Loss of fine art photography tradition

[moose10101]

My point is simply that tradition is important. Obviously that looks different in different fields. The law of thermodynamics works. We don't start new everytime. Ideas in art work or don't work. Successful artists know about them and build on them.

Tradition is a double-edged sword. It can stunt progress as easily as it can aid it.

 

[horacekenneth]

Tradition is a double-edged sword. It can stunt progress as easily as it can aid it.

I don't think it is quite double edged. Obviously it can be wielded about by people who don't like progress, but besides them I think it's only stunting if you have bad tradition.

 

[batwister]

I've just been looking with some attention at O'Sullivan (I bought _Framing The West_, prompted by a recent thread on him), and I feel like the narrative of his photos is fundamentally different from Adams's. O'Sullivan's landscapes are rougher, more dangerous, and more inhabited---the whole storyline of Adams's grand-landscape work is about the *pristine* landscape, which I submit was not a primary concern for a guy who kept putting his developing tent in the photo!

...

I still get very different artistic voices from them, and I tend to think Adams deserves credit for the cultural birth of that pristine-grand-landscape gestalt in photography, even if he *did* reuse O'Sullivan's tripod holes to do it. (Indeed I think it speaks quite well of both of them that they could tell two different stories about the same raw material.)

-NT

Ansel and O'Sulivan are very definitely the forebears of two different lineages in photography. Many would argue that Ansel and his subsequent pupils have ultimately created a very precious and accessible strand of photography, which strangely, appeals to those not as well versed in the visual arts (or interested in it). This is strange because Ansel's best known work was more firmly rooted in the pictorial tradition, whereas O'Sullvans was straight, mechanical and arguably, more purely photographic.

O'Sullivan's strand of landscape representation has led to the more dispassionate, politically motivated and art savvy colour work of the natural scene today - which takes a great deal from painterly convention, as well as photographic history. The Ansel lineage, made up of people like Sexton, Barnbaum, Rowell, Muench, is a very insular photographic world, which still insists, "thou shalt not not take from other visual arts". The reason those guys won't be listed in the history books along with their American contemporaries like Misrach, Burtynsky and Klett is because their work fervently and stubbornly denies art tradition, for a kind of 'photography meets Thoreau' utopia. In my mind, it's like the 'fantasy' genre of photography.

I say this by the way as someone who loves Ansel and others of that lineage, in small doses. But I believe the kind of 'tradition' the OP alludes to is a 'vacuum tradition' or put more directly, photographic naive art - a world unto itself. When photography is already a niche, too much of this work makes me feel claustrophobic. Which is why I gave up on making romantic landscape pictures.

The Ansel lineage is sneaky in a way, for standing on the shoulders of giants (painters) - in terms of its subjective representation - without acknowledgement or reference.

 

[StoneNYC]

i think you are right ... ansel adam's work was made to be "art" or "fine art" or "a sierra club calender" and
o'sullivan made the photographs for the federal government to record the property they had just "bought" ... surveys so they could make maps.
definitely different "genres" but sort of the same. ...



who knows what would have happened if their places in history were swapped. if ansel adams was the government contractor and osullivan was the "artist" ...
i think adam's work might have looked like osullivan's ( except for the tent )
and osullivan would have had 20 shades of grey because his materials would have allowed it.

we are lucky to live in a time where we can easily see work of a bizillion different photographers or painters or ... just a keystroke away
it wasn't too long ago that traveling shows that presented magic lantern slides + stereoscopic views &c were common ...

John I gotta call you on this one...

Ansel WAS contracted by the government to make photos that's how he got funded to go to these places, he just made an agreement that on his off days / time he could shoot and keep negatives for himself.

I venture to guess that he simply kept the good stuff and sent the government all the less artistic stuff.


~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

 

[StoneNYC]

PS, is it bad that YOU GUYS are my modern masters? or maybe I should say my "old matters" hehe...


~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

 

[markbarendt]

Unfortunately for those people who don't care about the past, tradition is the very groundwork and foundation for progress & invention.

Actually what I don't care about is myth, spin, and maintaining old patterns.

Tradition is IMO the antithesis to progress & innovation, it is built on myth, faith, marketing, and nostalgia. Tradition is social and political, it is all about staying inside the lines, about maintaining the way things are.

History, not tradition, is important in education and it is a subject near and dear to my heart.

 

[removed account4]

John I gotta call you on this one...

Ansel WAS contracted by the government to make photos that's how he got funded to go to these places, he just made an agreement that on his off days / time he could shoot and keep negatives for himself.

I venture to guess that he simply kept the good stuff and sent the government all the less artistic stuff.


~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

huh

i never knew he was contracted by the government to document the park system, thanks !
there you go, he WAS the incarnation, the modern version of osullivan then.
he just was able to exploit the art of photography more then the documentary nature of photography.
i wouldn't be surprised if he gave the government agency the same exact stuff that he gave the sierra club ...

 

[markbarendt]

A great friend of mine gave his teenage daughter a camera, ...

I have seen versions of this story over and over and over.

The important part of art, IMO, is the inspiration and attempt at expression.

 

[bdial]

Since the thread has evolved a little, and meaning no slight on the past masters mentioned; Who are the comtemporary masters?

 

[StoneNYC]

Annie Levowitz, Gregory Crewdson, Steve McCurry - for people

YOU GUYS for landscapes


~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

 

[Soeren]

Wow....that is like saying history classes should be dropped from all school curriculum, entirely ignorant sir.

Might as well. The ones governing our countries don't seem to care anyway so why should we?
I dont think history in all and the history of photography relate or has much in common in relation to this subject. The way things evolve in this era with all this new technology etc I see little reason to demand that young photogs know about the master of the last century. It might be helpfull enlightening and even interesting for them to know but as it is their heroes might as well be those of today teaching them, inspiring them and talking their language

Except Ansel, I had no idea who any of those old masters were when I was in my teens and early 20's. But as I grew up, got more work and got better, I sought out the info for my self. David Hobby and McNally are not in any way shape or form at the level of mastery of who are truly considered masters by the way, they are mostly marketing sell-outs and will never have the historical impact of the aforementioned. They also won't have a nice print sale like Nick Brandt's 60x80 African elephant at 215K. There is a big difference between a fine art photographer and two guys who now make most of their incomes off of teaching gear laden workshops my friend....

Maybe not but inspiration to make great art doesn't have to come from former great photography artist it may come from all directions even the trashcan so why not from modern fashion or glamour, other not so good photographers giving you a good idea or even cartoons. I find digital photography an interely different animal so why force people into the mindset of the former centurys analoque art let them make their own minds up and maybe even repeat the mistakes searching for a "woice" of their own.

Hey someone called me ignorant whaiii at last

Best regards

 

[Soeren]

I'm not sure how much this post was tongue-in-cheek, but to the extent that it's serious, I think you're conflating technique (which of course is often highly specific to materials and workflow) with artistic concerns (which mostly aren't). The OP and most of this thread were, I think, talking mainly about the latter.

Only just a tiny bit tongue in the cheek.
I know there is a difference between technique and artistic content but as I see it the ones starting up in photography are also artistic inspired by the ones teaching the techniques so I think the one follows the other so to say

That said, I think if I were going to send an aspiring photographer forth to learn about the artistic uses of lighting, the first name I pulled out wouldn't be a photographer, it'd be Goya. Apart from techniques, I'm not sure there's any special reason why photographers should be privileged over painters in the *artistic* education of an aspiring photographer; composition is composition whether it's rendered in silver or oil or pixels, right? But you never hear photographic educators complaining that their students have never seen a Renoir.

-NT

Yeps art before photography

Best regards

 

[jovo]

Since the thread has evolved a little, and meaning no slight on the past masters mentioned; Who are the comtemporary masters?

I think the new topographics photographers continue to be influential. I had the good fortune to take a workshop with Mark Klett. He was delighted when he saw what he thought was a paper cup on the ground in what was otherwise a pristine landscape. I told him it wasn't, rather it was a large leaf that looked like a white cup in the monochrome print. He was disappointed, but amused. The point is that that was my first exposure to the contemporary demand for irony which seems to have permeated contemporary photography to an inordinate degree.

In color work, bland overhead lighting, deadpan human subjects, utterly banal landscapes and seemingly random compositions are our contemporary influences...deliberately antithetical to the positive regard for all those imperatives that are the legacy of the 20th century modernists.

Another significant contemporary influence is the minimalism of Michael Kenna and so many of us who pay him homage with our minimalist, sepia toned images. Sticks in the water, the lone tree in the field, long exposure water with a single coi, etc. continue to be very popular.

A very well known symphony conductor and teacher of conductors calls tradition, "the memory of the last bad performance." In other words, he insists that things not continue to be done just because they already have been done and accepted, and we are used to them. But, it takes singular vision, and a huge amount of courage to make photographs that haven't been made (and approved!!) before. Maybe, for the sake of such originality, too much exposure to photographic history is not a good thing!

 

[StoneNYC]

Might as well. The ones governing our countries don't seem to care anyway so why should we?
I dont think history in all and the history of photography relate or has much in common in relation to this subject. The way things evolve in this era with all this new technology etc I see little reason to demand that young photogs know about the master of....

....Hey someone called me ignorant whaiii at last

Best regards

I will only agree with you in the sense that if the current generation learned from the former generation who learned from the "great masters" then inherently there is knowledge and technique in the students of the great masters work, therefore through lineage I may gleam some knowledge of the past, but only if I studied the older established contemporary masters of today and only if they learned from the great masters.... It's a generational learning ...

But in art there is repetition, short heals, tall heals back and forth, popularity is ever changing, Peter Lik may be popular now but unpopular in 50 years when some new photog produces only dull imagery rather than bright colors, dull being the fad like in the 1950's drab colors which were then popular.

But learning about as many photographers new and old, will give you a MUCH more rounded perspective, enable you to pull from the best of techniques and styles that fit with your own style, if you have no exposure to that you'll never have a concept of it.

So history is important both in art and in the world. Repeating history in the art world is a little more acceptable (like when someone told me my model work reminded them if Helmut Newton and I had to look up to see who that was because I was ignorant, only to discover I was flattered by the compliment) but without knowing I had repeated a style, (but only vaguely in my opinion) however seeing the work gave me new ideas...

Anyway I thing I've said enough.



~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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have seen versions of this story over and over and over.

The important part of art, IMO, is the inspiration and attempt at expression.

Well, you hear what you want to hear.

 

[Cold]

Hey all,

I just wanted to chime in to say thanks for discussing this at length, and that I hope the discussion continues (especially now that it seems to have lost it's somewhat...competitive tone).

While I certainly bring my own past, my own opinions, and my own tastes...through which I'm viewing the thread, I'm learning a lot from my spot over here against the wall.

As someone with little, or more accurately nearly no art background (if anything, a somewhat non-art or even anti-art background), I don't really feel it's my place to opine on the subject, regardless of what those opinions may be...but I did want to make sure to thank everyone who's presented each/every side they have. I look forward to continuing on with reading the posts here for some time.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[removed account4]

hi mark

people with no art background or anti art background like you ...
have probably even more of a valid opinion than those who are steeped in whatever tradition they have.

while i have a background in both art+architecture, as well as photography, for the most part,
i don't know most of the current big influences people typically mention ... i would rather be
out of the loop than in the loop ... besides, i find a lot of contemporary photography to be kind of boring

so, chime in, give your opinion, it is just as relevant as anyone elses ( just like the photographs you make ) ...

john

 

[markbarendt]

Well, you hear what you want to hear.

And I like those stories.

Art too often gets hung up in over thinking things or in making money.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

So history is important both in art and in the world. Repeating history in the art world is a little more acceptable (like when someone told me my model work reminded them if Helmut Newton and I had to look up to see who that was because I was ignorant, only to discover I was flattered by the compliment) but without knowing I had repeated a style, (but only vaguely in my opinion) however seeing the work gave me new ideas...

There's a visual vocabulary that we develop, much the way we learn our native language, organically and unconsciously. You don't develop your verbal vocabulary in a vacuum - you get it from the people around you when you're growing up, even though you're completely unaware of it. Then you reach a curiosity point and if you push yourself past it, you start trying to find new words to expand your vocabulary. The same thing happens with images. You're surrounded by them 24/7/365, and when you see something that resonates with you, that 'punctum' moment that Barthes postulated is in every image, it sticks in your psyche and becomes a part of your visual vocabulary.

Stone- I suspect that you saw, earlier on in your life somewhere Helmut Newton images that resonated with you. You may have been completely unaware of them as Helmut Newtons - I think most people have seen some of his work at some point without knowing it, as he was a highly successful fashion/advertising photographer in addition to his nude work. He did a lot of work for Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and Playboy, so if you saw any of those magazines, particularly back issues from the 50s to the 80s, you saw his work. Something about it resonated with you and you used it, unconsciously, as a jumping-off point when trying to formulate your own visual vocabulary.

 

[Soeren]

A little while ago I found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zwk3YFknyNA

through here

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/page/2/

Quite interesting I think

Best regards

 

[StoneNYC]

There's a visual vocabulary that we develop, much the way we learn our native language, organically and unconsciously. You don't develop your verbal vocabulary in a vacuum - you get it from the people around you when you're growing up, even though you're completely unaware of it. Then you reach a curiosity point and if you push yourself past it, you start trying to find new words to expand your vocabulary. The same thing happens with images. You're surrounded by them 24/7/365, and when you see something that resonates with you, that 'punctum' moment that Barthes postulated is in every image, it sticks in your psyche and becomes a part of your visual vocabulary.

Stone- I suspect that you saw, earlier on in your life somewhere Helmut Newton images that resonated with you. You may have been completely unaware of them as Helmut Newtons - I think most people have seen some of his work at some point without knowing it, as he was a highly successful fashion/advertising photographer in addition to his nude work. He did a lot of work for Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and Playboy, so if you saw any of those magazines, particularly back issues from the 50s to the 80s, you saw his work. Something about it resonated with you and you used it, unconsciously, as a jumping-off point when trying to formulate your own visual vocabulary.

Perhaps...

I know I've seen duffy's work


~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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's one of those things where you pick up these visual language elements without even realizing that you're doing it, just through sub-conscious exposure to them. Did you realize when you were five years old that you had a thousand-word vocabulary? I seriously doubt it. And when you were ten, did you realize you knew 3000 words? No- you just knew the words, without being aware that you knew those words, how many you knew, or why you knew the ones you did. Looking back from adulthood, you can spot moments where your vocabulary took a turn in a direction because you were exposed to an idea or experience (reading Shakespeare, studying chemistry, taking Spanish or French, learning photography) that developed an interest for you in some subject area. The same thing happens with visual imagery.

 

[cliveh]

A little while ago I found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zwk3YFknyNA

through here

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/page/2/

Quite interesting I think

Best regards

Soeren, thanks for that link, which is a very educational.

 

[redrockcoulee]

My point is simply that tradition is important. Obviously that looks different in different fields. The law of thermodynamics works. We don't start new everytime. Ideas in art work or don't work. Successful artists know about them and build on them.

Yes but one can learn from looking at the works of more current artists/photographers than the earliest ones, or the ones us old guys learnt from. If you are studying a science you learn the science and not as much the history of that discipline. You learn where it is at currently much more than where it was 80 or 100 years ago. I can tell you very little of the early geographers compared to the ones working from after WWII for example. I found the members of my photography club not aware of even Henry Fox Talbot however they do spend a lot of time looking at photographs and other art that is much more contemporary so saying that because they do not know the pionners or the giants they are working in a vacuum is incorrect. They might be influenced by someone who was influenced by someone who studied the masters but they are not working in total ignorance. I started a monthly "Know the Masters" segment in the club. History is important and interesting however it is not vital to being a photographer. That is the point I think, does everyone have to know the entire history of photography to be a good photographer? I think not.

The comments made by many are 'they cannot be great if they do not know Adams et al' however how many of us who do know them are great? I have to admit that I was not taught photo history when I was taught photography and my friend who is on APUG is always informing me of photographers I should have know about but that does not make his images greater than mine, if they are (and Ted I said IF) it is more due to him working his craft and vision more than I do. The young and the new comers are learning from the new or more contempary artists and fifty years from now those contempory artists are going to be the masters and the young will be learning from the contemporary leaders.

 

[batwister]

It's one of those things where you pick up these visual language elements without even realizing that you're doing it, just through sub-conscious exposure to them.

I've noticed that my subconscious is mischievous, and sometimes one step ahead of my tastes. Say there's some photographers work I'm in two minds about - it has a way of filtering through into my image making before I've decided I even like it!