What modern photography is "INNOVATIVE"?

[nikos79]

That's fine, but the question is not about what moves you. It's about what's innovative. You may or may not find that relevant; that's all OK. But let's keep things distinct. I also don't like all innovation and I'm sometimes (often) moved by something that's anything but innovative. And I also like apple pie. These are all distinct things that exist next to each other, and they sometimes interact or overlap, but certainly not always.


No, something you can apparently not do with an industrial building. And that's OK.


Well, sometimes. And sometimes they don't. All generalizations are wrong.

OK let's agree then that innovations do happen. The significance of which is something personal to evaluate

 

[Arthurwg]

Saw the Becher exhibit at the Met Museum a couple of years ago. One of the most extraordinary show I've ever seen. You go through something like this and you cannot be but floored by the innovative quality of their work.

Yes, loved it. But I was a bit surprised by the flat quality of the prints. I figured that must have been part of the idea.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Can you tell me with your hand in your heart and forgetting all the praise and semantics of their work, didn't you die of boredom?

(A) I won't put my hand on my heart caus' this ain't a sorority
(B) I've seen enough photography in my lifetime to have my own judgement and not be influenced by others' praise and semantics
(C) I've just told you it's one of the most fascinating photography show I've ever seen

Something you can't do with an industrial building.

You can if you are looking and paying attention. That's not given to all.

but to turn it all into a kind of moth collection, that's certainly different.

The sheer quantity of them was fascinating, and mesmerizing. You get drawn into their world — not the Becher's I mean, the buildings'. And after a while, not only do you start feeling something about them — a certain nobleness, for lack of a better word — they also start "corresponding" with one another, as in, all togheter, saying something about them, and about us.

That's why museum shows are necessary. You don't get these intuitions, or not as often, thought a book. I remember "getting" Robert Franck's The Americans when I saw the retrospective show at the Met about 10-15 years ago. Had the book, loved it. But the show was a revelation.

 

[Don_ih]

@Don_ih your comments are based on a restrictive view of innovation which is not representative of how the term is generally used in various contexts in which it plays a large role.

Your view is pretty much "everything and the kitchen sink" counts as innovation. But you're incorrect. And I am using the word properly - go read my initial post. Innovation should not be confused with originality, creativity, or simple difference.

Innovation is not restricted to technical matters. Every redirection of what could be seen as a photographic goal has been innovative. They have, however, been tied to practical, technical changes.

Anyway, you've clearly decided this thread is about your opinion. So I'll bow out.

 

[Arthurwg]

By extension I could have mentioned Gursky, but didn't for the same reason as well as...well, the people generally respond whenever his name is mentioned, which kinds of kills the mood.

Yes, Gursky. But I never really liked the aesthetics so did not pay much attention. I much prefer Elger Esser, which I find very beautiful.

 

[TJones]

Can you tell me with your hand in your heart and forgetting all the praise and semantics of their work, didn't you die of boredom?
I mean all their photographs look the same. Industrial buildings photographed with a large format camera. So, what?
And again Humberto Rivas in my opinion did something similar by photographing the emptiness of cities but with a way more haunted feeling

But they’re not the same; they’re similar. By stripping away all variation of technique, the similarities and differences of objects that are functionally the same stand out. To me, they become sculptures instead of just industrial facilities. And it only works if you show them together. Very innovative to me.

But I understand that you may see them differently.

 

[nikos79]

But they’re not the same; they’re similar. By stripping away all variation of technique, the similarities and differences of objects that are functionally the same stand out. To me, they become sculptures instead of just industrial facilities. And it only works if you show them together. Very innovative to me.

But I understand that you may see them differently.

I might give another chance of it in the future. My relation with Becher has been the following:
1. Initial appreciation and trying to "understand" their work.
2. Skepticism about the quality of their work, seemed pure academic and experimental
3. As my idea of what kind of photography I like has developed, I lost all appreciation of them
4. Perthaps I go back to 1.

 

[nikos79]

(A) I won't put my hand on my heart caus' this ain't a sorority

(B) I've seen enough photography in my lifetime to have my own judgement and not be influenced by others' praise and semantics

I believe you. Still I get the feeling that if I take an illiterate but "wise" peasant and show him photos of August Sander and Becher he will pick the first for sure.

(C) I've just told you it's one of the most fascinating photography show I've ever seen

So, these photographs worked together for you. As a show. And not each one individually. If I tell you to pick your 10 favourite photos of Becher could you pick? Or would they all look the same as I would imagine they are?

You can if you are looking and paying attention. That's not given to all.

Touche

 

[nikos79]

Nevertheless Becher has been innovative. But boring in my own opinion. As their best student too, Gursky

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Still I get the feeling that if I take an illiterate but "wise" peasant and show him photos of August Sander and Becher he will pick the first for sure.

Find me an illiterate but wise peasant on Photrio and we'll try it.

So, these photographs worked together for you. As a show.

Yes, because I was at a show in which there were many photographs put together .

And not each one individually.

The point of a show in which there are many photographs put together is not to appreciate one in particular.

If I tell you to pick your 10 favourite photos of Becher could you pick? Or would they all look the same as I would imagine they are?

What you imagine is both irrelevant to me and to the Becher's work — not "Becher", there were two of them, Bernd and Hilla.

Moreover, you're totally missing the point. The idea that all photographs of, say, water towers all look the same is not because all the photographs look the same but because all water towers — no matter where you are, no matter which country — look the same. Same with blast furnaces, same with coal bunkers, same with gas tanks.

Look the same, or seemingly so. That's actually what seeing the photos as a set tells you. That they are not "all the same". They are the same in function, but each has its own personality — some are dignified, some are comical, some grotesque, some endearing in a weird way, some lonely —, each reveal some man-made ingenuity — and the Becher's and our astonishment that somewhere, sometime, people thought that such a thing might be necessary, and thought about how to build it and acutally did build it —, and, although you don't always see much context around them, you get a sense that each sits within the vernacular landscape in its own way, even though they are sign posts all signifying the same thing.

They are also all symbols of our industrial past and, at times, of our industrial present — there is something grandiose in their ingenuity, yet something terrifying in the burden of human error they carry (just look at the houses right under the industrial complex at Terre Rouge, Esch-surAlzette, Luxembourg!).

You sense those which no longer live but have lived, have been the center, the life of communities. The photographs are a witness of these buildings as witness.

And I should add that as photographs they are absolutely superb. There is immense craftsmanship that went through each of them. I didn't notice the prints as being flat, as @Arthurwg did, but I can see one getting that impression. I do think that the lack of contrast is, in a way, part of it. But when you look carfefully — I am going though the exhibition catalog as I am writing this — you see light emanating from the objects rather than falling on them, and a really beautiful tonal range in the middle zones.

I would have come up with one or two photographs and prints of this quality and I would have been proud. To put such a huge series of such high quality, from the framing to the actual print, is simply amazing and deserves praise.

 

[BrianShaw]

Find me an illiterate but wise peasant on Photrio and we'll try it.

Would a poor blithering idiot be a suitable substitute? If so, PM me.

 

[koraks]

And it only works if you show them together.

So, these photographs worked together for you. As a show. And not each one individually. If I tell you to pick your 10 favourite photos of Becher could you pick?

This is a very relevant combination of thoughts being expressed here, I feel. It seems to me that when we speak of 'photography', some of us are still coming to grips with the idea of looking beyond the edge of a single image/print. It's also reflected in the comments on the photography I posted about earlier ("oh, but that's not photography!") and it results in failure to recognize innovativeness - after all, if the innovative aspect arises from a series, project or entire body of work, or from the interaction between a photographic artifact and other elements that make up the work, it's impossible to see this if the gaze is firmly restricted to the edge of the frame. If you let go of this restriction, you'll notice that questions like "which photos are your favorite" just don't make any sense. Appreciation of a forest is something else than admiring a single tree. And it seems that some people are incapable (at least for now) of seeing the forest for the trees.

Yes, Gursky. But I never really liked the aesthetics so did not pay much attention. I much prefer Elger Esser, which I find very beautiful.

Very pretty indeed. I'm not familiar with his work, but insofar as I can form an opinion of it based on some online browsing, I'm struggling to see anything innovative in it - in fact, his work seems to be the polar opposite of innovative. I note this due to the subject matter of the thread and not as a dismissal of his work. I'd definitely enjoy it seeing it exhibited.

 

[gary mulder]

Most innovative visual artists did’t get recognition in there lifetime.

 

[nikos79]

I get the analogy of the forest vs tree.
Each photograph of the "Americans" works beautifully as a single one but when taken out as a whole it is indeed visual poetry.

But this has to do with the subtle nuances that bind these photos altogether.

If you need music, installations, poems, or the concept of a series to support a photograph then you might be an artist but not a photographer. It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.

I can see the forest don't get me wrong. But sometimes I don't want to be forced to see the forest through the conception of an artist but I want to discover it myself. If the artist points the forest to me he offers an easy solution. I prefer the discovery of the forest to happen through discovering the visual language for yourself.

 

[Milpool]

I may have missed this but did OP clarify modern? When? In the original post it seemed more like contemporary so why were the Bechers brought into this?

 

[koraks]

If you need music, installations, poems, or the concept of a series to support a photograph then you might be an artist but not a photographer. It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.

This is once more stated as a generalization. If I try to read it with a prefixed "In my opinion...", my response would be that I'd find it odd that you somehow see the need to restrict photography to the limits of a single image's frame. The 'undermining' comment is downright puzzling to me. You lost me there even if I apply some mental gymnastics to read your comment as constructively as I can.

sometimes I don't want to be forced to see the forest through the conception of an artist but I want to discover it myself.

That's something else than arguing that it's not photography etc.

Anyway, it seems that your comments don't really move beyond a couple of highly personal preferences that in my view lack a clear rationality or an emotional basis that I can relate to.

"That's, like, your opinion, man."

why were the Bechers brought into this?

As far as I'm concerned it's fair because my comment that was used to base this discussion on said something along the lines of 'the past 80 years'. That timeframe was somewhat randomly chosen btw. In my view a discussion on innovation in photography can feature historical examples, although as I also indicated before, I personally chose to stick with actually contemporary examples. But I didn't mean that in an exclusive way.

 

[TJones]

It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.

If placing a photograph among other photographs to give context undermines its role, galleries and museums can just hang random single images instead of solo, group, or themed exhibitions. Absurd.

And the idea that these people should no longer be considered photographers is bizarre.

Your comfort zone seems to be about two inches wide.

 

[nikos79]

Yes it is very clearly my opinion and tastes. I doubt if there is any objectivity to that. And I might be a bit conservative since modern art usually doesn't appeal to me.

 

[nikos79]

If placing a photograph among other photographs to give context undermines its role, galleries and museums can just hang random single images instead of solo, group, or themed exhibitions. Absurd.

And the idea that these people should no longer be considered photographers is bizarre.

Your comfort zone seems to be about two inches wide.

I didn't say photographs did i?

 

[TJones]

I didn't say photographs did i?

You said, “the concept of a series”. A photo exhibited as part of a series could obviously be shown with other photos. Or are you claiming that the Bechers weren’t showing a series?

 

[koraks]

I didn't say photographs did i?

I think this was kind of puzzling to both @TJones as well as myself:

It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.

Reading it back, I think what you meant is something like "if a photograph is presented as part of an installation that also features other forms of art, this undermines the role of the photograph." If that's the case, then I have two comments:
1: With the exception of a single example, all work discussed in this thread to the best of my knowledge consists of 'pure' photography.
2: Even so, if you feel that photography cannot be combined with other art forms, I think you're being restrictive to the point of radical extremism.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

If you need music, installations, poems, or the concept of a series to support a photograph then you might be an artist but not a photographer. It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.

What if you don't need to, but you want to? Who says the series is there to support a single photograph? Why can't the photographer call himself a photographer? Who's in charge of being Guardian of the Purity and Sanctity of the Medium to decide that the role of a photograph is being undermined? Who (while were at it) decides what the role of a photograph is?

If someone, for example, successfully (according to some, but what do they know) mixes fiction and photography — let's give him a name just for fun, say, "Wright Morris" — and still calls himself a photographer, what happens? Is there a fine?

I would add, more seriously, that it's quite puzzling to find such a statement about Rules and Regulations regarding what is, what's not, what should be and what shouldn't be, in a thread about innovation since the only way innovation can actually have a chance to happen is if there is complete and absolute freedom.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I have been surprised with the quality of some of the very large prints (colour and bw) produced by some European Artists I have seen lately, the incredible visual detail in some of the work ( I suspect of image blending) is outstanding, and the use of long lens and focus stacking is quite amazing.
From my vantage point some of this work is not only impossible to do with single focus or using many of the old school methods or work we are historically use too, but as well quite inovative.

 

[snusmumriken]

the only way innovation can actually have a chance to happen is if there is complete and absolute freedom

Sounds good, Alex, but is it really true? Surely one can innovate within a set of constraining parameters?

 

[pentaxuser]

Would a poor blithering idiot be a suitable substitute? If so, PM me.

I haven't heard that phrase " blithering idiot " since some of the 1950s/earlier 60s British TV situation comedies. Have you got British connections, Brian?

pentaxuser