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

[Alex Benjamin]

T'would be nice if we could get back to discussing ideas about Stephen Shore and his photography rather than dueling opinions about what art is or ain't...

I spent yesterday afternoon looking at Stephen Shore's photographs, reading Steven Shore's writings, and watching Stephen's Shore's videos, all of which were very interesting, if a little repetitive. Of course, one afternoon of study does not an expert make. I like some of Stephen Shore's photographs, and I can appreciate some of Stephen Shore's photographs that I don't like. I generally get what he was trying to do during each of his, for lack of a better word, periods. I still think the parking lot photo is a dud. But my interest is piqued and I'll try to track down his new book Topographies: Aerial Surveys of the American Landscape and read what he has to say about his parking lot photo. I may change my mind. The book only came out a couple of weeks ago, so it may take a while to reach the library. I am not ready to drop $85.00 on it.

When I was but a wee lad back in the 1960s, I had a friend whose father was a civil engineer. One Saturday morning we accompanied him down to his office. I remember there were quite a few aerial photographs of the projects the engineering firm had worked on over the years. They looked a lot like Stephen Shore's parking lot photo. Maybe Stephen Shore's parking lot photo is better composed. So I am not sure whether Stephen Shore's parking lot photo belongs down at my friend's father's office, or the photos at my friend's father's office belong at the MOMA. Maybe both. Maybe neither.

To be honest, from what I've seen, I like Edward Burtynsky's drone photos better than those of Stephen Shore. And Edward Burtynsky seems to have a well articulated intellectual basis underlying his work too, if you are into that sort of thing.

I agree with your evaluation of this latest work. I understand what's he's after both as a photographer and as an observer of the world we live in. Part of the "difficulty" in appreciating his work is that he is totally neutral about that last part. He's not judging one way or the other—as opposed to, say, Robert Adams in whose photography there is a clear moral and philosophical aspect at work—, he's just observing.

These photos look like those taken by your friend's father because, essentially, the intent it the same. Observing. What does things look like from up there, that I can now easily see with this new technology. The title even states it: Topographies: Aerial Surveys of the American Landscape. A really interesting title. It points to the fact that there is purposefully something scientific about the process. Not artistic. Scientific. But in the same way American photographers in the late 19th Century were sent out West to "survey the land", and for whom the camera was a scientific, not artistic, tool.

I'm just wondering, looking at this work, if Shore didn't bring it out a little too early. But then, maybe that's just me not able to completely let go of some preconceived ideas about what photography should have in it to make it interesting. Composition, for example, is universally accepted as the basis of good photography, but nothing states that it's necessary or that it can't be thought of in a totally different manner than it has until here. Certainly, the use of a drone, which entails a totally different relationship between the photographer and his tool—Cartier-Bresson's camera as extension of the body makes not sense here—points to a different way of thinking about these issues.

And thinking differently about things is always stimulating, whether you like the end result or not.

 

[faberryman]

These photos look like those taken by your friend's father because, essentially, the intent it the same. Observing. What does things look like from up there, that I can now easily see with this new technology. The title even states it: Topographies: Aerial Surveys of the American Landscape. A really interesting title. It points to the fact that there is purposefully something scientific about the process. Not artistic. Scientific. But in the same way American photographers in the late 19th Century were sent out West to "survey the land", and for whom the camera was a scientific, not artistic, tool.

I'll reserve judgment on the claim that Stephen Shore was being intentionally scientific with his drone photographs until I have read his book, but he is going to have to be pretty persuasive to convince me that that is the case. And although drones may be new technology, aerial photography is not. People have been photographing the earth from above for a long time. After all, Nadar took his camera up in a balloon in 1868. The question is what does Stephen Shore bring to the exercise.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'll reserve judgment on the claim that Stephen Shore was being intentionally scientific

I wasn't it clear on this. Not saying he's being scientific in intent—in the age of satellites, this would make no sense—, but rather that his language is, with "topography" and "survey" throwing us back to the early American photographers, who did have a scientific intent. There is a reference there, in the way he wants us to look at these—as "topographic surveys"—that we can't escape.

The question is what does Stephen Shore bring to the exercise.

Not sure either if he does bring anything new. That's why I'm wondering if this didn't come out too soon. But then, I just saw a few. Again, with Shore, as we said, things tend to make sense in series. Some sense of what he's trying to say might come out stronger and clearer when going through the entire book.

 

[Helge]

Okay, I'm back in, but only to tidy up.


Did you read the link I referenced regarding Picasso?

Just in case you don't go to the link, here is the meat of what I was using to illustrate my point about not having to know the sociological/cultural/academic/art-speak context of a piece to milk it of its essence:

"During the early 1900s, the aesthetics of traditional African sculpture became a powerful influence among European artists who formed an avant-garde in the development of modern art. In France, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and their School of Paris friends blended the highly stylized treatment of the human figure in African sculptures with painting styles derived from the post-Impressionist works of Edouard Manet, Paul Cézanne and Paul Gauguin. The resulting pictorial flatness, vivid color palette, and fragmented Cubist shapes helped to define early modernism. While these artists knew nothing of the original meaning and function of the West and Central African sculptures they encountered, they instantly recognized the spiritual aspect of the composition and adapted these qualities to their own efforts to move beyond the naturalism that had defined Western art since the Renaissance..."

"Picasso's African influenced period was followed by the style known as Cubism, which had also developed from Les Mademoiselle Mignonne's. Specifically Picasso's interest was sparked by Henri Matisse who showed him a mask from the Dan region of Africa. Scholars maintain that Matisse purchased this piece from Emile Heymenn's shop of non-western artifacts in Paris."

https://www.pablopicasso.org/africanperiod.jsp


Perhaps it is you who is overinflated, rather than me lacking?


Extra reading credit:

Picasso's African Period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Picasso's interest in African art was sparked partly by Henri Matisse who showed him a wooden Kongo-Vili figurine.[5]

In May or June 1907, Picasso experienced a "revelation" while viewing African art at the ethnographic museum at the Palais du Trocadéro.[6][7] Picasso's discovery of African art influenced aspects of his painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (completed in July of that year), especially in the treatment of the faces of two figures on right side of the composition. Although many modern art curators have attempted to match individual African masks with the faces of these figures, the African masks used in these examples have not always been accurate, and the artist took ideas from multiple works.[8]

Picasso continued to develop a style derived from African, Egyptian, and Iberian art during the years prior to the start of the analytic cubism phase of his painting in 1910."

That’s some nice googling.
Picasso was of course influenced by african masks, but also a tonne of other cultures and ideas. And for cubism it’s probably another painter Cézanne, who was the greatest inspiration. Plus of course photography famously taught him what painting isn’t.
What exactly was your point again?

Amazon Indians has very different art than most African peoples. They are essentially Stone Age people, and their art is generally very abstract and symbolic. They have historically painted though.
That’s why they are such a good example of someone completely different. Not worse or below. Just different.
Your assessment that mutual understanding would be likely, could on the other hand, with your own malicious glasses be construed as racism: Because “they are probably all alike these primitive people”.

T'would be nice if we could get back to discussing ideas about Stephen Shore and his photography rather than dueling opinions about what art is or ain't...



I agree with your evaluation of this latest work. I understand what's he's after both as a photographer and as an observer of the world we live in. Part of the "difficulty" in appreciating his work is that he is totally neutral about that last part. He's not judging one way or the other—as opposed to, say, Robert Adams in whose photography there is a clear moral and philosophical aspect at work—, he's just observing.

These photos look like those taken by your friend's father because, essentially, the intent it the same. Observing. What does things look like from up there, that I can now easily see with this new technology. The title even states it: Topographies: Aerial Surveys of the American Landscape. A really interesting title. It points to the fact that there is purposefully something scientific about the process. Not artistic. Scientific. But in the same way American photographers in the late 19th Century were sent out West to "survey the land", and for whom the camera was a scientific, not artistic, tool.

I'm just wondering, looking at this work, if Shore didn't bring it out a little too early. But then, maybe that's just me not able to completely let go of some preconceived ideas about what photography should have in it to make it interesting. Composition, for example, is universally accepted as the basis of good photography, but nothing states that it's necessary or that it can't be thought of in a totally different manner than it has until here. Certainly, the use of a drone, which entails a totally different relationship between the photographer and his tool—Cartier-Bresson's camera as extension of the body makes not sense here—points to a different way of thinking about these issues.

And thinking differently about things is always stimulating, whether you like the end result or not.

I think the main problem with aerial drone shots is that with a few exceptions, when the first
excitement has subsided, then they are fundamentally uninteresting.
We humans are not birds. We are interested in stuff close to or at ground level.
Getting up high can be practical and interesting intellectually, but not viscerally.
Very little of our culture involves happenings in mid air or looking down on earth.
It’s a fun experiment, but not a new school or ism.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I think the main problem with aerial drone shots is that with a few exceptions, when the first
excitement has superseded, then they are fundamentally uninteresting.
We humans are not birds. We are interested in stuff close to or at ground level.
Getting up high can be practical and interesting intellectually, but not viscerally.
Very little of our culture involves happenings in mid air or looking down on earth.
It’s a fun experiment, but not a new school or ism.

Well, we're not fish either, yet we love underwater photography.

Drone photography offers a new way of seeing, of viewing the landscape, how we inhabit it, what we do to it, what's our relationship with it. It talks differently about our presence here, and its impact. Now, there may not always be an aesthetic interest in that, but there is certainly a philosophical, ontological one. And no, this is far from being interesting just intellectually. There is beauty to be found in looking, or, rather, in contemplation, in paying attention—beauty not in the sense of prettiness, but something deeper.

I really don't know where you get that we humans "are interested in stuff close to or at ground level." If so, we would never have gone to the moon, we wouldn't be dreaming of going to other planets or star systems one day. And we wouldn't have invented Peter Pan. I'm still skeptical of Shore's results here, but I like that he hasn't lost his sense of child-like wonder. I may be skeptical of his results, but I like that he was free enough from pre-conceptions about how we humans are or about what photography should be that he was just able to ask himself "I wonder how I'll see if I look from up there?..." Nothing more visceral than asking such questions.

 

[MattKing]

Much of Edward Burtynsky's best work is either aerial or high viewpoint photography:
e.g.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Much of Edward Burtynsky's best work is either aerial or high viewpoint photography:
e.g.
View attachment 330226

Indeed! And he's not as neutral as Shore seems to be. There's a clear moral stance in his work, in his desire to show the negative impact on our presence on the landscape. To quote him: “We’re at a critical moment in history where we’re starting to hit the thresholds of human expansion and the limits of what this planet can sustain. We’re reaching peak oil, peak fish, peak beef – and the evidence is all there to see in the landscape.” Yet, he still looks for beauty and mystery in it all, which makes his photographs very ambiguous.

Good article about it here:

Edward Burtynsky on his ravaged Earth shots: 'We've reached peak everything'

The great photographer’s awesome images – taken from drones, propellor planes and a 50ft selfie stick – show how industry has drilled and drained our planet

www.theguardian.com

 

[MurrayMinchin]

That’s some nice googling.

I learned how African masks influenced Picasso while attending art school, but you weren't listening to what I had to say, so served up some tasty morsels from the Internet.

 

[Don_ih]

I don't see much difference between the parking lot photo and this

Both are a view of an arrangement of related objects, more or less haphazard or accidental, with everything stuffed into a limited space. It doesn't seem much of a stretch that they person who took this photo would want to look down on parking lots or suburbs or industrial developments. Given the chance, he's probably also like to take photos of how bacteria cluster. That doesn't mean any of it is compelling to anyone else.

I really don't know where you get that we humans "are interested in stuff close to or at ground level." If so, we would never have gone to the moon, we wouldn't be dreaming of going to other planets or star systems one day. And we wouldn't have invented Peter Pan.

You go to the moon so you can examine it at ground level. You go to other places so you can get close to them and see them.

But I think the point of an aerial view is not to see individual objects up close but to see the groupings of them "up close". A parking lot full of cars is itself an object when viewed from the correct perspective. Pretty much everyone who has been in an airplane is familiar with the way the world below looks suddenly unreal once you're above it (but that impression will likely diminish the more often you experience it). We normally don't see the things on the surface from that view. The diminished individuality of the objects doesn't match our established notions of what they are and what they're for. From the sky, those things look useless.

Still doesn't mean it's compelling.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Still doesn't mean it's compelling.

Why do you generalize your feelings to everybody else? Maybe it isn't to you. To me, and many others, it is. Human nature is a bit more complex, and a lot more varied, than what you make it out to be.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The discussion here is not about why you don't think things look interesting from the sky, it's about why Stephen Shore (and others, as the Burtynsky example shows) does.

 

[Don_ih]

Why do you generalize your feelings to everybody else? Maybe it isn't to you. To me, and many others, it is. Human nature is a bit more complex, and a lot more varied, than what you make it out to be.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The discussion here is not about why you don't think things look interesting from the sky, it's about why Stephen Shore (and others, as the Burtynsky example shows) does.

As usual, you misinterpret what I wrote. I said it doesn't mean it's compelling. That means that, no matter how you justify the point of the image, the image may still not be something you like. If you paid attention to the rest of what I wrote, you would see that I consider these images worth seeing, worth thinking about - i.e., at least somewhat compelling.

Examine your arguments against Alan before claiming someone else is generalizing his "feelings to everybody else".

 

[Helge]

Well, we're not fish either, yet we love underwater photography.

Drone photography offers a new way of seeing, of viewing the landscape, how we inhabit it, what we do to it, what's our relationship with it. It talks differently about our presence here, and its impact. Now, there may not always be an aesthetic interest in that, but there is certainly a philosophical, ontological one. And no, this is far from being interesting just intellectually. There is beauty to be found in looking, or, rather, in contemplation, in paying attention—beauty not in the sense of prettiness, but something deeper.

I really don't know where you get that we humans "are interested in stuff close to or at ground level." If so, we would never have gone to the moon, we wouldn't be dreaming of going to other planets or star systems one day. And we wouldn't have invented Peter Pan. I'm still skeptical of Shore's results here, but I like that he hasn't lost his sense of child-like wonder. I may be skeptical of his results, but I like that he was free enough from pre-conceptions about how we humans are or about what photography should be that he was just able to ask himself "I wonder how I'll see if I look from up there?..." Nothing more visceral than asking such questions.

Under water is still human scale, not just a flat plane with dots and patterns. Plus humans has a very special relationship with water. We are very good at swimming and holding our breath. We have procured a lot of our sustenance from the sea trough at least the whole of the mesolithic and still do today.

I did write “with a few exceptions”. It’s just a realm that is exhausted, at least for a time and place before others.
Looking out the plane window, down on earth gets old fast.
While looking at clouds, that has the appearance of an ethereal kingdom you could inhabit is endlessly fascinating.

Much of Edward Burtynsky's best work is either aerial or high viewpoint photography:
e.g.
View attachment 330226

Never heard of the guy, but:
1. It appears his photos are of environmental and documentary intent, with the art part playing second fiddle.
2. Many of his shots are pretty low to the ground, and is what could be said to be an elevated view, rather than an aerial view.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

As usual, you misinterpret what I wrote. I said it doesn't mean it's compelling. That means that, no matter how you justify the point of the image, the image may still not be something you like. If you paid attention to the rest of what I wrote, you would see that I consider these images worth seeing, worth thinking about - i.e., at least somewhat compelling.

Examine your arguments against Alan before claiming someone else is generalizing his "feelings to everybody else".

Indeed. I did read your post well, but misunderstood its meaning. Misunderstandings is an unfortunate side-effect of this type of medium. Please disregard my post.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Looking out the plane window, down on earth gets old fast.
While looking at clouds, that has the appearance of an ethereal kingdom you could inhabit is endlessly fascinating.

That's an interesting way of putting it, Helge, with its sacred, if not religious, undertones. Whatever poet there is in me likes it, even though the atheist in me doesn't buy it one minute .

But, regarding your statement that we humans are only interested in stuff that is at ground level let me ask you this: who says that photography should concern itself only with the way we see as humans? who says that photography should, in terms of looking at the world, only reflect the human experience? who makes these rules? why make these rules? shouldn't photography be anything that the medium itself—the constantly evolving medium—allows it to be?

Isn't the "we humans are like this, therefore photography should be like this" threading dangerous grounds? Isn't it risking closing possibilities rather than opening them?

And wouldn't you say that any type of photography has the potential of "getting old fast"? I mean, street photography can get old fast, as can landscape, as can fashion, as can architectural, etc. Wouldn't you say that that depends less on the medium itself than on the imagination of the photographer?

Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Edward Burtynsky, Richard Misrach, and now, Stephen Shore, have all done aerial photography, and each has taken it a very different place (of all, Misrach is my favorite). This tells me there is the potential for further discoveries.

 

[Helge]

That's an interesting way of putting it, Helge, with its sacred, if not religious, undertones. Whatever poet there is in me likes it, even though the atheist in me doesn't buy it one minute .

But, regarding your statement that we humans are only interested in stuff that is at ground level let me ask you this: who says that photography should concern itself only with the way we see as humans? who says that photography should, in terms of looking at the world, only reflect the human experience? who makes these rules? why make these rules? shouldn't photography be anything that the medium itself—the constantly evolving medium—allows it to be?

Isn't the "we humans are like this, therefore photography should be like this" threading dangerous grounds? Isn't it risking closing possibilities rather than opening them?

And wouldn't you say that any type of photography has the potential of "getting old fast"? I mean, street photography can get old fast, as can landscape, as can fashion, as can architectural, etc. Wouldn't you say that that depends less on the medium itself than on the imagination of the photographer?

Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Edward Burtynsky, Richard Misrach, and now, Stephen Shore, have all done aerial photography, and each has taken it a very different place (of all, Misrach is my favorite). This tells me there is the potential for further discoveries.

No rules. But if you want other people to enjoy your photos and if you want to genuinely like them yourself, then you better think about general appeal.

 

[TJones]

Much of Edward Burtynsky's best work is either aerial or high viewpoint photography:
e.g.
View attachment 330226

I don’t think I’ve seen a Burtynsky photo that wasn’t from an elevated viewpoint. And I’m nowhere close to losing interest. I also regularly look through my book of William Garnett’s aerial photos.

Some people make art when shooting from above; others make easily forgotten snapshots. Same as on the ground. Shore’s drone photos don’t have the same effect on me as his other work.

 

[faberryman]

And wouldn't you say that any type of photography has the potential of "getting old fast"? I mean, street photography can get old fast, as can landscape, as can fashion, as can architectural, etc. Wouldn't you say that that depends less on the medium itself than on the imagination of the photographer?

Of course, every type of photograph - landscape, fashion, architecture, etc. - gets old fast unless the photograph has something about it which keeps us coming back to look at it again and again. It has to be more than, in this case, it was taken from a drone. What more does Stephen Shore's parking lot photo have going for it other than it was taken from a drone by Stephen Shore? Or is that enough? Let's focus on the photograph itself for a moment. Or is it beside the point?

As I said before, I'll reserve judgment until I read what what Stephen Shore has to say about his parking lot photo, but so far all I have head about it is that it represents a new way of seeing, which ironically has been going on for a century and a half.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What more does Stephen Shore's parking lot photo have going for it other than it was taken from a drone by Stephen Shore? Or is that enough? Let's focus on the photograph itself for a moment. Or is it beside the point?

This perfectly sums up the questions that are essential to ask.

I'll reserve judgment until I read what what Stephen Shore has to say about his parking lot photo, but so far all I have head about it is that it represents a new way of seeing

I don't think that has been stated, neither by anybody on this thread, nor by Shore himself. What has been stated is that it's a new way of seeing—i.e., a new approach to photographic practice—for him.

But if you want other people to enjoy your photos and if you want to genuinely like them yourself, then you better think about general appeal.

I'm happy if people enjoy my photos, but I don't photograph in order for people to enjoy my photos. I photograph because it's important to me. I think many photographers have that attitude, and couldn't care less about general appeal.

 

[faberryman]

I don't think that has been stated, neither by anybody on this thread, nor by Shore himself. What has been stated is that it's a new way of seeing—i.e., a new approach to photographic practice—for him.

Drone photography offers a new way of seeing, of viewing the landscape, how we inhabit it, what we do to it, what's our relationship with it. It talks differently about our presence here, and its impact.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, we're not fish either, yet we love underwater photography.

Drone photography offers a new way of seeing, of viewing the landscape, how we inhabit it, what we do to it, what's our relationship with it. It talks differently about our presence here, and its impact. Now, there may not always be an aesthetic interest in that, but there is certainly a philosophical, ontological one. And no, this is far from being interesting just intellectually. There is beauty to be found in looking, or, rather, in contemplation, in paying attention—beauty not in the sense of prettiness, but something deeper.

I really don't know where you get that we humans "are interested in stuff close to or at ground level." If so, we would never have gone to the moon, we wouldn't be dreaming of going to other planets or star systems one day. And we wouldn't have invented Peter Pan. I'm still skeptical of Shore's results here, but I like that he hasn't lost his sense of child-like wonder. I may be skeptical of his results, but I like that he was free enough from pre-conceptions about how we humans are or about what photography should be that he was just able to ask himself "I wonder how I'll see if I look from up there?..." Nothing more visceral than asking such questions.

As a scuba diver I always thought my underwater shots were really no different than my above water ones. Here's a series of both to tell a story taken with the same camera and film type including strobes at times. The same photographic "rules" apply although methods are a little bit different shooting below. You have to deal with refraction, loss of colors, nothing to stand on, etc.

Scuba Journey - 35mm Film

Ft Lauderdale and Key Largo Scuba Trip. Nikonos IVa 35mm Ektachromes Some with single strobe. Scanned with Epson V600 flat bed scanner. Processed with Photoshop Elements 8. A video slide show with music of Scuba Journey can be seen on YouTube...

www.flickr.com

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Sigh... ... @faberryman, I was distinguishing the (relatively) new way of doing aerial photography with remote-controlled photographic drones, whose general availability is quite recent, with aerial photography itself, which is quite old (they did it with balloons in the 19th century).

Military drones (or drones used for spying) have been around for a while (relatively speaking), but remote-controlled photographic drones have not been available to the general public (and photographers) for a long time. And, as such, by the simple fact that you no longer have to be up there, they do offer much more manoeuvrability, speed and flexibility to the photographers, hence, "new" ways of seeing, or if you prefer, new and different ways of positioning yourself. Just in terms of height, the possibilities are endless, making the possibilities of framing, composition, etc., much greater than what was possible before.

[Addition]: I would say the same thing about the Go Pro, by the way. Carrying your camera, or camcorder, with you, is not new, but the Go Pro opened up new possibilities.

 

[Helge]

I'm happy if people enjoy my photos, but I don't photograph in order for people to enjoy my photos. I photograph because it's important to me. I think many photographers have that attitude, and couldn't care less about general appeal.

Well if that truely is the case (which is incredibly rare) then good for you.

 

[faberryman]

I need to make a correction to one of my previous posts. Nadar took the first aerial photograph from a balloon in 1858, not 1868.

I agree that drones are more maneuverable than balloons, kites, airplanes, helicopters, satellites, and other aerial vehicles, giving photographers greater flexibility in making photographs. Drone photography really took off about ten years ago, although drones were in existence long before then. Now everybody is doing it. It's the latest craze. My first encounter with drone photography was in 2016. I was attending a workshop in Iceland. The photographer leading the workshop did a lot of drone work and made some really remarkable images. I am an old stick in the mud and was doing things the old fashion way. I think photographers should do drone work alone. Drones buzzing around can be really annoying. Unless you can see them, it is hard to judge how close they are to you. I did a lot of unnecessary ducking during the workshop.

Today's Fun Fact to Know and Tell:

The Germans used pigeons strapped with cameras for battlefield reconnaissance during WWI.

Pigeon Camera

Pigeon camera (replica), Germany, 1917-1918 During World War I, pigeons were outfitted with tiny cameras and released over enemy territory. As the birds…

www.spymuseum.org

I'd give Stephen Shore extra credit if he made his parking lot photo with a camera strapped to a pigeon.

So here's a follow up question: Why did Stephen Shore and/or Peter Schjeldahl select the parking lot photo to illustrate the New Yorker article? Of all of Stephen Shore's drone photos, why that one? Did he/they think the parking lot photo was his best drone photo? Did he/they think the parking lot photo was the one most likely to get people to buy the book? It is interesting because if you go to the book on the publisher's website, if you click on the first image shown, you can review 15-20 images from the book, and the parking lot photo is nowhere to be found.

Stephen Shore

 

[warden]

... but remote-controlled photographic drones have not been available to the general public (and photographers) for a long time. And, as such, by the simple fact that you no longer have to be up there, they do offer much more manoeuvrability, speed and flexibility to the photographers, hence, "new" ways of seeing, or if you prefer, new and different ways of positioning yourself. Just in terms of height, the possibilities are endless, making the possibilities of framing, composition, etc., much greater than what was possible before.

I don't think the majority of drone imagery produced to date will age well, simply because the tech is so new that photographers are still trying to figure out how best to use it in their practice. Maybe in another 20 years.

Kinda OT: I was at the Howard Greenberg gallery seeing another show while Burtynsky's Salt Pans was on view - probably helicopter rather than drone - and the prints just stop you in your tracks. First because of the technical quality (some were six feet or so on the long side with excellent color and detail) but also the environmental messaging and display of parts of India that were probably unavailable elsewhere at the time. Anyway it was amazing, and if you get a chance to see his work in person I recommend it for what that's worth.

Edward Burtynsky: Salt Pans - Main Gallery - Exhibitions - Howard Greenberg Gallery

Since its inception over thirty years ago, Howard Greenberg Gallery has built a vast and ever-changing collection of some of the most important photographs in the medium. The Gallery's collection acts as a living history of photography, offering genres and styles from Pictorialism to Modernism...

www.howardgreenberg.com

 

[MattKing]

'm happy if people enjoy my photos, but I don't photograph in order for people to enjoy my photos. I photograph because it's important to me. I think many photographers have that attitude, and couldn't care less about general appeal.

Well if that truely is the case (which is incredibly rare) then good for you.

I don't think that is incredibly rare at all.
Perhaps its a Canadian thing, but it is not overly important to me whether the photographs I take and am interested in and are happy with, which I then choose to present to the world, resonate with or are enjoyed by any particular individual or group of individuals.
I've enough experience to know that if my photographs are satisfying to me they are likely to satisfy some other people, but I'm not worrying about it. I do enjoy it though.
I have worked doing photography that is intended to satisfy the needs of others, and quite enjoy that and have had some success doing that.
But it isn't necessary to me that others appreciate my photography. I have other means in my life of engaging with people, so there are other ways I can choose to help meet their needs.