John Fielder, good or bad?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rob - 17 Nov 2004 20:48 GMT

John Fielder used to annoy me - every where you turned in Colorado it
was Fielder on TV, in the paper, calendars, books etc. His
omnipresence made me think he must be an incredible photographer. He
seemed to be the Starbucks of the photography world. But what annoyed
me wasn't his success (I am very jealous) but the fact that I found
most of his photographs quite, ummmm, average. Yup they were
technically excellent and he must spend 90% of the year outdoors to
get to all the amazing places he has but still, they never really did
anything for me.

Then at the weekend I was in his store in Cherry Creek Mall and was so
blown away by his huge prints - they were stunning. I walked around
with my jaw on the floor. I was so impressed I bought his book,
"Photographing the Landscape: The Art of Seeing" but having flipped
through it I'm back to thinking it should have been called
"Photographing the Blandscape: The Art of Blowing one's own Trumpet"

Compared to picking up an Art Wolfe book where every page turn is
accompanied by "Wow!"....

I don't know, am I being too critical? What do others think - is he
as amazing as his market presence would suggest? I really want to
like his work but maybe that is driven by the fact that he has
photographed so many places in Colorado that I love.

Reply to this Message

Donald Patrylow - 18 Nov 2004 04:12 GMT

Rob,

I agree with you. I have always found most of John Fielder's work good, but
not exceptional. However, he is exceptional at marketing himself, especially
in Colorado. Art Wolfe is also exceptional at marketing, but I also think
he is an exceptional photographer who has traveled the world to capture his
images.

Don

> John Fielder used to annoy me - every where you turned in Colorado it
> was Fielder on TV, in the paper, calendars, books etc. His
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> like his work but maybe that is driven by the fact that he has
> photographed so many places in Colorado that I love.

Reply to this Message

alpnclymber@earthlink.net - 18 Nov 2004 16:43 GMT

Note that Fielder started a publishing company, Westcliffe, to sell his
photography. Wolfe isn't a good comparison since he shoots small film of
critters. But Fielder isn't in the ranks of Till or Muench IMHO.

Reply to this Message

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 19 Nov 2004 02:18 GMT

> Rob,
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>>like his work but maybe that is driven by the fact that he has
>>photographed so many places in Colorado that I love.

I think you are being too critical. I've seen quite a number
of really spectacular images, and he was done some innovative
things like the then and now Colorado book (one of the first
of its kind and quite extensive, though not a completely
original concept). Success means you must be equally good at
sales as well as photography, a rare combination, I believe
(and certainly not me). Then to continue producing
images that people buy means he is doing it right.
Perhaps you are jealous?
Having said that, I usually buy Todd Caudle's Colorado
calendar each year because I usually like it better.

Roger

Reply to this Message

Rob - 19 Nov 2004 16:19 GMT

> I think you are being too critical. I've seen quite a number
> of really spectacular images, and he was done some innovative
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Roger

My feeling (probably not justified) is that if I gave up work and invested
the same incredible amount of devotion to being outdoors doing photography I
might be able to come close to his level of work whereas with others liek
Wolfe I just feel their level of artistry is beyond me.

Achieving the business success is another thing altogether! I just realised
that Westcliffe publishers also produced the Longs Peak book I bought
recently and that is a beautiful book.

But you are right, I think I probably am being too critical, and as I did
mention in my 1st post I am jealous, very jealous:) I will never have the
motivation, dedication and passion he has so it is only a dream that I might
produce work like his!

I originally mentioned Wolfe because I happened to pick up their Colorado
books side by side in the bookshop. Another poster mentioned Muench who I
see also has a Colodado book - I'll keep a look out for that.

Thanks for all your comments.

Reply to this Message

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 20 Nov 2004 03:19 GMT

>>I think you are being too critical. I've seen quite a number
>>of really spectacular images, and he was done some innovative
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Thanks for all your comments.

Every photograph you view is art, and as the saying goes,
art is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I like John Shaw's
style.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Reply to this Message

grantcollier - 23 Dec 2004 22:24 GMT

I noticed this post about Fielder, and although it's a little late, I
wanted to respond:

"he was done some innovative things like the then and now Colorado book
(one of the first
of its kind and quite extensive, though not a completely original
concept)"

Fielder's "then and now" book was anything but original or innovative.
If you want to know where he got the idea, just take a look at this
article in the Rocky Mountain News from 1996 (published shortly before
Fielder decided to do his book): http://coloradopics.com/article.htm

Fielder is a good photographer, but by no means a great photographer.
He is obviously good at marketing, but he has, in my opinion, never
done anything original.

- Grant Collier

Reply to this Message

Uranium Committee - 21 Nov 2004 03:19 GMT

Why do you care? Anybody can accomplish a lot through hard work and dedication.

Reply to this Message

Sly D. Skeez - 22 Nov 2004 18:40 GMT

I have a great deal of respect for people that are "doing it." If you
get out there, shoot, organize, print, and show, that's a huge series
of hurdles. If you shoot enough to really filter down your stuff to a
nice strong collection, and sell it, even better.

I'm not saying this to be a snot, but if you think Fielder's work is
not that good, I assume you believe your work is as good or better
(and could sell if marketed like Fielder's). So let's see 6 of your
images...perhaps a web page. Again, not attacking since maybe you
prefer more abstract images, B&W, birds or whatever.

Jay Wenner

Reply to this Message