Can there still be photographer heroes?

[hudson]

I wonder about this sometimes with all the changes in the world. Thinking back, all my heroes were from the 50's to 70's. If you think of the famous names in photography...Walker Evans (1941), Robert Frank (1958), William Klein (1958), ...they were all working at a time when people saw the world through magazines. You could name a lot of other names and they would all be around the same period. I like the Japanese and they were around 1968. So, from Life magazine to color TV to cable to the Internet, cell phones and Flickr. Now the world is awash in images.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the "death of photography" argument. I think of photography like writing...another mode of expression. Everybody writes all day long, but there are very few that can write a novel or play that really speaks to a broad swath of people. But still, you see this in the other arts as well...will there ever be another Picasso or Dostoevsky? Or even the Beatles? Part of this, I think lies in the fragmentation of the audience. And, I think talent is only one part of the equation. I think a larger part is the magnification and distillation of talent through the feedback of the audience, if this makes sense.

Ah well, just some thoughts...I think I'll go finish Mad Max Fury Road now and think about this stuff some other time!

 

[gone]

Blaming diversity and multiculturalism sounds almost racist. There is nothing wrong w/ those things, and anyone who is uncomfortable w/ them is going to have a very difficult time living in today's world. It's something that Donald Trump and the Tea Party play up in this country in order to manipulate people through fear of what is different from themselves.

It's more about the death of the image in today's world, or rather its depowerment. We're continually bombarded by an unprecedented number of highly charged images which are thrown at us on a continual basis from the moment we awaken to the time we go to sleep.

hudson, you might want to read "Future Shock", a book written by Alvin Tofler back in 1970. It's still as relevant on this issue as it was when it was written 45 years ago. Tofler was a true visionary on the subject of society's rapid speeding up on an exponential basis, and on our limited ability to keep up w/ this process. We're desensitized because we just can't assimilate all the data anymore. It's beyond human capability, so we begin to shut down and slow the process up that way.

Corporations, media advertisers, film makers, and especially the government and military (and today, these are essentially all the same one thing) know how to use this to get what they want. They use imagery (or plain, dumb, knee jerk animal emotion) that goes right to the subconscious to get their images and agendas in, thereby bypassing the judgmental and evaluative processes that are in the conscious mind. We've forgotten how to focus on the realities of life. Fortunately, once we're aware that this is going on, there are ways to bring our awareness up, and we can live our own true lives rather than live the lives of addicted and programmed consumers in a very sick society. This applies to all societies that use such advanced methods of technological programming, including less developed societies that are manipulated by mass media (and the internet).

Simply refusing to watch TV or read most of what is in newspapers and the internet is a good start to winning back control of our thoughts and our lives.

 

[coigach]

Modern life sometimes feel like a sea of voices, each calling out for attention, and each given prominence through technology, lifestyles, media, work, the way we use our free time etc. Photography, like any other art form, exists within this context, and the nature of the world today, complete with information overload, means that nothing and nobody is likely to achieve the level of prominence that might have happened in years gone by.

That caveat aside (a big one I admit!) of course there can be photographic heroes - the contemporary photographer I admire most is Vanessa Winship.

 

[blockend]

We are living in the age of the curator. The volume of photographic imagery means those prepared to sift through it for the good stuff have more power than those who produce it.

 

[darkosaric]

Salgado, Koudelka, Bruce Gilden and James Nachtwey are for me without any question photographer heroes (all alive and kicking ).

Mad Max Fury Road

Better go and see the movies "war photographer" and "The Salt of the Earth".

 

[Nodda Duma]

I'm a photographer hero to my kids !

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm a photographer hero to my kids !

. . . and that impresses me more than many of the "big names" in photography, past and present.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Salgado, Koudelka, Bruce Gilden and James Nachtwey are for me without any question photographer heroes (all alive and kicking ).

Mad Max Fury Road

Better go and see the movies "war photographer" and "The Salt of the Earth".

I was just going to suggest watching "The Salt of the Earth", a documentary about Sebastio Salgado, and then try tell us there are no more photographic heroes.

I find the work and sentiments often schmaltzy, but you can't deny the photographer behind "Humans of New York" has left the world a better place than when he found it...the list goes on. You just have to make the effort to read it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Today there are just too many GWCs - Guys With Cameras

 

[removed account4]

there are plenty of people in this day and age who be photographic hero.
i have a handful of imagemakers in my mind whose work i think about and admire.
it really doesn't matter to me how many people use cameras, or upload to flickr or get thumbs up on FB &c.
multi culturalism and diversity has nothing to do with anything photographically
... and if it does anything it makes the world a richer place ... that said, i think it is great millions and millions of people make photographs ...
thanks george eastman !

 

[pdeeh]

It was all so much better before ...

 

[gzinsel]

as to what Apuguser19 said, there is a lot there that needs to be explained. There is not one dominant cultural trend today, there are many movements happening simultaneously. That is multiculturalism. by definition there can be no Majority except for the amalgamated of the few to make a conglomerate. so ya, there can be no one person or group that gets to rise to the top. as example. . . . what year and by what group was the last double platinum album??? Now look back at the 1970's or 80's ( when there was a dominate culture) to see how many groups went double platinum. see. . . . the thing is . .. . there are too many people on the ladder trying to get their 15 minutes. if you get that -your lucky, but never double platinum.. . .not these days. today only the trivial and the banal (hype) gets attention . . . .a.k.a donald trump and the like ..... the lowest common demoninator wins due to precisely its lack of refinement or articulation, imagination, beauty, etc,. . . its HOW LOUD and BOMBASTIC you are and how much saturation on the web you can get. so high art ( like what you would get in the 1950's etc. . . ( not only in that decade) but anyway. . . . is not what gets attention. Heroes are usually in the high art/ high brow group.

stating or affirming that multiculturalism is going on today is not a racist statement! Multiculturalism is precisely why no one group or ideology rises to the top. There is NO TOP!!!!!! it's ALL LATERAL!!!!! All ideas get equal time. However that being said, what amuses people is the lowest common denominator, precisely because its low brow and disposable culture. anything above that )( middle brow) is all on the same plane. but no one or no thing gets prominence.

 

[Nodda Duma]

How boring and sad, that the best you can strive for is mediocrity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not knock it. "Even mediocre people need representation."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Hruska

Mediocrity

Hruska is best remembered in American political history for a 1970 speech he made to the Senate urging them to confirm the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Responding to criticism that Carswell had been a mediocre judge, Hruska claimed that:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."[2] This speech was criticized by many,[3][4][5] and Carswell was eventually defeated.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell

 

[coigach]

as to what Apuguser19 said, there is a lot there that needs to be explained. There is not one dominant cultural trend today, there are many movements happening simultaneously. That is multiculturalism. by definition there can be no Majority except for the amalgamated of the few to make a conglomerate. so ya, there can be no one person or group that gets to rise to the top. as example. . . . what year and by what group was the last double platinum album??? Now look back at the 1970's or 80's ( when there was a dominate culture) to see how many groups went double platinum. see. . . . the thing is . .. . there are too many people on the ladder trying to get their 15 minutes. if you get that -your lucky, but never double platinum.. . .not these days. today only the trivial and the banal (hype) gets attention . . . .a.k.a donald trump and the like ..... the lowest common demoninator wins due to precisely its lack of refinement or articulation, imagination, beauty, etc,. . . its HOW LOUD and BOMBASTIC you are and how much saturation on the web you can get. so high art ( like what you would get in the 1950's etc. . . ( not only in that decade) but anyway. . . . is not what gets attention. Heroes are usually in the high art/ high brow group.

stating or affirming that multiculturalism is going on today is not a racist statement! Multiculturalism is precisely why no one group or ideology rises to the top. There is NO TOP!!!!!! it's ALL LATERAL!!!!! All ideas get equal time. However that being said, what amuses people is the lowest common denominator, precisely because its low brow and disposable culture. anything above that )( middle brow) is all on the same plane. but no one or no thing gets prominence.

Dominant cultures are a grand idea if you are part of it. Not so good if the dominant culture is only dominant because of colonialism, empire, social class, money etc. An Irish friend is mischievous on this subject. He talks about the cream of society rising to the top - rich and thick...

While it often seems like lthe oud and bombastic gets attention nowadays, there's a difference between that and things are viewed with the passage of time. Willing to bet that much of the art that gets attention today will be forgotten, but for a much smaller number of genuinely important pieces / artists.

And, I don't think there was ever a 'golden age'. Today the difference is technology which gives us the sheer volume of information.

 

[gzinsel]

well two points: The things I would like to mention ( NOT to take away from your points colgach) is POINT1, my understanding is, that at no time before has so many artist from so different backgrounds ( social, economic, social class, etc) have been able to make art AND put it in the market place- then today!!! There are a lot of different art work ( it's quite dynamic in breath, not only in Volume but variety of subject matter and varied in the "technology" upon which it was produced. I think the market places is heavily saturated with variety. Due to this high volume of work, and due to the variety of content and varied background of each artist, . . . . . It is difficult to say, if not at all, who or what is the dominant culture, - besides " A VARIED CULTURE" -in terms of who is buying/supporting what. POINT 2. Even if you are very successful within your niche market or The champion of your group, it is very difficult, if not impossible to be received as "The" or "A" prominent artist- by others. . . . There is just TOO many others!!! its like putting your name in a bag. . . . with 500,000. others!!!!! you get lost, like the rest of them. it is mind boggling to see how many and how successful art is today. Mostly due to the idea's that came out of the multiculturalism movements of the late 70's thrue the 90's and still today.

I think the more an artists is able to market and network/display/talk about their work, regardless of quality or even content, the more likely it is going to be seen as being "important" because all the other artists who did not get attention will be forgotten or not even considered as an alternate, because no one knew of her/him. it is definitely a market share game! how much market share do you have? by the way I have none.

 

[Jim Jones]

Of course there are photographic heroes today, but they sometimes get lost amid the photographic celebrities. Those people who take time off from their productive careers to post constructive information on this site and to help other photographers with their problems are heroes. I see others freely posting photographs online for those who otherwise would have no record of events much more significant to them than to the photographer.

 

[blansky]

I don't really believe in heroes.

Finding someone who's work you admire is fine. Copying it is fun to a point but then senseless.

And since almost everyone today has a camera, it makes almost nothing special.

And since the ability to manipulate an image to almost any degree is relatively easy and common, the medium is polluted.

There are a billion and a half photos shared on Facebook alone, on a daily basis.

That doesn't mean you can't have fun with photography, but it means that it's rarely going to be anything more than common.

 

[Jim Jones]

No. In a culture given itself over to diversity and multiculturalism, nothing or nobody can emerge foremost. Nothing desirable, that is. In that culture, only the lowest common denominator seems to prevail or at least emerge. Infinitely more unachievable in that environment. There can be no majority consensus. Only hype.

One dictionary defines "hero" as one who is admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. This sounds too close to a definition of a celebrity.

We should not confuse heroes with celebrities. A military career has taught me to appreciate those who accomplish so much in the face of adversity and often pay the ultimate price in doing so. Some lie in unmarked graves or at the bottom of the sea, scarcely remembered and never recognized. Some do become heroes, such as Audie Murphy. Some receive local recognition. Many receive nothing. As a major American election looms, we also see more of those who exaggerate their heroism. Even athletes and other performing artists are treated as heroes.

Celebrity is an artificial creation; heroism is real.

 

[uniondale]

Reading through this post, I've decided there can be photographer heroes...there are still giants out there. Or, truly gifted individuals that strike a cord with either the larger society or a subset.

Regarding the GWC syndrome (guys with cameras), I find the majority of photography online is very uninspiring and technically lacking...composition as well as photo technique. There are a huge numbers of "lucky shots" that, when you go to see the body of work, are just not representative.

There have always been millions and billions of photos in the world. It is just, with the Internet, like everyone got a chance to take their old shoe box of snapshots from the closet and dump them out for everyone to see.