"How America's Most Cherished Photographer Learned to See" / Stephen Shore with Peter Schjeldahl

[awty]

@MattKing's response is the mild one.

I'd like to put it a little less mildly: no insults. @awty, that response was uncalled for. Chastising people for their taste in music? For Pete's sake.

I was only pointing out that a record that is 55 years old is not necessarily going to be relevant to a lot of people. My taste in music is equally not relevant to anyone but me, but I know that.
My point is if you constantly look at the past for inspiration, do you miss what is happening now.
You can condition your self to making pictures similar to a past genre and miss what is happening now.
I'm sure Alex is big enough not to be too bothered with an Australian having a little dig at him. When the Beetles came to my town the local boys threw eggs at them.

 

[juan]

I learned to see how to photograph color, as opposed to photographing in color, from closely studying a Stephen Shore photo then applying what had gotten into my brain to some of his other photographs. Then I was ready for Saul Leiter. I’ve tried to apply that with my digisnapper - the only color I do - but everything here is dark green and brown. I’m still working.

 

[Don_ih]

I didn't find what @awty said to be an insult. He more or less stated fact, regarding music, and how people stop trying to hear anything new at some point.

Also, there is room to interpret a series of photos as being the significant art object rather than a single photo in the series. Photography is so ductile that single photos can be woven together to highlight a situation, tell a story, outline a series of events, etc. Art does not have to be a solitary object - and there's valid argument to be made that art cannot be a solitary object, that it must draw itself into relevant relation with other aspects of the world.

For example, Duane Michal's Christ in New York sequence.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I was only pointing out that a record that is 55 years old is not necessarily going to be relevant to a lot of people.

awty, I was only using The White Album to illustrate the point Matt and I were making, that with photographers who work in series—a very modern, and actual artistic stance—you have to approach the work as a whole, not judging individual photographs. The White Album is famous for having a bunch of ordinary songs—many purposefully so, but that's for another discussion—make an extraordinary and brilliant album when considered as a whole.

But the idea that the whole is better than the sum of the parts can work with many contemporary musical albums, especially those who tend towards a full narrative, such as Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly (2015, so not "old folks music").

Also, there is room to interpret a series of photos as being the significant art object rather than a single photo in the series. Photography is so ductile that single photos can be woven together to highlight a situation, tell a story, outline a series of events, etc.

Totally agree, and it is the only way to approach such works in which there is a "performance" aspect such as the Duane Michal examples you posted (which I hadn't see before, thanks for the discovery). Another such "theatrical" set that I love is Carrie Mae Weems' Kitchen Table Series.

Carrie Mae Weems : The Kitchen Table Series, 1990

Welcome to the official website of artist Carrie Mae Weems

carriemaeweems.net

Each individual photograph is beautifully crafted, but each gains in evocative power the more you get into the whole series.

One of the few photographers who went in that direction and managed to produce both great individual photographs within a great series is Cindy Sherman with her Untitled Film Stills.

 

[Don_ih]

with photographers who work in series—a very modern, and actual artistic stance—you have to approach the work as a whole, not judging individual photographs.

While the series does have a distinct identity, the individual photos are always capable of being judged on their own, appreciated on their own, liked or hated on their own, just by virtue of the fact each individual photo can be extracted from the series and viewed on its own.

Take the single drone shot from Shore as an example. Seen on its own, especially if you don't know who the photographer is, it looks like it was not a composed photo but just a still grabbed from some flyover video a drone took. It doesn't insinuate greater significance than that, and the most anyone would say is "neat photo". Out of context, it is insignificant. And the fact is, it is very very easy to only ever see that image out of context. And it is always possible for anyone who wants to to view it or judge it completely on its own.

Is that a valid way to judge it? It actually has to be valid. And you did exactly that when describing the White Album as containing a "bunch of ordinary songs". Some people will never move past the assessment of the individual pieces in a collection and never think of those pieces as relating to each other. There's no necessity requiring they interpret them either way.

When we shoot a roll of film, we make a genuine sequence of images that are physically and temporally adjacent to one another. But very few of us will think it's completely necessary to think of one frame from that strip only in terms of how it compares and relates to the rest of the frames.

There is freedom in the appreciation of art (or anything). The fact is, in many instances, if you don't bother to contextualize the image within its ascribed series, you'll miss out.

Carrie Mae Weems' Kitchen Table Series

That is a great example, since there is an ordinariness to each individual photo, but as a series you can start to think of the passage of time, the changes that occur between people and to individuals. And you will start to wonder about the subtle changes between the images - the blank wall behind that then has a large photo of Malcolm X, which thereafter gets replaced with something more "picturesque" and "normal". These are considerations you won't have if you view the images as unrelated, individually.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And sometimes what seems to be filler at the first grows on you over time.
It would be an unsatisfying world if everything seemed to be excellent at all times.

It's like a Broadway show. There might be twenty songs, but only a few stand out for most. Well, a photo essay can be similar.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How many people download and pay for all the songs on a particular album vs just buying a couple of songs they favor? I'm sure most people buy copies of maybe a dozen of Ansel Adams "best" and ignore the rest. How many times have you see Half Dome or Sunrise? Whenever there's an article on an artist, they always show or mention the two or three of the most favorite and well known. Then we talk about how the photographer spent his whole life making such great works of maybe three shots. You wonder how he could afford to eat?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

While the series does have a distinct identity, the individual photos are always capable of being judged on their own, appreciated on their own, liked or hated on their own, just by virtue of the fact each individual photo can be extracted from the series and viewed on its own.

Take the single drone shot from Shore as an example. Seen on its own, especially if you don't know who the photographer is, it looks like it was not a composed photo but just a still grabbed from some flyover video a drone took. It doesn't insinuate greater significance than that, and the most anyone would say is "neat photo". Out of context, it is insignificant. And the fact is, it is very very easy to only ever see that image out of context. And it is always possible for anyone who wants to to view it or judge it completely on its own.

Is that a valid way to judge it? It actually has to be valid. And you did exactly that when describing the White Album as containing a "bunch of ordinary songs". Some people will never move past the assessment of the individual pieces in a collection and never think of those pieces as relating to each other. There's no necessity requiring they interpret them either way.

When we shoot a roll of film, we make a genuine sequence of images that are physically and temporally adjacent to one another. But very few of us will think it's completely necessary to think of one frame from that strip only in terms of how it compares and relates to the rest of the frames.

There is freedom in the appreciation of art (or anything). The fact is, in many instances, if you don't bother to contextualize the image within its ascribed series, you'll miss out.



That is a great example, since there is an ordinariness to each individual photo, but as a series you can start to think of the passage of time, the changes that occur between people and to individuals. And you will start to wonder about the subtle changes between the images - the blank wall behind that then has a large photo of Malcolm X, which thereafter gets replaced with something more "picturesque" and "normal". These are considerations you won't have if you view the images as unrelated, individually.

Actually I;m going through that now as I want to create a photo book suing Blurb. Not to sell; just to have around the house and maybe give one or two to relatives. I've got street pictures, landscapes etc. and haven't quite figured out what the book is supposed to do. Just an assortment of different of my pictures? BW vs color? Theme? Landscapes? Curating is difficult. Any ideas. Don or anyone else?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Stephen Shore very clears states from the beginning and all through the video that he is talking about seeing and he does not use the word art.

Art is what a photo does to the viewer. Calling oneself an artist rather than a photographer is just ego. Only the viewer can call you an artist.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I listen to Beethoven, Ravel, Benny Goodman, John Coltrane, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Ravi Shankar, Peter Gabriel, Kendrick Lamar and others.

I believe great music transcends time, and place.

That makes me neither young or old, but ageless.

I'm an eclectic listener too. And I use to think I was ageless but time seems to be catching up.

 

[faberryman]

Saying that Stephen Shore is one of the most interesting photographers of our time and then posting one photo without context or comment as an example of his work is an invitation to evaluate such photo on its own merits.

 

[Arthurwg]

For some reason Shore's work has always left me cold. Not bad, but not so great either. He strikes me as someone who takes thousands of pictures, with some, just by the numbers, turning out oak.

 

[Helge]

I was only pointing out that a record that is 55 years old is not necessarily going to be relevant to a lot of people. My taste in music is equally not relevant to anyone but me, but I know that.
My point is if you constantly look at the past for inspiration, do you miss what is happening now.
You can condition your self to making pictures similar to a past genre and miss what is happening now.
I'm sure Alex is big enough not to be too bothered with an Australian having a little dig at him. When the Beetles came to my town the local boys threw eggs at them.

We have nothing but the past to draw on.
What might incidentally happen just near you at any moment in time, you might not be ready to participate in, or you might be excluded from for a variety of reasons.
Unless you just happen to be in a hotspot or nodal point like the Factory, Bauhaus, Bell Labs, Memphis group etc. you will never really be in touch with or understand what is happening right now. As in deeply grokking it.
You are looking at the present through a rearview mirror.

What’s more, it’s been very hard to pinpoint any cultural nodal points in the last thirty years. The world has not really seen any clear trends or isms after postmodernism.
Pop culture more or less stopped in 1990.

SH was (not so much anymore) tremendously good at composition. There is something very subtly off about how well composed seemingly random mundane places are.
Not in the Lynchian/Lovecraft, often pubescent “society is rotten at the core” type, but rather in a magical reality way. Not always white magic though. More like gray.
His photos often reminds me of David Byrnes lyrics for Talking heads songs.

 

[Chrismat]

Sorry that's just the usual populous old peoples music. You'll have to start wearing socks with your sandals.
World's crippled by lack of diversity.

Beetles. I get it! Jokes about the spelling of the band are as old as the beginning of the band itself. The world also seems to be crippled by a lack of original thought.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I can see, in the chaos that is New York, how Shore's quiet photographs taken with seemingly banal indifference would offer a sense of calm. Quite a radical departure considering how most artists seeking fame would try to out-outlandish the competition. His use of colour is subtle and his framing is carefully considered; I tip my hat his way for that. While I recognize his achieving a delicate balance of disregard and care, it doesn't float my boat.

In the music context, I like Weather Report and my wife hates them. The world continues spinning.

I prefer photography which doesn't need an explanation. Telling me to start in the foreground of a boring photograph of desert scrub brush and slowly move my eyes to the horizon while considering 'whatever' only means the photograph cannot speak for itself.

Everybody brings with them their own Life history and experiences through which they interpret art.

Most people viewing Ansel Adams, Redwoods, Bull Creek Flat https://shop.anseladams.com/products/redwoods?variant=31414972153923 probably see a moving photograph depicting the strength and beauty of an old growth rain forest. I see it as a requiem, a photograph of a logging clear cuts edge, another remnant piece of ancient forest doomed to the chainsaw.

I also rebel against Shore being held up as some visionary trail blazer. Fred Herzog was photographing the same sort of subject matter, in colour, when Shore was in elementary school.

Herzog used colour and composition in much the same way as Shore, but in a more dynamic way. Herzog's photographs can talk for themselves, need no explanation, and speak a universal language.

Herzog images: https://trepanierbaer.com/artist/fred-herzog/ (Click on images for full compositions).

A bit of his history: https://www.exibartstreet.com/news/fred-herzog-modern-color/

New York should get over itself.

 

[MattKing]

Art is what a photo does to the viewer. Calling oneself an artist rather than a photographer is just ego. Only the viewer can call you an artist.

On this, we shall disagree.
(Edit: To me), Art is what an artist either creates, or curates, or has curated for them, with the intention that the result be seen as art.
Whether or not the rest of the world agrees is not unimportant. It just is that is unimportant to the question of whether it is art.

 

[Don_ih]

On this, we shall disagree.
Art is what an artist either creates, or curates, or has curated for them, with the intention that the result be seen as art.
Whether or not the rest of the world agrees is not unimportant. It just is that is unimportant to the question of whether it is art.

Now now, kids. Don't go getting into the "What is art?" argument here.

 

[MattKing]

Now now, kids. Don't go getting into the "What is art?" argument here.

As long as people understand that there is nothing close to universal consensus on the question .

 

[Sirius Glass]

On this, we shall disagree.
Art is what an artist either creates, or curates, or has curated for them, with the intention that the result be seen as art.
Whether or not the rest of the world agrees is not unimportant. It just is that is unimportant to the question of whether it is art.

I am with Matt on this one.

 

[Helge]

I can see, in the chaos that is New York, how Shore's quiet photographs taken with seemingly banal indifference would offer a sense of calm. Quite a radical departure considering how most artists seeking fame would try to out-outlandish the competition. His use of colour is subtle and his framing is carefully considered; I tip my hat his way for that. While I recognize his achieving a delicate balance of disregard and care, it doesn't float my boat.

In the music context, I like Weather Report and my wife hates them. The world continues spinning.

I prefer photography which doesn't need an explanation. Telling me to start in the foreground of a boring photograph of desert scrub brush and slowly move my eyes to the horizon while considering 'whatever' only means the photograph cannot speak for itself.

Everybody brings with them their own Life history and experiences through which they interpret art.

Most people viewing Ansel Adams, Redwoods, Bull Creek Flat https://shop.anseladams.com/products/redwoods?variant=31414972153923 probably see a moving photograph depicting the strength and beauty of an old growth rain forest. I see it as a requiem, a photograph of a logging clear cuts edge, another remnant piece of ancient forest doomed to the chainsaw.

I also rebel against Shore being held up as some visionary trail blazer. Fred Herzog was photographing the same sort of subject matter, in colour, when Shore was in elementary school.

Herzog used colour and composition in much the same way as Shore, but in a more dynamic way. Herzog's photographs can talk for themselves, need no explanation, and speak a universal language.

Herzog images: https://trepanierbaer.com/artist/fred-herzog/ (Click on images for full compositions).

A bit of his history: https://www.exibartstreet.com/news/fred-herzog-modern-color/

New York should get over itself.

Shore had a darkroom at age six and was first bought by MoMa in 61 at the tender age of fourteen.
Herzog was a medical photographer in 57 and only a fine art instructor in 67. For what professional recognition is worth.
Many people were just shooting away, even back then, some of them really good.

I love Herzogs work, and it has much more in common with Eggleston or Saul Leiter.
There is a clear subject, whimsy, humor often some kind of point.
Not so with Shore. He is fully postmodernist. He aims to have his work resemble amateur snapshots with no clear subject, usually just taken for idiosyncratic reasons, at best only clear at the moment.
Though they of course at closer inspection, are insanely well composed and with subtle but strong intention.

It seems to me that you manage to contradict yourself within a few lines in your post.
Art “that doesn’t need to be explained” is one of the greatest fallacies in art.
Very little about art is truly intuitive. It only feels like that.
To put a point on it: Make a rain forest Indian look at a Picasso and have him tell you about his thoughts.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Shore had a darkroom at age six and was first bought by MoMa in 61 at the tender age of fourteen.
Herzog was a medical photographer in 57 and only a fine art instructor in 67. For what professional recognition is worth.
Many people were just shooting away, even back then, some of them really good.

I love Herzogs work, and it has much more in common with Eggleston or Saul Leiter.
There is a clear subject, whimsy, humor often some kind of point.
Not so with Shore. He is fully postmodernist. He aims to have his work resemble amateur snapshots with no clear subject, usually just taken for idiosyncratic reasons, at best only clear at the moment.
Though they of course at closer inspection, are insanely well composed and with subtle but strong intention.

It seems to me that you manage to contradict yourself within a few lines in your post.
Art “that doesn’t need to be explained” is one of the greatest fallacies in art.
Very little about art is truly intuitive. It only feels like that.
To put a point on it: Make a rain forest Indian look at a Picasso and have him tell you about his thoughts.

As I said, I like Weather Report and my wife hates them. The world continues spinning. We're talking preferences here.

To your Picasso point...a "rain forest Indian" might see more than you think, considering Picasso 'invented' Cubism after seeing West African ceremonial masks and sculptures: https://www.pablopicasso.org/africanperiod.jsp

To say one artist is better than another because one is anointed by New York galleries is preposterous.

My experience in art schools helped form my view on this. One school heaped praise on people who had extensive art-speak vocabularies and could expound voluminously on what their pieces meant. I didn't last long there, and found another school better suited to the way I work, where experimentation sprang from a foundation of strong technique.

To have to explain how your work should be viewed, I see as a failing. Do poets have accompanying text to explain the meaning of their poems?

There is a drinking of the Koolaid, secret handshake, private club aspect to what I perceive as a condescending tone from people saying that I just don't get Shore's photography.

Some artists and galleries are very adept at culturing a singularity of vision and/or purpose to help people justify spending lots of money. That will never end, but it shouldn't be judge & jury of what is, or isn't, good art.

My preference is to not swim in that end of the pool.

*Edit* A Boo and a Hissss on the "rain forest Indian" bit. Implies that people unencumbered by modern societal norms are incapable of complex thought or valid interpretations of modern art. Smacks of elitism and of the same condescending tone where those who don't ascribe to accepted ways of interpretation are unenlightened lesser than's.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As long as people understand that there is nothing close to universal consensus on the question .

I'm glad you said that. It saves me the trouble having to defend myself.

 

[MattKing]

I'm glad you said that. It saves me the trouble having to defend myself.

It might, however, be a good idea if both of us prefaced our comments with something like: "to me, Art is ......."
I'm taking advantage of my moderator tools, and adding that to mine, after the fact.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It might, however, be a good idea if both of us prefaced our comments with something like: "to me, Art is ......."
I'm taking advantage of my moderator tools, and adding that to mine, after the fact.

Why be reduntant with "to me...."? When people say things, you assume that's what they believe.

 

[Don_ih]

A Boo and a Hissss on the "rain forest Indian" bit. Implies that people unencumbered by modern societal norms are incapable of complex thought or valid interpretations of modern art. Smacks of elitism and of the same condescending tone where those who don't ascribe to accepted ways of interpretation are unenlightened lesser than's.

I didn't take it that way - because there's no reason to take it that way. @Helge was trying to indicate a person who has no experience in the relevant culture for interpreting Picasso's art. And he's correct. Whatever is commonly understood by Picasso's more abstract images would not be understood by a complete outsider. But it's not necessary to go so far to find an example. All you need to do is ask someone who has no interest in art, no knowledge or artists or artworks other than accidental, to interpret one of those painting and they will probably say nothing that resembles what is commonly understood by critics, art historians, artists, and art-appreciators.

Art is not something that exists in isolation from everything else. If it happens to "speak to you", the language it's speaking is one you already understand.