Book about Canadian art Photography

jtk · Feb 2, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:

Canadians are distinctly not Americans. Just listen to Canadian pop, folk, and traditional music. Listen to CBC radio and compare it to American radio or, even better, American Armed Forces radio. Experience the Canadian demeanor and how they are received around the world as compared to Americans. That said, the difference between Eastern Canada and Western Canada is huge. Further, Victoria BC is nothing like Seattle WA or Portland OR.

So, Canadian Photo as distinct from American Photo? Not too hard to believe.

Click to expand...

The notion of "Canadian Photo" is, like the notion of "American Photo", outright silly.

Photo is, by its very nature, individualistic, not nationalistic. When nations (e.g. Soviet Union) attempt to define photo (along with music, literature, other arts) they are, at best, pissing into the wind.

Canadians are "nice" when they're nice, as are Mexicans and Texans.

The finest people I met last year in Newfoundland were Zamboni drivers. They disdained poutine, made great Texas-style BBQ. Zambonis are California machines.

https://www.cjfe.org/snowden

Berkeley Mike · Feb 2, 2019

My thoughts and opinions are not silly. Moving along...
How people think and communicate is culture-bound. Mechanics can cross cultural boundaries and create commonality but photographic imaging is far beyond simple mechanics.

jtk · Feb 2, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
My thoughts and opinions are not silly. Moving along...
How people think and communicate is culture-bound. Mechanics can cross cultural boundaries and create commonality but photographic imaging is far beyond simple mechanics.

Large "cultures" don't have "boundaries" or "commonality." Those simplistic anthropology terms apply to small subcultures...for example gender, politics, tribes, and ethnicity in cities, all of which are riven by wild internal differences. For example, in San Francisco I worked with at least three different nominal categories of Vietnamese photographers whose families were at each-other's throats related to their roles in VN history, their first language (Vietnamese, Chinese, French, English)

Canadians aren't culturally a definable nation. I'm especially aware of Vancouver and Newfoundland and French Canada: they're nowhere near being one culture...are no closer to being one culture than are Northern and Southern California, or California's Central Valley.

I think it'd be more worthwhile to talk about photo culture based on differences in TV/Cable media habits. For example, I suspect people in US who choose no-tube-at-all and Al Jazeera are more intellectually demanding than people who choose PBS, Fox and the like. Or one could differentiate with Netflix data.

Berkeley Mike · Feb 2, 2019

jtk said:
Large "cultures" don't have "boundaries" or "commonality." Those simplistic anthropology terms apply to small subcultures...for example gender, politics, tribes, and ethnicity in cities, all of which are riven by wild internal differences. For example, in San Francisco I worked with at least three different nominal categories of Vietnamese photographers whose families were at each-other's throats related to their roles in VN history, their first language (Vietnamese, Chinese, French, English)

Canadians aren't culturally a definable nation. I'm especially aware of Vancouver and Newfoundland and French Canada: they're nowhere near being one culture...are no closer to being one culture than are Northern and Southern California, or California's Central Valley.

I think it'd be more worthwhile to talk about photo culture based on differences in TV/Cable media habits. For example, I suspect people in US who choose no-tube-at-all and Al Jazeera are more intellectually demanding than people who choose PBS, Fox and the like. Or one could differentiate with Netflix data.

The SF Bay area is hardly mono-culture in itself. It is so close to immigrations and migrations from all over the country in an overlay of a variety of generations of California natives. People come here and stay or leave but all have an effect. Native Californians and people whose families have been here for generations emerge as distinctly different that those who have come later. It is heard in the speech patterns, the pace, the attitude.

Cultures change from Oakland to Richmond, and again to San Pablo to Rodeo, to Crockett and then to Vallejo across the Carquinez Bridge: all within 24 miles of urban living. One can hear the speech patterns, even volume and pace, change form town to town. The West Berkeley accent is very different than that of North Berkeley or that of Oakland so different from Richmond 12 miles away. How people see things is quite different. The East Bay is very different from Marin County. Drive 30 miles inland and one can really see a difference between the SF Bay area And the Great Valley but there are still hallmarks of being Californian. SF is enormously different than LA. That said, Santa Barbara, just 95 miles from downtown LA is way different than LA. But it is still Californian.

All of this, despite the differences, is Californian. And this is very different from the rest of the country. Consider the difference between SF & New York City; so different in so many ways. California has it s roots, with apologies to our indigenous friends, in the Spanish conquest, oriental contact and the Gold Rush. In the last century the profound effect of World War II really launched us. The Post-war boom and Boomers, the evolution of military industry to peace time pursuits, the development of our great universities and by their synergy, the germ of Computer Industry. The East Coast has a more European foundation with all that entails. Yet, both are in all ways, American.

The British Empire Colonial effect on Canada is foundational. The early establishment of Canada was in many ways a function of businesses leaving the American Colonies during our Revolution against England and King George and allying themselves with the British. To this day, every Canadian gov't establishment shows a portrait of Queen Elizabeth with a governing style mimicking the Colonial model. The Scots-Irish base is so prevalent that one cannot help but notice how differently people look. It is unmistakable in BC. The local music has it roots in Scots-Irish traditions; it is unmistakable as are the cultural values. For a certain part of Canada the Acadian (French) influence is prominent. The tensions between the two are famous.

Canada and the US are quite different.

canuhead · Feb 2, 2019

Andrew O'Neill said:
WTF??

exactly...

Berkeley Mike · Feb 2, 2019

Come on guys; it is the history of two separate cultures despite common roots, not rocket science. It establishes the separate foundation of trunks of North American cultures 240 years ago. It speaks to a different way of seeing the world, solving problems, economics, which goes to the possibility of photography appearing different from these two different countries.

The differences are much easier to see with our neighbor to the south, Mexico.

MattKing · Feb 2, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
Come on guys; it is the history of two separate cultures despite common roots, not rocket science. It establishes the separate foundation of trunks of North American cultures 240 years ago. It speaks to a different way of seeing the world, solving problems, economics, which goes to the possibility of photography appearing different from these two different countries.

The differences are much easier to see with our neighbor to the south, Mexico.

It is really important to understand how much change happened in our respective "English" roots between 1776 and 1867.

jtk · Feb 2, 2019

To accept significance in 2019 of those purported "trunks" we'd have to ignore genocides and mandatory residential schools of Native American/First Nations in various parts of North America (which of course include Newfoundland/Labrador, California, Alabama and Quebec for example). And they assume that events of century- ago outweigh impact of continuing explosion of immigration

I'd guess that metropolitan "Canada" is increasingly and substantially Muslim and Hindu, and that metropolitan United States remains nominally Christian. I think those "trunks" are, in reality, nothing like what they seem to Trumpians.

What is the evidence of a distinctly United Statsian and a Canuk photo community?

jtk · Feb 2, 2019

A tremendous amount of fine photography has been done in Newfoundland, centering on the evolution and demise of the fishing industy and a tremendous amount has beeen done on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric, both historically and related to disasters in California. To be "culturally important" would that photography have to be overtly "artistic" rather than merely excellent?

Berkeley Mike · Feb 2, 2019

jtk said:
"they assume that events of century- ago outweigh impact of continuing explosion of immigration."
What is the evidence of a distinctly United Statsian and a Canuk photo community?

I never said that there is or is not: one can see that a determined yes or no will elude this thread. I spoke to the foundations of culture and possible expression.

MattKing · Feb 2, 2019

jtk said:
I'd guess that metropolitan "Canada" is increasingly and substantially Muslim and Hindu, and that metropolitan United States remains nominally Christian. I think those "trunks" are, in reality, nothing like what they seem to Trumpians.

From Statistics Canada's website:
"Religions in Canada
Just over 22.1 million people, two-thirds of Canada's population, reported they were affiliated with a Christian religion. Roman Catholics (roughly 12,728,900) were by far the largest Christian group, with adherents to the United Church the second largest group (about 2,007,600).
Slightly over 1 million individuals identified themselves as Muslim, representing 3.2% of the nation's total population. Hindus represented 1.5%, Sikhs 1.4%, Buddhists 1.1% and Jewish 1.0%.
More than 7.8 million people, nearly one-quarter of the population (23.9%), had no religious affiliation."
Out here on the west coast, there is a relatively large number of adherents of the Sikh religion, along with a fairly high number of Buddhists.
Much more information here: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm

jtk · Feb 2, 2019

MattKing said:
From Statistics Canada's website:
"Religions in Canada
Just over 22.1 million people, two-thirds of Canada's population, reported they were affiliated with a Christian religion. Roman Catholics (roughly 12,728,900) were by far the largest Christian group, with adherents to the United Church the second largest group (about 2,007,600).
Slightly over 1 million individuals identified themselves as Muslim, representing 3.2% of the nation's total population. Hindus represented 1.5%, Sikhs 1.4%, Buddhists 1.1% and Jewish 1.0%.
More than 7.8 million people, nearly one-quarter of the population (23.9%), had no religious affiliation."
Out here on the west coast, there is a relatively large number of adherents of the Sikh religion, along with a fairly high number of Buddhists.
Much more information here: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm

First, culture is driven by trends and energies, not roots. Does the music of Canadian white guys drive Canada's musical culture?

Second, it those statistics are valid (?)) , Muslims, Hindus, "Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jews powerfully rival the Unaffiliated. When I was a teen in Newfoundland it was required that I register as either RC (Roman Catholic) or CofE (Church of England)....in other words, NOBODY was authorized to be "unaffiliated."

MattKing · Feb 2, 2019

jtk said:
First, culture is driven by trends and energies, not roots. Does the music of Canadian white guys drive Canada's musical culture?

Second, it those statistics are valid (?)) , Muslims, Hindus, "Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jews powerfully rival the Unaffiliated. When I was a teen in Newfoundland it was required that I register as either RC (Roman Catholic) or CofE (Church of England)....in other words, NOBODY was authorized to be "unaffiliated."

In the 60+ years I've lived here, I have no recollection of ever being required to indicate my religious beliefs on anything. IIRC, the Census questionnaires do ask that question.
There may have been something on the supporting documents for my registration of birth, but I wasn't really a participant in that paperwork.
I haven't been a regular church goer since my youth, but have no problem in my day to day interactions with others who are much more observant of their various faiths.
In some parts of the country, the public school system grew out of the school systems run by some of the churches. Newfoundland could very well be a place where that happened. Newfoundland is in many ways very distinct from much of the rest of the country - it didn't even become part of Canada until 1933.
The religious organizations around here that show the most vitality are the Sikh temples, the Buddhist shrines and the Evangelical Christian churches. Generally speaking though, religious adherents co-exist with atheists, agnostics and adherents of other faiths in a fairly friendly manner.
It would have been very useful to me to have been able to speak Punjabi, because when I practiced I had a fair number of clients for whom that was their first language. Other nearby lawyers had many bilingual English/Mandarin speaking clients.
There is a very strong thread throughout the Canadian system for accepting refugees whereby members of one faith provide official and unofficial support to refugees of other faiths who seek asylum. The Mennonite communities in Canada - who to a great extent originated as refugees themselves - are particularly supportive of non-Mennonite arrivals.
Our "culture" is both varied and geographically uneven. And at least some of it is driven by Canadian "white" guys (and gals).

cowanw · Feb 3, 2019

MattKing said:
In the 60+ years I've lived here,
- it didn't even become part of Canada until 1933..

Why do you say 1933. Newfoundland did give up Dominion status in 1933, but to Great Britain. This was primarily due to the cost of participation in World War ! and the determination to pay off the war debt. But Newfoundland did not join Canada until March 31 1949.(thus avoiding the inevitable April fools joke (although I wonder if they accounted for the 1/2 hour time change; Maybe it was really 0030 April 1st)

cowanw · Feb 3, 2019

[QUOTE="jtk, post: 2150396, member: 22875". When I was a teen in Newfoundland it was required that I register as either RC (Roman Catholic) or CofE (Church of England)....in other words, NOBODY was authorized to be "unaffiliated."[/QUOTE]
Perhps you are referring to Term 17 of the articles of union which enshrined the denominational format of education in Newfoundland from 1949 until as late as 1997. Initial religions seemed to have been Salvation Army, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church, or the Catholic Church. Pentacostals were added later.

jtk · Feb 3, 2019

MattKing said:
In the 60+ years I've lived here, I have no recollection of ever being required to indicate my religious beliefs on anything. IIRC, the Census questionnaires do ask that question.
There may have been something on the supporting documents for my registration of birth, but I wasn't really a participant in that paperwork.
I haven't been a regular church goer since my youth, but have no problem in my day to day interactions with others who are much more observant of their various faiths.
In some parts of the country, the public school system grew out of the school systems run by some of the churches. Newfoundland could very well be a place where that happened. Newfoundland is in many ways very distinct from much of the rest of the country - it didn't even become part of Canada until 1933.
The religious organizations around here that show the most vitality are the Sikh temples, the Buddhist shrines and the Evangelical Christian churches. Generally speaking though, religious adherents co-exist with atheists, agnostics and adherents of other faiths in a fairly friendly manner.
It would have been very useful to me to have been able to speak Punjabi, because when I practiced I had a fair number of clients for whom that was their first language. Other nearby lawyers had many bilingual English/Mandarin speaking clients.
There is a very strong thread throughout the Canadian system for accepting refugees whereby members of one faith provide official and unofficial support to refugees of other faiths who seek asylum. The Mennonite communities in Canada - who to a great extent originated as refugees themselves - are particularly supportive of non-Mennonite arrivals.
Our "culture" is both varied and geographically uneven. And at least some of it is driven by Canadian "white" guys (and gals).

I was there on Canada Day, when Newfie flags flew with or instead of the maple leaf everywhere I went. I don't think Newfoundland ever became a true part of Canada. Perhaps photographers there DO have a genuinely distinctive (and non-Canadian) culture to work with. I was also there when Joey Smallwood declared national mourning and had the big buildings hung with black bunting: "Canada" had betrayed them, intentionally failing to send the promised RCMP to contain a dire emergency.

MattKing · Feb 3, 2019

cowanw said:
Why do you say 1933. Newfoundland did give up Dominion status in 1933, but to Great Britain. This was primarily due to the cost of participation in World War ! and the determination to pay off the war debt. But Newfoundland did not join Canada until March 31 1949.(thus avoiding the inevitable April fools joke (although I wonder if they accounted for the 1/2 hour time change; Maybe it was really 0030 April 1st)

You are entirely correct.
I checked my source for dates, saw the 1933 and 1949 dates, and then put the wrong one in my post.
I was, of course, not around for either of those two dates.

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 3, 2019

You're Wrong. Newfies feel a part of Canada. All my Newfie friends tell me so. The ones who don't, died a long time ago.

gordrob · Feb 3, 2019

jtk said:
I was there on Canada Day, when Newfie flags flew with or instead of the maple leaf everywhere I went. I don't think Newfoundland ever became a true part of Canada. Perhaps photographers there DO have a genuinely distinctive (and non-Canadian) culture to work with. I was also there when Joey Smallwood declared national mourning and had the big buildings hung with black bunting: "Canada" had betrayed them, intentionally failing to send the promised RCMP to contain a dire emergency.

Since 1 July 1917, Newfoundland also observes Memorial Day on that day to reflect on the loss of approximately 700 soldiers (90% of the1st Newfoundland Regiment) at Beaumont-Hamel on the first day of the Somme in the First World War. The population of Newfoundland at that time was 240,000 so the losses were very significant. Memorial Day is usually observed in the morning of July 1 so that is probably why you have seen the abundance of the Newfoundland flag as opposed to the Maple Leaf.

KenS · Feb 3, 2019

Kodiak said:
Canadian creative (art if you like) Photography is distinctive and different from USA fundamentally. It has very clear definition and is outlined in only one published book.

However, majority of Canadian Photographers practice Photography as it is defined in USA (documentary, straight Photography, ...), and I think, the largest reason is that there are large number of easy to access books about USA art photography and many are promoted in various ways (books with their work, TV, socializing, Museums and Galleries, ...).

Hard to access “what is Canadian Photography” and other related problems makes many to say we have no distinctive culture and tradition, even Canadian-government pushing that way too.

QUESTION: do anyone knows any book about CANADIAN “art” Photography, other than Jeff Wall. I would like with group of artists, but nothing on google is coming out

Being 'somewhat' retired after many years In the service of providing images as 'evidence of something observed' by the hominid eye, I now make photographs just for ME. I don't make any attempts to 'copy' anyone else's 'style" or subject matter. I now make photographs of subjects/objects/scenes etc. that 'caught' my eye... and I make the prints just for ME. If.. I find out after processing, printing (or scanning to provide slightly enlarged negative from which I will make a print using the 'archaic printing processes' (Yes.... a fair number of those also find their way into the garbage).
It is 'nice' and somewhat pleasing to photographic 'subjects' that do not have to anyone else 'happy'

Ken

Berkeley Mike · Feb 4, 2019

A book on Canadian photography. Perhaps it is an extension of the Canadian propensity to promote "Canadian Content."

"English-language and French-language stations must ensure that at least 35% of the Popular Music they broadcast each week is Canadian content. Commercial radio stations also have to ensure that at least 35% of the Popular Music broadcast between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday is Canadian content." Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

MattKing · Feb 4, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
A book on Canadian photography. Perhaps it is an extension of the Canadian propensity to promote "Canadian Content."

"English-language and French-language stations must ensure that at least 35% of the Popular Music they broadcast each week is Canadian content. Commercial radio stations also have to ensure that at least 35% of the Popular Music broadcast between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday is Canadian content." Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

The CanCon regulations are a remnant from the days when almost all our music came over the airways, and reflect the fact that many, if not most, of the large Canadian radio markets are within the range of many of the northern US radio transmitters.
In Canada, the airways are explicitly considered as a public resource, and the broadcasters - both public and private - are expected to fulfill both public and private obligations. It is one of the ways that service is maintained for the relatively vast parts of the country that are remote and not within the reach of the more urban based broadcasters who must compete with US sources.
It may be an example of King Canute type behaviour, but it has played a very large role in ensuring a fairly healthy Canadian music scene, some of which has gone on to be successful internationally.

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 4, 2019

Hear, hear!

Berkeley Mike · Feb 4, 2019

So it has extensive Canadian cultural roots.

jtk · Feb 4, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
Canadians are distinctly not Americans. Just listen to Canadian pop, folk, and traditional music. Listen to CBC radio and compare it to American radio or, even better, American Armed Forces radio. Experience the Canadian demeanor and how they are received around the world as compared to Americans. That said, the difference between Eastern Canada and Western Canada is huge. Further, Victoria BC is nothing like Seattle WA or Portland OR.

So, Canadian Photo as distinct from American Photo? Not too hard to believe.

Book about Canadian art Photography

jtk

Berkeley Mike

jtk

Berkeley Mike

canuhead

Berkeley Mike

MattKing

Moderator

jtk

jtk

Berkeley Mike

MattKing

Moderator

jtk

MattKing

Moderator

cowanw

cowanw

jtk

MattKing

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

gordrob

KenS

Berkeley Mike

MattKing

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Berkeley Mike

jtk

Book about Canadian art Photography

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency