What modern photography is "INNOVATIVE"?

[warden]

Yes gallery photography has only one reason to exist, to sell.
And in order to do so it has to adopt terms that can make it "easy" and "approachable" to a potential buyer e.g. impressive colours, long texts to conceptualise the "meaning" of the photograph, its originality, etc.
I am not condemning it, it is very nice that it exists, it just doesn't interest me

It appears to interest you enough to define it, and then disparage it, i.e. no reason for it to exist other than sales.

As far as making photography easier and more approachable (with explanatory text and whatnot) it seems to me that many established and respected photographers have done exactly that to great effect.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Innovation doesn't come from nowhere. Generally, when something is "innovative", it is with respect to some thing or some practice that already exists, often in reaction to what already exists - as a way to undo, overdo, redo, or escape from it. And it's usually pretty insignificant. It's very rare that something labelled innovative has any impact on anything other than whatever it directly deals with.

In photography, the creation of roll film was innovative. Really significantly so.

APS was innovative. In about as insignificant a way as possible.

Pictorialism itself was not innovative - just like impressionism and post-impressionism were not innovative. Smearing grease on a lens was innovative and pointillism was innovative - when they were first done to achieve their desired effect.

Rolled film is just a takeoff of the ancients who stored writings and events on rolled papyrus or parchment, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew torah is still rolled today—same idea.

 

[BrianShaw]

Rolled film is just a takeoff of the ancients who stored writings and events on rolled papyrus or parchment, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew torah is still rolled today—same idea.

Innovation, whatever it is or however it might be defined... a matter of perspective, eh?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Everything has be done. Nothing is innovative. The only innovative is the artist's view which on the same things is every time different

Just out of curiosity, when exactly was "everything done" and artists just started re-doing everything done but differently? 1463? 1972? 2003? 1661? 84 B.C.? 865?

My bet would either be Genesis 2:2 or, even better, Genesis 3:24. Humanity clearly went downhill after those two ate the apple and were thrown out of Eden.

 

[nikos79]

Just out of curiosity, when exactly was "everything done" and artists just started re-doing everything done but differently? 1463? 1972? 2003? 1661? 84 B.C.? 865?

My bet would either be Genesis 2:2 or, even better, Genesis 3:24. Humanity clearly went downhill after those two ate the apple and were thrown out of Eden.

I would say beginning of 1960. Haven't seen anything very innovative in photography after that

 

[koraks]

I see them more as graphic arts than my idea of photography

We have to disagree; I already explained why.

More like "photography in the service of art." What about "The New Topographics"? Yes, it's old hat from 1975 and now fully digested, but when I first saw this I thought I was seeing something new and important.

Sure, I didn't want to diss up the old stuff that was innovative several decades ago, but history is littered with good examples of innovativeness in photography. And the Becher's certainly came to my mind as well. 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.

I would say beginning of 1960. Haven't seen anything very innovative in photography after that

Wow. Just wow. That's a brave new world you're living in for sure.

 

[snusmumriken]

But in the AI thread you said that photography hasn't been very innovative for the last 80 years.

No, I didn't.
But the way you summarized what I said is in fact an apt illustration of what's going on. Thanks for that!

Yes you did:

Keep in mind that the majority of landscape etc. photography hasn't been very innovative for the past 80 years or so to begin with

But it doesn't matter greatly. I get that you enjoy some of the stuff where people are pushing at the boundaries of what photography can do. Great. I don't share your taste (at least the examples given), but I try hard to keep an open mind and not to be a 'staunch conservative'. What bothers me, though, is that you are creating a 'worth' distinction between what you call 'innovation' and what you consider 'a zen pebble garden that's raked anew every day'.

 

[koraks]

Yes you did:

No, I didn't - the bits you left out were pertinent. So was the context and that was stripped away when this was made into a new thread. I'm OK with the latter and to an extent the former, but for the record, you misquoted me in a very significant way.

you are creating a 'worth' distinction between what you call 'innovation' and what you consider 'a zen pebble garden that's raked anew every day'.

It's not a normative statement. There's merit to the daily raking. The reason I put it with a certain aplomb is in the hopes that people start not just waking up to it, but owning up to it, too. In photography, particularly within certain genres, and also particularly in amateur photography, we do a heck of a lot of raking. This was pertinent to my quote that sparked off this thread in its original context.

 

[nikos79]

Wow. Just wow. That's a brave new world you're living in for sure.

It doesn't mean I don't like it, I still do even though it is nothing new

 

[koraks]

It doesn't mean I don't like it, I still do even though it is nothing new

Exactly, and that's fine. When we discuss innovation, people jump to the conclusion that a lack thereof is necessarily problematic. I don't think so. But denying anything new happened since 1960 is a position I would find hard to maintain. Of course, you made it clear that you you haven't seen anything new. That's of course possible. If you don't look, you don't see.

 

[nikos79]

Exactly, and that's fine. When we discuss innovation, people jump to the conclusion that a lack thereof is necessarily problematic. I don't think so. But denying anything new happened since 1960 is a position I would find hard to maintain. Of course, you made it clear that you you haven't seen anything new. That's of course possible. If you don't look, you don't see.

OK I did exaggerate but I did it in the purpose to say that I didn't see anything innovative that had moved me. Of course new things happened a lot in photography. But neither the typology of Becher couple nor the huge prints of Gursky or the fabulous life of Cindy Sherman has moved me

 

[Alex Benjamin]

OK I did exaggerate but I did it in the purpose to say that I didn't see anything innovative that had moved me.

Thing is, it's not about you.

 

[CMoore]

Rolled film is just a takeoff of the ancients who stored writings and events on rolled papyrus or parchment, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew torah is still rolled today—same idea.

Oh Man
You never fail to impress ...............

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Rolled film is just a takeoff of the ancients who stored writings and events on rolled papyrus or parchment, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew torah is still rolled today—same idea.

Toilet paper is also rolled, so where does that leave us with this reflexion?...

 

[Arthurwg]

OK I did exaggerate but I did it in the purpose to say that I didn't see anything innovative that had moved me. Of course new things happened a lot in photography. But neither the typology of Becher couple nor the huge prints of Gursky or the fabulous life of Cindy Sherman has moved me

Indeed, some of the new things, like what Cindy eventually got up to, positively disgust me.

 

[BrianShaw]

Toilet paper is also rolled, so where does that leave us with this reflexion?...

It leaves us asking the eternal question: overhand or underhand! There are pros and cons to each, and plenty of opinion. According to same, the original patent for rolled toilet paper provides the best answer.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But neither the typology of Becher couple

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It leaves us asking the eternal question: overhand or underhand! There are pros and cons to each, and plenty of opinion. According to same, the original patent for rolled toilet paper provides the best answer.

Yup. Patent US 465588

Clearly based on the Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

I live in a desert area culturally, so I had to look them up. From what I can gather, shooting industrial buildings appealed to various photographers besides the Bechers, and 'objectivity' was already a recognisable trend in photography - but to turn it all into a kind of moth collection, that's certainly different.

 

[nikos79]

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?
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

 

[nikos79]

I live in a desert area culturally, so I had to look them up. From what I can gather, shooting industrial buildings appealed to various photographers besides the Bechers, and 'objectivity' was already a recognisable trend in photography - but to turn it all into a kind of moth collection, that's certainly different.

The Bechers site August Sander as one of their major influences. But in my opinion Sander's photographs go beyond objectivity and typology they transcend and makes you want to build stories behind them. Something you can't do with an industrial building.

 

[nikos79]

It appears to interest you enough to define it, and then disparage it, i.e. no reason for it to exist other than sales.

As far as making photography easier and more approachable (with explanatory text and whatnot) it seems to me that many established and respected photographers have done exactly that to great effect.

Photographers when they talk they usually say nonsense

 

[warden]

Photographers when they talk they usually say nonsense

I'm out.

 

[koraks]

But neither the typology of Becher couple nor the huge prints of Gursky or the fabulous life of Cindy Sherman has moved me

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.

Something you can't do with an industrial building.

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

Photographers when they talk they usually say nonsense

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

 

[nikos79]

I'm out.

No no don't get me wrong. I mean they are photographers not writers they usually do best what they know best - photographing
With some exceptions e.g. HCB, Robert Adams, etc.