next photograph

jdef said:

Mike Smith has repeatedly stated that he does not photograph "things", while Edward Weston often did. In what ways do you see their respective approaches as similar, and how do they relate to the phenomenological approach that you reference?

Click to expand...

Jay, the difference between Smith and Weston may be mostly in semantics. Weston was the single large influence that inspired Mike Smith to be a photographer. Mike is now one the most knowledgeable persons about Weston, evidenced by the book he recently published on Weston's life. From the trifle I've seen of Weston's work it appears he was most interested in form also, but he may have termed it as "things".

When I met Michael and Paula last spring, they had some sample prints of Japanese Bonsai trees they had been working on for an arbitrarium (I think that's the right word) in Philadelphia. I remember Michael remarking that it was the first time he had worked with such a subject. But, the emphasis on the form presented by the Bonsai trees was quite evident.

Jeremy Moore said:

You then look at the placard next to the photo which tells you the photo is a symbol of the delusioned Western consumer who buys products made at sweat shops in Taiwan.

Click to expand...

That's another example of that art school stuff I was talking about.

c6h6o3 said:

Michael has written (see Letter to a Young Photographer in the Writings section of his website) that what makes a piece art (and the only thing that makes it art) is the form. Content without form is not art to him. He and Paula hammer this pretty hard in their workshops.

Click to expand...

I may have short-changed Ortega in my summary. In my understanding, he would have agreed with Michael, but he would also argue that form without content is arrogant (and sometimes narcissistic) posturing--I would even go so far as to say that form without content and content without form usually lead to images that look remarkably similar in their lack of je ne sais quoi. Additionally, I find that many art students (people I know personally at university) practice both, form without content and vice versa, as an artistic masturbation.

Alex Hawley said:

arbitrarium (I think that's the right word) in Philadelphia.

Click to expand...

The word you're groping for is arboretum, although I really like your word. It would have a definition like: "A place where people go to make decisions based on the personal prejudices of others, or in certain cases, a roll of the dice. A place where the arbitrary holds sway."

The pictures Michael and Paula did were made at Longwood Gardens, near Philadelphia.

Jeremy Moore said:

I believe Michael Smith once said that photography was about seeing photographically, which is what I am talking about. Photography in its purest form should be a reason unto itself--thinking of Winogrand who said he photographed things to see what they looked like when photographed (paraphrasing here).

Click to expand...

I can't think of a photographer (such as he was) more antithetical to Michael's approach than Gary Winogrand. I don't think he saw photographically at all.

He died young in life, and yet left more than a million negatives behind. That's nearly 4 (3.8 something, actually) 36 exposure rolls of film a day for 20 years (including weekends). How well considered can they be? He was more the beneficiary of the lucky accident than the careful composer. Note the contrast between him and Cartier-Bresson, who saw only photographically.

c6h6o3 said:

The word you're groping for is arboretum, although I really like your word. It would have a definition like: "A place where people go to make decisions based on the personal prejudices of others, or in certain cases, a roll of the dice. A place where the arbitrary holds sway."

The pictures Michael and Paula did were made at Longwood Gardens, near Philadelphia.

Click to expand...

That's the word I was groping for Jim. Thanks for the correction.

c6h6o3 said:

I can't think of a photographer (such as he was) more antithetical to Michael's approach than Gary Winogrand. I don't think he saw photographically at all.

He died young in life, and yet left more than a million negatives behind. That's nearly 4 (3.8 something, actually) 36 exposure rolls of film a day for 20 years (including weekends). How well considered can they be? He was more the beneficiary of the lucky accident than the careful composer. Note the contrast between him and Cartier-Bresson, who saw only photographically.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how he saw or his skills, I felt the quote fit the situation quite well.

bb

Thomassauerwein said:

As far as glory or acceptance I don't know how to answer that. Of course I enjoy recognition maybe even crave it but, with photography I've found the one passion (except my wife) that sucks me in heart and soul. So in my mind I've landed and everything else that comes along is gravy.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was well said Thomas

SOmetimes I think people put too much thought into things. Since when does a photograph or photographer have to push the limits or redefine anything. My first degree is in writing and I learned, rather slowly, that it is way too easy to over think something. over thinking makes what you do irrelevent and passionless. Jdef, maybe you are over thinking things.

My next photograph will not perpetuate, nor change, nor will it effect the world of photography. But, it will effect me. Art is a very personal thing. I feel successful when I make a neg and then a print I like. If I do not like the neg, or the print I vow to make it better because I have an inner need to make it better. I am not going to chase the windmills of greatness for the sake of making a profound statement. I teach and I have a child, that is where I will change the world as we know it. My photography is mine. If people like it then that is a bonus.

A certain part of this thread seems to be based on the notion of the monolithic "Photography" which is no more true that the notion of "Music" or "Writing." What single artist since the 1800's could be said to have had influence over all of this? Photographers (even those who declare themselves artists) are as broadly scattered as are musicians or writers -- joined together only by the commonality of stringed instruments or word processors. What Greg Gorman does has near-zero influence on Jim Natchwey or Nikki Lee. Few would confuse Eminem with Sibelius or Django Reinhart, nor John Milton with Fran Leibowitz.

(On context: no photo exists without context, it is not merely an art-school trapping. A portrait in PEOPLE or NEWSWEEK has a particular genre context that's been pre-stated, as do photos here on APUG or on the wall of a department store or MOMA. The context folds around the subject and the form -- are we looking at the clarity of line in this portrait of Meg Tilly, or how great her 100% cotton GAP top looks?)

I tried to read the whole thread, but my attention span is even shorter than usual today.

I'll just say that I've no interest in consciously trying to shape direction in photography. My goal is simply and only to create images that speak. I don't ever want to feel the pressure of having to work in a certain way, needing to be somehow influential, pulling the medium anywhere. I guess I just feel that by setting out to be influential, I would create garbage that would mean nothing to anyone.

I just like to tell stories about people, that's all.

- CJ

I think it's useful to remember that none of the great trail blazers - be it in photography in particular, art in general, or the world at large - ever undertook to be a trail blazer. They just followed their passion. Usually when you see someone just going through the motions, they are either not yet connected to their passion or have lost their connection to it. How to connect to the passion is one of the great mysteries, and it confounds all attempts to be arrived at by logic, which would seem to imply that it is in the emotional or spiritual realm. But when you have the grace to observe someone who is fully connected to their passion you don't see someone who is terribly concerned with meaning or mission statements or how others will perceive the work. You just see someone in bliss, irrespective of how hard the tasks might be and how vocally they might be complaining at the moment of creation.

We don't look for meaning in art, we look to art to discover our own meaning.

Joe

noblebeast said:

I think it's useful to remember that none of the great trail blazers - be it in photography in particular, art in general, or the world at large - ever undertook to be a trail blazer. They just followed their passion. Usually when you see someone just going through the motions, they are either not yet connected to their passion or have lost their connection to it. How to connect to the passion is one of the great mysteries, and it confounds all attempts to be arrived at by logic, which would seem to imply that it is in the emotional or spiritual realm. But when you have the grace to observe someone who is fully connected to their passion you don't see someone who is terribly concerned with meaning or mission statements or how others will perceive the work. You just see someone in bliss, irrespective of how hard the tasks might be and how vocally they might be complaining at the moment of creation.

We don't look for meaning in art, we look to art to discover our own meaning.

Joe

Click to expand...

I think Joe makes an excellent point. None who are regarded as being trailblazers set out with that goal in mind. This is highly contrary to those who espouse the quest for something new, or something that hasn't been seen before. I'm not sure how something can be found that hasn't been seen before, save for some rare life species or some highly remote area of the world. I can remember only one series of photographs portraying something that truly had not been seen before. That was the views of the Earth from the Moon. Those photographs, to me, qaulify as something not seen before. Furthermore, the photographers (astronauts) who took them were not primarily photographers in their vocation.

Jay, you wrote that "I've begun to identify that work that seems to offer something important and interesting,".

How do you define interesting in this context?

Now Jay, you solicited opinions and that's what you are getting. You seem to imply that there are some absolute truths laying out there. Your questions have a premise that others are indeed seeking these absolutes. The responses indicate that most of us are not seeking the absolute, nor interested in it.

You started off on the wrong foot by labeling traditional photography as reactionary conservatism. Now is that a label or is that a label? As this is the Analogue Photography Users Forum, its participants follow "tradition" as you state, and are therefore, all reactionary conservatives.

Then you say that most of what you see really bores you but you are beginning to connect with photographers that are doing something interesting and important. You go on to say you know who those photographers are. But you haven't said what you consider to be interesting or important.

Please excuse my purported reactionary conservatism, but your last post distinctly says you are not hearing what you want to hear and those who have responded are somehow deficient in their contemplation of the medium. Allow me to quote:

"Most posters have expressed not mere disinterest in the subject of the evolution of the medium, but a resistance to it, and have projected their own distaste onto me in some very peculiar language."

Your serve.

jdef said:

How do you see the future of our medium?

Click to expand...

Is "medium" the method of creation, or the method of distribution?

Pre-1900 paintings needed to be shown directly, there was little color printing. Photography and photoprinting changed that. The web changes more. To a communications network, all images are largely equivalent. There is little built-in scarcity to photography (unless you own an original negative, I suppose). The public knows this darned well and will not be fooled by artistes who would mistake wishes for horses.

Products of an economy of exclusivity, Art photos will continue to be focused on either esoteric concept (Nikki Lee), giant printing (Andreas Gursky), or photo as part of some exclusive object (daguerreotypes are a classic example, or consider Masatomo Kuriya) -- or maybe all three (high-$ art enhances the prestige of the purchaser -- to hang a 10-foot print one must have a ten-foot stretch of prominent wall at home....). Even the art-fair photo crowd have latched onto this.

A few folks will survive doing portraits and weddings for-hire to the general public (one of my colleagues has had expensive portraits made for years by the wife of the maker of Wista cameras).

In the mass-distribution world, where photos gain value through massive amounts of exposure, publishers have learned that stock houses are cost-effective and perfect for most of their lets-choose-the-most-obvious-idea illustration purposes. Most editorial work ends up being war, crime, or celebrity (including, in a few cases, the celbrity of the photographer), and publishers can rip off (non-celeb) photographers with a great deal of impunity. This is unlikely to change. A very few people will survive by self-publishing but for the most part they will simply be subsidizing their efforts with a second job.

That's the future of the economic and social character of photography. As for more-specific circumstances, there will be many individuals in the future who will still be touched by photographs that they see, or in a few lucky cases, by photographs that they create.

(As for my comparisons between Eminem and Sibelius, the point is this: there is no single direction)

The striving for being an artist frequently short-circuits creativity. We in Western world seem to be hung up on concept of progress even within the arts. Somehow you have to discover something new in order to be creative. Sorry but the last technological leap in photography is over 50 years old - Polaroid; and I don't see anything new on horizon for photography. Some would claim that digital is re-invigorating photography, but actually its re-invigorating graphic arts. Because a medium uses photo-sensitive material does not make it into a photograph - a field of sunflowers, our skin & probably the entire universe is photo-sensitive. So what is wrong with creating within the confines of traditional/Retro photography? There are a wide range of techniques & directions within the realm of photography that many of us can utilize in fulfilling our creative impulses.

OK Jay, this has become pointless so I surrender. You can mark another victory on your cockpit.

Just as a point of interest, I looked back and found it was only about two weeks ago you started a thread like this with similar results. Never mind you spent the entire last year attacking Michael A. Smith just because he didn't conform to your vision.

I gladly sign off by paraphrasing Francesco, whose quote you use as a signature, and whom is a target of your wrath. Now you can attack me and Francesco and Michael.

I have given my opinions POINDEXTER. And I am proud to be a reactionary conservative in your mind.

doughowk said:

The striving for being an artist frequently short-circuits creativity. We in Western world seem to be hung up on concept of progress even within the arts. Somehow you have to discover something new in order to be creative.

Click to expand...

Yes Doug, that's one of the myths I believe is being perpetuated, and which many seem to subscribe to without question. The lack of being able to create something new not only short-circuits creativity but can also lower self-esteem. Isn't Creativity just the clever, maybe ingenious, use of the materials at hand? In our case, the combination of film, light, exposure, and printing. A machine can make a technically perfect photograph from start to finish. How many machine-made photos are revered for their creative qualities?

doughowk said:

So what is wrong with creating within the confines of traditional/Retro photography? There are a wide range of techniques & directions within the realm of photography that many of us can utilize in fulfilling our creative impulses.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the point and exactly why I believe there is no absolute best method for attaining a beautiful photograph. The machine will always beat the human in technical perfection and do it a million times a day. Only the imperfect human can intervene in the process and make it creative.

Alex Hawley said:

Only the imperfect human can intervene in the process and make it creative.

Click to expand...

Nicely said

doughowk said:

The striving for being an artist frequently short-circuits creativity.

.... So what is wrong with creating within the confines of traditional/Retro photography? There are a wide range of techniques & directions within the realm of photography that many of us can utilize in fulfilling our creative impulses.

Click to expand...

I, along with "jdef" am somewhat baffled with the "Striving to be an artist short-circuiting creativity". Not that I disagree, but I can't quite grasp that concept well enough to form an opinion. In other words, "Say what? - how does that work?"

There is nothing wrong with working within the "confines" of anything. Do what is in your gut.

It is a great question, anyway: the classic debate over art as creativity or capture. Do we really create anything, or do we simply morph an existing memory image into something similar, but recognizably different? Surely nothing in art is purely create or capture ... there is something of each in all of the work we do.

[Joe,

"I think it's useful to remember that none of the great trail blazers - be it in photography in particular, art in general, or the world at large - ever undertook to be a trail blazer."

I disagree with your premise. Many people working in many fields have set out with a determination to break new graound, or change the course of events in some way. The idea that passion and forethought are somehow mutually exclusive is ridiculous, and The notion that art and artists are wholely dependant upon passion and inspiration is a romantic fantasy.]

Jay, I disagree with your disagreement. To clarify, I did not mean to imply that passion and forethought were mutually exclusive, and a great many 'trail blazers' may have consciously sought to create something unique, to raise the bar even. But I know of no examples in which an artist set as their challenge to alter the course of their medium, or at least those that did created something wholly uninteresting, and did not achieve that end. This is based on my experiences and readings, and I would of course be interested in learning of those who did set out to alter the course of things as their predominant motivation. And it's not only artists who are dependent on passion and inspiration. As one of the wise men from the East said, to attempt anything without passion is like dressing up a corpse. The surface may be nice and polished looking, but beneath it is dead.

["We don't look for meaning in art, we look to art to discover our own meaning."

Are you suggesting that art is meaningless? Could you clarify the above statement?]

On it's own, of course art is meaningless. We give meaning to art, totally dependent on the filters of our personalities, beliefs and life experiences. You might listen to a dynamic piece of Classical music and visualize a thunderstorm in the mountains or the plains, while I - hearing the exact same music at the exact same time - might visualize the waves crashing against the rocks at Big Sur. And the composer may have intended us to visualize armies marching into battle. That's why, no matter how consciously I create something and strive to imbue it with a certain meaning of my own choosing, you may look at it and find a completely different meaning. Are you wrong? Of course not - the universe looks different through each set of eyes. Did I do a poor job of creating? Not necessarily. Actually I get the biggest kick out of hearing other people's take on what they find in a photograph I've taken or some fiction I've written. But what I have found time and again is that when I have strived single-mindedly to evoke a certain thought or emotion, without integrating a fair amount of passion or inspiration, the viewer/reader can always tell the difference and always finds the work lacking a certain something. This is of course nothing more than my perception of these things, and as they say, there is no reality - only perception. That your reality might differ from mine is only natural, and is probably the major cause of communication breakdown between individuals, and groups for that matter (not that I sense any friction between you and I, just different ways of looking at things, and maybe a problem with me adding thoughts to the discussion before I've allowed them to fully form - one of the many predicaments of message board communication). That said, I look forward to reading more about your own search out of this photography ennui.

Joe

Cheryl,

I don't really follow your emphasis on shaping the medium, or becoming influential, but you must recognize that you're working within an established tradition, that grew out of a preceding tradition, and is inevitably leading to a new one. My questions related to how you see your place in that tradition, and where you see it going.

Click to expand...

And my answer related to how I see my place in that tradition. I simply don't see my place in any tradition. I don't care about that. I just do what I do because I am compelled to do it. Plain enough?

My work may be somehow leading to a "new tradition" along with everyone else's work. Whether it is or whether it isn't, it has no bearing on how I choose to work. I'm not shooting for the sake of photographic tradition. I hope most people aren't. I don't want to work with one eye on "the medium."

jdef said:

Joe,

Paul Gaugin began painting late in life, and was determined to change the medium. Many would agree that he did. Jackson Pollock was likewise determined to change his medium, and again, many would agree that he was successful. Frank LLoyd Wright was determined to change architecture, Buckminster Fuller was determined to change the automobile, and the house, and the list goes on.

Click to expand...

Kind of shaky ground here, but..

There is a matter of "primary" motives here. I really do not think that Gaugin was motivated by "bringing a change to the/ his medium", when he left hearth and family and split for the South Seas, or that Pollock was motivated by the same, precise idea of "changing the media for the sake of change". Undoubtedly there were changes to the content of the media - there always is, but "changing" is not WHY they produced their work. The media is more of less static. What is DONE with the media is fluid - a bunch.

Art, Architecture, Automobiles ... all are the PRODUCTS of the media - and I think we must avoid confusing media and products to stay coherent.

There really haven't been many changes to the media itself ... the only significant one I can think of is the combining of motion and flat art: Motion Pictures, Television...

Changes in Art ... more difficult. Other than something of an "Enlightenment" - Seurat, the "Impressionists", breaking with rigid traditional rules, the process seems to be much the same.

I was confused by your references to "shaping the medium" and "becoming influential", which seemed to come out of left field, and I wasn't sure that you had actually read my original post.

Click to expand...

J, this feels quite condescending to me. I gave my thoughts on and around the question you asked. Your responses back to me are incredibly irritating, which means I'm not going to bother replying to your threads in the future.

I don't know how to break up quotes so I put my responses in italics. After previewing I see that my italics did not work either so I will have to put them in bold. I am not yelling, it is just the only way I can figure out how to do this.

jdef said:

In the midst of this "digital revolution", it seems to me that photography has become polarized, with digital imaging fighting for legitimacy, while "traditional" photography seems to favor reactionary conservatism, and a disproportional reverence for the past. This adversarial relationship has had the effect of stagnating the medium as a whole, and distracting photographers from the purest pursuit of expression.

Please give an example

How do you see your photography advancing the medium, or do you?

No, Do you feel there is a need to?

Is it important to you to break new ground, or are you satisfied to work in an established tradition? Do you feel that your work accurately represents your ideas and passions?

It is only important to break new ground if the artist feels they are stagnating. If you mean new ground for the medium my answer would be the same. What do you mean by established tradition? Yes my work represents my passion and as I improve others are better able to see my passion as well

In what direction, if any, do you feel that the medium is moving, and how are you contributing, or not, to that movement?

This is a pretty dumb question. No my work is probably not contributing to the movement, at least not actively. The movement I see is two fold-the digital and the re-exploration of the old processes. Digital is digital and apparently there are those who are using it with great success. Those who are re-exploring the past processes are doing so with a new vision. I am somewhere in the middle as I still learn.

In what direction do you think that the medium should be moving, if any, and how are you contributing, or not, to that movement?

redundant

As I've written before, most of the work that we're doing bores the hell out of me, but I've begun to identify that work that seems to offer something important and interesting, and the photographers responsible for it. How do you see the future of our medium?

In what way is it boring. It is one thing to offer a vague and sweeping comment like boring and apply it to the perverbial everyone. By saying we I assume you mean everyone in this community. In someways I may agree with you but boring to you is not to others. If you want us to accept your definition of boring you are going to have to actually go out on a limb and give it

Click to expand...

Over thinking is not just thinking. Over thinking is spending more time thinking than doing. Your butt load of questions shows over thinking on your part. There are probably six different threads in your one one post and for the most part the last three parts are the exact same question stated in three different ways.

Now it is time for you to offer answers to your own questions. Up to this point all you have done is respond to what others have written.