Aperture?

[jamnut]

Well, there I was in Barnes & Noble today, looking for Focus magazine, and I came across the latest issue of Aperture. I was going to buy it, when I decided that I really didn't "get" any of the photographs in the issue.
The magazine featured Joel Sternfeld - his photos were of a woman standing on a beach, her face broken into a wide yawn. Other shots were of a sign featuring a (today, politically incorrect) "barefoot co-ed."
Also featured were Lisa Sarfati, who appeared to be a Cindy Sherman clone, and Paolo Ventura, who took toy soldiers (GI Joe?) and posed them as if they had been killed; this was his response to war photos of the past, and to Susan Sontag's book Regarding the Pain of Others. Another feature had people in various stages of , it appeared, boredom or ennui; one showed a kid sitting on a bed as if he had just woken up.
I ended up not buying the issue, and wondered what I was missing. I realize that APerture has always been on the cutting (bleeding?) edge, but Ijust don't understand this type of photography. I don't admit to geting alot of Minor White's photos, or Weston, or Siskind, or Evans, but something in them resonates more.
The magazine Blind Spot also leaves me feeling like I am missing something.
Anyone know what is going on in these magazines?

 

[david b]

Aperture and Blind Spot are art photography magazines and for the most part only show the work of so-called high brow art photographers.

 

[25asa]

Hopefully you have learned your lesson and will not touch them ever again.

 

[Scott Edwards]

Focus should be out by the first week of September.

 

[Daniel Grenier]

Years ago, the co-founder of Aperture (a certain Ansel Adams), called Aperture:
"A sorry mess". This, of course, after he had bailed out of the Aperture circles.

The definition still applies after all these years.

 

[Jim Chinn]

More and more photography and pixelography is about gimmick and trying to find the next new look rather than anything of real substance. Add in the fact that anything remotely acceptable in critical circles needs to be depressing, negative and void of any emotion. I also just looked at the latest issue of Aperture. I challenge anyone to pick up this issue and not feel somewhat empty after looking at it.

Souless, hopeless and bereft of any emotion. People usually depicted in isolation. In many ways art is a reflection of the mental state of a society. I don't think it is any coincidence that as we become a more and more secular socieity our art reflects the lonliness and confusion that comes with severing our spiritual ties to God.

 

[jovo]

More and more photography and pixelography is about gimmick and trying to find the next new look rather than anything of real substance. Add in the fact that anything remotely acceptable in critical circles needs to be depressing, negative and void of any emotion. I also just looked at the latest issue of Aperture. I challenge anyone to pick up this issue and not feel somewhat empty after looking at it.

Souless, hopeless and bereft of any emotion. People usually depicted in isolation. In many ways art is a reflection of the mental state of a society. I don't think it is any coincidence that as we become a more and more secular socieity our art reflects the lonliness and confusion that comes with severing our spiritual ties to God.

If anyone 'gets' it, Jim, you seem to though you may be offering more reflective substance than may ever really be there. I've never picked up Aperture (including their recent commemorative issue) and found that it was worth more than a quick and usually disappointed glance. What's there to 'get' isn't in the least bit appealing to me visually or intellectually. I'd certainly never buy it.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I think at one time (how many years ago?) Aperture really represented some of the best contemporary photography. At some point it was hijacked and now simply shows imagery that wants to imitate other forms of contemporary art which is really more about the artist trying to find a niche that will make them accepted by the contemporary art gatekeepers in NY and LA.

Most of today's "accepted" practioners try to slap you in the face with images that reek of "look at me, am I not clever?" Or "please buy a print and share my angst and rage against the world."

I guess I'm just a rube with not enough deep thoughts to "get it".

 

[Joe Lipka]

There is a difference between photographers making photographs and artists making photographs. For example, LensWork is the former, Aperture is the latter.

I don't "get" Aperture and if I ever do, someone please put me out of my misery.

 

[bjorke]

Sorry, I thought it was a great issue.

I have no idea how you could possibly confuse Lise Sarfati with Sherman. Bizarre... (though I disagree with the magazine's author's assertion that Sarfati's photos do not easily fall into classifications of dislocation and disenfranchisement -- though I still like them a great deal).

For the conservative crowd we have Diane Arbus, Robert Frank, Irving Penn, HCB, a new portfolio by Robert Adams (and Sternfeld, and Venturi, who was a longtime fashion shooter). How are these not "photographers making photographs"?

Venturi's "Fascist Suicide, July 27, 1943" and "German Soldier Killed in Anghieri" are imo totally brilliant works. "Kitchen of Aunt Maria" — terrific. Joel Sternfeld -- a little too self-conscious for me, but exactly what were you expecting?

Ansel Adams may have made the aforementioned comment about APERTURE, but that was not only after he was gone — it was long after his work was, face it, passé. And worse yet, that in itself was a long, long time ago.

Rants about "pixelography" also seem entirely misguided and misplaced here. Has anyone commenting here actually read the issue, or just sneered at it across the aisle at Barnes & Noble's?

 

[Helen B]

Hmm. I also think that Aperture 180 is a great issue, and I don't see how most of the comments above could be applied to the work in it. Do you guys really have such a low opinion of Robert Adams' work, for example?

'At some point it was hijacked and now simply shows imagery that wants to imitate other forms of contemporary art which is really more about the artist trying to find a niche that will make them accepted by the contemporary art gatekeepers in NY and LA.

Most of today's "accepted" practioners try to slap you in the face with images that reek of "look at me, am I not clever?" Or "please buy a print and share my angst and rage against the world." '

Sorry Jim, but to me it seems rather small minded to ascribe those motivations to the photographers whose work is in Aperture. If you don't 'get' the work, how can you know what motivated it? Isn't what you have said along the same lines as saying stupid things like 'ULF photographs reek of "look how big my camera is" ' or 'the only valuable thing in platinum prints is the platinum itself'.

By the way, I also think that Blind Spot is probably the best photography magazine available today.

Best,
Helen

 

[James Bleifus]

For the conservative crowd we have Diane Arbus, Robert Frank, Irving Penn, HCB, a new portfolio by Robert Adams (and Sternfeld, and Venturi, who was a longtime fashion shooter). How are these not "photographers making photographs"?

I'd just checked out the new copy of Aperture before reading this thread. I nearly bought it for the Robert Adams portfolio. But, it appears to me the portfolio is published in his new book and I don't need the redundancy (since I plan on ordering his book soon).

I always teeter on buying Aperture each quarter but it always just misses the spot. To each there own.

Cheers, James

 

[jovo]

There is a difference between photographers making photographs and artists making photographs. For example, LensWork is the former, Aperture is the latter.

I don't "get" Aperture and if I ever do, someone please put me out of my misery.

I'm not sure which is worse - artists making photographs or photographers trying to be 'artists'..not in substance, but in 'label' - but there is a great deal of work in NYC galleries by both 'artists' and photographers that responds in a self-conscious and artificial way to the apparent imperative to make an 'ORIGINAL' statement. The result is sometimes clever, sometimes inventive, but rarely seems to convey anything more than that.

The other imperative is to create a series. Every week in the email I receive from Photo-Eye, there seem to be a number of photographers who, lacking any real emotion or excitement in their body of work, have attempted to meet that silly demand by catalogueing utterly uninteresting iterations of theater screens or what have you..(and I don't!!). It reminds me of Elliot Gould's role in the '70's movie "LITTLE MURDERS" as a photographer making endless images of dog shit.

So the point is that Aperture, which seems to be motivated in that phony way, grinds out issue after issue of obscure, unintelligible crap which is so alienating that when the really worthy article or photo essay is presented I, for one, miss it entirely because I've long since dismissed Aperture as worth my time to peruse let alone buy. So there.....!!!

 

[c6h6o3]

To paraphrase the redoubtable Dorothy Parker:

"Aperture is not a publication to be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled with great force."

I have many issues of Aperture on my bookshelp which I cherish, but they're all about ten years old. That's when I stopped subscribing. Their embrace of theme based, conceptual photography to the exclusion of all else regardless of quality guaranteed the ever increasing mediocrity of their product.

 

[Jim Chinn]

No rant about pixelography. I have stated before that i am going to refer to photography as photography and digital as pixelography. I don't know which mediums were involved in which portfolio so I mentioned both. I don't know which ones were digital, maybe all, maybe none. that has no bearing on my opinion of the work.


Venturi's "Fascist Suicide, July 27, 1943" and "German Soldier Killed in Anghieri" are imo totally brilliant works.

I am curious as to what makes these such brilliant pieces of work?


There is a difference between photographers making photographs and artists making photographs. For example, LensWork is the former, Aperture is the latter.

Thanks Joe. This is what i meant by hijacked. Aperture was the former once.

I looked through the issue pretty thouroughly. I did not read any of the essays that went with the work. I will go back to find out what I am supposed to think about the work, but I feel that any photograph(s) that needs an essay to explain what it means has failed in the first place.

 

[jovo]

... I feel that any photograph(s) that needs an essay to explain what it means has failed in the first place.

Bingo!!

 

[Sparky]

Yes, I think apature and other "high brou" art mags are crap - I meen - who reads these anyway??? Stick to populer photography and you'll be good to go. Thats the only one I read... that and Peopel magazine. All you need in this world!

 

[jovo]

Yes, I think apature and other "high brou" art mags are crap - I meen - who reads these anyway??? Stick to populer photography and you'll be good to go. Thats the only one I read... that and Peopel magazine. All you need in this world!

hehehehehe....right-o, billy bob!! I 'specially luv them articals on aps and the miraculus wondrments them pitchurs show... ain't nothin better in beneath the firmament I reckon! Yup!!

 

[Helen B]

"...I feel that any photograph(s) that needs an essay to explain what it means has failed in the first place."

Is that referring to Paolo Ventura's work? The painstaking and detailed recreations of violent death and destruction that are obviously at the doll's house or GI Joe scale and so toylike? That avoid being spectacular, glorious or bloody? Pictures in which, because of their artificiality, every detail, such as the covered faces of the dead, is deliberate, as it is with the images used in advertising? These need an essay? I think that they would have been better off without the essay, which I would preferred not to have read, and blame you guys for the unpleasant experience.

So someone might say 'OK, it's art, but is it photography?' Are they just pictures of the real art - the dioramas themselves? Well, when I first saw them, I thought that their photographic nature was essential - both for the reference to photographs of real soldiers, real destruction and real death and for the fact that, being photographs, they revealed the truth of the situation (toys in a studio).

I think that the use of toys to 'make statements' about war has a tendency to be a bit facile, a bit of a cliche, rather shallow and usually didactic. Paolo Ventura's work, to me, is the opposite of those things.

Sometimes I find that the photographs which cause me to react by thinking 'why on earth was that picture taken?' end up as being some of my favourite work. The picture was taken, and there was a reason, so I try to imagine what reason, or reasonless reason, I could have had for taking the photograph. That works better for me than trying to 'get' the photograph or trying to 'understand what it means'.

Best,
Helen

 

[bjorke]

...I feel that any photograph(s) that needs an essay to explain what it means has failed in the first place.

Okay, here is a simple, well-known pic. Does the photo by itself tell you everything you need to appreciate the full import of this image? What does it mean, anyway? Is it a quick snap of spirited college hijinx? Or might an explanatory essay be appropriate? Maybe you have already read several?

How about these cheerful boys? Looks like they must be done with exams! Oh, oops! It's Berlin in 1933 and they're lit by the bonfire destination for the books they're carrying.

Pesky, pesky photos, they never seem to keep their meaning all bundled up nice and neat within the frame. Failures, the whole bunch of them.

 

[Jorge]

bjorke, we are talking about photography that is supposed to be "art," not photojournalism taken out of context.

You and Helenb are talking about photography as a communication medium, Jim and other like him and me who find no value in magazines like Aperture and Spot are talking of the photograph as an art object.

In any case, my assesment of Aperture and Spot has always been that they are magazines that try too hard. They try too hard to be cutting edge and avant garde in photography. Which IMO usually results in the type of photography that nobody but the artists understands, you know the one, selective focusing, mixed and match dark images of common type objects, toy pictures like Pez dispensers......not my cup of tea but to each his or her own.

 

[Helen B]

"...not my cup of tea but to each his or her own."

Absolutely right.

"You and Helenb are talking about photography as a communication medium, Jim and other like him and me who find no value in magazines like Aperture and Spot are talking of the photograph as an art object.'

Fair enough. That's perfectly reasonable - rather than belittling the assumed motives of the contributors to those magazines, which was what was going on in this thread, and what I took exception to. And it is true that I value photography and other art for what it communicates to me, whether emotional or rational, not for its value as an object.

Best,
Helen

 

[photomc]

Very good assement Jorge and Helen...that pretty much sums it all up. I for one am gratefull that Aperture is still around though. Many of their monographs and other 'books' - don't know what else to call them - are very good. Have one I picked up at Half-Price books for a couple of dollars with a feature on Shelby Lee Adams that I found priceless. Some of the Master Series, sorry don't know what the proper name for the series is, with Adams, Weston(s), Strand, etc are also a great way to introduce someone to the works of the folks without spending a great deal of money.

Have never seen a BlindSpot so any comment would not be worth much...there are enough critics out there - many of whom should look at Jorge's comment - "not my cup of tea but to each his or her own" - there is a lot of truth there and we should all take a moment to realize what that means.

 

[Jorge]

"...not my cup of tea but to each his or her own."

Absolutely right.

"You and Helenb are talking about photography as a communication medium, Jim and other like him and me who find no value in magazines like Aperture and Spot are talking of the photograph as an art object.'

Fair enough. That's perfectly reasonable - rather than belittling the assumed motives of the contributors to those magazines, which was what was going on in this thread, and what I took exception to. And it is true that I value photography and other art for what it communicates to me, whether emotional or rational, not for its value as an object.

Best,
Helen

You misunderstand me, I look at photographs that I like and my own work as pieces of art that stand on their own, much like you would look at a painting or sculpture. I try not to attribute hidden meanings or "communications" that most likely were not intended by the author. A piece of art can be beautiful and valued for its beauty without having to "communicate" something. This is what I mean by an art object.

While this might seem shallow to you, I can understand why many do not "get" this conceptual photography, I am one of them and while if I sit there and look at the pictures I might come up with all kinds of "hidden meanings" in the end I know I would not want any of these pictures hanging in my living room.

 

[jamnut]

There have been many good responses to my original post.
It was not my intention to open Aperture or the artists contained therein to ridicule.
I have over sixty issues of Aperture, some dating back to the '60s; it is one of my favorite photo magazines. It really opened my eyes as to what photography can be, or can say, perhaps in a way no other medium can. However, I find the magazine increasingly arcane. I realize we must first be astounded/confused/startled/? by some works of art before we can attempt to get our minds around them, but it seems to be getting harder and harder to derive a message from some. Maybe there is no message to some art. Maybe it's just my advancing years.
The artists in Aperture or Blind Spot might just be miles ahead of me. I know I didn't appreciate Friedlander for a long time. alot of his pictures seemed to be void of meaning. One day I looked at "Mechanic's Monument, "and started to see some of the dynamics going on there. This opened the door for many of Friedlander's images; he's now one of my favorites.
Maybe just more time is needed to appreciate these new visions. To those who number themselves among the cognoscenti, you're lucky.
Are we failing as photographers if we provide explanations of the images we make? Many photographers have said "my pictures speak for themselves."
Edward Weston didn't give us a 500 word essay on "Pepper #30." However,
a few photography books have been published without captions or explanations of the pictures; these tended to be poorly received.