Intersting diverse selection, like that most are not men. It's important to have different perspectives.
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
Ralph Gibson and Daido Moriyama haven't been mentioned yet. That is sad...
Ralph Gibson and Daido Moriyama haven't been mentioned yet. That is sad...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Moreover, who is to decide in which direction photography should be steered? Who gets that authority and how?
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.
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.
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.
he also has the ability while being interviewed of speaking in perfectly formed intelligent paragraphs as if reading from a refined script. The bastard.I agree. Wonderful photographer. I need to get me one of his books.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?