OK let's agree then that innovations do happen. The significance of which is something personal to evaluate
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.
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.
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?
Something you can't do with an industrial building.
but to turn it all into a kind of moth collection, that's certainly different.
@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.
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.
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.
(A) I won't put my hand on my heart caus' this ain't a sorority
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.(B) I've seen enough photography in my lifetime to have my own judgement and not be influenced by others' praise and semantics
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?(C) I've just told you it's one of the most fascinating photography show I've ever seen
You can if you are looking and paying attention. That's not given to all.
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.
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?
Find me an illiterate but wise peasant on Photrio and we'll try it.
And it only works if you show them together.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
That's something else than arguing that it's not photography etc.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.
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.why were the Bechers brought into this?
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.
I didn't say photographs did i?
I didn't say photographs did i?
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:It is very undermining for the role of photograph to place it among other things in order to give value to it.
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.
Sounds good, Alex, but is it really true? Surely one can innovate within a set of constraining parameters?the only way innovation can actually have a chance to happen is if there is complete and absolute freedom
Would a poor blithering idiot be a suitable substitute? If so, PM me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?