Photographers you most admire

[rochephoto]

Not sure I would call it '"reportage," or, at least, certainly not in a photojournalism or documentary sense. Aperture isn't Polka. I see its focus these days as community oriented—in the large sense of the word, which includes questions of identity, while not being exclusively devoted to them—at the same time witnessing the new mixed-genre esthetics, in which documentary, photojournalism, portrait, fashion, landscape, fact and fiction, etc., mingle one with the other.

I subscribe to the Aperture archives, and it's fascinating to see how their editorial line has changed with the times. Under Minor White, for example, it was all "art and spirit", so to speak, and if you go through the 60s and early 70s, you wouldn't see anything close to reportage and, except one issue devoted to Eugene Smith, you wouldn't know that you were living in one of the most productive and imaginative era in street photography and photojournalism. Not to mention color photography, which took them years to acknowledge. I feel at least today they are closer to what is relevant to a new generation of photographers.

Thank You Chuck! Very well put. I tell college photography classes that come through my studio that on the lefthand, when I do advertising photography I create tools. They are either brand tools or sales tools or a combination of the two. On the right hand, as an artist, I'm trying to expand my understand of the breadth of visual perception. It's merely serendipity that I use the same tools in both pursuits. My interested in how the medium in it's artistic side can "Surprise Me" as I work to expand my understanding of it.

 

[rochephoto]

I love all the arts ... well except for dance which feels to me like something that's hard to do but not that interesting to watch, but that's just me. I personally have only made a significant investment of time in music and photography. Like you, I have spent over 5 decades pursuing how to make photography as art and I would hope no one needs to know anything about me, my politics, my worldview, my religious faith, my inseam size, or my preferred pronouns ("Your Majesty"/"Your Lordship") to judge the merits of my work. Whether it's good or bad, it needs to stand or fall on it's own merits.

But you, my dear fellow, are in for a severe drubbing. You are straying from the One Approved Way that modern intellectuals demand of us all. We must, must. must, contemplate our sins, the sins of our fathers, and and anything they deem as offensive AND whether we have apologized sufficiently for these before we make "art". Even then, the art must directly support their demanded agenda or it will be labeled as "racist", "classist", "xenophobic" and a host of other imagined new sins. But if you do bow to their demands, you get to produce execrable drivel, call it art, and probably get a show at a major gallery for it. These people cannot imagine a world in which art stands on its own merits because ... they're incapable of doing anything that well themselves.

This injecting of agenda has always been somewhat present in art, likely from the beginning of human existence. What's different today is that the demand now is that the agenda replace the art because it's so verrrrrrrrrry important. If you want a close look at the levels of lunacy this has reached in the arts circle, I highly commend the brilliant "Rape Of The Masters" by Robert Kimball. He's a fine art critic and he just disembowels the agenda peddlers and the academic high priests that pimp for them, in that book.

Thanks Chuck for your astute words. I'm categorically up for the drubbing and I've been at it for some time. Garry Winogrand, whom I new and took classes from in Austin Texas thought along similar lines. I grew up in a family where my mother was a serious artist as well. The two of them showed me that art can have a real depth that is not immediately understood. Winogrand was the one lecturer that I have come across that really talked about this in a way that made sense. He was passionate about it.
Best - Chris

 

[rochephoto]

I have always found that art in the service of agenda is a disservice to the art. Art in service of socio-political causes is better understood to be propaganda. Art in the service of commerce is advertising or marketing. Art in the service of religion is pamphleteering.

That's not to say that there isn't great work done in such settings. Salgado's "Workers" is quite obviously a socio-political work, and it's really well executed. Ditto the fashion work of Richard Avedon. But in neither of these cases would I say the end result is great art - the work is tainted by the agenda peddling.

More difficult to categorize is the religious art of, say, the Renaissance and thereafter. We stand in awe of this work today because of it's durability over time and beauty. But even Bach wrote a great body of his work for church worship services. Handel wrote Messiah because he needed the money. So does that make the St. Matthew Passion pamphleteering? Maybe, in its time, that's exactly what it was, but today surely it's also great art that stands on its own. Perhaps the value of the art is exposed only when the proximate non-arts purpose it served is no longer relevant. Maybe Helmut Newton will someday come to be seen as the equal of Raphael or Monet ... but I doubt it.

But as much as I find agenda-driven art somehow diminished, it actually doesn't matter all that much. The true damage done to art today is at the hand of the contemporary theory fetishes found in the arts community (deconstructionism, postmodernism, feminist critque, intersectional theory, blah, blah, blah, puke) . Most "arts" publications, showings, and discussions end up being so polluted by this sewage that it loses all meaning. The only exception I have found recently is "New Criterion" magazine which covers all the arts and is a very fine arts criticism publication, albeit very New York-centric. At least the manage to cover photography now and again.

I will also check out "The Rape of the Masters"

 

[rochephoto]

I'll leave you with this final thought. Ask yourself just why these artifacts are "downright depressing or even shocking". Is it the art or is it the agenda?

Thanks for the civil discourse.

I have to add that my wife often asks me if I have something easy to look at that she could put on the walls of our home. I have to reply honestly that I really don't think so. It's not that I'm trying to make images that aren't "pretty" it's just not what is interesting to me.

 

[rochephoto]

I try to do both. I do my own work - always. But I try to learn from others. I periodically go back to Atget, Brassai, the Westons, et al and each time I get new ideas for my own stuff. Also, for beginners, I think there is considerable value in trying to duplicate the work of other great photographers. It's a good learning experience.

I would add that we do learn by looking at Good Art and it is as much a part of the process as going on and doing ones own work. I'll also say that we all have motivations that spur us to create, I just hope that the images themselves are more interesting than the agenda.

 

[rochephoto]

One important reason is probably that I don't buy and collect books by photographers .
But more generally, I am more likely to wander through the photography itself, often moving from photographer to photographer, noting how their influences seem to interact with each other, including how they influence each other.
So when people complain about genres and academia, I find myself somewhat surprised, because I find observations about genres and the trends that academia loves to be a source of inspiration - often frustrating and confusing and pig headedly obtuse - but still inspiring.

Something that Garry Winogrand said in his seminars at UT Austin in the '70s is that if you spend a life seriously working as a visual artist and you make 5-10 really great pieces that are enduring, then you've accomplished a great deal

 

[snusmumriken]

Something that Garry Winogrand said in his seminars at UT Austin in the '70s is that if you spend a life seriously working as a visual artist and you make 5-10 really great pieces that are enduring, then you've accomplished a great deal

I can’t help the mischievous thought that if that was his aim, his approach was like that of a codfish laying eggs.

 

[rochephoto]

I can’t help the mischievous thought that if that was his aim, his approach was like that of a codfish laying eggs.

I hear you! At the same time, there are a lot of myths and lore going on about Winogrand. I went to events and photographed with Garry, although my work is not like his. First - what he was trying to achieve pretty much required that he shoot a lot of film. Second - he NEVER "shot from the hip" and would be greatly offended if you suggested otherwise. He shot and printed to the frame with NO CROPPING. It was very important that he frame all of his images. That being said, he did several things when he photographed that may look to the layman that he was not using the finder. These included rolling the camera and his eye off to the side from where his body was facing and bringing to and away from his eye very rapidly in an effort to make his subjects not fully aware that he was photographing them or anything at all. There is virtually no way he could have made the images he did without these technics. Third - He was an excellent technician. He taught me how to inspection develop 8 rolls at a time in an open sheet film tank and I have seen his negatives. Very full toned. Unfortunately it appears that whoever developed his remaining rolls posthumously didn't know that the development times needed to be reduced between 30-50 percent depending on the conditions he was photographing in. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.
Best - Chris

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks Chuck for your astute words. I'm categorically up for the drubbing and I've been at it for some time. Garry Winogrand, whom I new and took classes from in Austin Texas thought along similar lines. I grew up in a family where my mother was a serious artist as well. The two of them showed me that art can have a real depth that is not immediately understood. Winogrand was the one lecturer that I have come across that really talked about this in a way that made sense. He was passionate about it.
Best - Chris

If you want to really understand the contemporary sensibility about quality, read "The Fountainhead" by Rand. It's entirely about what happens what people with mediocre skills will to to try and feel that there work is "great". It's essentially a meditation on quality. Beyond that, I will not comment because her works are overtly political in their own right (and I disagree substantially with her in some regards) and this ain't the place.

 

[MattKing]

If you want to really understand the contemporary sensibility about quality, read "The Fountainhead" by Rand. It's entirely about what happens what people with mediocre skills will to to try and feel that there work is "great". It's essentially a meditation on quality. Beyond that, I will not comment because her works are overtly political in their own right (and I disagree substantially with her in some regards) and this ain't the place.

I greatly prefer Robert Pirsig about "quality".
And yes, we aren't going to get into Ayn Rand here - there is no one more controversial/political.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would add that we do learn by looking at Good Art and it is as much a part of the process as going on and doing ones own work. I'll also say that we all have motivations that spur us to create, I just hope that the images themselves are more interesting than the agenda.

When we were growing up, every weekend our parents dragged us to an art museum in the Washington DC or Baltimore area on a Saturday or Sunday whether or not we needed it. After one looks at enough good art, one will almost automatically find a good composition or move the a nearby location for a better composition almost without thinking about it.

 

[chuckroast]

I greatly prefer Robert Pirsig about "quality".
And yes, we aren't going to get into Ayn Rand here - there is no one more controversial/political.

I like Pirsig as well, though for somewhat different reasons. I've read Rand extensively. Of all her books, I find "The Fountainhead" essentially nonpolitical, though certainly controversial in some circles. The movie with Patrica Neal was also pretty great ... and in B&W

 

[RudyMerz]

John Shaw
Arthur Morris
Moose Peterson
Galen Rowell
Ralph Gibson

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Like music, I find that I admire individual photos as I would individual songs. So just like I can like jazz, pop, soul, etc., by many artists, it's kind of like that with photography. I like the photo first, then note who the photographer is. Of course, some do many photos that I like more. But like music, it's not limited to any one style or photographer.

 

[cliveh]

Don’t go back!! And look at others! You are strangling yourself!!! You are cutting off. Oxygen to your debate with yourself “ as to what is a photograph. Others have their answer to that question!! Don’t copy don’t get “ influenced” being a mirror person who copies others is never an authentic moment.

There is no artist or photographer who has ever existed who wasn't influenced by others. Art is not created in a vacuum.

 

[schyter]

1) William Mortensen
2) André Kertész
3) Man Ray
4) Mario Giacomelli
5) Andreas Feininger
6) Michael Ackerman
7) William Eugene Smith
8) Michael Kenna
9) Paolo Gioli
10) Aleksandr Michajlovič Rodčenko

but my absolute favorite photo is the one taken by Sergey Strunnikov to Zoja Anatol'evna Kosmodem'janskaja.

Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[albireo]

1. Gerry Johansson
2. Robert Adams
3. Michael Schmidt
4. Chris Killip
5. William Eggleston
6. Luigi Ghirri
7. Helga Paris
8. Stephen Shore
9. Paul Graham
10. Lewis Baltz

 

[Alex Benjamin]

1. Gerry Johansson
2. Robert Adams
3. Michael Schmidt
4. Chris Killip
5. William Eggleston
6. Luigi Ghirri
7. Helga Paris
8. Stephen Shore
9. Paul Graham
10. Lewis Baltz

Love the list. Both Michael Schmidt and Helga Paris are new to me.

 

[Dali]

Diane Arbus, Bruce Gilden and Michael Ackerman for totally different reasons.

 

[albireo]

Love the list. Both Michael Schmidt and Helga Paris are new to me.

You're in for a treat. One thread that connects them, for me, is that they both explored themes of alienation, separation, anxiety and uncertainty about the future in the divided Germany pre 1989.

"Waffenruhe", "Berlin Wedding" and "Leipzig Hauptbahnhof" have a special place on my desk.

 

[Jim Peterson]

Ansel Adams
Marc Adamus
Galen Rowell
Bruce Jackson
Austin Granger
Bruce Barnbaum
Bruce Percy
John Shaw
Art Wolfe

 

[SodaAnt]

Dorthea Lange (even with her fakery)

Even your “St. Ansel” wasn’t above removing an intruding tree branch when it interfered with a composition.

 

[SodaAnt]

I’ll turn this thread around a little and list the photographers whose work I don’t like.

Brett Weston — Too derivative
Weegee — Ambulance chaser
Fred Picker — Liked his newsletter and most Zone VI products, but my god, his photos were absolutely sterile
Edward Weston — I find his work boring, or pointless, especially the nudes


Here are the ones I do like:

Ansel Adams
Arthur Rothstein
Jack Delano
John Vachon
Marion Post Walcott
Garry Winogrand
Dorothea Lange
Margaret Bourke-White
John Sexton

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are too many great photographers to list all of them and that of course would include myself, IMNOHO.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The golden triumvirate for me are Edward Weston, Andre Kertesz and Ralph Gibson.

I also dig, in no particular order, Daido Moriyama, Roy DeCarava, Brett Weston, Yasuhiro Ishimoto, Harry Callahan, Anton Corbijn, Henry Wessel, Josef Sudek, Moholy-Nagy, Pentti Sammallahti, Ray Metzker, Todd Hido.

The two most overblown photographers I think are Ansel Adams and Garry Winogrand.