Contemporary Photographers

[cliveh]

I thought this was an interesting list:-

http://uk.complex.com/style/2013/06/the-most-influential-photographers/

Any thoughts?

 

[pdeeh]

hmm
well I'd heard of a handful of them and own books by a couple named, but I think it is rather a stretch to describe an artist like Shirin Neshat as "a photographer". Certainly influential and a very significant talent, but far too narrow to place her in a single medium.

 

[cliveh]

hmm
well I'd heard of a handful of them and own books by a couple named, but I think it is rather a stretch to describe an artist like Shirin Neshat as "a photographer". Certainly influential and a very significant talent, but far too narrow to place her in a single medium.

Why?

 

[Maris]

I've been making photographs intensely and (hopefully) productively for the last ten years (and a few decades before that) and I can truthfully say none of the "most influential fifty" have offered the slightest relevance to my line of work. I'd suggest the list is an indictment of modern critical and curatorial thought that confuses photographs of great things (installation, tableaux, performance, assemblage, ...) with great photographs of things. If creativity lies in making photographs instead of making the things photographed I'd rather look to APUG for influence.

 

[cliveh]

If creativity lies in making photographs instead of making the things photographed I'd rather look to APUG for influence.

Interesting thought Maris, but I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Can you expand?

 

[DannL.]

I recognized Annie. But that's it.

 

[pentaxuser]

I recognized Annie. But that's it.

I can go two better than that with Frans Lanting and JR. You must remember JR surely? Pity he got shot

pentaxuser

 

[gone]

May as well be a list of the 50 most non influential photographers of the last 10 years, except for Cindy Sherman (who is not a photographer per se, and belongs to a much earlier era) and Annie Leibovitz, whose best work was decades ago. She's been gliding along on her name for a long time, and it would be kind to call her recent work weak and irrelevant. It's nowhere near that good.

What Maris said is spot on.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I like & dislike many on this list. But here's my 2 cents: APUG wouldn't be my first choice for commentary on contemporary photography.

 

[pbromaghin]

Interesting thought Maris, but I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Can you expand?

Yes, please. Maris, I respect your opinions. They are always well thought out and supported by fact.

 

[Xmas]

I thought the monkey selfie was more relevant to us humans myself.
And it has made it to tea shirts!

 

[pdeeh]

I like & dislike many on this list. But here's my 2 cents: APUG wouldn't be my first choice for commentary on contemporary photography.

exact

 

[removed account4]

I thought this was an interesting list:-

http://uk.complex.com/style/2013/06/the-most-influential-photographers/

Any thoughts?

hi cliveh

i have only heard of a handful of the photographers on the list
and it was interesting to see what sort of work made it to the top.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, please. Maris, I respect your opinions. They are always well thought out and supported by fact.

same here ..
not really sure how or who on apug has anything to do or say about contemporary photography.
especially because whenever someone comments on contemporary photography or "art"
the post is usually met by what seems to be an angry anti-art, anti-art education, anti-contemporary photography mob ...
who make nasty harsh comments so the peanut gallery can slap them on the back.

 

[pdeeh]

Why?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that she is too narrow, far from it.

It is just that from my point of view, her practice is sufficiently broad across media so as to resist her being bracketed as "only" a photographer.

That does not mean of course that her photography might not be seen as influential in its own right.

 

[Maris]

Let me suggest that there are at least two streams of picture making active in the art world.

There is Contemporary Photography which has the characteristic of a self perpetuating, self healing belief system unaffected by criticism or objective analysis. One sees large works populating modern gallery walls. These large works are invariably interpreted in a value system that lauds content and size. In nearly every case the worker credited with the picture takes no part in its manufacture and sometimes camera-work is optional too. Few contemporary works are actually fashioned from light-sensitive materials and I would question their identity as photographs. The job security and peer status of professional curators, promotors, and commentators depends on churning contemporary photography through the art industry to capture the financial resources it affords.

The other stream is something I call Classic Modern Photography. It is close in technique and intent to what photography has been since the beginning. It is characterised by offering a rich visual experience in contrast to the empty and predictable emanations of the "avant garde". The value systems in classic modern photography hinge on rarity, singularity, fully realized handcraft, fine and valuable materials, archival durability, coherent scholarship, and interesting content. It is what I try to do (on a good day) and I think I'll find more of it in APUG that on vast gallery walls celebrating "meaninglessness per square metre".

 

[SuzanneR]

Weird list, Joe McNally is the second most influential contemporary photographer? He's an excellent commercial photographer, but influential? Not sure why people bother with these sort of lists. There are some interesting photographers and artists here, but creating such a highly subjective list feels like click bait, and now I'm annoyed with myself for clicking! :confused:

 

[Alan Klein]

Art critics are always looking for something different so most of the selection are just those type of photographers. New sells. Avant garde, etc. Many of the photographers are also adding other effects to their photos so they're not straight photos anyway.

One thing about Joe McNally that I observed on his site. He's a pro in all kinds of photography: portraits, commercial, sports, etc. He knows how to grab your attention and you can tell his processes are superb. He really understands the medium and how to get the best out of it.

 

[Ron789]

I think a list like this is definitely useful...
1. It triggers discussion (as proven by the reactions to this post)
2. it forces us to step out of our comfort zone, think out of the box, ask ourselves... what does "influential" mean?
Remember: Vincent van Gogh was completely ignored by the artistic "establishment" while he was alive, and for decades after he died....
Ask yourself this question... am I the "establishment"?

 

[swanlake1]

I like & dislike many on this list. But here's my 2 cents: APUG wouldn't be my first choice for commentary on contemporary photography.

Personally, I like and dislike contemporary photography in equal measure. But, out of curiosity, what are some good discussion sites on current "art" photography?

 

[4season]

Ai Weiwei does interesting stuff, but photography seems like a smallish part of it.

 

[removed account4]

Maris:

do you "edition" your photographs and destroy the negative after a singular print is made ?
what is the maximum size permitted before the image becomes empty?
and photographers like HCB karsh, hurrell, and others who had work printed by a printer aren't valid?

some people who make "contemporary" imagery that is large ( or small ) do just that.
their images are rare, are singular, and are crafted by hand.
just because it isn't imagery based on a 19th century ( or better yet a pre-mid 19th century notion )
doesn't mean it is meaningless, or the other discriptions you use.

but then again every is obviously able to have their own valid opinion ..
i don't believe that in order to be a "real photographer producing artwork"
one needs to do the printing oneself, make prints like they did in 1850 ...
and i don't believe that every image that might get printed by a machine ( either ink or laser ) is exactly the same,
just like i don't believe that every hand printed image is exactly the same / there are variations. but i do believe
unless someone destroys their negative or only makes single prints there is no such thing as a rare/singular "traditional" silver print.

while i enjoy looking at things that sprouted from a mid or pre-mid 19th century notion
using a process from the same time period, i also get inspiration from early 20th century
practicioners who decided to give the medium the ability to breathe on its own and saw what happens
when they did what they did, whether they were pictorialists who brought pt/pd and gum printing from the grave,
or they were people making cameraless images, constructions or photographing the world from a different perspective.
i am also a enjoyer of people who are still in practice today
who pushed the envelope in the 1980s making giant photographs by hand, and who at present
use encaustic paints to hand work some of their images.

 

[swanlake1]

Didn't the painters in the Renaissance have workshops with people helping to produce the artist's painting?

 

[pdeeh]

Artists have always had ateliers with people working for them contributing to the making of pieces, and plenty of artworks are still produced in this way.

 

[Xmas]

You would not have expected the monkey to commercialise selfie tea shirts?