r
i
J
Photography e
xhihi
t show
s artistic eye o
f lens
By Diane Wanek
. Someone commented the other evening at
photographer Roger Rejda's opening at Sheldon, that
photography is not art. I had thought this was no
longer a question, but further consideration leads me
to conclude this man could be right.
No one would deny that photography is certainly
a craft, hobby, profession; so, too, are painting,
poetry, and many other media we consider art forms.
Further, we do not discount writing simply because a
typewriter is used, or metal sculpture because an
acetylene torch is used. Neither should we discount
photography because of the mechanics.
It seems that this type of equipment enables the
artist to create more freely. And freedom in creation
seems to be a very important element
A question now is raised: Why may one piece of
work be art and another not? The question is a
philosophical abyss wherein may be found too many
theories, Plato said true artists were possessed by a
"divine madness." Aristotle was more mundane,
describing art as a means of inducing psychological
reactions irt the beholder. It has been described in
terms of "beauty," "ideal form," "aesthetic
harmony," "intensified reality" and any other
number of vague concepts which would drive a
person into utter confusion.
I believe many people would agree that not all
photography is art, just as not all painting, sculpture,
music or dance is art. Each medium contains a large
number of areas the artist must work with. If. he
doesn't consider them all, he is creating without
playing with a full deck.
For example," a painter considering a still life must
take into account shape, texture, form, color, light,
brushes, paints, the canvas itself and his technique of
, application. All these must be utilized while
considering every square inch of the canvas in this
creative process.
The same analogy holds true in photography. The
photographer certainly has options: type, quality,
color and texture both of film and paper, lenses,
filters, developers, varying exposures for both paper
and film, techniques such as burning, dodging,
multiple printing, masking and solarizing. The
photographer, top, must be concerned with these
things in combination. He must approach each
photograph with what could be called a painterly
approach.
Ansel Adams said, "We must remember that a
photograph can hold just as much as we put into it,
and no one has ever approached the full possibilities
of the medium."
The more people realize the possibilities of the
medium, the more they may realize its possibilities as
an art form. Roger Rejda said that learning truth in
one art form allows him to understand it better in
another.
Rejda may not consider all possibilities of the
photographic medium, but he succeeds often in what
he has set out to do. He says he is not concerned with
abstractions in his Sheldon show.
"In this show I am always working in reaction to
exterior realities,'' he said.
His approach is straightforward, clean, with
attention to texture, form, composition, tonality, end
light It sometimes works well, as in his photograph
entitled "Penny Weeds." Sometimes it doesn't quite
come off.
By and large, however, it's a pleasing exhibition.
His portrait of his father is well done technically and
gives the beholder a good feeling; a bit of the
photographer's feeling for his father is transmitted.
His "Poodle Reflection" and "Michaelangelo's Dome,
Rome" show his sense of humor.
The exhibit is an anthology of what Rejda
considers his best work since 1966, when he began
this hobby. The exhibit will continue through May
26.' ,
Golden age
movies
habit for
Americans
The movies, as everyone knows, are composed of many
dependent, creative factors that contribute to the finished
product. But to the American public, for many years the
movies have never needed to be anything more than the
faces and actions of the actors and actresses they saw on
the screen; the faces of those glamorous, often idolized,
people they simply called the "stars".
Unlike today, when we tend to be more selective, the
movies in an earlier, golden age were a habit for millions of
American families. During the '30s and '40s they usually
chose the films they saw because of the stars they knew
they would find once inside the theater door. Today,
pictures like The Exorcist, American Graffiti and The Great
Gatsby are all bigger than any of the stars" trr them, and
there are other big-name films that would be as popular
even if their casts were changed.
greg lukow
1
But what othfr reason was there for going to a Betty
Grable movie in the '40s if not simply for Grable herself?
Shirley Temple films were so popular only because America
fell in love with their dimpled, curly haired little star; and
for millions of wishful thinking young women, for over two
decades, Clark Gable was reason enough for any movie's
existence.
Looking over the annual motion picture Money Making
Stars Poll, first conducted in 1932, reveals a lot about what
people went to see in their movies. It has nothing to do
with art or even good filmmaking, but it shows who was
drawing in the dollars for movie makers, and some of the
names on it are suprising.
For instance, the biggest movie star attraction in 1933
and 1934 was the large, domineering, 64-year-old, leading
lady, Marie Dressier. A lot of people today have never heard
of her but in the early '30s her co-starring efforts with
Wallace Beery in pics like Min and Bill and Tugboat Annie
were huge successes. . -
VVMI nvyeii iGGii CVC."
I rspkin" th? nxt
year, and then came 1935. For. the next seven years the
roost was ruled by child stars Shirley Temple (until 1938)
and Mickey Rooney (from 1939-41). Clark Gable was the
most consistent box office attraction of the '30s. He held
the number two or three positions on the top 10 poll eight
times from 1934 to 1942.
Betty Gratia ruled for one year during the war, as did
(believe it or not) Abbot and Covtclfc). Then, in 1944,
another dynasty of sorts was established as Bing Crosby
became the No. 1 movie attraction for the next five
years. Since then, the top spots have shuffled regularly with
John Wayne and Doris Day leading the most times with
four each.
There were other suprise names that hit the top. Dean
Martin and Jerry Lewis led in 1952, William Holden in
1956, and, for some reason, Glenn Ford in 1958. 1957 was
a year for male singers ss Pat Boone, Elvis Presley and
.Frank Sinatra were numbers three, four, and five
respectively. By 19G0, it was apparent that light hearted sex
comedies were taking over as Doris Day, Rock Hudson,
Gary Grant, Debbie Reynolds, Tony Curtis, Sandra Dee and
Jack Lemmon ail made the top 10.
Currently, Robert Redfofu is having one of the biggest
"starring" ytars in a long time. With Clint Eastwood and
John Wayne, his name is one of the few left that wiil
consistently bring out movie fans simply because a certain;
Sheldon Trio to present
chamber music program
The Sheldon Trio wiil perform chamber music by Johannes
Brahms, Samuel Adler, Beethoven and Ernst Bloch at 8 p.m.
Friday at the Sheldon Art Gallery.
The trio, artists in residence at Sheldon, is composed of UNL
Professor of Music Arnold Schatz, pianist Gary Lewis and cellist
Dorothy Lewis. The Lewises are on the faculty at Nebraska
Wesleyan University.
Admission is $1 for students and $2 for regular seats.
','.'
i 1 ii. ,
I ft I' ! mm
u u jcnooi or music
faculty members Robert
O'Boyle and Gary Echols will
give a recital tonight at 8 p.m.
at Kimball Recital Hall.
Echols will play Sonata No.
1 for Bassoon and Piano by
Alec Wilder, O'Boyle will play
a Camille Saint-Saens sonata
for oboe and piano. Both will
join their accompanist Thomas
Fritz in the Trio for Piano,
Oboe and Bassoon by Francis
Poufenc.
UNL faculty
musicians
in recital
IF? 7AEIGS YGARS
The Montezuma Horny Bull:'"
1 oz. Montezuma Tequila.
5 oz. CONCENTRATED ORANGE
BREAKFAST DRINK. Over ice.
ioniezom
Its sensational, and that's no bull. 1 hAlJ
e 1974. 60 Proof. Tfrqifila .Balon DsMiliers Impart Co. New Yor k.Nw York
star is in the film.
thursday, april 25, 1974
daily nebraskan
page 7
J .J & -
jt e t t
A A .
; ,5).. &
. .A, , A- sf i-
