Definition of Curmudgeon: "An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions." American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition.

If you are one of those who believe that I am too mean to some of the respondants here, please understand that it is part of my method to use gentle sarcasm, in a humorous way, to argue points of contention. I thought that anyone reading the original columns would quickly pick up on the tongue-in-cheek style of my writing. It is possible to inform and entertain at the same time. But, once in a while, when encountering obtuse logic, I might be required to stretch my patience beyond the breaking point, for that I apolize. (OK. Now print this out and tape it to your monitor and refer to it whenever you think I'm too mean.)

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 09, 1998

Answers

Michael! I've only had a computer for 3 months, but this is the first time I've found myself practically shouting at the screen:"Finally". Came to the NYC area in November eager to get a good look at the offerings of the city galleries and it took over a month of weekends to see a show I liked, in Chelsea, moody, dark cibas of real people and events by a Brazillian photographer. I stopped going for a while after the umpteenth photo someone took of themself smeared with blood during some "performance" ten plus years ago that I saw at a midtown gallery (nice digs though). But you're right, there can't be many more ways we can invent to make a photograph not a photograph. The blood in the fighting cock's wound was real at the Chelsea show, and not easy to look at despite the beauty of the image. The exceptions are galleries like Leica and Aperture, or the ICP. The elemental corruption I believe is the elevation of what you are thinking over any semblance of an understanding of the qualities of the medium. The assumption is that this has all been done before and can't be taken any further. Call it the revenge of the portraitists who think we put them all out of work 100 years ago - "move over photographers, the 'real' artists are here now". On a pedestal (literally) in the corner of that midtown gallery was a 3" looseleaf of the artists resume, or curriculum vitae. Here is the justification for those midtown prices. And assurance of the curator's role as gatekeeper. And all based on the false premise of rarity. Many would seek to be among the few anointed, but look out, the control just may be fading. Despite the digs, cracks in the facade are showing. AIPAD's The Photography Show 98 in February was full of a buzz, new buyers, and what looked surprisingly like photographs on the walls of the booths. Sure, a lot of the same names, but not all. Easily the variety of a couple George Eastman Houses, and a variety of prices. The variety missing from the gallery walls.

And then, of course there's the infancy of the web where I saw your article. For myself, I've bought a scanner, and a photo "printer". Steichen and Haas are my mentors, and my answer to those who dismiss my work with "that's all very nice, but what else is there", is "what's wrong with color, form, and LIGHT".

-- Paul Eric Johnson (pejohnson@earthlink.net), April 10, 1998.

Response to Paul Eric Johnson and Micheal D Fraser

Micheal - 'Is Photography Art?' Who cares? Not me, lifes too short, but so is your discourse (that is my only criticism). I'm sure you can expand on these general theories, please do, it's great material. Have you read the scathing (but perceptive) writtings of that infamous art-critic Brian Sewell? He is English, (like me), his character asassination of Cindy Sherman fills me with pride and a sense of dignity. (unfounded) Anyway, to the point... I've had a bellyful of the jaded english art-world and her simpering brand of gallery-goers, my students batter me with the question, 'Is photography art?' With a History of pictoral photography and the oil process in my genetic past (grandfather was a pioneer in this) I would like to give the early art-photographers their due. - They didn't know what they were doing (they were pioneers). Thus-excused from blame. You are looking for someone to blame aren't you? Let us blame the buyers and the gullible. Paul - Your language use is facinating, but since I'm very very english, I cannot understand a single sentence. I will return when I've written something abit more suited to this subject. In the mean time here is something to muse upon... do you think you can contract Bse (mad cow diseaese) from film gelatin?

-- Alexander Rawlins (ARawlins33@aol.com), April 11, 1998.

Reply to Alexander

I think the matter of whether photography is art is a minor one. Photography has grown up now and can "walk alone." (Berenice Abbott) Do I want to blame someone? No, that's not important either. The buyers are not to blame though. There are many who lack specific training as artists, but nonetheless want to support the arts and they rely on reviewers and critics to guide their purchases. Perhaps they are gullible, or more likely just misled by the 'expert critics.' If there is a reason for contemporary pictorialist work to hang on gallery walls, it is because one or more art reviewers has pronounced it great. Perhaps a contemporary example of sentimental, self-indulgent pictorialist photography would be completely ignored or even laughed at, except that an 'expert' has given it a glowing review. But the reviewer may be good friends with (or even sleeping with) artist or the gallery owner. He might recieve a commission for every piece sold because of his good review.

There are a few good critical writers who write about photography. A. D. Coleman and Bill Jay are just two that immediately come to mind. But the overwhelming majority of 'art reviewers' are effete, intellectual snobs who write condescending 'explanations' of the artists' work for the ignorant masses. This is why they hardly pay attention to 'straight' photography; it doesn't require explaining! As such, it cuts them out of the loop! No 'experts' required!

I've quit picking on Cindy Sherman; she's too easy a target. The sad thing is that, underneath all the self-indulgent pablum and garish color, is genuine talent! Before she became so wildly successful (with the help of the critical press!) she made some real masterpieces. Her 'Untitled Film Stills' is remarkable photography. Using only herself as a model (out of necessity; she couldn't afford to hire professionals at that time) she produced a brilliant parody of the film noir genre. All black and white, too. The best thing that could happen to her is that she should wake up penniless and have to start over. We'd see her genius again!

I'm afraid I can't let you get away with holding harmless the early 'pioneer' pictorialists. They certainly did know what they were doing. Your British countryman Henry Peach Robinson in "Pictorial Effect in Photography" (1869) attempted to "set forth the laws which govern... the arrangement of a picture, so that it shall have the greatist pictorial effect." Robinson used props, make-up, multiple printing and cutting and pasting. His famous (and unbearably sentimental) work "Fading Away"(1858) used no less than five negatives. He knew exactly what he was doing. His ideas quickly infected American photographic society. It took 'til the 1970's for you British to finally redeem yourselves with Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I'm glad you like my material. I have attempted to expand on the ideas and have became exhausted trying to explain the original article to some who cannot seem to grasp the simple ideas presented there. My column is intentioally limited. I don't want dominate the whole Black & White World e-zine. Nor do I want to monopolize the creativity forum.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 12, 1998.

Examples

I think that you are not giving those who do not see the world through your eyes credit for having any sort of intelligence or taste. There is a very good chance that your form of photography is just no longer wanted by the public and probably hasn't been for some time. In Vancouver there are few galleries that show 'straight' photography and those that do seem to concentrate on travel or commercial portraiture and nudes - primarily because they are popular. More galleries will show 'photo-based' work, and label them as such, and the local reviews are generally mixed so I think we can rule out a brainwashing conspiracy amongst reviewers. I don't understand or like alot of it but I do admire the artists that are exhibiting this work for having the moxie to lay themselves open to vicious criticism that usually accompanies original visions.

I believe that this type of art is governed by a very abstract form of logic whereas large-format landscape is the realm of the more scientific and technical mind. There is a continuum in between where we see combinations of both extremes and contains the majority of photographers. I feel quite fortunate that I can accept the validity of art, photo-based art and all forms of photography even though I may not always like what I see and I hope that that there others out there that feel the same way. However I also have no monetary connection to any of it so perhaps if I was in your position I wouldn't be so accepting or secure.

By the way I would really like to see some of your work, are you exhibiting anywhere.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 13, 1998.

Examples

Andy, I think your post goes to the economic realities--that there is less demand by art collectors for straight photography, most exhibit spaces are for-profit (many creative visual arts subsidies, at least in the US, have dried up in recent years), and therefore the curators will go for the big money media. Unfortunately, straight photography doesn't bring in the kind of bucks a photo-based montage will bring in.

This doesn't necessarily mean the public isn't interested in seeing top-notch straight photography (witness the success of B&W World--and the last sentence in your previous post!) and it certainly doesn't mean the number of practitioners have dwindled. It just means they aren't quite willing to pay for it as for other creative work, alas.

~mason

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), April 13, 1998.

reply to Mason and Michael

You're right these are the economic realities worldwide and funding has dried up for all the arts. Non-photographic and photo-based art has and will always fetch considerably higher sums than photographs for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are unique and ie only one copy exists in the world. Collectors who do pay these high prices (for contemporary pieces) are usually looking for something on the cutting edge of art and not for landscapes, no matter how beautiful we think they are (this was related to me by a gallery owner). But is it really the galleries and art critics that are the driving force in the general publics eye? Perhaps but the vast majority of people don't usually patronize art galleries. It is just possible that they don't consider black and white straight photography interesting or exciting enough to care about it, or any art for that matter. My main argument against Michael's reasoning is that villifying other art forms and suspecting conspiracies is not going to make it go away. If you really feel that straight photography is not getting the respect from the general public then why not educate them by example. If a gallery doesn't want to show your work then accept it and go to another, or better yet start your own gallery. The founders of the straight photography movement worked hard to project their work and philosophy in a positive light and used imagination in getting their message out. Maybe the fault doesn't lie with the artists usurping the gallery space but with the artists that are being ousted.

PS Michael I truly love your image of the Calla Lilly, it's a pity more people aren't getting to see it.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 13, 1998.

Reply to Andy

I'll address you comments point by point.

"You're right these are the economic realities worldwide and funding has dried up for all the arts."

I, for one, do not want public funding. I do not beleive the taxpayers owe artists (or even lowly photographers) a living. I certainly don't want some government bureaucrat determining the value of my efforts.

"Collectors who do pay these high prices..."

I don't sell my photographs for high prices. After all, they are just photographs and I can always print more. That way,you see, alot of real people (as opposed to 'collectors') can have the infinite pleasure of owning one of my masterpieces. The frames usually cost more than what I get for a print.

Most of the photograhers whose work I respect also sell it for reasonable prices. For example, last year a major photo gallery was showing the anachronistic, pictorialist work of the Douglas Brothers. 16x20 platinum prints were "offered" at $17,500 each. This exhibit was hyped in Buzz Weekly. Two doors down, another gallery was showing landscapes by Bruce Barnbaum. This was gorgeous work. The prints were extraordinarily well crafted and tastefully presented. These prints were selling for between $500 and $900. Bruce is one of the most genuinely talented photographers working today. He recently had an article and prints published in the excellent Lens Work Quarterly Magazine.

"But is it really the galleries and art critics that are the driving force in the general publics eye?"

YES. Most people rely on reviews to decide what to go look at on a quiet afternoon.

"My main argument against Michael's reasoning is that villifying other art forms..."

Villifiying other art forms? Really, Andy, don't you think that is too strong a word for gentle name-calling? As to other art forms, I love other art forms, particularly sculpture, and particularly modern sculpture, and especially leading edge avant-garde. Now THAT takes real talent.

"...or better yet start your own gallery."

That's what I've been saying!

PS. I'm glad you like my photo, Three Callas. For it, I owe a tremendous debt to Imogen Cunningam, and a somewhat smaller one to Robert Mapplethorpe.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 13, 1998.

yet another reply

I'm not sure what your point is about the Douglas Brothers work fetching considerably more than Barnbaum's. I think that a high profile for any type of photography is good whether you like their style or not. It furthers my view that certain types of straight photography are near death and I think the practitioners must take most of the blame. Let's face it there are no superhero's like Adams and Weston around these days. The world needs another Stieglitz.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 14, 1998.

what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for practicing a dying part of this art. Yes, ART. But before you count me out as dead, take a look at www.adamsgallery.com or go to his galleries and look at the prices he, other dead, and very much alive straight artists get for their work. I recently attended a reception for the Morley Bayer estate and was absolutely astounded by the prices fetched for his straight photographs. I haven't seen that kind of money gotten for most of the "unstraight" photography I see at galleries and on the net. It is all about what anyone sees and likes but don't bury something because you don't like it.

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 17, 1998.

re: what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First as to calling photography 'art': It is possible to categorize nearly anything as art. Have you attended any so-called performance art? For that reason, and others, I prefer to extricate myself as a photographer from the phony, pretentious, and often downright silly 'art world.' If you are happy thinking of yourself as an 'artist' (and are not embarrassed by such an ego-wank) that's certainly your prerogative.

Forgive me for being so insensitive as to point out that Ansel Adams and Morely Bayer(sic) are DEAD. That is the major contributing factor to the high prices of their work.

In the May 1998 issue (#21) of Lens Work Quarterly, Bill Jay (one of the best critical thinkers on photography today) wrote an article (How to Become Famous, Sort Of) in which he points out that no photographer has achieved any fame or celebrity of any significance. (After all, who, other than photographers, has even heard of Morley Baer?) All of us should read his essay before we start taking ourselves seriously!

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), July 17, 1998.

Reply to Andy

"I think that you are not giving those who do not see the world through your eyes credit for having any sort of intelligence or taste." How do you arrive at that conclusion? I never implied that. It takes more than a fair amount of intelligence to make photographs, even bad ones. Taste of course, is personal.

"There is a very good chance that your form of photography is just no longer wanted by the public and probably hasn't been for some time." Tell that to Bruce Barnbaum, John Sexton, Ray McSavaney, Howard Bond, Helen Levitt, Sally Mann, Jock Sturges.... I stand by my evaluation of the role of reviewers. I've seen it everywhere, not just art, but audio equipment, automobiles (remember when the Chevy Citation was Motor Trend's Car of the Year? No bigger piece of crap every rolled off an assembly line.)

"I feel quite fortunate that I can accept the validity of art, photo-based art and all forms of photography..." Again, I did not say that pictorialist work is not valid. I said that when it tips over the edge and is not longer 'photographic' (defined in previous post) then it should be associated with the 'art world' and that objective, sharp, photography must extricate itself from that scene. I'm saying that I (and others) don't want to play in their yard anymore. We're taking our ball and going home.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), April 13, 1998.

Well, I don't mind hearing strongly-held views; that is why I participate in these discussions. I trust no-one minds when I question those views; I try to get to the bottom of opinions, especially when I disagree with them. This gives me insight into my own thinking, as well as the thoughts of my antagonist.

Reading the recent posts makes me realise Michael and I might have another difference: I don't want to be pigeon-holed. I don't want to follow any school. I admire the work of so many: Stieglitz, Steichen, Strand, Weston, Adams, Brandt, H.C-B, Capa, my namesake Ralph, even dear old Henry Peach, and there are so many more. I would be flattered to be compared with any of them, but I don't try to follow any of these worthies. I don't think, "what would my hero [X] make of this?" but rather "what do I make of it?" I try to do this from a position of strength, with informed opinions, but my formal photographic education was too long ago to be a conscious influence.

I am just as happy not being a real photographer as I am not being a Pictorialist. Of course, this is a very personal point, and I have no problem if someone does want to stick strictly to one movement or another -- just don't fence the rest of us in. If you don't want to play in the yard anymore, that's fine, we have our own balls, thank you.

I regard (pure) photography as a largely analytical activity, compared to the synthesis of (pure) painting. And these opposite poles fascinate me. They have so much to say to each other. The techniques are widely different, of course. It may be a clever trick to make a work in one medium emulate another, but that may be just aestheticlesss trickery. And any creation that uses both media, however wonderfully, is of course neither a photograph nor a painting. And there is a lot of trash out there, but that shouldn'r discourage us from trying.

I often make a "pure" painting, and even more frequently make a "pure" photograph. These aspects of me decline to reject that other aspect that wants to use mixed-media.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is doing much more painting than photography nowadays. On a BBC program recently, he said that he only ever took photographs as a way of automatic drawing, but I think his tongue was slightly in his cheek.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), April 14, 1998.

Ralph

How wonderful to see Ralph Gibson mentioned. I am a great fan of both his BW and (gasp!) colour work. I have never seen a narrow depth of field used so effectively as in his L'Histoire de France.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), April 15, 1998.

Seewald here. This discussion is very interesting. I just surfed across this website and had time to read M.Frasers article and I e-mailed him how right on his article was, and then he invited me to check out this forum. I've been involved in this artform all of my life. I've painted until 10 and photographed for 35. Having tried to exhibit my surrealistic b&w's after college, and getting nowhere, I gave up the artistic end and subsisted in 'regular work', ie bartending, furniture sales, advertising sales, etc., until I finally decided to open my own gallery here in San Diego, foolishly, 15 years ago. It's been a hard road, and anyone who doesn't mind 'starving' for a living can make it as a 'regular' artist. By this I'm referring to Michael's article in that 'straight' photographers have a very hard time making a living in this art field. We are the stepchild of the art industry. Worse than that, I'm now the stepchild of the stepchild industry in that I (gasp), make a living at............color! A new thread could be "Is color photography an art?" and we could write pages on that. I didn't use to think so, but then again I didn't really think b&w was until I first saw an Ansel Adams exhibit in my college years at another college gallery close by. Anyway, the real question isn't so much 'is photography an art?'. It's like my wife asks, does that photo have composition? I keep telling her, "yes, it does, but the question is 'does it have good composition'?" Everything has composition, and all photography is art, BUT I ALWAYS ASK, 'IS IT GOOD ART'? Most b&w, color, paintings, etc. is mediocre(sp). But as 'they' say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and, 'there is no accounting for taste', etc.. I can tell you why I like something, and why it works for most people, but...I can tell you why people buy, why certain work is sold at certain galleries, price structure, etc. but... it's 1a.m., and I've spotted one image half the day, framed the other, and then worked my gallery from 9 to 11:30 this evening! Church is at 9:30 tomorrow (or today). Praise Him that we have our craft/art/hobby/etc. to persue and to give Him all the glory (if your a believer), if not, nothing matters! To be continued....... P.S. Thanks Michael for turning me on to the forum. It's the best thing since college!

-- michael seewald (michael@seewald.com), April 26, 1998.

camera curmudgeon

I have read the article and all the responses and have to say that in some respects I wonder what all the complaining is about. At our space here in New York we continualy receive positive response to "straight" photography. In fact our last exhibit resulted in 35 print sales. At another gallery that we are involved in had a 15 print sale total last month. Selling work at exhibition is about mailing list and who you get to come see the work. Many photographers often make the mistake of thinking of inviting their friends and relatives first, rather than those that collect or can bring in people that will collect. Most photographers have a difficult time with being agressive about selling their images, but as any gallery owner will tell you , an opening is more about getting people to open their wallets as it is to celebrate to completion of the work. And the best salesperson at any opening is the artist. As cold as this might seem to some , it is the reality of the "business".

-- jim megargee (mvjim@interport.net), May 07, 1998.

Michael, The term "respondent" is properly used only to refer to the one who answers the question. I believe you mean to use "petitioner" or "questioner."

-- Mack Padre (mackpadre@aol.com), February 24, 1999.

Mr. Padre:

You must be a lawyer. In a legal sense you are correct, but allow me to quote the American Heritage Dictionary:

respondent n. 1. One who responds. 2. Law. a defendent, especially in a divorce or equity case.

So, you see, those who respond to my articles and postings are actually respondents.

Some years ago, my father accused me of "picking fly shit out of pepper." It appears you may be suffering from the same affliction.

Regards, MDF

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), February 24, 1999.