The Camera Curmudgeon Is Photography Artgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo: Creativity, Etc. : One Thread |
"It's a Kastabi if I say it's a Kastabi." Well actually his name is Kostabi. But at least he is completely honest about his work (or the work done by others that bears his name), he makes it quite clear that he wants to produce so much of his work until it floods the market and art connoisseurs finally realise that it is worthless. The statement which he is parodying it is art because I am an artist and I say it is art goes back to Marcel Duchamp in 1917 when he entered a porcelain urinal in an exhibition. And who is to define what is art, the artists who at least attempt to produce something; the critics who do whatever it is they do; or the public who wouldnt recognise really original art if it sat up and bit them on the bum? Someone like Kostabi is useful in our present world where a painting of some sunflowers may be worth $40 million if it was done by Van Gogh but worthless if it turned out that the same painting was done by his doctor. The problem lies in the fact that most people are not prepared to take the time to understand art for themselves (and why should art be different, do we take the time to understand physics, philosophy, history, medicine or any other area of human knowledge in more detail than can be explained in the occasional TV documentary?). Most of us prefer the opinions of experts who can assure them that this is art.There is unique beauty in a well-executed print of an interesting subject. No other medium can make a beautiful image of a rusty old bolt or a decaying barn.
That is true but Ansel Adams and Edward Weston have pretty much covered that aspect of photography, a true artist should be original. The problem is that when Adams and Weston have covered landscape and still life; Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau have covered the decisive moment; Frank, Winogrand and Friedlander have captured the moods of a nation; Salgado does wonderful social documentrary; Capra and Griffiths have covered wars so well; how does todays photographer do original work. I find it interesting that a traditional paint and brush artist like Hockney has managed to bring a new approach to expression through photography with is montage work, though that fact that he sends his work out to the 1 hour service at his local drug store would probably rule it out of court as good photography for most art photographers.
The time has come for real photographers to start new galleries and museums.
I believe the time has come for real photographers to discover new and better ways to see the world and capture their vision with a camera.
-- Gerald Whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 03, 1998
There is unique beauty in a well-executed print of an interesting subject. No other medium can make a beautiful image of a rusty old bolt or a decaying barn.That is true but Ansel Adams and Edward Weston have pretty much covered that aspect of photography, a true artist should be original. The problem is that when Adams and Weston have covered landscape and still life END OF QUOTE...
Well dadgum that discredits Ansel Adams... One of his waterfall photographs in Yosemite he put his tripod in the same spot as the Sullivan dude who made the same image years before.
-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), April 04, 1998.
Well dadgum that discredits Ansel Adams... One of his waterfall photographs in Yosemite he put his tripod in the same spot as the Sullivan dude who made the same image years before.Well actually his name is OSullivan. I am not aware of any waterfall photograph but Adams did take a photograph in the Canon de Chelly National Monument in 1942 where he stood unaware in almost the same spot on the canyon floor, about the same month and day, and at nearly the same time of day that OSullivan must have made his exposure, almost exactly sixty-nine years earlier.
My point is if all that Adams did was to copy the work done by Timothy OSullivan without adding anything new then he would not deserve the reputation that he enjoys today.
Personally I consider Adams to be a better craftsman than artist, I have more respect for Edward Weston who could photograph a hospital bedpan as though it were an exotic bloom. I wonder if Michael Fraser would consider Marcel Duchamps a porcelain urinal the work of a fake, fraud, and a charlatan and would he apply the same criticism to Westons bedpan?
There is nothing wrong with an artist working with a subject that has been done before, I would refer you to Francis Bacons Study from Portrait of Pope Innocent X which was taken from the Velazquezs portrait. It is a copy of a work yet it is truly original. Would Michael Fraser consider Bacon to be a legitimate artist?
By the way I am unfamiliar with the term dadgum, does it refer to some aspect of the Zone system perhaps?
-- Gerald Whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 04, 1998.
Gerald White wrote:"The problem is that when Adams and Weston have covered landscape and still life; Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau have covered the decisive moment; Frank, Winogrand and Friedlander have captured the moods of a nation; Salgado does wonderful social documentrary...how does todays photographer do original work."
I'm not sure how I should understand your statement that these photographers have "covered" the respective topics you've assigned them. In fact, I wonder why you feel a need to assign categories to the photographers you list.
I'm almost certain Winogrand would have dismissed your characterization of his work as having captured the mood of a nation and--if his patience didn't wear thin--would have patiently explained that he was simply photographing what he photographed because he was interested in what it looked like photographed. He would have further explained that a photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera saw a piece of time and space.
Therefore, anything is photographable, and there is nothing that can't be photographed. Winogrand's one caveat was that the negative should be the most accurate depiction of the scene captured, and the print should be as faithful as technically possible to the negative. Anything else, he felt, may be a valid form of creativity but shouldn't be called photography.
Can a contemporary photographer produce exciting, original work without mixing media, blurring images or otherwise diluting the integrity of photography? Given the above (all paraphrases of Winogrand statements from the notes I took at one of his workshops), I think that the answer is, unequivically, yes. But if you start putting photographers in categories, you limit your expectations of their work. Also, if you are a photographer, categorizing yourself has a similar limiting result.
BTW, did you know that before he was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, Winogrand was planning to sell is 35mm Leicas, buy a large format camera and do nature photography? So much for categorization!
Cheers, Mason
-- Mason Resnick (mresnick@idt.net), April 04, 1998.
I'm not sure how I should understand your statement that these photographers have "covered" the respective topics you've assigned them. In fact, I wonder why you feel a need to assign categories to the photographers you list.I am recognising that these photographers have produced first class work in certain aspects of photography, which at the time was original, but in todays world I cannot justify spending my time hanging around behind the Gare St Lazare waiting for some chap to attempt to jump over a puddle.
I'm almost certain Winogrand would have dismissed your characterization of his work as having captured the mood of a nation and--if his patience didn't wear thin--would have patiently explained that he was simply photographing what he photographed because he was interested in what it looked like photographed. He would have further explained that a photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera saw a piece of time and space.
I am fairly sure that Winogrand would be too busy out taking original photographs to waste his time reading my postings.
Therefore, anything is photographable, and there is nothing that can't be photographed.
Yes, but can you photograph it in an original way, remember the original article criticised the work of Sherrie Levine for copying photographs of Edward Weston and Walker Evans. Now what she was doing was different, but why does it not qualify as original? I am not defending her work but I would like you to show me better.
Can a contemporary photographer produce exciting, original work without mixing media, blurring images or otherwise diluting the integrity of photography? Given the above (all paraphrases of Winogrand statements from the notes I took at one of his workshops), I think that the answer is, unequivically, yes.
It seems that most photographers who are trying to do something different today, and are successful with the collectors and the art critics are panned by traditional photographers for producing something other than real photography. I will admit that there are many contemporary photographers producing excellent landscape, portrait, still life and street photography but I do not find the work to be evolving. What I would really like to see is originality, new approaches to taking straight photographs. If I am wrong, then point me to the images on the Internet where the new work is, I would like to see it.
-- gerald whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 05, 1998.
Gerald Whyte also wrote... "...a true artist should be original."To quote Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun." Any student of art history knows that every art form, movement and era evolved from something that came before. Not that I'm calling photography art, but I do think influence of older work on contemporary photographers is just as valid and doesn't diminish the originality of new work.
Mason
-- Mason Resnick (mresnick@idt.net), April 04, 1998.
Any student of art history knows that every art form, movement and era evolved from something that came before. Not that I'm calling photography art, but I do think influence of older work on contemporary photographers is just as valid and doesn't diminish the originality of new work.The key here is evolution, I believe that the work of Frank, Winogrand and Friedlander which I feel is more interpretative evolved from Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau whose work is more direct. I have a copy of the book Bystander by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz which covers the subject of street photography, it was published in 1994 but does not contain any photographs taken after 1976, this concerns me, has there been nothing new and innovative since 1976?
-- gerald whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 05, 1998.
First, I apologize for misspelling Mr. Kostabi's name. It seems incredulous, however, that Mr. Kostabi is trying to point out the obsurdity of art prices by participating in flagrant fraud.Second, that David Hockney uses photographs for his montages does not make him a photographer. I happen to like Mr. Hockney, but the work you mentioned is montage, not photography. To judge it as photography would require dismantling the montage and viewing each of the little pictures (they were SX-70's when I saw them) individually and seperately from the others. An absurd idea, you would have to agree.
3. By your last paragraph, it would seem that you have become bored with photography. A shame.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 05, 1998.
My comments apply to Mr. Whyte, not to Mason's excellent reply. Sorry, Mason!
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 05, 1998.
First, I apologize for misspelling Mr. Kostabi's name. It seems incredulous, however, that Mr. Kostabi is trying to point out the obsurdity of art prices by participating in flagrant fraud.The reason that I am such a stickler for correct name spelling on Internet postings is that my first reaction upon seeing a name I am not familiar with is to paste it into a search engine and see what documents are available, correct spelling makes this practical. I saw Kostabi on a television documentary as he was selling his work to a New York art dealer and he made it very clear that he did not paint the stuff himself and he intended to mass produce it until the market was flooded. The art dealer just sat there smiling and asked how many pictures can I have to sell? I must insist that there can be no fraud since he is completely honest about the fact that the actual work is done by others.
Second, that David Hockney uses photographs for his montages does not make him a photographer. I happen to like Mr. Hockney, but the work you mentioned is montage, not photography. To judge it as photography would require dismantling the montage and viewing each of the little pictures (they were SX-70's when I saw them) individually and seperately from the others. An absurd idea, you would have to agree.
His work is not merely a montage of a set of photographs. He takes his photographs with the delineate intention that they will capture a multi-faceted view of a scene. His photography reminds me of cubist paintings. I find his work to be truly original, I just wish I had thought of it.
By your last paragraph, it would seem that you have become bored with photography. A shame.
No I am not bored with photography, if anything I am much daunted by the quality of the work that that has been produced in the past.
-- gerald whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 05, 1998.
An shameless fraud is still a fraud. The fact that Mr. Kostabi admits that he signs his name to the work of others (who possess whatever talent the work reveals) does not excuse the fact that he is a fraud. To think otherwise, one would have to place all the 'value' on Mr. Kostabi's signature alone. Time will reveal if indeed there is any actual value there.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 05, 1998.
An shameless fraud is still a fraud. The fact that Mr. Kostabi admits that he signs his name to the work of others (who possess whatever talent the work reveals) does not excuse the fact that he is a fraud. To think otherwise, one would have to place all the 'value' on Mr. Kostabi's signature alone. Time will reveal if indeed there is any actual value there.You must have a different dictionary from me. Kostabi may be shameless but he is not a fraud.
fraud (frod; also frad) n. [[ME fraude < OFr < L fraus (gen. fraudis ) < IE base *dhwer- , to trick > Sans dhvarati , (he) injures]] 1 a) deceit; trickery; cheating b) Law intentional deception to cause a person to give up property or some lawful right 2 something said or done to deceive; trick; artifice 3 a person who deceives or is not what he pretends to be; impostor; cheat SYN. DECEPTION 1
When people are buying serious art they are buying the brand not the item. If a painting is accredited as being by a master then it is worth a fortune. If it is later determined to have been the work of an apprentice of the master then its worth is but a fraction.
-- Gerald Whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 06, 1998.
Mr. Kostabi represents himself to be a painter. He is not. Mr. Kostabi, therefore, easily fits the third definition you pulled from the dictionary."If a painting is accredited as being by a master then it is worth a fortune. If it is later determined to have been the work of an apprentice of the master then it's (sic) worth is but a fraction."
All of Mr. Kostabi's paintings are by his 'apprentices' and therefore may assumed to be worthless. It is only Kostabi's signature that makes them valuable. You have just argued MY point.
This entire thread is off topic. The topic is photography, not the value of the future bird cage linings of Mr. Kostabi.
I have carried on this pointless banter with you in the interest that those still unconvinced that photographers must revive the Photo-Secessionist movement, may use your postings as an example of why.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 06, 1998.
What if......John Sexton had decided that Ansel Adms had produced the definitive images of trees, there would be no "Listen to the Trees".
Morley Baer had decided that Edward Weston had produced the definitive images of costal rocks, there would be no "Light Years".
To ignore our roots in photography, and not pay homage to those that came before us, dishonors our avocation. To blatantly copy thier images dishonors us. By utilizing thier knowledge and vision we create our own masterpieces, although in most of our cases they certainly will not get the attention of the masters. If we can not learn from those that came before us, why have education? Would it be better for us all to go around, blindly, trying to reinvent a Zone system, or the creative controls that enable us to produce our craft? If we cannot utilize what they teach us with thier vision, should we be also barred from using thier technique?
"How does todays photography do origional work?" I would submit that if thier is one problem in photography, as so many endeavors, if it isn't easy, it doesn't get done. Go 50 feet away from the road in most places in this country, and you are alone, but 90% of the images I see are done from the road.
To do something origional, really just requires doing something.
-- Marv Thompson (mthompson@clinton.net), April 05, 1998.
What if......John Sexton had decided that Ansel Adms had produced the definitive images of trees, there would be no "Listen to the Trees".
Morley Baer had decided that Edward Weston had produced the definitive images of costal rocks, there would be no "Light Years".
My point is that since Adams and Weston had done their excellent work then Sexton and Bayer should approach their work saying that yes, well Adams has photographed trees and landscape so now how can I photograph this subject in a new way and bring something new to it
If all you can do is produce work that Adams or Weston could have produced then what is the point?
A quote from Sexton concerning Bayer
Frankly, when I first met Morley Baer, in 1973, at an Ansel Adams workshop, I was intimidated by him. When I asked a question, I got my answer in the form of another question. That bothered me! Only after getting to know Morley did I appreciate how thought-provoking his questions were. For decades, Morley questioned and inspired his photography students at workshops around the country and the world. He was not content with just answering the question of "how to." Rather, he wanted students to be asking why.
It seems that Bayer understood the importance of constant questioning in the artistic process. whether the work of Sexton or Bayer will be regarded at artistically important will only be decided in future years.
If we can not learn from those that came before us, why have education? Would it be better for us all to go around, blindly, trying to reinvent a Zone system, or the creative controls that enable us to produce our craft? If we cannot utilize what they teach us with thier vision, should we be also barred from using thier technique?
I never said that we should not attempt to learn or to use established techniques, but to be creative you must add something new not just reproduce what was done before.
To do something origional, really just requires doing something.
No, originality requires more than action it requires thought, doubt, experimentation, and self criticism until something new is produced.
-- gerald whyte (gwhyte@ibm.net), April 05, 1998.
First, a quick word of advice on "originality". If you seek it, don't search for it. By definition, it doesn't exist yet. Just BE and DO. If originality is there (and it probably is), it will just drop out of your work.Back to Michael Fraser's original article...
I have general agreement with the final paragraph:
"So, is photography art? No, photography is photography! It deserves the same respect as any other medium. It must walk alone, as Berenice Abbott so eloquently put it. The time has come for real photographers to start new galleries and museums. There is unique beauty in a well-executed print of an interesting subject. No other medium can make a beautiful image of a rusty old bolt or a decaying barn. No other medium can capture the honesty of a photographic portrait. The possibilities of photography are endless, without resorting to imitation. Most importantly, real photography does not need to resort to fraud in order to succeed."
We probably all want new galleries and museums. I suppose I am largely a "real photographer": I like and make fairly sharp, fairly objective pictures. And I dislike imitation, whether of paintings or other photographs. The problems I have with the argument are:
1. What is "real" photography? We know that all photography "distorts" reality. It is inherent in the process. Lenses, film, paper, each element has limitations, characteristics all their own. Practitioners must learn and use these. BUT I distrust anyone who tells me that this "defines" photography. I am allowed to use large-format super-sharp Schneider lenses, possibly pinholes are OK, moving slits are a little dodgy, manipulation with burning/dodging is fine, using PhotoShop to selectively change contrast is risky, and creating montages, scratching negatives, splashing fixer, assembling pictures from multiple photographs are all disallowed under this "purity". I believe that pushing boundaries is a vital part of any artistic endeavour, both for individuals as they progress, and for movements. Any attempt to restrict progress, to define limits, to imprison, will be self-defeating, will engender the opposite reaction, and lead to revolution.
2. Is Pictorialism a threat to photography as art? Perhaps the situation is different in Los Angeles, but here in Britain, I see no evidence of this. A much greater threat is, for example, the easy availability of excellent quality equipment, used by the masses to produce 6x4 inch glosses by the lorry-load. This is a "threat" because the technique has become so easy. Joe Public can use the same gear I do, and readily get technically similar results. If I am to to persuade him that I am an artist, I cannot simply rely on my technical expertise. So if I want to remove the "threat", I should ban one-hour D&P shops.
3. Related to this are the techniques behind oil painting. These techniques have changed very little over the centuries. What do we admire in a painting by, for example, Holbein or Van Gogh? Technical skill in the handling of the paint, the transformation from three dimensions to two, the transformations ("distortions") of colour and tone, the arrangements within the rectangle, the possibilities seen in the original object, and so on. Photography liberated the artist from the requirement to hold some of these skills, and this placed greater emphasis on the remaining. We tend to (rightly) value those artists who can genuinally draw well, but this ability alone does not make an artist. What counts more is the vision. And does absence of such skills disqualify the person as an artist? Hockney can draw superbly well, but if he chooses not to, and to exhibit different skills, does that disqualify him? I think not.
4. A very standard question in art theory is: "Is the art in the process or the product?" This is a valid and difficult question, the subject of many essays, but irrespective of the answer, a subsidiary question is "Does the process define the artistic value?" This question is not difficult, and hardly valid. Consider that many oil paintings are, physically, mud and plant extracts smeared on cloth. Objects that are mud on cloth are not automatically art, and neither are they disqualified. The same must apply to silver on paper.
5. "It [Pictorialism] eschews modern equipment and materials in favor of obsolete fuzzy processes." In ten years time, chemical 35mm photography will certainly be obsolescent, and possibly inherently low quality ("fuzzy"), compared to digital. I hope and believe that this will not be used as an argument for consigning our 35mm gear and pictures to the rubbish bin, even though the digitial process can be used in a very "pure" way, possibly by then giving purer (i.e. less "distortion") than chemical methods.
To conclude this ramble: I am not an advocate for Pictorialism. I do use the latest Schneider lenses on large format. I am, possibly, old fashioned in liking sharp photographs that tell me something about the subject, well as something about the photographer and myself. But I am also a believer in experimenting, in exploring boundaries, in discovering new approaches. By doing this, we discover more about the potential of the medium, as well as the relationship with other mediums. If some people want to imitate paintings, and others want to take 6x4 point-and-shoot snapshots, I may not admire the work, but I do not believe that my potential as an artist is compromised, nor that photography as an art-form is under threat.
-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), April 06, 1998.
Let me address your concerns in the order you listed them:1. What is a 'real' photographer? You already know; you just admitted to being one in the preceeding paragraph. But just to be thorough, a 'real' photographer doesn't imitate painting or drawing, nor does he 'appropriate' the work of others and claim it as his own.
2. The fact that the masses have easy access to excellent equipment and are able to produce technically valid 4X6 glossies is not a threat. Rather it should be celebrated! None of us began with a view camera on a tripod! We had to start somewhere. For me it was an Ansco Shur-Flash on Christmas day. For today's future 'real' photographer it is a point-and-shoot. Out of tens of thousands of snap shooters, there will be a few who find the spark and strike out to make great photographs.
3. It is not skill nor technical excellence that makes art. It is the vision of the artist. If photography is the medium, it is impossible to demostrate that vision through blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images.
4. Huh? A circlular argument if I ever saw one. Next.
5. I rather doubt that 35mm will ever be obsolete. It has been enjoyed by billions and billions of photographers since the beginning of the 20th century. Digital image making may someday exceed the quality of the silver process, but it will be a very long time. There is something special about the silver/chemical process that will never be duplicated with a computer. The pivotal moment in my life came the first time I pulled real negatives from the developing tank. Something clicked inside me. And it wasn't a mouse.
"If some people want to imitate paintings...I do not believe...that photography...is under threat." Threat is not the issue. Photography is not imitation painting.
I think you are in agreement with at least the premise of my column. It seems that you have some trouble with some specifics. I hope this helped to make my points more clear.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 07, 1998.
Well actually his name is OSullivan. I am not aware of any waterfall photograph but Adams did take a photograph in the Canon de Chelly National Monument in 1942 where he stood unaware in almost the same spot on the canyon floor, about the same month and day, and at nearly the same time of day that OSullivan must have made his exposure, almost exactly sixty-nine years earlier.Its "Canyon" de Chelly. ;-)
-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), April 06, 1998.
To respond to Michael's response to my response:1. My real point here was that we should permit, even encourage boundaries to be pushed. You might think that a photograph has to be correctly exposed, developed and printed etc to be considered good. I believe we should encourage "non-pure" processes and techniques. These two viewpoints are not entirely exclusive.
2. I agree we all have to start somewhere. And if someone wants to start by cutting up photos, splashing fixer etc, that's fine by me. I believe in the value of good technique, but perhaps my definition of "good" is wider than yours.
3. You say "...it is impossible to demostrate that vision through blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images." I disagree.
4. I was adressing the question in the title of your article "Is Photography Art?", and answering "It can be".
5. We share a love here. I still get this thrill, after almost three decades. Seeing images appear on a computer doesn't give me the same excitement. Will digital ever make 35mm obsolete? In computing, Moore's Law states that computer chips double in capacity every 1.5 years. At that rate, digital cameras will have 64 million pixels in ten years.
"Photography is not imitation painting." I agree absolutely. Where we diverge is in the perception of threats. In your original article, you say: "Why am I so critical of the modern pictorialists? Why can't I just shut up and let people do what they want? Because I believe that Pictorialism is a threat to photography as art." I disagree. A greater threat is to restrict boundaries.
-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), April 07, 1998.
In the order you responded:1. Boundries can stretch only so far. There comes a point where the work crosses over and becomes something other than a photograph. Perhaps my boudries don't strecth as far as others. There is nothing WRONG with using 'non pure' processes and techniques, but there is a point where it is no longer recognizable as a photograph.
2. Everyone has a different level of expectation and different standards for excellence. I will admit that mine are somewhat severe.
3. I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that one. If you can, could you explain, for example, the 'vision, of Jackson Pollack? Not what he did, not what his methods were, but WHAT WAS HE TRYING TO CONVEY??? Our first impressions of a work of art, like everything else, are the most accurate. Has ANYBODY (besides an art critic) when first encountering one of Pollack's paintigs, had any reaction other than "What the hell is THAT??"
4. Yes, my point exactly. And there is a point where photography must take a stand seperate from the arty Pictorialists, that's all.
5. As for computers, we are already at the molecular level in microchips. Unless there is some new technology in super-conductors without the requiment of liquid nitrogen, then Moore's Law will eventually no longer apply.
I'm glad you agree than photography is not imitation painting. You have incorrectly inferred that I want to restrict boundries. That is not what I intended to convey. I simply want to observe the boundries that already exist. For me and many others, this requires seperation from other artistic disciplines.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 07, 1998.
The answer to the question of photography as art is simple. Do not confuse art with technique. Is photography art? NO Is oil painting art? NO Is stone carving art? NO Is etching art? NO All of these are processes/methods/techniques/crafts for creating art. They are not art. The object or product of these skills is the art. Presumably the artist has some concept or vision which he/she wants to translate into a physical reality. These methods are the MEANS for doing that translation. The artist may use one or many of these techniques in combination. It doesnt matter. What does matter is the result. While we may admire the skill with which a photographer makes his pictures appear as if drawn with a charcoal pencil, the use of the technique doesnt make the resulting picture great art. The art object must stand on its own. The means used to achieve it doesnt matter artistically. If the artist says "I have created art" then art has been created. If you see an object, and say "that is art" then it is. The real question is: How good is the art? If you say that you dont know art, but you know what you like, you really do know art. Whether art is good or bad is largely opinion, and that opinion changes with place and time. There is no absolute aesthetic of art. The buxom beauties of Titian and Rubens are a world away from heroin chic. The scholastics of France who denied the Impressionists hanging room in the Salon, would be laughed out of the building today. The often highly sophisticated African tribal art, so often referred to as primitive, has much in common with Picasso, who created a whole new dimension in European art. The point is that the great rules and pundit pronouncements are by no means SANCTIFIED TRUTH. The rules, even those of composition, perspective, and other basics taught to most artists can be, and are, often broken with great success. To carry this further, not all art can be judged by the same rules, as not all art is created for the same purposes. Art can be created for pure abstract beauty, as a means of self exploration, to teach, or even for political purposes. Picassos Guernica, and the unlamented Soviet Social Realism are two examples. In the long run, the quality of art is inseparable from the response of the observer. If you like it, it cant be all bad. Those who carry this to extremes, can be challenged. Many creations of the "architect of ugliness" are looked on as awful, but even these have a following, sometime only as a source of humor, but sometimes seriously. Remember that what is unacceptable today, may be high art in a century or two. All of which applies to photography, just as much, and no more than any other means to the end of producing an art object. Photographers can create art, good and bad, with purely photographic means or in combination with paint, junkyard findings or whatever. Judge the results not the process. Incidentally, you might be interested in reading Eli Siegels writings on Aesthetic Realism. While far from the last word (in this kind of discussion, the last word is only arrived at through exhaustion), it may give a new perspective to a lot of people. Unfortunately, not too many photographers are familiar with it. Richard Newman
-- Richard Newman (rnewman@snip.net), April 07, 1998.
Response to Michael:1. I don't think we disagree, except possibly for unimportant (for me) point of what defines a "photograph".
2. Again, I don't think we disagree.
3. Whoops, we do disagree here. I am not a fan of Jackson Pollack, but I would hardly call his work "blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images". Well, we might argue about gimmicky, but I don't think he started with that intention. Pollock might have been able to explain his vision, in words, but he chose to paint, possibly because he felt that paint could explain better than words. I would not attempt to explain his vision, but I will relate that when I last saw any of his works, in real life, many years ago, I felt intense emotion burning through.
4. I still don't think that "there is a point where photography must take a stand seperate from the arty Pictorialists".
5. Well, there have been limits on computer development before, and they are continually broken. The current limitations are not molecular, but do include the wavelength of the laser used for the photographic (!) techniques for producing integrated circuits. But that's beside the point: my point was that even if a process becomes obsolete, that's no reason to abandon it.
I'm not trying to be picky here, but the following looks like a contradiction:
"You have incorrectly inferred that I want to restrict boundries. That is not what I intended to convey. I simply want to observe the boundries that already exist."
By "observe boundaries", do you mean "stick to them, stay within them"? Because that is what I am arguing against.
If course, you mean that you personally want to stay within the boundaries, while allowing (welcoming?) that others will not, that's fine by me.
-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), April 08, 1998.
Alan, there is a point that a 'picture' crosses where it is no longer a photograph, regardless of whether it started out in a camera. A point where it is no longer 'photographic' ie. clear. (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, def. 3. "Resembling a photograph, especially representing or simulating something with great accuracy and fidelity of detail.") Now, I never said that people shouldn't make any kind of 'photograph' or 'picture' they want. As a card-carrying Libertarian, I am a champion of individual freedom. Just when it crosses that point, have the decency to call it something other than photography. Call photo montage, call it photographic drawing, anything. My personal opinion is that real photography has become diluted with a lot of silly, subjective, touchy-feely, arty-farty images. And really glorious work (like that of Ken Karagozian) gets ignored because there is not enough gallery space to accomodate everything. I'm not telling those who feel compelled to produce such tripe to go away! Rather, that we who make real photographs should (must?) revive the Photo Secessionist movement simply to survive. To continue while avoiding the stink of the 'art world' which has become, with its incestuous relation to 'art critics,' rampant with fraud and deciept.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 08, 1998.
Michael - I'm abit confused about your statement "that we who make real photographs should (must?) revive the Photo Secessionist movement simply to survive" considering what I understand to be your definition of "real" photographs. If it is that the photograph should be always sharp, not blurry, depicting the scene as it really is etc, then I would think that the Photo Secessionist movement would turn you off. "The Flat-Iron Building" by Steichen, as an example, could be considered "arty-farty" by many since it is anything but sharp and "photographic". Should we then call this work a "photographic drawing"? These people were doing everything they could, in my opinion, to break the photography boundaries that were already in place.
-- Chuck baker (cbaker@skypub.com), April 09, 1998.
You're right. That's why I said 'take up where the Photo Secessionists' left off.' They wanted there own galleries because the 'art world' considered photography, in the words of Baudelaire, 'vulgar.' Photography should have its own galleries now that 'art' has become so subjective and relates only to the artists who make it. Have you read the original column? I really try to be as clear as I can.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 09, 1998.
I indeed did read the original column but just to make sure I reread the whole thing again and didn't see your quote of "take up where the Photo Sucessionists left off". Maybe you could point it out to me. I believe you said "revive" wherever you mentioned them. As far as making yourself as clear as possible you have made yourself crystal clear in your thoughts about not only inhibiting yourself by the "rules", which is a shame, but by labeling others, which I'm sure is exactly why the Photo Secessionist movement was born.I would like you to clarify a couple of your statements though which, I must admit , I am unclear on:
"It is not skill nor technical excellence that makes art. It is the vision of the artist. If photography is the medium, it is impossible to demostrate that vision through blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images."
Does this mean that as a photographic artist if my vision of a final includes a blurry image that it is not photography? This statement seems to contradict itself. Instead maybe your statement should have been "it is impossible to demostrate MY vision through blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images".
"I'm glad you agree than photography is not imitation painting. You have incorrectly inferred that I want to restrict boundries. That is not what I intended to convey. I simply want to observe the boundries that already exist. For me and many others, this requires seperation from other artistic disciplines."
This statement sure sounds like you want to restrict boundaries to me. By "observing boundries" do you mean to say I never go past those boundries OR observe and procced with caution?
In any artistic medium breaking boundries and rules are key to realizing ones true creative output if those boundries and rules have to be broken to reach the end. The Photo Secessionists realized this. I'm not sure if you do.
-- Chuck baker (cbaker@skypub.com), April 11, 1998.
I'm troubled that after reading the article twice you couldn't find the section in question. From the beginning of the next to last paragraph:"I believe that it is time to revive the Photo Secessionist movement and take up where Stieglitz left off. It is time to extricate ourselves from the Postmodern Pictorialist cesspool."
By this, I mean those of us who make sharp 'photographic' photographs. I have no intention of forcing everyone with a camera into this rather restricted discipline.
As to your comments regarding the impossiblity of demontrating vision through blurry, muddy, poorly printed, or gimmicked images. Again, this should not be difficult to understand. WHATEVER the vision is it must be clearly rendered.
As to observing boundries: There is a point where the work can tip over the edge into the purely subjective. The artist may have a clear idea of what he wants to convey, but the viewer may have a completely different impression. Hence the abundance of verbose tiltes on pictorialist photograhphs. Good photography does not require explaining, either by writing in the borders or by 'expert' art critics.
You wrote: "In any artistic medium breaking boundries and rules are (sic) key to realizing ones true creative output if those boundries and rules have to be broken to reach the end."
Each discipline (school) has particular rules and boundries. Anyone is free to make Pictorialist photographs by following THOSE rules and observing THOSE boundries.
I am curious why those in the 'fuzzy-wuzzy' school (Edward Weston's words) appear so threatend by those of us who make sharp photography wanting to seperate from them and sponsor our own exhibitions.
-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 11, 1998.