Who were peers of Bernd and Hilla?
I suppose that's true, but I would imagine the New Topographics for one would be familiar to German photographers as two of the group were German (Bernd and Hilla Becher who founded the Düsseldorf School). Would the f/64 group be unknown to a German photography audience as well? I assumed Ansel Adams was more influential than the 50 states but that could just be the US perspective again.
Anyway, photographic movements from other parts of the world would be very interesting to learn about, especially if they are ongoing ones. If anyone has pointers I'd be glad to read about them. The Lomography one mentioned above is interesting, and they even have a "manifesto" that they published, but then again they have products to sell and that makes it feel more commercial of course.
Who were peers of Bernd and Hilla?
Albert Renger-Patsch; August Sander; Karl Bloßfeld; Hein Gorny, Hans Fiesler ... ?
Do you find something that relates the work of each to the other? (that would suggest a "movement.") Did they correspond?
All of them are assigned to ''Neue Sachlichkeit'' (New Objectivity) movement, with Blossfeldt and Sander as the leading representatives, which brought a sharply focused, documentary quality to the photographic art.
The New Objectivity has a documentary character and defines photography as a medium that makes it possible to reproduce the exact form of things and thus promotes the inventory of objects.
Though the movement essentially ended in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis, Bernd and Hilla Becher (''Düsseldorfer Schule'') and others who were born later are still assigned to that movement.
Bernd Becher called Sander a ''spiritual adviser''.
(source -amongst other things- Wikiart.org)
... Sander (who did his work to support Nazi genetic theories)
...
I would be interested in your sources for this conclusion that he did his work to support Nazi genetic theories and why he is not properly part of the Neue Sachlichkeit group to which the literature invariably assigns him.Thanks... I don't think that "assignment" makes much sense in the cases of Sander (who did his work to support Nazi genetic theories)
All of them are assigned to ''Neue Sachlichkeit'' (New Objectivity) movement, with Blossfeldt and Sander as the leading representatives, which brought a sharply focused, documentary quality to the photographic art.
The New Objectivity has a documentary character and defines photography as a medium that makes it possible to reproduce the exact form of things and thus promotes the inventory of objects.
Though the movement essentially ended in 1933 with the rise of the Nazis, Bernd and Hilla Becher (''Düsseldorfer Schule'') and others who were born later are still assigned to that movement.
Bernd Becher called Sander a ''spiritual adviser''.
(source -amongst other things- Wikiart.org)
Hard to imagine artist getting caught up in dogma these days. Photographers maybe, they like that type of thing.
What defines a movement? Do you need a group of like-minded photographers? A manifesto? Or just grouping of similar style, influenced by others but not necessarily coordinated or intentional?
We all have our own movements...This could lead into a really bad joke.
Part of the problem with defining current movements in the art world is that these movements aren't usually defined by the artists themselves, but rather by the art historians, after the "movement" has passed. For example, while Andreas Gursky teaches at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, he's not really in the Düsseldorf school of photography movement. His "movement" will probably be defined later, as he's certainly one of the most influential photographers of our time. Same with Annie Leibowitz, Alec Soth, Stephen Shore, etc. They're all extremely important artists who's work will certainly get categorized into movements, though since they're all still alive and producing, it's hard to accurately categorize them now without the perspective of history as a guide. Long after they've passed and the movement has come to a natural conclusion, it'll be easier to understand where it started, where it ended, who was involved, and what it all meant. Then, it'll get a name.
Also, a lot of the movements in photography align with the movements in the rest of the art world. For instance, there was a Dada, Surrealist, Pop, etc. movement in photography as well as painting and sculpture.
Pictorialism was an early photography movement, perhaps the first, and certainly deserves to be mentioned, as it was one of the few that didn't bleed over into painting and sculpture.
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?