Photographic Influence - Who are they today?

[photomc]

Have been reading quite a bit lately, and have noted that many of today's photographer's - and I would guess some that visit this site, are a product of some the better programs, such as RISD and MassArt. Many it seems were fortunate to study under the like's of Minor White, Harry Callahan, Araon Siskin as well as others. These photographers are the opposite in many ways of the West Coast group - Adams, Weston, etc and there work is of a more social nature, IMO.

As this group ages (like the rest of us) I wonder what will become of this style of photography - will it survive in this new age of photography, should it? Is the documentary style of these photographers out of step with today's world? Or are we going to see the next step in this work, much as their work was a step away from the FSA/WPA documentary.

Who is the champion of photography today? One of the first names I think of is Keith Carter. What programs are really strong - producing the next crop of outstanding photographers?

There are no right or wrong answers here, more likely some navel gazing but interested to hear what others thoughts are. Who you think may be the next photographer/teacher - because in my mind without those teaching we could see photography change and not for the good.

Should note that these are the influences I am aware of here in the states and feel certain that each of you will include those that influence from other parts of the planet.

Have fun with this.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Hey I teach at the college level, but that doesn't mean my students listen. Grin.

We need less 'champions' and more nurturers in the trenches.

Meanwhile, I haven't given up on learning so my own body of work grows.

There will be a quiz in two weeks.

 

[David Brown]

Have been reading quite a bit lately, ...

Michael, Michael! Let's get you out of the house and under the darkcloth! Must go shoot pictures! Soon. There's very little time before this condition causes permanent "changes" ...

 

[jovo]

Hmmm....interesting question. I wonder about someone like John Paul Caponigro. He is, of course, the son of Paul Caponigro so he has a very strong legacy of traditional influences, but he's been the go to guru of Photoshop digital work for years now. His own style relies heavily on photoshopped combination images and uniquely exposed (HDR) photographs and is all in color. And yet, he's not being shown in the major NYC galleries where large color prints that challenge my gag reflexes seem to rule. (Quite frankly, such work is often very large, and in-your-face-see-what-you-can-make-of-this ironic banality.....IMHO, of course.). But he is influential in current 'art' photography nonetheless.

So, does the influence come from the darlings of the 'high art' gallerists, the vanguard digigraphers of the technology industry ranks, the traditional or digital Kennabe's (of which there seem to be legions at the moment), or what? Perhaps, like searching for the definitive, great American novel, there are just too many really good creative folks making worthwhile photographs for there to be only one or two champions.

 

[Curt]

Many might be thinking about this.

We need less 'champions' and more nurturers in the trenches.

Excellent answer. Only one teacher, of photography, told this to me some 30 years ago in college. How many times have you heard someone say, "Wow that's great, looks just like an Ansel Adams"?

Students should be encouraged, or nurtured, to find there own style or voice and less on making their work like an established "master" of the medium. Then it might be possible for many new styles to emerge that we couldn't even imagine today.

In looking over my own work of over three decades I can see that it's true; there is no easy road to any place worth going. Although I admire the work of many photographers, I don't want to be a copy of them. It's not easy when the beginning photographer is starting out, they are introduced the work of many extremely fine photographers and the influences are great. It takes a bold teacher to say this is what they did, you do your own thing and follow your own voice.

 

[aldevo]

Well, my greatest influence is Dr. Jabob Bigelow because he's repsonsible for the creation of the subject I most enjoy photographing. Running a close second is my own father who first put a camera in my hands.

So, really, it doesn't need to be a photorapher at all.

I've never thought my work to be of any real and lasting consequence so the question of which photograher(s) provide my artistic influence is one that is happily and easily kept at arm's length.

It may be the cynical side of me rearing its ugly head, but I think many who cite a particular influence are simply trying to curry favor or attention from certain quarters. Is this really a question that benefits from an answer?

It's the same in the music industry; you cite a band as an influence to get attention...and from that exposure and money.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Jeff Wall.

I don't think we'll see the end of ginormous colour prints of staged situations that are highly allusive regarding the history of art.

The White/Weston/Adams/Strand/etc approach is totally bankrupt if you're trying to get into museums. On the other hand, if you're trying to make a living as an artist, you might stand a chance.

 

[lns]

Thought-provoking question.

I think that the White/Weston/Adams/Callahan/Siskind influence really isn't particularly strong anymore. In fine art circles, I would say that the Bechers and their Dusseldorf group have had far more influence over the past two decades. The Bechers were the teacher/photographers to which you refer, but their students include the enormously influential Struth, Gursky, Hofer and Ruff.

I'm not familiar with too many photographers as teachers, which seems to be what the original post was getting at. The Yale School of Art does have a fantastic faculty, including Crewdson, Papageorge and Richard Benson, none of whom I would call "cookie cutter," but YMMV. But in any event, a teacher can only teach a certain number of students, even in a long life in academia. A photographer's images can influence a lot of people. So I am expanding the notion of teacher, to recognize the free flow of information and images, and the truth that art often develops outside the academy. After all, how many people find their mature styles while in art school?

Off the top of my head, in addition to the Dusseldorf group, I would list the following as four currently influential photographers. The late Richard Avedon. Jeff Wall was a great suggestion. Cindy Sherman. In a different way: Michael Kenna. All different photographers, with different styles, but all of whom resonate with the market and with other photographers. Two traditional photographers, and two with more of an art world following.

-Laura

 

[Chuck_P]

How many times have you heard someone say, "Wow that's great, looks just like an Ansel Adams"?

On several occasions, but truth be told it has always reflected more on the lack of insight on the one that made that observation, rather than on the photographer whose piece of work is receiving the comment. It merely reflects, to me, that a lot of people have heard so much about AA, that they somehow, in their own mind, make a connection that actually does not exits and has no merit, merely because they see a black and white photograph. I'm a big fan of AA for several reasons, least of which are some of his most well known photographs, and probably most for teaching me how to practice photography, efficiently, simply, and with my own eye to the viewfinder or GG.

So, I think that teachers that are long dead are still managing to teach. IMO, we should encourage the continual self study by diving into the ways of the "old masters", and perhaps it will be, that through such form of learning, many will find their own eye, so to speak.

Good day.
Chuck

 

[photomc]

Thanks to all for your response and input...Laura, special thanks to you and John for you both "got" the question. As stated in the original post, no right or wrong answers, just looking for those that are 'tilling the soil'. Hope to see more names ...

 

[Curt]

So, I think that teachers that are long dead are still managing to teach. IMO, we should encourage the continual self study by diving into the ways of the "old masters", and perhaps it will be, that through such form of learning, many will find their own eye, so to speak.

Better said than me, thanks.

I "got" the question but didn't want to start another guru seeking movement.

Photographic Influence - Who are they today?

Kim Weston, Mr. and Mrs Smith, Sean, Ole, Scott, Dr. Harter, they all influence. I have seen some of their photographs on the Internet and it provides me with some knowledge of what other people are doing out there. It's interesting but I still do my own work. If I didn't want to make my own visions I would be a collector. Photographic Influence? The Internet, TV, printed media to name a few.

The greater point is how does this influence affect your work.

 

[keithwms]

I think the internet has really changed our ideas about how new photographers are cultivated and mentored... and not entirely in a good way.

It's so wonderful to have one-on-one discussion in real space with a real person, especially if that person is an experienced photographer who can give personalized advice. I'm afraid that what the internet has done is make new photographers (like myself) think they don't need that kind of interaction so much- they can just look at examples online or read any of the canned recipes that people proffer on a multitude of websites.

I just wonder if apprenticeship really exists, in the same sense that it existed a few decades ago.

 

[photomc]

No offense inteneded Curt, and I agree it was not the intent to start another guru seeking movement...just the opposite. Many found AA to be a great teacher, yet when you break it down, he taught via a workshop route, not through the academic one. Those that were mentioned actually taught in academic settings - they are the ones that helped bring many of the photography instructors that are teaching today.

Yes there are those that continue to teach via the workshop route that are very good and influence many but they are not molding the furture instructors - one name that has not been mentioned would be Tillman Crane or our own Ann - these are ones that I had hoped to see here. They are really not known outside of the academic world (with exception sometimes).

Influence in my own work - valid question and I would say that while my work is indeed my own, the influence is that of the documentary photorgraphers I have known - my academic background is in the Sciences not Photography - only one course many years ago in college and one workshop from Les more recently. But feel that I have been a student of photography most of my life starting with Life magazine back in the mid-to-late 60's and the fortune to have a world class museum, with a varied collection in the Amon Carter - where I have gone every so many months for well over 30 years.

 

[photomc]

IIt's so wonderful to have one-on-one discussion in real space with a real person, especially if that person is an experienced photographer who can give perosnalized advice.

Keith, Thank you for your observation...this is at the heart of why I feel that something could be missing in today's programs. There is nothing like one on one to catch the passion of an instructor, IMO. It is much like the exchange of ideas here, we all enjoy it (otherwise we would not come back) but it is only a small part of what the exchange of ideas can be like when face to face - these are the best in my humble opinion.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Jeff Wall.

I don't think we'll see the end of ginormous colour prints of staged situations that are highly allusive regarding the history of art.

The White/Weston/Adams/Strand/etc approach is totally bankrupt if you're trying to get into museums. On the other hand, if you're trying to make a living as an artist, you might stand a chance.

I agree with this. Color is currently king. For most folks currently going to school studying photography or art, Weston/Adams is not much more relevant to them as Carleton Watkins or Jackson was to me way back when.

One reason is many of the photographers who studied with White or took workshops from Adams are older and closer to retirement and probably seen as somewhat aesthetically out of touch by students today.

 

[mjs]

Weston, Strand, Cunningham, Adams, Kertesz, Sudak, etc. Yeah, I'm simple and unsophisticated and the usual patter of art reviews just goes whoosh right over my head. Product of a lousy education and lack of natural talent, most likely.

Mike

 

[keithwms]

There is absolutely no shame in looking to Weston and Adams et al. for guidance today. On the contrary, we may see a resurgence of interest in their approach because of what digital has done to the relationship between capture and print.

The f/64 ideology arguably makes more sense now than it did when it was conceived. Pictorialism and photography are basically synonymous now, and in almost every branch, not just commercial. What do today's students think of when they see work by Hurrell? It must all look stodgy and conservative now.

 

[c6h6o3]

Chris Jordan

 

[el wacho]

i'm suprised that Abelardo Morell hasn't been mentioned.

Hiroshi Sugimoto, Valerie Belin ...

 

[mcfactor]

I'll raise your Sugimoto and throw in an Atta Kim

 

[celluloidpropaganda]

Stephen Shore and William Eggleston - the influence of their approach to color and subject in fine art and commercial work cannot be overstated.

 

[Maris]

Recently, for me, our very own Jim Galli. For thirty years I have been turning out sharp, clear, "infinite" resolution 8x10's. And I have always envied those photographer with an eloquent command of the out-of -focus image and creative blur.

Jim has given me the visual vernacular to get to grips with this uniquely photographic phenomenon. Realist paintings, for example, are never out of focus. Now when I experiment with blur I think I can make sense of what is happening and what it is worth.

The philosopher Wittgenstein was on the money when he said that if we don't have the words we can't think the thoughts.

Thanks Jim for giving me an entree to the world of soft images.

 

[Black Dog]

There is absolutely no shame in looking to Weston and Adams et al. for guidance today. On the contrary, we may see a resurgence of interest in their approach because of what digital has done to the relationship between capture and print.

The f/64 ideology arguably makes more sense now than it did when it was conceived. Pictorialism and photography are basically synonymous now, and in almost every branch, not just commercial. What do today's students think of when they see work by Hurrell? It must all look stodgy and conservative now.

With so many following Shore/Eggleston/Goldin/Sherman at the moment, looking to Weston/White etc is just seems like a breath of fresh air-not that Minor White was ever hugely fashionable compared to documentary work in the UK anyway.There's always room for something different but be prepared to fight for it if you're not going with the crowd.

PS-how many (over)large colour prints of carparks/industrial sites and grimfaced people with freckles staring at the camera can you look at before you get bored?

 

[Schlapp]

PS-how many (over)large colour prints of carparks/industrial sites and grimfaced people with freckles staring at the camera can you look at before you get bored?

One

 

[Ole]

I've been thinking this over since the question was first asked, and have finally managed to come to some kind of conclusion about what photographers influence me most.

And the answer is - - no.

For me it's still Caravaggio, Rembrant, IC Dahl, Turner, and Weidemann.