Talk:Yasuhiro Ishimoto

"the American tradition of photography" and its domination
I'm a little puzzled to read that: ''While in the USA his photography was influenced by Harry Callahan. On returning to Japan, he again won numerous prizes for photography. He thus established himself as a key bridge, by which the American tradition of photography would enter and quickly dominate Japanese post-war photography. While I must confess that I don't know that much about Ishimoto offhand, I vaguely remember his book Chicago Chicago'' and I also vaguely remember seeing stuff by Callahan, and I can think of little that the two have in common beyond their use of B/W (which anyway was ubiquitous). First, which American tradition would this be? Secondly, I wouldn't call Cartier-Bresson's work a (let alone the) French tradition, but I'd have thought that CB's work would have had more impact than that of Adams, Lange, Bourke-White, or similar. Though CB's work (or work like it) had had an impact from before the war. If we're talking about more personal stuff, notably the less sensational aspects of Araki's work, then whether or not it's a distinctively American tradition I think it came a lot later. -- Hoary 03:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason is simpler than this phrasing suggests - Callahan taught Ishimoto. But the phrasing is now completely altered, since I've expanded the article. Pinkville 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And the absurd assertion: "the American tradition of photography would enter and quickly dominate Japanese post-war photography" hasn't survived the changes, thankfully.
 * I should add that there is some affinity artistically between Callahan's photography, in views such as this, and Ishimoto's photographs of Katsura rikyū. Pinkville 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"the official version"
We read: On graduating from High School, in 1946 he went to study in the USA, where he won numerous photography prizes and graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology and the Art Institute of Chicago (1948-1952) That is the official version. What does "official" mean in this context, and where does this version appear? On p.50 of Works by 25 Photographers in Their 20s (catalogue of an exhibition held at Kiyosato Museum of Photographic Arts in 1995, and the source for my additions about his youth), Ishimoto writes that he went back to the US before the war, where he was interned. -- Hoary 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article I've been meaning to get to as well. This passage really bothered me when I first saw it some months ago. there's no controversy about Ishimoto being interned, as far as I know. I have even seen a photograph he took at the camp where he was interned. Pinkville 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You've certainly got to it, 'Ville. Well done! -- Hoary 10:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Thanks also for your additions (especially kana titles, which I didn't have). Re: your note about italics/quotation marks, that sounds fine to me - I had tried to make the distinction using square brackets for translations of titles (not appearing on the book itself), but quotation marks are also good. Pinkville 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Influence
The first thing we read about Ishimoto is that he has been influential. However, the article doesn't explain this. I really don't have a clue about any influence he may have had. Could somebody elucidate? -- Hoary 10:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's true. It's the only phrase I retained from the original! I'll see what I can do to elucidate. Pinkville 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just got hold of Szarkowski and Yamagishi, New Japanese Photography; a lot of the odd-sounding material seems to come from that. I'll read it soon and see if I can make better sense of it. -- Hoary 11:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag
I posted the cleanup tag (a while ago, I apologize for not explaning sooner), for the article to be wikified. If it can broken into appropriate sections - Biography (Early Life, Adult Years, Career, etc.) --Ozgod 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation.


 * But Ishimoto's career ran in parallel with and is inseparable from his adult years. (Unlike a "celeb" he's notable for what he did, not for who he squired to Hollywood parties and the like.) The article's pretty short, and is about the sort of person who anyway wouldn't much interest those with very limited attention spans. I mean, the man produced (superb) B/W photos; he's not a character in this or that fictional "universe". Would breaking the article into "appropriate sections" really be, er, appropriate? -- Hoary 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Breaking it up into sections makes it easier to read, especially for people unfamiliar with the article, and can help lay the ground for future expansion. --11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC) .... from Ozgod


 * When/if further information is added, sections can be added as well. At least the article is coherent in its present state so that adding information shouldn't be the daunting task it often is with many other articles - sections or no sections. I believe that adding sections now will only create artificial (and potentially troublesome) breaks in the continuity of his biography. Pinkville 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)