The claim that only conceptual work is being shown in New York galleries or that what Jensen calls "the New York galleries' agenda and academia" could be considered a unified entity is just off base. If one goes looking for traditional work in galleries and publications that aren't known for it, it's no surprise that it isn't there. "Academia" is a large mishmash of enterprises that includes scholarship on virtually every period of photography since its origins.
I think you are absolutely right. As much as I admire what Brooks Jensen does with Lenswork... Right here in my town.
I haven't been to NYC in a long time, since my daughter had her senior show at Cooper Union, gosh, when was it, 1992? But I must say that I was absolutely amazed at what I saw. Lois Connor? Not trash that, not by a long shot. And since I subscribe to the New Yorker, I get to regret I'm not there on a weekly basis. There is a rich variety of work of all kinds. As my daughter says, there is a lot of art in New York. There's a lot of good art, and a lot of bad art.
As a person whose roots were personally watered by White, Cunningham, Welpott, and Don Worth, I am deeply appreciative of traditional work, and in fact, my work generally has its center there, though I do wander a bit across media boundaries. As a recently retired academic, I see more dimensions in this topic than seem to be represented in the thread. There is a lot of crap, a lot of people imitating people imitating people imitating people, producing derivative work that's based on worn out ideas, self conscious attempts to be somehow different, more shocking, weirder than thou, tiresomely banal, and on and on.
On the other hand, when a student of mine actually came up with a real IDEA that had substance and produced it at a level of craft that was appropriate to what it was, how could I not rejoice? I encouraged that, along with critical thinking about the world we live in relentlessly, as thankless as that often was. (Question: "What is real?" Answer: "We get to make that up for ourselves, don't we?").
Another slippery slope is there as well. We see pictures (word chosen intentionally) that belong(ed) on calendars from times past, and we see a lot of stuff that is derivative of the masters who worked in the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties. Weston's tripod holes are very well worn. Besides the personal satisfaction someone gets from knocking off a master, which has value I don't deny, I don't see that as having a great deal to offer the greater world.
Now, I'm weird, I know. I often said to students "I don't care about what I like; let's see what you can do. Forget about me. Here, you have permission to try what you want. We learn through failures as much as through success." Not only do I really not care, in that role, about what I like, I don't think my opinions are necessarily worth any more than yours. All of our opinions exist within a greater context. Usually, we forget about that and see ourselves as individual warships battling it out on the high seas.
So: A balance. Can't we be open to new ideas and let them stand on their own, seeing them with a critical eye, but turn the same eye toward work that is within established tradition?
