Will there ever be another photographic movement?

[jtk]

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?

 

[macfred]

Who were peers of Bernd and Hilla?

Albert Renger-Patsch; August Sander; Karl Bloßfeld; Hein Gorny, Hans Fiesler ... ?

 

[cowanw]

The New Topographics take their name from an exhibition titled “New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape,” in 1975. The show featured works by ten photographers: Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Bernd Becher and Hilla Becher, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke, Nicholas Nixon, John Schott, Stephen Shore, and Henry Wessel, Jr.

 

[jtk]

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?

 

[jtk]

I think many of today's photographers (going back into the fifties) see themselves as "conceptual" .

 

[macfred]

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)

 

[jtk]

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)

Thanks... I don't think that "assignment" makes much sense in the cases of Sander (who did his work to support Nazi genetic theories) or Blossfeldt, who was a furniture designer (designed cast iron using technical photos of plants) and had little or no contact with other artists.

I don't think a "movement" exists without a group that engages in correspondence and exhibits in galleries.

 

[jtk]

Here's an example of contemporary communication that often centers on "conceptual" photography involving ideas that are prominent among photographers who exhibit, often in foremost galleries.

https://us16.campaign-archive.com/?e=648a55d311&u=4379ede9c1e177842009c29d3&id=1814b3353d

 

[macfred]

... Sander (who did his work to support Nazi genetic theories)
...

In my view, that is not at all true !
Under the Nazis, August Sander was only able to work to a limited extent; some of his work (for example pictures and printing blocks for his book ''Antlitz der Zeit'') were destroyed by the Nazis and an exhibition 'stop was imposed in 1933.
In 1934 his son Erich, who had studied philosophy and economics at the University of Cologne, became one of the leading figures of the SAPD (Socialist Workers' Party of Germany), which was banned from 1933.
He was denounced, arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison.

 

[cowanw]

Thanks... I don't think that "assignment" makes much sense in the cases of 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.

 

[macfred]

In 2018, the Mémorial de la Shoah (Holocaust - Museum) in Paris, France showed photographs by Sander in a large-scale exhibition in cooperation with the August Sander Foundation and the NS Documentation Center of the city.
Here one could consider Sander's work "People of the 20th century" as soberly as it is. "To see things as they are, and not as they should or can be".
Sander photographed German Jews, forced laborers, and politically persecuted people. Although the forced character of some of these photographs cannot be overlooked, they are dignified portrait photographs.

August Sander had changed from a patriot to a critically thinking leftist as a result of his experiences in the First World War. Together with his son Erich Sander, they reproduced on photographic paper illegal leaflets that Erich had written.
The son, imprisoned by the Nazis, died in 1944 shortly before his release in Siegburg prison.

I am aware that this section of the forum is not for
political discussion. Nevertheless, it was important to me to counter the statements from posting #60 with a somewhat securitized reality.

 

[jtk]

https://www.theartstory.org/movement/modern-photography/artworks/

https://www.tate.org.uk/research/pu...nd-the-pervasiveness-of-the-peasant-tradition

I apparently suggested Nazi sympathies when I mentioned (above) Sander interest in "types"...that sort of analysis of his life and work does remain in academic discussion ( see in my links). Here's how I carelessly alluded to that: " Sander (who did his work to support Nazi genetic theories". I happens that the physiognomy theories of Cesare Lembroso were widely embraced and respected in Sanders' Germany. That has no direct connection to Sanders' personal philosophy, but certainly had something to do with Shoah. and is today related to "stop and frisk." .

https://www.tate.org.uk/research/pu...nd-the-pervasiveness-of-the-peasant-tradition

 

[jtk]

To expand on Sander ...well written.... https://americansuburbx.com/2012/04/theory-august-sander-profile-of-people.html

 

[cowanw]

Happily we no longer need to make quite so many assumptions about "The Three Farmers"
This is in German but translates very well in chrome.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuille...er-august-sanders-jungbauern-12895300-p2.html

 

[removed account4]

i think it all depends on what people consider a "movement" to be. art historians and architectural historians define movements differently than "lay people". i can't remember if there has been anything that is considered "movement" since the the "one that happened after the 'post modern' " movement.
i don't really think one can call lomography or soft focus or street photography movements they are a brand / attitude and styles of photography, its like calling "portraiture" or "architectural photography" movements. movements are something else, .... at least in the eyes of academia, curators and gallerists, and if it is from their point of view .. at the moment the answer is no, but that can change.

 

[jtk]

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)

Being "assigned" indicates (in English) that some recognized leader or entity did the assigning.

Movements are not "assigned," they happen as a result of shared experience (as from gallery exhibition).

That "New Objectivity" may "define photography" in a particular way has nothing to do with movements.

"Schule" doesn't mean "movement".

That vast numbers of people eat McDonalds does not make McDonalds a schule.

 

[awty]

Hard to imagine artist getting caught up in dogma these days. Photographers maybe, they like that type of thing.

 

[jtk]

This relates to Shoah and the exhibition in Israel...was kindly shared with me:

https://galeriejuliansander.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CP_Mémorial-de-la-Shoah_trilingual.pdf

 

[jtk]

Hard to imagine artist getting caught up in dogma these days. Photographers maybe, they like that type of thing.

I don't think photographers are particularly "caught up in dogma" however there certainly ARE current movements among other artists...for example, explorations of themes around gender, identity, privilege, environment. One would miss those movements if one was rarely exposed to difficult, perhaps disturbing ideas.

For example, I find Edible New Mexico (Ediblenm.com) inspiring. Exceptional food discussion, fine food photography, and writing related to innovation in cuisine, farming, Native and creative people. (New Mexico is unique in many ways).

 

[Pieter12]

Although not very well represented in photography. Outsider Art or Art Brut is a recognized but not an organized or much of a formal movement. An example photographer would be Roger Ballen, recently featured by L'Oeil de la Photographie. https://loeildelaphotographie.com/e...-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]&ct=t(Newsletter+EN+02042020)

 

[warden]

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?

I doubt there will be a consensus but I think of a movement as having three things:

1. Similarity in style or some conceptual link holding together the photographers and/or their work.
2. A purpose for that style that has been articulated by someone at some time.
3. A movement should be linked to a particular time.

I don't think it's necessary for the photographers to be in communication with one another, or to be aware that they are a part of a movement.

So, for me personally:
Photo Secessionists - yes
New Topographics - yes
Lomography - probably yes
Bokeh - no

 

[KenS]

We all have our own movements...This could lead into a really bad joke.

Maybe even 'somewhat smelly'

My bad...


ken

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Maybe even 'somewhat smelly'

My bad...


ken

 

[Mike Shea]

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.

Jim's post got me thinking. I was watching Night on Earth on Netflix with my wife this past weekend and the film makers were quite proud of the way that we are able to "see" nocturnal activity perhaps for the first time all due to "new technologies." It really is magnificent.

Looking back across the 20th century, I wonder if the relative newness of photographic imaging makes it seem that the different waves and stylistics of image making that could become called "movements" are in one way or another tethered to the so many technological developments of the craft with an obvious link to it's accessibility? I cut my teeth in an interesting transitional period in the late 90s, and what I've found interesting is that the digital age may have rendered a shift in imaging as commodity (and one hell of an explosion in image making) it never really "killed" film or darkroom and it even birthed a wonderful array of seeing in photography. I've been away from making photographs for most of the 21st century (I just didn't want to digital and then kids, etc. ha!) and in my own very recent rebirth (is that the right word?) I'm seeing quite a vibrant community of artists but more distinct from one another than I recall noticing before.

What I wonder is if others think it possible that we have a more fully realized means to create images and schools of images that allow distinction between "movements" more so, or, rather than merely subject matter or medium preferences? What and how those movements are defined I'll leave to people who know what they are talking about.

 

[jtk]

What I wonder is if others think it possible that we have a more fully realized means to create images and schools of images that allow distinction between "movements" more so, or, rather than merely subject matter or medium preferences? What and how those movements are defined I'll leave to people who know what they are talking about.[/QUOTE]

You've raised several interesting ideas.

I've shot a tremendous amount of Ektachrome as a slide graphics/audio-visual tech manager and commercial photographer.

That film and its processing was almost always "free" (clients paid for it)... like digital files are today for everybody. That "free" aspect has always been true as well for portrait and wedding photographers, since clients paid for the film/processing before digital. Amateurs are another matter.

AFTER "going digital" my rate of camera clicking sharply dropped because a) I got older and b) I consciously refrained from shooting unless I saw an image that called for my print-making (which is expensive due to price of pigment). As a pro I rarely needed prints for clients. Since going digital and amateur my standard prints have typically been 13x19" (an inkjet paper size).

Most "landscape" and "street" photography has always seemed derivative and redundant to me so my own efforts have been intentional, even planned. I think that attitude/approach is characteristic of commercial photographers, not amateurs. As a former commercial photographer I suspect that my peers put more energy into experimentation than into Photrio-style categories...few were into decorative images.