The point is that traditions are not so much a limiting factor as trying to be different for the sake of being different (or following tradition for the sake of following tradition).
Their just Wannabes
Some of the greatest breakers of tradition in art were highly schooled in the traditions of art before they decided to break them - look at early Picasso paintings for example. Or early Renoirs, or early ....
You've got to know the rules and conventions before you can break them successfully - otherwise you're just floundering around.
Innovation rarely - if ever - comes by breaking rules.
Picasso's cubism wasn't invented to break rules, it was created to expand in the ideas of perspective to take the viewer furtherin to the subject through exploring several angles and points of view simultaneously.
Duchamp's readymades and Malevich's black square were not made to break the rules of what art is, but rather to explore what art can be and if and where the limits are.
Now, of course neither of those works of art and the advancement of the arts they contributed would have been possible without a certain understanding of the (then) contemporary art, but wether they studied early art history or not (I don't know), doesn't seem very relevant. They did know and fully understand the contemporary, and that seems way more relevant for their inventions.
Now, when it comes to photography, one problem, I think, is that since the history is so short, traditions are in a way held more important.
There is a lot of new and exciting photography being made today from artists who rather look to other art forms than early masters of photography, but as we photographers and lovers of great photography tend to be quite conservative, a lot of us tend to dismiss things that we can not trace back directly to the great old masters.
In this regard, I think the analog/digital shift can be quite healthy for photography. As the young digital artists of today have the opportunity to easier look to other art forms for inspiration than early photography, with all the crap that is produced, some good and innovative ideas will emerge.
I think that is well needed in the world of photography.
What the artist needs to do is stay on the bus and see where it goes. The bus will diverge from the other routes, and go somewhere unique. The photographer needs to figure out what they want to photograph, and stick with it.
While Adams is known for dramatic 0.8 ratio pictures of nature, that's not the only thing he photographed, or the only type of camera he used. I saw a YouTube video where he packed a lot of cameras into his truck, and among them was a panoramic camera. I have never seen any prints from that! So how does Adams break from his own tradition?
That's another thing that drives me nuts, is that everybody has to find something to be "known for." You have to have a rut. You may not move out of that rut. And what is a rut? A very long grave.
Picasso's cubism wasn't invented to break rules, it was created to expand in the ideas of perspective to take the viewer furtherin to the subject through exploring several angles and points of view simultaneously.
By they way, I don´t know about the anglo-saxon world, but we in Germany distinguish between "photography" and "photographic art", with all these works created with the help of heavy photoshop or other software treatment falling into the latter category. Is there such a differentiation in the US?
picasso didn't invent cubism at all.
others were similar things before ... he made it famous
Business thrives on repeating things over and over, most galleries I have ever seen find a type of subject that works and stick with it, because that is what their clients come to expect. Artists do the same thing, they dig their own ruts. Makes life easy and keeps food on the table.
Actually, he did invent cubism. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon was the precursor, and from there he explored it further. If I remember correctly, it was Gertrud Stein who came up with the name in 1909. While Braque also was a pioneeer in the field and probably influenced the development quite a bit, Picasso was, I am quite certain, the first.
... but the greats, where would I even see them?
I would guess its a lot about lack of exposure (no pun intended)
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think they should be called ruts but styles.
There, Their, They're! Take your pick I suppose? The trouble with the world today is there are too few pedants.
There, Their, They're! Take your pick I suppose? The trouble with the world today is there are too few pedants.
Hey folks.
Is there a place in Chicago to view real prints made in a darkroom?
Art Institute, lower level.
I don't think you can say Adams and Maier were devoid of education/exposure to formal notions about art, Adams moreso than Maier. Maier had talent, and her work deserves recognition. But she didn't produce a game-changing body of work - she was photographing within a well-established genre, and frankly, never sought the publicity she is now receiving. Adams, however, did produce a genre-defining style of work, and if you read his bio on the Wikipedia page, he was in constant contact with other artists who were both his contemporaries and his seniors, through whom he would no doubt have gotten exposure to art history. I think you can certainly say they (Adams and Maier) did not have formal academic instruction in art history, but to claim that they were unaware of it would be erroneous. Grandma Moses was an outlier, a one-off, and her commercial success is not a good argument - she produced work at really the end of a very long movement of American folk art, very much steeped in a tradition. So if anything, you could say she was the MOST indebted to art history of the three examples, although it would be a very specific, narrow art history.
If you want to find examples of artists who broke the mold without having first seen what the mold could provide, these three are not good examples.
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?