Loss of fine art photography tradition

eddie · Mar 13, 2013

These days, iconic images are ubiquitous. Anyone interested in creating art should look at art. It's so easy to view famous works (or digital versions). If photography is your passion, you should seek out quality work- both historical and contemporary. I'd question the aspirations/commitment of those that don't.

winger · Mar 14, 2013

polyglot said:
If I look back about 10 years, I was definitely one of the people you're whingeing about. Thing is, no one is born with the knowledge you expect everyone to have, especially those of us with careers outside of photography.

This is me, too. I realize that I wasn't in the category of artists you were referring to in the original post, but I'd been doing photography to some extent (including classes) since high school. It's really been the last five years that I've learned the most about the history of photography. Not entirely coincidentally, I think my photography has improved a fair amount in the last five years, too. (I left the crime lab and my career behind when I moved to PA five years ago and have been a "housewife" and stay-at-home-mom during those five years).

I do think that "kids" (I include my generation) haven't been taught much about history. I look back at my high school years and see how little we were taught. My mom's been saying since I was in high school (cough, cough, the 80s) that kids aren't being taught how to think, just memorize. I didn't see that then, of course, but I see it now. My parents value education and imagination and I'd like to think my brother and I got a little more than just what the school system offered. But many don't have that attitude at home. They do what they see others of their social set doing and that's it.

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 14, 2013

My concern is this: since new photographers have no need of seeking knowledge concerning analog materials and techniques from older photographers, they are therefore no longer immersed in an atmosphere conducive to acquiring knowledge of other aspects of photography from those same people. They do not learn the history, aesthetics, the various schools or even familiarize themselves with any of the work of the past. It is as if, for these new photographers, all the greats and what they had to teach us have simply vanished from the Earth.

Why should we care? They with the digimons are only churning out pretentious stuff from a muddled mathematical algorithm.
Besides the point though, digital has no use at all for the materials and techniques that are the cornerstone of analogous photography, whether it is "fine art" or whatever else you want to call it. The 'old masters' are quite rightly forgotten heroes; true, anybody stopping to consider what those Fathers of Photography achieved and how, might finally be on the path to enlightenment.

Until that happens, I ignore them all.

ntenny · Mar 14, 2013

I'm not sure I understand what the term "fine art photography" means anyway, except as a marketing category.

-NT

Patrick Robert James · Mar 14, 2013

I remember you David. I have read and appreciated a lot of your writings over the years.

Speaking to your original question, I can relate a story told to me by a museum curator a few years ago. The museum decided to stop looking at all submitted work because in the course of a few years the submissions went from a few a month (pre digital) to many a day (post digital). I was also told that the quality was unbelievably bad to the point where people were submitting cat pictures, I kid you not. The curator just did a head shake and said in disgust, "what do you say to these people?" In a way this story does speak to your original hypothesis that people are not paying attention to the past.

Slixtiesix · Mar 14, 2013

As far as I know there was a similar discussion when 120 film hit the market and people started using cheap and easy to use box cameras around the turn of the century. Then there was a discussion like this when 35mm film became widely popular after the 2nd World War. Then again when colour mass processing became incredibly cheap 20 years ago. Now it is with digital. All of these consecutive steps marked a revolution that suddenly gave a largely increased number of people the ability to take a largely increased amount of pictures. And every time this happened the established elite of photographers argued that this would dilute the craft because each of these steps came along with a highly increased output of images yet with a reduction in knowledge and effort needed to produce them. Like in political history there has always been a conservative elite that aimed at the prevention or at least moderation of change.

If there is really a - maybe only perceived - decline in quality now, I do not blame digital for this. I really think it is the Internet that is responsible. I´m sure there has always been a huge amount of badly focussed, composed and exposed photos but until around the year 2000 they usually rested in some drawer and nobody ever got to see them. I assume if the Internet had not been invented it would still be the same today and these pictures would just rot on some hard drive instead. But since the web enables everyone to show them, we are suddenly confronted with them and get the impression that photography is in decline.

pdeeh · Mar 14, 2013

Nicely put.

markbarendt · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
Without tradition and history, the future is bleak.

I heartily disagree. Tradition, IMO, is generally about protecting vested interests/old capital/old power.

The only things at risk photographically are the "old" business models and who is in charge. There are in history many overthrows of the powers that be/were in art, 'tis the way of the world.

Don't get me wrong I truly believe that knowing history is important socially, not understanding the world around us and the follies that drive world and local events is recipe for disaster; but not knowing who Steglitz is has no bearing on my ability to make good photos/art or the collapse of society.

doughowk · Mar 14, 2013

In agreement with an earlier comment by "Maris", traditional photography and digital photography are two separate medias. There are some similarities but only at a superficial level ( a field of sunflowers is light sensitive but its not a film camera). The actual process is different with most of the traditional aspects (eg, focus, exposure) handled by software. Skill sets are far different. Digital can do so much more than what we as traditional photographers create. Therein lies the danger for digital - so much of their work are merely demos of hardware/software capabilities. For example, they can create with 3D Additive Printing carbon prints whose sense of depth can far surpass what carbon printers can do. But where is the craft and art?
Let the digital image makers go their own way. They don't need a history of photography. They need to better come to terms with their tools, and create their own history.

markbarendt · Mar 14, 2013

eddie said:
If photography is your passion, you should seek out quality work- both historical and contemporary. I'd question the aspirations/commitment of those that don't.

Forgive me if I'm reading to much into this but why should the media drive the art? Isn't that a bit backwards?

moose10101 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
NB: I picked APUG for this discussion because there appear to be no people on digital photography forums with the depth and experience needed to participate in such a discussion: i.e., They never heard of Stieglitz or Weston either.

Dear David,

How absurd. You're obviously not looking with much effort. I spent some time yesterday on my favorite digital web site reading a discussion of Adams' previsualization techniques, the Zone System vs. digital ETTR, and the differences between Adams'/Minor White's/Weston's approach to the art.

I get that most of the folks here don't like digital photography. Fine, don't like it. But do you really consider fellow photographers ignorant fools simply because they don't use the same equipment/process as you? I sure some of them are, but ALL of them?

moose10101 · Mar 14, 2013

doughowk said:
In agreement with an earlier comment by "Maris", traditional photography and digital photography are two separate medias. There are some similarities but only at a superficial level ( a field of sunflowers is light sensitive but its not a film camera). The actual process is different with most of the traditional aspects (eg, focus, exposure) handled by software. Skill sets are far different.

How are focus and exposure handled differently in digital photography? Am I imagining the existence of film cameras that have auto and manual exposure options, ISO selection, and exposure compensation?

Obviously there's a difference in the skill sets for processing the image, but for capturing it?

batwister · Mar 14, 2013

markbarendt said:
Forgive me if I'm reading to much into this but why should the media drive the art? Isn't that a bit backwards?

Media? :confused: I think he's saying the art should drive the art. How can you know what art is until you've seen art? This is why we force a smile at children's finger painting.

If he's saying it's more important to view original prints than in books or web portfolios, I disagree. Galleries are for leisure, not study. You have to sit down, with a cup of coffee, maybe put on some music and be alone to study art. Visiting galleries is a leisure activity. I don't buy the romantic idea of poor artists sleeping on benches in front of a Van Gogh, then going home charged with divine artistic insight.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

mark said:
Then, as a gallery owner and one who is concerned with the future of the medium have a responsibility to inform them of this when you turn them down.

And you seem to assume knowledge of the past dictates talent. Knowledge of the history of the craft as well as training in the craft does not in anyway dictate talent. If it did then I think I need to schedule my opening at your gallery. I can be there next week as I have a week off and we can hang my images. I have a pretty solid knowledge of Photography's past, at least in the area of photography I practice, and can discuss it at length.

Yes that is absurd. Yes I do believe a person can be as talented as the greats, or more talented, having never seen the works of the greats. Call it a diamond in the rough.

You seem to be concerned only with being argumentative.

First, I have ZERO responsibility whatsoever to a complete stranger who walks in to my gallery uninvited, seeking representation OR advice.
Having my address does not obligate me to you or anyone.

Second, your "knowledge of the past" statement is absurd. You follow it with a similar claim about craft. So what you are saying is that no knowledge at all is required, simply a magical gift of "talent". Nonsense.

dpurdy · Mar 14, 2013

Education is good. Studying art, including what was done in the past, will open your mind, change your perceptions and make you see and understand things otherwise you were blind to.
I will take the question one step farther and say that if you consider yourself a "fine art Photographer" you should study art.. not just photography.
While I was studying Kandinsky my non artist mother didn't get it and said his work just looked like a child's work. His work changed me as a human being and changed the way I see.
Looking at a show by Ruth Bernard changed my ideas about nudes and how I would like to work with them.
Looking at a show by Stieglitz changed my vision.
Holding an unframed Irving Penn Platinum print mounted on aluminum changed my direction.
Studying my coffee cup with a reproduction of pears painted by Cezanne set off a whole series of photographs.
Knowing why Weston lived the way he did changed the way I want to live.
Studying etchings affected my aesthetics in platinum printing. As well as studying drawing.

There is nothing in life that is better if it is ignorantly done.
Dennis

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Maris said:
...then I insist that digital picture-making is not photography at all. And it's about time that digipix accumulated their own tradition and history instead of cadging a free ride from photography.

Well, then I may not be the only old fart here shouting "get off my lawn". ;-)

HOW the photograph is achieved is completely irrelevant, as long as it retains the characteristics of a photograph that make photography unique as an art form. I care ONLY about the final image, not how it got there. Digitally I can make a far better print than I ever could in the darkroom and I was no slouch in the darkroom.

I am certain Daguerreotypists angrily complained that silver paper photographers weren't "real photographers" also. The materials and technology matter not at all. The final result is all that matters.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

jnanian said:
hi david

i see where you are coming from.

... there is no such thing
as an arcival digital ink print ...

john

You may not have looked recently. It is now possible to print pure carbon on pure cotton. It doesn't get much more archival than that. And some of the current color pigment inks aren't all that bad either. Comparing apples to apples, color pigment inks are vastly superior to C prints in terms of longevity, especially taking into consideration that ALL C prints were made on resin coated papers.

Nothing lasts forever, but that does not make it OK to print supposedly fine art images on trash materials which is where your logical train ends.

Bob Carnie · Mar 14, 2013

A lot of Carbon Printers would disagree with you and this statement shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. The amount of pure carbon pigment allowed though the nossel heads is nothing compared to a pigment load applied by hand by true carbon printers.

Carbon inkjet prints and their longevity is a sham put forth by the inkjet manufacturers.

davidkachel said:
You may not have looked recently. It is now possible to print pure carbon on pure cotton. It doesn't get much more archival than that. And some of the current color pigment inks aren't all that bad either. Comparing apples to apples, color pigment inks are vastly superior to C prints in terms of longevity, especially taking into consideration that ALL C prints were made on resin coated papers.

Nothing lasts forever, but that does not make it OK to print supposedly fine art images on trash materials which is where your logical train ends.

sbattert · Mar 14, 2013

This is somewhat synonymous to the computer science field. A young guy can whip up an app using the newest technology and not have any idea that John von Neumann invented the stored program and all the people involved in evolving the technology to the point where it is today. But we have to look at the end result rather than the mean. Can someone write two lines of code and have a working application? Yes. Do they need to know how to do the same thing using punch cards? Not really. Would it make them better at their job if they did? It's very likely. There are benefits to knowing the low level aspects. If you can do something in hardware, it will most definitely be faster than doing it in software. This equates to using film in a digital world. Breadboards and transistors vs. reusable software.

Fine art photography seems to be finished at the commercial level. What does the young guy need to know other than point, click, edit, send to be printed? The archival process is in the hands of the marketing department at the lab.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Athiril said:
That's a very narrow way of thinking.

Sorry, but artists and art historians (and/or curators) are two completely different breed of people. Art historians/curators have no place telling artists what they should or should not be doing. It is the other way around. Artists dictate the terms of their own work, that is why they are artists, ie: creators.

No knowledge of history or previous works is necessary for someone to create their own art, sorry, this just sounds like a big lot of elitist hot air to me.

No one said anything about art historians telling artists what they should create. Where did you get that from??

But the idea that new artists should not learn from the past is just ridiculous. That's like handing a violin to a would-be musician and telling him there is no need to study the history or technology of music, 'just start scratching until you have something'.

Of course the first in any field have to learn in a vacuum. So what! Does that mean everyone should learn in a vacuum? Early efforts should be respected and valued, if for no other reason than their handy mistake avoidance value.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

ntenny said:
I'm not sure I understand what the term "fine art photography" means anyway, except as a marketing category.

-NT

It used to have a clear meaning. However, in recent years every wedding, portrait and bar mitzvah photographer has learned that it can be used to demand higher prices, so it has become quite meaningless; even offensive. Doing a google search on the term "fine art photography" returns such a meaningless miss-mash of results as to be useless.

I have recently started saying "artist-photographer". Often I just drop "photographer" all together, not that I am not proud of being a photographer, but saying just "artist" has a kind of defiant, in-your-face quality about it that I like.

"Fine art photographer" also has an inherent defensive quality to it. It never would have arisen if photographers hadn't felt the need to justify themselves as artists.

I am content to allow the term to dilute itself right into oblivion.

alarickc · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
Nothing lasts forever, but that does not make it OK to print supposedly fine art images on trash materials which is where your logical train ends.

Maybe maybe not. As an eighteen year old just starting to take photography seriously and just learning how to print I am making it a point to learn how to make my prints archival. As it stands now I print on RC paper; one it's cheaper and two Ilford cooltone is only in RC. (And yes I realize that FB is more archival, though the more recent generations of RC look like they may hold up nearly as well.) But I would never criticize someone for using less permanent materials, even for "fine art". As I recall da Vinci's Last Supper was painted on increadably unarchival plaster exposed to the elements. Yet I think we can all agree that, to put it bluntly, doesn't suck. I think it's closed minded to judge the validity of art based on weather it will be long lasting or not. If that was the case the only truly valid art would be carved from solid granite or shaped from flawless diamond.

davidkachel · Mar 14, 2013

Patrick Robert James said:
I remember you David. I have read and appreciated a lot of your writings over the years.

Speaking to your original question, I can relate a story told to me by a museum curator a few years ago. The museum decided to stop looking at all submitted work because in the course of a few years the submissions went from a few a month (pre digital) to many a day (post digital). I was also told that the quality was unbelievably bad to the point where people were submitting cat pictures, I kid you not. The curator just did a head shake and said in disgust, "what do you say to these people?" In a way this story does speak to your original hypothesis that people are not paying attention to the past.

This reminds me of one supplicant who came from the local University at the suggestion of her "art teacher". Not only was her work horribly executed, but the subject matter was the typical kittens, flowers, sunsets stuff that all amateurs take. Her "professor" didn't seem to know anything more about photography than she did, or she wouldn't have sent her. (Or maybe she just wanted to palm a problem off on me!)

I feel for the museum curator, but I am not so concerned about the "easy" aspect of digital photography. The same was actually true of film. Though digital is certainly more superficially easy than was film, the same phenomenon occurred nonetheless: buy a camera today, be a photographer tomorrow.

My concern is with those few from the multitudes who make a conscious decision, "I want to be a fine art photographer", but then don't bother to learn anything from those who have the knowledge they ought to desire.

Case in point: I have yet to find any web site like this one, for digital fine art photography. Someone desiring to acquire a skill set and historical knowledge of analog photography could readily do so here. Not so, at least that I have seen thus far, for digital wannabes.

batwister · Mar 14, 2013

'Fine art photography' does still, strangely, have some meaning on APUG it seems. Probably because of the zone system bias. 'F/64 vs pictorialism' is actually still a relevant and timely debate here!

But anyway, let me tell you all a story. Back in nineteen-diggidy-two...

removed account4 · Mar 14, 2013

davidkachel said:
You may not have looked recently. It is now possible to print pure carbon on pure cotton. It doesn't get much more archival than that. And some of the current color pigment inks aren't all that bad either. Comparing apples to apples, color pigment inks are vastly superior to C prints in terms of longevity, especially taking into consideration that ALL C prints were made on resin coated papers.

Nothing lasts forever, but that does not make it OK to print supposedly fine art images on trash materials which is where your logical train ends.

hi david

perhaps this is true, but i don't really know if it is actually true or not.
none of this "stuff" with new technology has been around very long
and there is a huge difference between actual longevity and longevity
that is projected through some scientific experiment. there have been pigment prints
for a long time on cotton rag and they have not lasted very long ...
i still remember hearing "it is pigment, like paint is pigment" to me at least, its just marketing hype.
if you talk to the folks at KODAK they might tell you that RC prints can be processed to last just as long
as fiber prints. they have told me that on more than one occasion.

the problem with not knowing the "history" is a difficult one
because there are many histories, and many important people in science and technology
and image making. some of the most important photographers people in the arts,
photographers, painters &c, are not the ones that have made the history books
(because they had connections, or they have someone with influence paying attention to what
they are doing, or what they did ) but the ones that have not been so lucky.

personally, i think john garo and arshile gorky 2 of the most important artists of the 20th century,
but for the most part they are left by the side of the road, even though they were at the forefront
of photography and painting, but i don't hold it against anyone if they have no idea who garo + gorky were ...
in the end people seek out the things that interest them.

Loss of fine art photography tradition

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency