Will there ever be another photographic movement?

[Don_ih]

Sorry Alan, not a single important movement in arts—be it music, art, photography, architecture, literature, etc.—that was created by curators and gallerists, nor is there that were created by "people want to stand out and be noticed." None. Not romanticism, not minimalism, not be bop, not impressionism, not modernism, not pictorialism, not free jazz—especially not free jazz!—not prog, not Wagnerism, not Biedermeier, not classicism, not Sturm und Drang, not the beat generation, not the Renaissance, not pop art, not cubism, not the Notre Dame school (medieval music, not football, JIC), not Bauhaus, not the new topographics, not brutalism, not the Hudson River School, and on and on and on.

Not. A. Single. One.

Ever, ever, ever.

It's never been about making money, it's never been about ego.

It's not how it works, it's never been how it works.

You're correct - movements in the arts have always been started by a handful of people. However, @Alan Edward Klein isn't wrong, exactly. That movements come to the attention of the public (and can thereafter gain momentum and actually count as "movements") is the responsibility of publicists - whether they're curators, gallery owners, record companies, book publishers. The "Beat Movement" would have just been an ongoing slumhouse party of about the same 10 people if it had never gained any outside attention. It would have been no movement without that external broadcast.
The "New Topographics" is perhaps something that would have become more pervasive all on its own, since there's almost no choice but to include the human-made and influenced in your landscape photography. More people taking photos + more people, anyway + more houses and factories and farms, schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, waste-treatment plants = hard to not take pictures of the human-altered landscape. And recognizing its impact is, by this point in time, banal.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You're correct - movements in the arts have always been started by a handful of people. However, @Alan Edward Klein isn't wrong, exactly. That movements come to the attention of the public (and can thereafter gain momentum and actually count as "movements") is the responsibility of publicists - whether they're curators, gallery owners, record companies, book publishers. The "Beat Movement" would have just been an ongoing slumhouse party of about the same 10 people if it had never gained any outside attention. It would have been no movement without that external broadcast.

To me, that's like saying a product doesn't exist until it's marketed. There is a difference between a movement and the influence and radiance that movement has later on on the art form or on art in general. A movement is not the creation of pure marketing, like the pet rock or boys bands.

A movement is a community of spirit, style, form, intent, between artists, manifest in their artworks. It can remain isolated, shared within a small group, or it can have a larger influence. That influence can be manifest immediately, or decades later.

And what often happens to a movement after external broadcast is that it loses its original intent. It becomes denatured, a superficial copie of itself. New Topographics is a good example, as what many people call New Topographics now is only distantly related to the original intent. Same with the Beat Generation. The movement actually didn't last that long—i.e., the artworks produced by the poets and writers—, and was part of a larger movement which gave rise to the even larger movements that became the 60s (actually a confluence of movements).

I think there is an underestimation of the complexity of how artistic movements are born. There has to be at least three things: a community of spirit between artists, a reinvention of the language of the art form (often an opposition reaction to the dominant language), and a reaction, or response, to the spirit of the times. Pop art is a great example, with its reinvention of the language of art in opposition to abstract expressionism and in full accord with the spirit of the times (advertising, amongst other factors). Similarly, the Beat Generation was a reaction in opposition of post-war conservatism and materialism, minimalism a movement reacting in opposition to formalism, French impressionism (in music) a movement in reaction to German Wagnerism, etc.

The reaction aspect is most important—hence the term "movement" —alongside capturing some essence of the spirit of the times.

This is what makes the original question so difficult to answer. With the language of photography already so fragmented, what is there to react to? And what essential part of the spirit of our time—if our time has any—is there left unexplored, undetected, unrevealed?

 

[VinceInMT]

Perhaps a new movement will be spurred by the interest in materials/equipment or the lack of them. We can then merge this thread with “Is there really a strong interest in film photography?”

Alex said “And what essential part of the spirit of our time—if our time has any—is there left unexplored, undetected, unrevealed?”

I raised that a bit ago when I asked what is there to photograph was everything already has been. It was made partially in jest but with the comment by Alex, does this lead us into nihilism? Could that be the movement we are looking for?

 

[Don_ih]

A movement is not the creation of pure marketing

I didn't say it was. But a "movement" is nothing if it doesn't extend beyond the reaches of a handful of people.

A movement is a community of spirit, style, form, intent, between artists, manifest in their artworks. It can remain isolated, shared within a small group, or it can have a larger influence.

That is not a meaningful (i.e., significant) description of a movement. A movement that doesn't move beyond the limited circle of its origin is a limited practice at best and not a "movement" at all.

The movement actually didn't last that long—i.e., the artworks produced by the poets and writers—, and was part of a larger movement which gave rise to the even larger movements that became the 60s (actually a confluence of movements).

That is so conflated, it means nothing. You may as well say, "They all existed on earth."

I think there is an underestimation of the complexity of how artistic movements are born. There has to be at least three things: a community of spirit between artists, a reinvention of the language of the art form (often an opposition reaction to the dominant language), and a reaction, or response, to the spirit of the times.

A movement is when a number of disparate things can be described as being under the influence of a guiding ideology. That can be either explicitly stated or implicitly assumed. Furthermore, community can be simple awareness of either each other (artists knowing the work of other artists) or being aware of the same thing and reacting to it.
There is never any "reinvention of the language". At best, there is a switch of emphasis of importance of terms (themes, styles, modes).
You can't escape the "spirit of the times". It's ubiquitous. Even a reaction against an aspect of the zeitgeist is still the zeitgeist.

With the language of photography already so fragmented, what is there to react to?

With the diversity exhibited in the field of photography, what is there to not react to?
The seeds of "movements" occur all the time. We live in a world where no one is paying much attention to what they don't already believe. Everyone is being fed sugar all the time. We all already think we're correct - about everything. So no one reacts, anymore - everyone ignores.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Perhaps a new movement will be spurred by the interest in materials/equipment or the lack of them. We can then merge this thread with “Is there really a strong interest in film photography?”

Alex said “And what essential part of the spirit of our time—if our time has any—is there left unexplored, undetected, unrevealed?”

I raised that a bit ago when I asked what is there to photograph was everything already has been. It was made partially in jest but with the comment by Alex, does this lead us into nihilism? Could that be the movement we are looking for?

I don't think all has been said because I do think there's always something new to say, artistically speaking, about the world we live in, or a new way of saying something we know about the world we live in.

That said, if not nihilism, part of the spirit of our time is certainly marked by pessimism, and alienation, so, esthetically speaking, you might be on to something.

 

[warden]

Here’s an article about how photographic style and technique has been used in the Me Too movement For those interested. No paywall.

How Photographers Created The Images That Will Define The Me Too Era

In the midst of a sexual harassment revolution, female photographers are finding ways to infuse a historically fraught (and male-dominated) tradition with empathy.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Alan Johnson]

Art history has had many movements, i.e. expressionism, dadaism, cubism, etc, while photography has had relatively few, which makes sense considering the relatively short existence of photography. It's hard for me to list many photographic movements actually, but off the top of my head there's the ƒ/64 group, the photo secessionists, the new topographics, and what I'd broadly call street photography. I suppose those are all "movements" but I'd like to read your thoughts.

Anyway, it seems to me that while our modern hyper-connected world has made it easy for a digital meme to be viewed by eighty million people instantly, it's also made it difficult for a goal oriented photography based art movement to gain traction.

Are there any photo movements today? What are they? Is it possible to make a new photographic movement today?

No, photography has now decentralized from the control of mostly print magazine editors, book publishers and teachers who previously defined what might be called an art movement.
Nowadays anyone may set up a site or other collection of photographs they may call a movement but there are no editors, publishers, teachers to decide who is worthy of this description.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But a "movement" is nothing if it doesn't extend beyond the reaches of a handful of people.

Of course it is. The French New Wave was a movement carried on by maybe a dozen cinematographers, and lasted for about ten years. That other cinematographers, particularly in America, were later influenced by aspects of the New Wave doesn't make them part of the movement. That million of people enjoy the films of New Wave cinematographers doesn't make them part of the movement.

There is no rule about what constitutes a movement, nor how many people follow it. That's not what history shows. Some movements were the act of few people — the New Wave —, some have a large following — minimalism. Totally absurd to set a threshold.

That is so conflated, it means nothing.

My movement, obviously, is to become meaningless.

There is never any "reinvention of the language".

The history of classical music, from the middle ages until today—i.e., one "movement" after the other—, totally shows the opposite. And it's true for all other arts.

 

[warden]

Perhaps a new movement will be spurred by the interest in materials/equipment or the lack of them. We can then merge this thread with “Is there really a strong interest in film photography?”

Please, no. I already have that thread on ignore. ;-)

 

[Chuck_P]

Please, no. I already have that thread on ignore. ;-)

Lol...........

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Here’s an article about how photographic style and technique has been used in the Me Too movement For those interested. No paywall.

How Photographers Created The Images That Will Define The Me Too Era

In the midst of a sexual harassment revolution, female photographers are finding ways to infuse a historically fraught (and male-dominated) tradition with empathy.

www.huffpost.com

This is good.

Identity affirmation (from the political to the personal to the social) certainly is part of our Zeitgeist, and it does become translated esthetically in various art forms. Photographically, you see it having an effect in the #MeToo movement in the example you've quoted, but also in the LGBTQ+ community, in the Black community, and others. Might have your new movement right there .

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I think who you are referring to are art critics, not the curators and gallerists. It is the critics who have held sway and influenced what have been considered “movements.” Have you ever read the writings of Clement Greenberg? His championing Jackson Pollack is a prime example.

Maybe I'm confusing movements with individual artists, but maybe not. If it wasn't for Colonel Parker, Elvis may not have been discovered. His moving of what was basically black spiritual music to white audiences started a lot of rock n roll. Colonel Parker was interested in making money not starting new movements. I don't buy that gallerists aren't looking for new talent they can push to create sales too. Maybe curators aren't and I could be wrong there. But managers want to make dough.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You're correct - movements in the arts have always been started by a handful of people. However, @Alan Edward Klein isn't wrong, exactly. That movements come to the attention of the public (and can thereafter gain momentum and actually count as "movements") is the responsibility of publicists - whether they're curators, gallery owners, record companies, book publishers. The "Beat Movement" would have just been an ongoing slumhouse party of about the same 10 people if it had never gained any outside attention. It would have been no movement without that external broadcast.
The "New Topographics" is perhaps something that would have become more pervasive all on its own, since there's almost no choice but to include the human-made and influenced in your landscape photography. More people taking photos + more people, anyway + more houses and factories and farms, schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, waste-treatment plants = hard to not take pictures of the human-altered landscape. And recognizing its impact is, by this point in time, banal.

I think you made my point better than I did.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To me, that's like saying a product doesn't exist until it's marketed. There is a difference between a movement and the influence and radiance that movement has later on on the art form or on art in general. A movement is not the creation of pure marketing, like the pet rock or boys bands.

A movement is a community of spirit, style, form, intent, between artists, manifest in their artworks. It can remain isolated, shared within a small group, or it can have a larger influence. That influence can be manifest immediately, or decades later.

And what often happens to a movement after external broadcast is that it loses its original intent. It becomes denatured, a superficial copie of itself. New Topographics is a good example, as what many people call New Topographics now is only distantly related to the original intent. Same with the Beat Generation. The movement actually didn't last that long—i.e., the artworks produced by the poets and writers—, and was part of a larger movement which gave rise to the even larger movements that became the 60s (actually a confluence of movements).

I think there is an underestimation of the complexity of how artistic movements are born. There has to be at least three things: a community of spirit between artists, a reinvention of the language of the art form (often an opposition reaction to the dominant language), and a reaction, or response, to the spirit of the times. Pop art is a great example, with its reinvention of the language of art in opposition to abstract expressionism and in full accord with the spirit of the times (advertising, amongst other factors). Similarly, the Beat Generation was a reaction in opposition of post-war conservatism and materialism, minimalism a movement reacting in opposition to formalism, French impressionism (in music) a movement in reaction to German Wagnerism, etc.

The reaction aspect is most important—hence the term "movement" —alongside capturing some essence of the spirit of the times.

This is what makes the original question so difficult to answer. With the language of photography already so fragmented, what is there to react to? And what essential part of the spirit of our time—if our time has any—is there left unexplored, undetected, unrevealed?

Maybe both ways affect movements. There is a natural organic development that happens first. Then commercialization takes over and the movement is broadcast and expanded as other artists put their own stamp on it creating subgroups. It doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Perhaps a new movement will be spurred by the interest in materials/equipment or the lack of them. We can then merge this thread with “Is there really a strong interest in film photography?”

Alex said “And what essential part of the spirit of our time—if our time has any—is there left unexplored, undetected, unrevealed?”

I raised that a bit ago when I asked what is there to photograph was everything already has been. It was made partially in jest but with the comment by Alex, does this lead us into nihilism? Could that be the movement we are looking for?

I hope not. Light is always better than darkness.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I hope not. Light is always better than darkness.

I agree with you.

But try telling that to the Expressionists....

 

[VinceInMT]

…I don't buy that gallerists aren't looking for new talent they can push to create sales too. Maybe curators aren't and I could be wrong there. But managers want to make dough.

The money factor certainly has a major impact on art, regardless of the medium. Galleries are certainly going to take on work that will sell, particularly in their region. Curators are impacted when it come to an exhibition, they want one that will attract paying clientele and not anger members.

The money thing is something we don’t really spend much time on. I understand that many commenters here rely on the sale of their work for some of all of their income and others do what they do an an avocation. Do the former let the prospect of income impact their work?

I have zero interest in monetizing my photographic or other creative output. I make what I want to make and that’s the end of it.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Maybe both ways affect movements. There is a natural organic development that happens first. Then commercialization takes over and the movement is broadcast and expanded as other artists put their own stamp on it creating subgroups. It doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

I agree with you, with the caveat that one shouldn't confuse the movement with its popularity. Cubism was the act of a very small group of painters—I'm willing to bet most people can't name one or two past Picasso—, but it's influence was wide, creating other, new movements from it, some which departed wildly from their origin in cubism.

Its popularity, coming from the fact it is still today highly broadcast, is a whole other matter. Yes, money has a huge impact of how a movement it received by the public, i.e., its popularity, but that in no way is part of the movement. If I'm at the MoMA standing in front of a Picasso, I'm not part of the cubist movement. That's true of any art work out of which a gallerist would artificially want to create a "movement".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The money factor certainly has a major impact on art, regardless of the medium. Galleries are certainly going to take on work that will sell, particularly in their region. Curators are impacted when it come to an exhibition, they want one that will attract paying clientele and not anger members.

The money thing is something we don’t really spend much time on. I understand that many commenters here rely on the sale of their work for some of all of their income and others do what they do an an avocation. Do the former let the prospect of income impact their work?

I have zero interest in monetizing my photographic or other creative output. I make what I want to make and that’s the end of it.

Money might not drive amateurs here. But acceptance and appreciation of our work (my work) often do. I think we are influenced by what others think. That's human. Of course, we wouldn't want to be a slave to it. Also, feedback from other tells us whether we're on a trail or lost in the woods and helps improve technique if not inspired art. The middle ground is probably a good place to be.

 

[Arthurwg]

There will not be any future "movements" in photography because photography's historical moment has passed. This doesn't mean that there will not be great photography. A good question might be why that isn't true for painting.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

photography's historical moment has passed

Could you expand on this? It doesn't fit with what I'm seeing and sensing, but maybe I'm not reading you correctly.

 

[warden]

A good question might be why that isn't true for painting.

I don’t think it’s true for either medium, for what it’s worth. And photography’s moment has not passed, unless I’ve missed something.

 

[otto.f]

It's hard for me to list many photographic movements actually,

I think there are just as many as in painting: if however you correct for the years that painting and photography are in our world. Some photographers however have there own movement. Didn’t Gustav Klimt have is own movement in painting too? Some ‘standalone’ photographers in my view are Richard Avedon, Jeanloup Sieff, Jan Saudek, Erwin Olaf, Diane Arbus. Actually, do we want movements?

 

[Don_ih]

The French New Wave was a movement carried on by maybe a dozen cinematographers, and lasted for about ten years.

Methinks there may be a bit more involved with "a dozen cinematographers" than "a dozen drunks drinking on Wednesday evenings discussing porn". Likely the massive amount of money and people making movies also entails?

There is no rule about what constitutes a movement, nor how many people follow it. That's not what history shows. Some movements were the act of few people — the New Wave —, some have a large following — minimalism. Totally absurd to set a threshold.

If Joe sets out to be a maximal absurdist polo bagpipe player, it doesn't constitute a movement - it's one guy doing something no one else is. If three or four other people join in, it's still not a movement - it's a group of people doing something esoteric. If it gets publicized in some way and starts to have an impact on other people, it can be called a movement - but probably still not significant enough for anyone to ever say it is. Only when it becomes anchored in a culture in an influential way, can it be rightfully said to be a movement.

By not setting a threshold, the concept becomes vacuous.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Methinks there may be a bit more involved with "a dozen cinematographers" than "a dozen drunks drinking on Wednesday evenings discussing porn". Likely the massive amount of money and people making movies also entails?



If Joe sets out to be a maximal absurdist polo bagpipe player, it doesn't constitute a movement - it's one guy doing something no one else is. If three or four other people join in, it's still not a movement - it's a group of people doing something esoteric. If it gets publicized in some way and starts to have an impact on other people, it can be called a movement - but probably still not significant enough for anyone to ever say it is. Only when it becomes anchored in a culture in an influential way, can it be rightfully said to be a movement.

By not setting a threshold, the concept becomes vacuous.

I've given you dozens of examples of what I mean taken from the history of many artistic genre. They all prove my point.

You've given me Joe the polo bagpipe player.

Let's agree to disagree. This ain't going anywhere.