Politeness versus Photography

[michaelsalomon]

"The whole world is going to hell and people like Adam's and Weston are photographing rocks"

First thing that came to mind after I read the interview. Love his work, but after all they are only photographs - well composed, sharp color photographs printed very large and hung on the walls in art galleries with very high price tags. I believe he feels the only important art is art that engages the viewer in his politics and what the world should be seeing - on some levels, I don't think he's different from any other photographer - however, art does not always need a strong political message or to be motivated by current affairs to be powerful and moving, and if a work of art is not political in nature or is motivated by the state of affairs, that does not make it worthless or boring. But I could be wrong, and the rocks, trees, and water I often shoot could be hollow, boring postcards - either way, I'll just keep shooting and let Simon do his thing.

 

[copake_ham]

"The whole world is going to hell and people like Adam's and Weston are photographing rocks"

First thing that came to mind after I read the interview. Love his work, but after all they are only photographs - well composed, sharp color photographs printed very large and hung on the walls in art galleries with very high price tags. I believe he feels the only important art is art that engages the viewer in his politics and what the world should be seeing - on some levels, I don't think he's different from any other photographer - however, art does not always need a strong political message or to be motivated by current affairs to be powerful and moving, and if a work of art is not political in nature or is motivated by the state of affairs, that does not make it worthless or boring. But I could be wrong, and the rocks, trees, and water I often shoot could be hollow, boring postcards - either way, I'll just keep shooting and let Simon do his thing.

YES!

Thank you for cutting through all of this bloviated b.s.!

How deep it's been piling and how short my boots!

Your post is like that big ass thunderstorm that finally cuts through the late-July humidity "sludge" and gives us a day or so of cooler, drier air.

Whew!

 

[John McCallum]

:rolleyes:

Cartier Bresson's basal interest in photography was altogether different again from Adams and Weston, and there were tensions just as with the 64's and pictorialists, plenty of discussion in the (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread.

It's interesting that some photographers (presumably) feel threatened by photography that has a strong message and can demand cerebration to fully appreciate it. Why is that? Is it not easy to be comfortable with the idea "I like this subject therefore I've photographed it in the best way I can, for you to look at" that might apply to images made purely for the aesthetic value, to the extent that anyone who wishes to enjoy images with a concept and discuss them are chastised for talking windily?

What's with that? Whew?

 

[michaelsalomon]

As far a presuming this photographer is threatened, then you read me wrong. I believe the best photographs require some cerebration to enjoy them, no matter the subject. However I do not see where I chastised Mr. Norfolk, as I stated in the beginning of my post, I love his work - my disagreement came from after I read the interview and came away with the feeling that Mr. Norfolk believes images taken for aesthetic purposes are worthless and that unless we are out there photographing what matters in the context of current affairs and politics - its just rubbish. Maybe I read too much into the interview and I have him all wrong, either way I put to much time into this thread as it is - discussing these things achieve...well, not much - I'm going to go look at some photographs.

 

[John McCallum]

Perhaps threatened is too strong. But when one looks at the reactions to reasoned discussion in this thread for example, such as Mr Whew up there, one has to wonder.

Norfolk is in the world where at the least a noticable profile is important. Talking up the importance of a political agenda is essential to creating a sense of primacy in his photography. And besides a little controversy can go a long way to this end.

We all know styles based primarily aesthetics of the time can be challenging to produce also, and they are not mutually exclusive with conceptual imagery. So why the reactions?

You know "sticks and stones may ..."

In Auction
Leaving aside the complexity introduced by collectability, this photo had a price tag some would find hard to understand. In the context of growing up with the NZ way of life, it has become culturally significant.

 

[copake_ham]

"The whole world is going to hell and people like Adam's and Weston are photographing rocks"

:rolleyes:

Cartier Bresson's basal interest in photography was altogether different again from Adams and Weston, and there were tensions just as with the 64's and pictorialists, plenty of discussion in the (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread.

What's with that? Whew?

As far a presuming this photographer is threatened, then you read me wrong. I believe the best photographs require some cerebration to enjoy them, no matter the subject. However I do not see where I chastised Mr. Norfolk, as I stated in the beginning of my post, I love his work - my disagreement came from after I read the interview and came away with the feeling that Mr. Norfolk believes images taken for aesthetic purposes are worthless and that unless we are out there photographing what matters in the context of current affairs and politics - its just rubbish. Maybe I read too much into the interview and I have him all wrong, either way I put to much time into this thread as it is - discussing these things achieve...well, not much - I'm going to go look at some photographs.

What is wonderful is the quote. It sounds like the comment of Lange or Evans (or perhaps even Capa off in Spain) complaining about their fellow countrymen simply taking pics of El Capitan! And who's picture now carry greater "context". We are more likely, today, to mourn the loss of wilderness recorded by Adams and Weston than the fleeting social images of the 1930's Depression.

As to the next quote, what exactly was Bresson shooting in lieu thereof? Isn't there, after all, a curious gap in his photograhic timeline? You know that big "jump" from the guy leaping over the puddle in the mid-1930's until Matisse kissing his cockatoo after the end of WWII? Oh yes, of course I'm being ironic, irreverant and over-generalizing . But unlike some of the earlier posts on this and the OTHER thread I didn't say "semiotic. BTW, does anyone in the "real world" use the word "semiotic" for anything? :confused:

And finally, as Michael notes, what "requires" us to take photographs that convey a political viewpoint of any kind whatsoever?

If I decide to start shoot macro shots of flower pistils this spring does it require that I have a political agenda to convey? Under the "political imperative" my work would convey a commentary on the fragility of nature and the impending ecological collapse due to Global Warming.

Or, maybe I'm just having some fun playing with the macro setting on my lens while burning off my last couple of rolls of free Porta film!

 

[David H. Bebbington]

As to the next quote, what exactly was Bresson shooting in lieu thereof? Isn't there, after all, a curious gap in his photograhic timeline?

The "gap" consisted at least in part of fighting with the French resistance, being in a prison camp,escaping and fighting again until the liberation of France in 1944! Not that HCB was an overtly political photographer in any way, but as a human being, he certainly was political!

 

[copake_ham]

The "gap" consisted at least in part of fighting with the French resistance, being in a prison camp,escaping and fighting again until the liberation of France in 1944! Not that HCB was an overtly political photographer in any way, but as a human being, he certainly was political!

Perfect!

Doesn't that, in fact, exemplify Michael's point?

As far a presuming this photographer is threatened, then you read me wrong. I believe the best photographs require some cerebration to enjoy them, no matter the subject. However I do not see where I chastised Mr. Norfolk, as I stated in the beginning of my post, I love his work - my disagreement came from after I read the interview and came away with the feeling that Mr. Norfolk believes images taken for aesthetic purposes are worthless and that unless we are out there photographing what matters in the context of current affairs and politics - its just rubbish. Maybe I read too much into the interview and I have him all wrong, either way I put to much time into this thread as it is - discussing these things achieve...well, not much - I'm going to go look at some photographs.

At a critical time when it really mattered, Bresson was personally political in the most "exposed' way imaginable - yet his photography was....well it was Bresson!

Thanks, David!

 

[michaelsalomon]

John, my only reaction, and I speak only for myself is as I have stated before. Perhaps, some of the strong reactions you speak of and the dismissal of Mr. Norfolk may come from the touchy nature of politics - his opinions on landscape photography aside, I personally have no negative reaction to his photographs, or his politics. In this case, its tough, can you a judge a persons work without judging the person? When we have work that is political in nature, well - this may make discussing the work even harder for some due to differences in political opinion.

Thank you for the link - some good photographers I haven't seen before...more photos to look at!

Cheers,
Mike

 

[firecracker]

Let me simplify somewhat further: Photographs of slaughtered animals - sides of beef hanging from hooks ...

What would be their meaning in an exhibition sponsored by the "Strictly Vegetarian Society of Citizens Against Causing Any and All Distress to Animals" - and how would it compare with their interpretation at a meeting of the "United Meat Packers of America"?

Couldn't they possibly be on the different sides of the same coin? These two interpretations that seem contrasting each other actually could possibly be fit together in one image if they are there, I think. If they are mere interpretations, they are not in the photograph.

Well, to me, the real content of a photograph is perhaps beyond what's descriptive as there is more than one interpretation of a story to tell. So, that's the area that a photographer has to play, and to marginalize it, he or she can show in quantity, repetition, details, etc. It is just difficult to examine what his/her real intent in just one photograph. It can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

One things that visual-only language doesn't do well, is the negation of its content because it's not drawn that way. Like, if it's a photograph of a dog, it is a presentation of a dog and so on, but it doesn't necessarily tell it's not a cat or whatever that is not there. It's a pretty common sense in a way, but it goes much further if you start to read photographic images. So, the "Photographs of slaughtered animals - sides of beef hanging from hooks ..." are what they are for the first and foremost.

I think Simon Norfolk's images do have what they have in the images; some are the rubbles and ruins from the battle fields, and others, the glossy super-high-tech military equipment from the Westerrn conquers. And there are perceptions, interpretations, and cultural uderstandings and so on. So, to see a volume of his work with all of these, which helps to connect each images and seems to provide a better context than a context from just one image, I think I understand what he's trying to say without him talking about it.

 

[firecracker]

Talking up the importance of a political agenda is essential to creating a sense of primacy in his photography.

A better word for what you mean, his "political agenda" is culture. If you keep pounding with the "p" word, the allergic reactions from some people will never stop.

 

[John McCallum]

John, my only reaction, and I speak only for myself is as I have stated before. Perhaps, some of the strong reactions you speak of and the dismissal of Mr. Norfolk may come from the touchy nature of politics - his opinions on landscape photography aside, I personally have no negative reaction to his photographs, or his politics. In this case, its tough, can you a judge a persons work without judging the person? When we have work that is political in nature, well - this may make discussing the work even harder for some due to differences in political opinion.

Thank you for the link - some good photographers I haven't seen before...more photos to look at!

Cheers,
Mike

The people who think no photo is made through the influence of personal experience that shape their personal view I suggest also thinks they see the world exactly as it is (that is without influence of their own nurtured environment). The very perception of beauty is entirely subjective and shaped by personal experience.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The very perception of beauty is entirely subjective and shaped by personal experience.

Dear John,

Possibly. But there does seem to be a high degree of (at least) convergent evolution and (arguably) 'hard-wired' agreement. This seems to me to be a completely separate argument from the main thrust of this thread but one that is worth exploring.

Incidentally I agree that pretending objectivity is naive in the extreme.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'll take a stab at it - always fun to watch the balloon get popped...
Content = Interior (i.e. to itself) as in the "Table of Contents" of a book.
Context = Exterior - the book on a shelf of similar books (i.e. sorted by subject or author etc.)

What "balloon"?

I agree with that definition. Seems to be ~ the same as mine.

 

[eddym]

I believe he feels the only important art is art that engages the viewer in his politics and what the world should be seeing - on some levels, I don't think he's different from any other photographer - however, art does not always need a strong political message or to be motivated by current affairs to be powerful and moving, and if a work of art is not political in nature or is motivated by the state of affairs, that does not make it worthless or boring. But I could be wrong, and the rocks, trees, and water I often shoot could be hollow, boring postcards - either way, I'll just keep shooting and let Simon do his thing.

Ditto what George said.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I'm personally reluctant to say this, but when I was in school at CalArts I was told by my Critical Studies professor that anyone using a dictionary to attempt rigid definitions of art-related terms was someone whose statements w.r.t. art could be safely ignored. I expect if the class were given again today that sentiment would include Wikipedia.

Sounds to me like there is an arcane language known only to the "elite". Possibly there is ... primarily in use by venerated "Critics" ... who often write reviews so full of obfuscation that we mere mortals cannot understand them.

I can't help but ....

I was going to write something about "lacking the courage of one's convictions" ... but that would really be inflammatory. I would say SOME (without being specific - I'll leave it to someone else to figure out WHO) "speak in indistinct riddles", using their own private language as a defense against "rogue" ideas that might create cracks of reason in their impenetrable shells of solidified thought.

The more I consider the content of this thread, the more I am led to view "Political" as simply "CONTEXT" ( as defined in my Wiki, Funk and Wagnalls, Webster's - what were the names of all those online dictionaries and encyclopedia...).

Regretfully, I am done with beating the same nail with the same hammer.

I've done all I can to communicate in the language I know ... run-of-the-mill "Standard" English.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Incidentally I agree that pretending objectivity is naive in the extreme.

I agree - as much as it is humanly possible to do so.

 

[jstraw]

What "balloon"?

I agree with that definition. Seems to be ~ the same as mine.

That just restates what I described earlier as not being opposite. Mutual exclusion is not opposition.

Yes, in is the opposite of out but what is in is not the opposite of what is out.

If I submerge a hardboiled egg, in it's shell, into lime jell-o and let it set, I would ask you...are boiled egg and lime jell-o opposites simply because one is in the shell and the other is outside the shell?

 

[jstraw]

Perhaps a way to diffuse the baggage of the word "politics" is to think of "commentary."

Every image is a comment. At there very least it's a comment of "here, look at this," even if the photography isn't consciously or overtly trying to say anything about the subject (of course he/she IS by the very nature of singling out THIS is what I find compelling/repulsive/interesting/big/whatever...).

All this commentary is informed by one's frame of reference.

 

[bjorke]

Sounds to me like there is an arcane language known only to the "elite".

Oddly I had just switched of Pat Robertson's CBN before reading this thread. On CBN, their "reporter" was deriding concern over global warning -- not because the science of it is WRONG, but because there were so many "multi-syllable words" being used in the congressional discussion. Not kidding, that was on the TV ten minutes ago.

Let me guess, if you were wanting to deal with high cholesterol or chronic depression or cancer, would you dismiss the discussions of the doctors because all they care about are those arcane vescicles and the levels of serotonin re-uptake?

If you ask people here on APUG about processing and they reply with some elitist discursion on how you need to be careful with p-Aminophenal developers because such developers don't typically contain silver solvents?

The reason dictionary definitions are bad for art is because they attempt to constrain ideas and to build arbitrary linguistic fences around those concepts. The dictionary can't tell you when a kittne becomes a cat nor can it be remotely useful in determinining if one picture is better than another, the hows, whys, and even the possibilitity that there is NO clear definition -- maybe the picture better today will be less better tomorrow. Attempts to constrain ideas in that way just lead to Academie-style hierarchies and work that sucks -- to use the simplest appropriate word.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ok, so how about the politics of Anne Geddes?

Hehehe....

 

[Paul.]

Who is Anne Geddes please?

Damn I need an asprin, I tried to keep up I realy realy did, but 13 pages and I dont know where we are at. Can somebody do a recap for us 'cause I've lost the plot now.

Going for a lie down.

Thanks Paul.

 

[bjorke]

Well as she's been busy with Celine Dion, you guys up there should know that she stands for everything fluffy and consumer-culturish, her photo books functioning to a degree as paid advertisements for her clothing lines. Ever notice how the babies in her many photographs are either staring blankly or more likely sleeping? They are reduced to decorative elements without specific personality.

You think she is apolitical? I'd say her values are pretty well-carved into her arm, right through the sleeve.

Geddes

Some guy

 

[Ed Sukach]

Let me guess, if you were wanting to deal with high cholesterol or chronic depression or cancer, would you dismiss the discussions of the doctors because all they care about are those arcane vescicles and the levels of serotonin re-uptake?

Would I dismiss??? Not my bag so to do. I am SURE that those in the medical profession would participate in their common language ... so that they were considering terms with "standard" meanings. Let each participant in a debate choose their own, individual word meanings and the continuity of ideas would be destroyed. Hmmm.... appropriate term... "chaos" (?!)

If you ask people here on APUG about processing and they reply with some elitist discursion on how you need to be careful with p-Aminophenal developers because such developers don't typically contain silver solvents?

... And what? There is a great deal of "chemistry discussion" I don't understand - so... ? I am sure that the participants have some common base to continue discussions. What "action" am I obliged to take...?

The reason dictionary definitions are bad for art is because they attempt to constrain ideas and to build arbitrary linguistic fences around those concepts.

...???? Are you trying to tell me that it is better to NOT know ... to NOT have any idea of what the other guy says ... is better? Yes, "dictionary definitions" DO constrain ideas. To go beyond those constraints we use OTHER words and phrases.

The dictionary can't tell you when a kittne becomes a cat nor can it be remotely useful in determinining if one picture is better than another, the hows, whys, and even the possibilitity that there is NO clear definition --

???? Is this supposed to be some sort of lightning bolt - or ENlightening bolt out of the blue? Of course they can't ... there is a word that is useful here - found in all of the English dictionaries I have ever used: "Aesthetics".

Attempts to constrain ideas in that way just lead to Academie-style hierarchies and work that sucks -- to use the simplest appropriate word.

Attempts at understanding ideas, through the use of words... do WHAT?

Or am I missing the idea of what "That Way" is?

I don't much like "academie-style hierachies", either - as any may have concluded after considering my ideas about "Critics".

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Damn Bjorke, you blew it! I wanted people to dismiss her as inconsequential fluff and then see them wade through Socratic ironic terror as they realize what her agenda was. Now I'll have to find a better way to kindle the fires of error.