Living photographers you most admire

[awty]

My list... and there are so many more I could include!

Keith Carter
Sally Mann
O. Rufus Lovett
Graciela Iturbide
Melanie Walker
Susan Kay Grant
Suzanne Revy
Jess Dugan
Elliott Erwitt
Cig Harvey
Dornith Doherty

Intersting diverse selection, like that most are not men. It's important to have different perspectives.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Ralph Gibson and Daido Moriyama haven't been mentioned yet. That is sad...

 

[MarkS]

In no particular order-
George Tice
Paul Caponigro
David Plowden
Norman McGrath
Paula Chamlee.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ralph Gibson and Daido Moriyama haven't been mentioned yet. That is sad...

Agreed.

Nor are Nan Goldin, Donna Ferrato and Susan Meiselas, three that I would add to my list.

Not a fan, but surprised I don't see Annie Leibovitz's name appear. Both her and Steve McCurry are probably the most well-known living photographers, although Salgado has gotten a lot of exposure these past few years, as has Burtynsky, both also absent of people's list here.

 

[KitosLAB]

Crap! On October 16, Steve McCurry gives a lecture in Kyiv! But I don't know English!!! This is a fiasco!

 

[Sanug]

Steve McCurry, yes. Although his images are too "clean" for my taste, especially his newer digital images. But I saw an exhibition of his earlier work recently in Duesseldorf, and it was breathtaking.

A great photographer who did great b/w portraits of some celebrities is Jim Rakete. Maybe he is not known outside Europe.

 

[nikos79]

1. Bruce Davidson
2. Rene Groebli (98 years now and still photographing!)
3. William Albert Allard
4. Bernard Plossu
5. David Allan Harvey
6. Krass Clement
7. Paz Errazuriz
8. Rosalind Fox Solomon
9. Rui Palha
10. Shelby Lee Adams
11. Viktor Kolar
12. Platon Rivellis
13. Andreas Schinas

 

[nikos79]

Ralph Gibson and Daido Moriyama haven't been mentioned yet. That is sad...

Or perhaps very fortunate indeed!

Personally, I find both Daido Moriyama and Nan Goldin quite terrible photographers — ones who, in my view, have done more harm than good, shaping an entire generation of photographers in a rather unfortunate direction.
Ralph Gibson is OK. I prefer David Gibson though

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Personally, I find both Daido Moriyama and Nan Goldin quite terrible photographers — ones who, in my view, have done more harm than good, shaping an entire generation of photographers in a rather unfortunate direction.

"Terrible" is pretty generic and meaningless if not defined. What does your "terrible" mean? In what way are they terrible? Poor use of flash? Poor framing choices? Subject matter is not photographic? No originality? They don't understand how a camera works?

I don't mind opinions (OK, I do' but that's another story), but throwing such statements around without supporting them is way too easy.

As for the last part of the statement, I have to admit that I fail to understand how a photographer — any artist, for that matter — is in any way responsible for the output of those who decide to imitate them afterwards. There is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired street photography that poorly attempts to imitate the works of Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand or Lee Friedlander, as there is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired landscape photography that poorly attempts to imitate that of Ansel Adams or Elliot Porter. Would you blame them for "shaping an entire generation of photographers in a rather unfortunate direction"?

Moreover, who is to decide in which direction photography should be steered? Who gets that authority and how?

For the record, Moriyama's work doesn't speak to me but I do acknowledge the originality, social relevance and historical importance of it. I do cherish Goldin's The Ballad of Sexual Dependency. Saw the exhibition about 20 years ago, and viewing the large prints in that context is one of the most moving experience I've ever had in a museum. The mix of tenderness, empathy, sadness and tragedy goes straight to your guts. It's the drama of real people, and feels immensely honest and human. That is photography.

 

[nikos79]

"Terrible" is pretty generic and meaningless if not defined. What does your "terrible" mean? In what way are they terrible? Poor use of flash? Poor framing choices? Subject matter is not photographic? No originality? They don't understand how a camera works?

I don't mind opinions (OK, I do' but that's another story), but throwing such statements around without supporting them is way too easy.

As for the last part of the statement, I have to admit that I fail to understand how a photographer — any artist, for that matter — is in any way responsible for the output of those who decide to imitate them afterwards. There is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired street photography that poorly attempts to imitate the works of Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand or Lee Friedlander, as there is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired landscape photography that poorly attempts to imitate that of Ansel Adams or Elliot Porter. Would you blame them for "shaping an entire generation of photographers in a rather unfortunate direction"?

Moreover, who is to decide in which direction photography should be steered? Who gets that authority and how?

For the record, Moriyama's work doesn't speak to me but I do acknowledge the originality, social relevance and historical importance of it. I do cherish Goldin's The Ballad of Sexual Dependency. Saw the exhibition about 20 years ago, and viewing the large prints in that context is one of the most moving experience I've ever had in a museum. The mix of tenderness, empathy, sadness and tragedy goes straight to your guts. It's the drama of real people, and feels immensely honest and human. That is photography.

I went to see Daido Moriyama's exhibition at Photo Elysée here in Lausanne a few weeks ago. Massive prints the size of walls, collages of different images — yet they all had the same effect on me. I left feeling almost nauseous. The visual noise was unbearable. His use of effects felt gratuitous, as if they existed for their own sake, violating everything I believe photography should be. Nan Goldin is another case, though I’d argue she’s even more "dangerous." Her photography screams fakeness and pretentiousness to me. The idea of documenting daily life can be incredibly powerful — in the hands of someone like Ralph Eugene Meatyard, it becomes poetic, intentional, and deeply personal. But with Goldin, there’s no sense of composition, no empathy, no personal vision. Her work feels like a hollow attempt at authenticity. Of course, this is just my opinion, but since you asked, I wanted to express it honestly and without censorship.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I went to see Daido Moriyama's exhibition at Photo Elysée here in Lausanne a few weeks ago. Massive prints the size of walls, collages of different images — yet they all had the same effect on me. I left feeling almost nauseous. The visual noise was unbearable. His use of effects felt gratuitous, as if they existed for their own sake, violating everything I believe photography should be. Nan Goldin is another case, though I’d argue she’s even more "dangerous." Her photography screams fakeness and pretentiousness to me. The idea of documenting daily life can be incredibly powerful — in the hands of someone like Ralph Eugene Meatyard, it becomes poetic, intentional, and deeply personal. But with Goldin, there’s no sense of composition, no empathy, no personal vision. Her work feels like a hollow attempt at authenticity. Of course, this is just my opinion, but since you asked, I wanted to express it honestly and without censorship.

OK, but none of this makes them terrible photographers.

It just makes them photographers you don't like., based on nothing more than how you feel when you look at their works.

Opinions based on feelings are fine. But you tend to elevate your to the order of absolute judgment. That you don't see, or can't see, or can't feel, in Goldin, any sense of composition, empathy, or personal vision, doesn't mean that it's not there. May just mean that it's beyond your grasp, just as Moriyama's brilliance, felt by many, is obviously beyond mine.

 

[nikos79]

OK, but none of this makes them terrible photographers.

It just makes them photographers you don't like., based on nothing more than how you feel when you look at their works.

Opinions based on feelings are fine. But you tend to elevate your to the order of absolute judgment. That you don't see, or can't see, or can't feel, in Goldin, any sense of composition, empathy, or personal vision, doesn't mean that it's not there. May just mean that it's beyond your grasp, just as Moriyama's brilliance, felt by many, is obviously beyond mine.

There’s nothing deep in Goldin or Moriyama to understand or grasp. True depth lies in photographers like Atget, Bresson, or Sander — artists whose work reveals layers of meaning the more you engage with it. Moriyama is obvious. Trust your instincts; if you feel there’s nothing there, it’s because there isn’t. As for Nan Goldin, her appeal was never truly photographic but rather cultural, much like Mapplethorpe. Their notoriety came as much from the worlds they depicted as from the images themselves.

 

[Don_ih]

Both Moriyama and Goldin are very embedded within their cultures and it may take a broader appreciation of that context to fully "get" what they do. That said, I find plenty of "empathy" in Goldin's photos.

I thought this, however, was a thread for stating who you liked - not who you hated. Maybe a different thread would be good for the argument.

 

[nikos79]

Both Moriyama and Goldin are very embedded within their cultures and it may take a broader appreciation of that context to fully "get" what they do. That said, I find plenty of "empathy" in Goldin's photos.

I thought this, however, was a thread for stating who you liked - not who you hated. Maybe a different thread would be good for the argument.

True, my apologies for that. Let’s stick to the photographers we admire and allow others to take inspiration from our preferences, discovering the artists who resonate with them.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There’s nothing deep in Goldin or Moriyama to understand or grasp. True depth lies in photographers like Atget, Bresson, or Sander — artists whose work reveals layers of meaning the more you engage with it.

Problem is, you don't get to decide wherein depth lies.

You don't even get to decide what depth is, in photography or elsewhere.

Now, back to the thread's original intent. Never thought I'd say this, but Minor White is slowly creeping into my list, for reasons I still fail to clearly understand.

 

[nikos79]

Problem is, you don't get to decide wherein depth lies.

You don't even get to decide what depth is, in photography or elsewhere.

Now, back to the thread's original intent. Never thought I'd say this, but Minor White is slowly creeping into my list, for reasons I still fail to clearly understand.

I strongly disagree with the above. In photography — or any other art form — we need to establish our own personal criteria to truly engage with it. You may argue that there’s depth in Nan Goldin’s work, and I may argue the opposite, but whether her photos evoke empathy or feel contrived likely depends on the viewer’s perspective. What matters is understanding "why" we feel the way we do. If I can’t articulate why certain photographers don’t resonate with me, I won’t fully understand why others do.

Back to Minor White there we certainly both agree!

 

[Hassasin]

"Terrible" is pretty generic and meaningless if not defined. What does your "terrible" mean? In what way are they terrible? Poor use of flash? Poor framing choices? Subject matter is not photographic? No originality? They don't understand how a camera works?

I don't mind opinions (OK, I do' but that's another story), but throwing such statements around without supporting them is way too easy.

As for the last part of the statement, I have to admit that I fail to understand how a photographer — any artist, for that matter — is in any way responsible for the output of those who decide to imitate them afterwards. There is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired street photography that poorly attempts to imitate the works of Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand or Lee Friedlander, as there is an immense production of trite, generic and uninspired landscape photography that poorly attempts to imitate that of Ansel Adams or Elliot Porter. Would you blame them for "shaping an entire generation of photographers in a rather unfortunate direction"?

Moreover, who is to decide in which direction photography should be steered? Who gets that authority and how?

For the record, Moriyama's work doesn't speak to me but I do acknowledge the originality, social relevance and historical importance of it. I do cherish Goldin's The Ballad of Sexual Dependency. Saw the exhibition about 20 years ago, and viewing the large prints in that context is one of the most moving experience I've ever had in a museum. The mix of tenderness, empathy, sadness and tragedy goes straight to your guts. It's the drama of real people, and feels immensely honest and human. That is photography.

Some people find subject matter alone bothersome (terrible maybe ?). Aren't you judging an opinion with own ? What you may enjoy others may possibly not stand at all, you may walk into an exhibit and be "moved" and others may walk into same and walk right out more disgusted rather than moved.

Some imitate others' work in order to progress and at times never find their own groove. But at the same time they may become successful enough to have pubic exposure sufficient to help "shape" that particular genre. In that context others may blame the originators to take them in their direction. Is till think it's a totally moot point.

BTW, AA and similar work is rather harmless to photography. Thousands upon thousands can try to imitate, but what is there to imitate in the first place ? Trees, leaves and rocks ? We could easily blame publishers of AA's work to ruin his legacy with poor choice of images, low quality printing etc. Many in print don't look like AA made them, greed indeed ?

HCB tried to imitate his own work, often failed as multiple frames were taken of same subject so one could be picked from, and not necessarily the right one. Someone put HCB on a pedestal, in fact it was HCB himself, and for what it's worth he became famous as result, trying to imitate HCB ? I think not. Who does that ?

As for the

Moreover, who is to decide in which direction photography should be steered? Who gets that authority and how?

Critics do for sure, after all only the critics know best. The art world is so full of itself, it's anybody's guess what comes next, but it sure will be THE thing.

But I am perplexed: how is it possible that "no artist" is responsible for what others do ? It's in their DNA to influence, it's THE reason why they make art, many just want to be the first, so others can only be "next". They "innovate" by shock, create pieces that many wish they'd never witnessed. it's part of art and the world has no choice but to accept it, cherish it, criticise it, discredit it, what have you.

I personally enjoy art in all of its forms, not the rhetoric that usually comes with it. At times the latter affects how I see the former.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

whether her photos evoke empathy or feel contrived likely depends on the viewer’s perspective.

And viewer's perspective should never be expressed as truth.

As Don wisely stated, let's leave the question of "What is depth, where can I find it, and is it possible to get change for a 50$ when in it" for another thread.

 

[warden]

Emmet Gowin would be on my list even if the only work he ever published was his detailed study of moths in South America. It's a book of stunning natural beauty that he made while accompanied by his wife Edith.

But he has done so much more, and his portraits of his extended family seal the deal.

 

[nikos79]

And viewer's perspective should never be expressed as truth.

As Don wisely stated, let's leave the question of "What is depth, where can I find it, and is it possible to get change for a 50$ when in it" for another thread.

Depth: that mystical abyss where arguments spiral, truths do the backstroke, and the only currency is confusion — good luck breaking a $50.

 

[nikos79]

Now, back to the thread's original intent. Never thought I'd say this, but Minor White is slowly creeping into my list, for reasons I still fail to clearly understand.

I think he is long dead btw

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Emmet Gowin would be on my list even if the only work he ever published was his detailed study of moths in South America. It's a book of stunning natural beauty that he made while accompanied by his wife Edith.

But he has done so much more, and his portraits of his extended family seal the deal.

I agree. Wonderful photographer. I need to get me one of his books.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I think he is long dead btw

His depth is eternal.

 

[nikos79]

His depth is eternal.

 

[warden]

I agree. Wonderful photographer. I need to get me one of his books.

he also has the ability while being interviewed of speaking in perfectly formed intelligent paragraphs as if reading from a refined script. The bastard.