here and then check out Minor White's photographs and those by Aaron Sisskind, Harry Callahan, Paul Caponigro (and his son, John Paul), Walter Chappell and, of course, Steiglitz's cloud "equivalents" to begin the process toward understanding what equivalence is really all about!

-Knickerhawk

*Note: I have no beef with GB's essay as such. It's quite good and useful, actually. It's just that it should refer to "correspondence" instead of "equivalence" to avoid trampling on the original and far more important application of the term.

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow