Women Photographers

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
Oh come on. If you were reading Rolling Stone in the 1970s (I was), you were learning your visual syntax through Annie Leibovitz's photographs. She did amazing work. Her place in the culture is alongside the Stones and the Who as outsized influencers who shaped her generation.

An art dealer friend gets exasperated whenever someone walks into his gallery and protests that he could have made some piece of modern art selling for a high price. "But you didn't, did you?" Easy to belittle the success of another. Harder to top it.

She is like all pop culture - a short lived product of her time. Put her working anywhere other than NYC and she'd have been an average local portraitist at best. She is famous for having been a documentarian of the pop famous - the cotton candy of culture.

The problem with pop culture is that it is tediously self-referential and almost always lacks the ability to become timeless, even in principle. She was famous for taking RS photographs of subjects that - to some significant degree - already no longer matter much. So while Adams, Weston, Karsh, Brassai, HCB, and their ilk will live in the artistic vernacular for a very long time - centuries, probably, she'll be forgotten in short order.

Saganich · Feb 1, 2024

Sarah Small, living and recording the spirt of the world we inhabit.

Rolleiflexible · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
She is like all pop culture - a short lived product of her time. Put her working anywhere other than NYC and she'd have been an average local portraitist at best. She is famous for having been a documentarian of the pop famous - the cotton candy of culture.

The problem with pop culture is that it is tediously self-referential and almost always lacks the ability to become timeless, even in principle. She was famous for taking RS photographs of subjects that - to some significant degree - already no longer matter much. So while Adams, Weston, Karsh, Brassai, HCB, and their ilk will live in the artistic vernacular for a very long time - centuries, probably, she'll be forgotten in short order.

All artists are products of their time. AL worked all over the globe, not just NYC. You may find pop culture tedious. Most of us live eat and breathe it. I'm assuming you don't like Richard Avedon either. Avedon made his name photographing fashion for NY magazines -- the most ephemeral of all avenues of pop culture -- and making portraits of mostly-forgotten dead people. Silly man.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
All artists are products of their time.

Yes, but the great ones did work that outlived their time. Her work is so banal that it's unlikely to be important to anyone once that generation of consumers is gone. When was the last time you picked up a 40 year old issue of RS to re-read because of it's important content or photography?

Rolleiflexible said:
AL worked all over the globe, not just NYC. You may find pop culture tedious. Most of us live eat and

I find it boring because it says very little that is important or timeless. It's a confection for the most part.

Rolleiflexible said:
breathe it. I'm assuming you don't like Richard Avedon either. Avedon made his name photographing

I very much like Avedon and was far and away a more interesting portraitist than AL ever was.

An Avedon photograph stands on its own. You don't have to know anything about the subject, why it was taken, or whether it was made in the service of art, commerce, or whimsy. The work can stand on its own two legs.

Liebovitz's work demands that you know the subject, the time, the context, the politics, the era, and so forth to be understood. Most of it - at least what I've seen - is sort of pop political-social commentary that has already pretty much lost relevance.

Please note that I am not dismissing her technical ability or being critical of her as an individual. I just find her work mostly irrelevant.

Rolleiflexible said:
fashion for NY magazines -- the most ephemeral of all avenues of pop culture -- and making portraits of mostly-forgotten dead people. Silly man.

And his work is unlikely to survive the test time either. The one possible exception if "Dovima With Elephants" which is a remarkable piece of art that has the potential to be timeless.

Rolleiflexible · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
And his work is unlikely to survive the test time either. The one possible exception if "Dovima With Elephants" which is a remarkable piece of art that has the potential to be timeless.

And yet the Metropolitan and other museums treat his work to the kinds of fullscale retrospectives ordinarily reserved for The Greats. Go figure.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
And yet the Metropolitan and other museums treat his work to the kinds of fullscale retrospectives ordinarily reserved for The Greats. Go figure.

New York has always had a sort of incestuous arts community that is largely self promoting, insular, and tells everyone how verrrrrry important they all are. Hey, I don't blame the artists for participating, it's a great money maker.

(This is not unlike the Hollyweird bunch giving themselves awards for Best Actor and such ...)

Rolleiflexible · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
New York has always had a sort of incestuous arts community that is largely self promoting, insular, and tells everyone how verrrrrry important they all are. Hey, I don't blame the artists for participating, it's a great money maker.

(This is not unlike the Hollyweird bunch giving themselves awards for Best Actor and such ...)

I don’t understand the hostility to New York. I lived and worked there for forty years. It is a magnet and an incubator and a market for the arts, much like Paris. It’s not (just) about the money. It is about living in a place where artists are supported and can absorb and learn from their peers and institutions like the Met and MoMA, and where they can access a global art market — dealers, critics, journalists, collectors. Proximity counts.

All that said, museums around the world have shown Avedon exhibitions. The Met was not navel-gazing at some local hack when it mounted its Avedon retrospective.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
I don’t understand the hostility to New York. I lived and worked there for forty years. It is a magnet and an incubator and a market for the arts, much like Paris. It’s not (just) about the money. It is about living in a place where artists are supported and can absorb and learn from their peers and institutions like the Met and MoMA, and where they can access a global art market — dealers, critics, journalists, collectors. Proximity counts.

I guess everyone experiences NYC in different ways. It sounds like yours and mine have been very different. But this isn't the place to work that out

Rolleiflexible said:
All that said, museums around the world have shown Avedon exhibitions. The Met was not navel-gazing at some local hack when it mounted its Avedon retrospective.

Certainly true and I wasn't trying to trivialize that at all. My larger point was the that the insular (IMO) NYC arts community is what propelled him to fame. Again, I note that he was a competent artist, some of whose work has the potential to live a very long time.

cowanw · Feb 1, 2024

So many women photographers are undocumented.
Agathe von Lettow's (Circa 1850) photographs are represented in the George Eastman Museum with daguerreotypes and, according to the Bavarian State Library, mentioned several times in various contemporary publications.
Running a studio in Berlin in 1850, her story would be interesting.

Llewelyn, John Dillwyn, a kinsman of Talbot had a photographer sister Mary Dillwyn, which is known; but his wife, Emma Thomasina Talbot, was also an early photographer lost to the usual histories.

Sara Anne Bright 1839!!!!
Louise Franziska Möllinger 1844
Bertha Wehrnert-Beckmann 1843

Pieter12 · Feb 1, 2024

Did anyone mention Faye Godwin?
I'm sure all these women have already been cited:
Francesco Woodman
Loretta Lux
Rineke Dijkstra
Tina Mondotti
Martine Franck
Lee Miller (been getting a lot of press lately)
Sally Mann
so many more.

logan2z · Feb 1, 2024

Pieter12 said:
Did anyone mention Faye Godwin?

Mentioned in Post #12.

logan2z · Feb 1, 2024

I don't think I've seen Nancy Rexroth mentioned yet in this thread. Or Sage Sohier.

Don_ih · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
Liebovitz's work demands that you know the subject, the time, the context, the politics, the era, and so forth to be understood.

Even so-called "timeless" images require that information to be "understood" - or else they perhaps are images that confound the understanding. No art exists in a vacuum - social or conceptual - and can retain any meaning or significance. Her subjects may well always have been celebrities, but that is a result of acceptance and success. Maybe she has a dozen binders filled with unpublished photos of trees, rocks, churches, statues, and the backs of strangers - would publishing those make her more "timeless"?

Anyway, I'd actually expect the moderators to scrub this thread of this diversion.

GregY · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
Yes, but the great ones did work that outlived their time. Her work is so banal that it's unlikely to be important to anyone once that generation of consumers is gone. When was the last time you picked up a 40 year old issue of RS to re-read because of it's important content or photography?

I find it boring because it says very little that is important or timeless. It's a confection for the most part.

I very much like Avedon and was far and away a more interesting portraitist than AL ever was.

An Avedon photograph stands on its own. You don't have to know anything about the subject, why it was taken, or whether it was made in the service of art, commerce, or whimsy. The work can stand on its own two legs.

Liebovitz's work demands that you know the subject, the time, the context, the politics, the era, and so forth to be understood. Most of it - at least what I've seen - is sort of pop political-social commentary that has already pretty much lost relevance.

Please note that I am not dismissing her technical ability or being critical of her as an individual. I just find her work mostly irrelevant.

And his work is unlikely to survive the test time either. The one possible exception if "Dovima With Elephants" which is a remarkable piece of art that has the potential to be timeless.

I'd bet a few bucks that Avedon will be remembered for "In The American West," among other things. Chuck we get that you find Annie L banal and tedious. Just for perspective... who does get your approval rating?

Pieter12 · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
Hey, I don't blame the artists for participating, it's a great money maker.

?

Pioneer · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
I see many familiar names listed in this thread but I think this relatively unknown (until a few years ago) found photographer is hands down near the top of the class. I'd go so far to say that her work stands of the same stature as Heri Cartier-Bresson or Atget, notwithstanding her obscurity during her working lifetime. A true treasure that so few people know about:

Vivian Maier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have enjoyed reading through this thread and many of you have introduced me to some wonderful photographers that I would never have known anything about without your references. Thank you.

I am certainly not in the same league as any of those already mentioned in this thread but Vivian Maier, Dorothea Lange and Berenice Abbott have influenced me more than I can say. I consider every one of them to be great photographers. I truly respect them and enjoy their work.

Pieter12 · Feb 1, 2024

Pioneer said:
I have enjoyed reading through this thread and many of you have introduced me to some wonderful photographers that I would never have known anything about without your references. Thank you.

I am certainly not in the same league as any of those already mentioned in this thread but Vivian Maier, Dorothea Lange and Berenice Abbott have influenced me more than I can say. I consider every one of them to be great photographers. I truly respect them and enjoy their work.

It is amazing when you realize how many great photographers were influenced by Berenice Abbott--she learned photography from Man Ray, later championed Atget (who she learned about from Man Ray), taught at the New School (Diane Arbus was a student) and many others worked for her as darkroom assistants.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

GregY said:
I'd bet a few bucks that Avedon will be remembered for "In The American West," among other things. Chuck we get that you find Annie L banal and tedious. Just for perspective... who does get your approval rating?

I generally prefer art that - in principle at least - has the possibility of being timeless (or has shown itself to already be so - e.g. the J.S. Bach Cantatas). Whether the art actually becomes so is another matter, but - for me, at least - it has to have to a chance of getting there.

This list goes beyond just female photographers because - honestly - I don't know too much about them other the AL and a few others mentioned herein. So, a small list of photographers I very much enjoy whose work has stood the test of time or who - in my opinion - are likely to:

Women:

Vivian Maier
Margaret Bourke-White

I really want to like Dorthea Lange, but finding out she staged some of her work took it down a notch in my view. You don't stage social commentary.

I respect the vision and technique of Leni Riefenstahl, but her association with the Nazis should make her a pariah for all time among civil people.

Men:

Brett Weston
Edward Weston
Ansel Adams
Atget
Brassai
Karsh
Avedon
Salgado

There are many others I enjoy, but those leap to mind.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Pieter12 said:
?

I was just saying that playing the insular art game in NYC can pay of handsomely and far be it from me to criticize people who want to improve their bank accounts

Rolleiflexible · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
I was just saying that playing the insular art game in NYC can pay of handsomely and far be it from me to criticize people who want to improve their bank accounts

I should probably just STFU at this point but your reduction of it all to greed bugs me. Can you not appreciate the concrete advantages that NYC bestows upon artists? You need to add a light or buy film: You can go to B+H or Adorama in a few minutes. Don't want to buy the light? Plenty of places rent lights. Not able to process color? Drop your chromes at Duggal. Need studio space? There are dozens of spaces for hire. Same for darkrooms. How about a model? There are hundreds, from internet amateurs to Wilhelmina pros. Camera break on set? Have an assistant run it down to Nippon Photo Clinic on Broadway. Printing in alternate media? Talas has every paper you could possibly need. And plenty of stores that sell inks and orther printing needs. Hoping to get a show? There are dozens of galleries and exhibition spaces available for new work. Wanna shoot fashion? NYC is the center of the fashion world. Wanna learn how to shoot fashion? Sign up for courses at Fashion Institute of Technology. Or sign up for classes at ICP.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. If you are serious about your craft, there are few places in the world that offer the kinds of support that NYC offers. And yeah, it's easier to monetize your work there too. But if you're there for that, you missed the point.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Don_ih said:
Even so-called "timeless" images require that information to be "understood" - or else they perhaps are images that confound the understanding. No art exists in a vacuum - social or conceptual - and can

No, but great art stands on its own. For example, Japanese musicians with little direct cultural connection to Europe, nonetheless became masterful performers of Bach, Mozart, et all because they recognized the inherent greatness of the work.

I admit this is a bit of bias on my part because I tire of the endless and ponderous "Artist Statements" attendant to so many shows and gallery openings. The statement should come from the work not pontifications about it.

The first time I saw a Brassai image, I knew it was phenomenal and (at that point) had never been to Paris, didn't speak French, etc. The work stood on its own.

The time I looked through a book of Bret Weston abstracts, I didn't bother to read anything. The images just grabbed me and held on. The work stood on its own.

The first time I saw "Night Watch" in in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, I didn't know much of anything about that period of history, the setting of the painting, or Rembrandt himself. I just stood there in absolute awe of what I was seeing. The work stood on its own.

Don_ih said:
retain any meaning or significance. Her subjects may well always have been celebrities, but that is a result of acceptance and success. Maybe she has a dozen binders filled with unpublished photos of trees, rocks, churches, statues, and the backs of strangers - would publishing those make her more "timeless"?

I don't find her work uninteresting because her subjects are celebs. I find it tedious because it's self referential to a time and moment in culture, is highly repetitive, and celebrates excess for its own sake - both in the subjects and in the photography. I'll grant you she was an effective documentarian of the time, it's just not a durable work product IMO.

Don_ih said:
Anyway, I'd actually expect the moderators to scrub this thread of this diversion.

It's not a diversion, it's legitimate criticism with which you happen to disagree. (And I respect your right of dissent.)

Please note that I have been careful to not be disparaging of her ability or person, nor would I.

chuckroast · Feb 1, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
I should probably just STFU at this point but your reduction of it all to greed bugs me. Can you not appreciate the concrete advantages that NYC bestows upon artists? You need to add a light or buy film: You can go to B+H or Adorama in a few minutes. Not able to process color? Drop your chromes at Duggal. Need studio space? There are dozens of spaces for hire. Same for darkrooms. How about a model? There are hundreds, from internet amateurs to Wilhelmina pros. Camera break on set? Have an assistant run it down to Nippon Photo Clinic on Broadway. Printing in alternate media? Talas has every paper you could possibly need. And plenty of stores that sell inks and orther printing needs. Hoping to get a show? There are dozens of galleries and exhibition spaces available for new work. Wanna shoot fashion? NYC is the center of the fashion world. Wanna learn how to shoot fashion? Sign up for courses at Fashion Institute of Technology. Or sign up for classes at ICP.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. If you are serious about your craft, there are few places in the world that offer the kinds of support that NYC offers. And yeah, it's easier to monetize your work there too. But if you're there for that, you missed the point.

I'm sorry if you thought I was reducing the analysis exclusively to economics. That was not my intent. But there is little question that is at least somewhat part of the NYC calculus.

For the record, I do not think that fattening one's wallet is the equivalent of greed. Greed is demanding something you have not earned. Achieving economic success on the merit of the work should be applauded. In this regard I do respect Liebovitz. She found a market, tapped it, executed well for her target audience, and harvested the rewards. Good for her. But I think we can agree on at least this - mere economic success or failure isn't a predictor of artistic value.

Don_ih · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
It's not a diversion

It is a diversion, because it is not really about women photographers but your rubric for art appreciation.

In the meantime, you may view some work or other and not appreciate the time and place it was generated, the context which it references, but that doesn't mean it's non-existent. All the "timeless" photos of Cartier-Bresson are actually completely locked in time and space, for example. They don't look contemporary, in terms of content, even if they are still exceptional compositions. That you choose to ignore what is an integral aspect of the work doesn't exorcise it.

chuckroast said:
it's legitimate criticism with which you happen to disagree

I tend to disagree with the majority of naive idealism.

Rolleiflexible · Feb 1, 2024

chuckroast said:
I'm sorry if you thought I was reducing the analysis exclusively to economics. That was not my intent. But there is little question that is at least somewhat part of the NYC calculus.

For the record, I do not think that fattening one's wallet is the equivalent of greed. Greed is demanding something you have not earned. Achieving economic success on the merit of the work should be applauded. In this regard I do respect Liebovitz. She found a market, tapped it, executed well for her target audience, and harvested the rewards. Good for her. But I think we can agree on at least this - mere economic success or failure isn't a predictor of artistic value.

FWIW I do not believe the people who move to NYC and make it in the arts there are driven much by money. They tend to be monomaniacal in their art. It costs buckets to live in the city. If you're an artist, moving to NYC is going to impoverish you, not make you rich. You go there despite the money, not because of it. You go because there is some irreducible need that drives you to live in a closet and eat Chef Boyardee and work three jobs to afford being an artist in New York. So no, I do not think money is an an appreciable part of the "NYC calculus."

Signing off now.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 1, 2024

Always a good sign to see the old threads bubble up. Here are some from Québec:

Caroline Hayeur. I love her rave scene series:

FESTIVE RITUAL – PORTRAITS OF MONTREAL RAVE SCENE

FESTIVE RITUAL – PORTRAITS OF THE MONTREAL RAVE SCENE 1997 The first major project by Caroline Hayeur, this photographic series focuses on the techno and rave culture in Montreal and its surrounding areas. Begun in 1996, this field research was conducted over one year. Nearly 1000...

art.carolinehayeur.com

Clara Gutsche. She's among those who helped save the Milton-Park neighbourhood from urban renewal:

Captioning Milton-Parc

Francesca Russello Ammon captions photographs of Milton-Parc by Clara Gutsche and David Miller

www.cca.qc.ca

Claire Beaugrand-Champagne. Another monument of documentary, who got her start with these rural images:

Disraeli 1972 | Claire Beaugrand-Champagne, photographe

Isabelle Hayeur. The subtle irony of her photomontages was my introduction to art photography:

Isabelle Hayeur - Maisons Modèles

Une série de photographies à propos des maisons modèles et de la banlieue nord-américaine

isabelle-hayeur.com

Éliane Excoffier. Raw, but also delicate and evanescent. She used a Kiev 60 for an early series that still haunts me:

Kiev_ 2008 — Éliane Excoffier

www.elianeexcoffier.com

Lynne Cohen. Echoes of Atget in her approach to interiors. Her name is now attached to a major photographic prize:

:: Lynne Cohen ::

Women Photographers

chuckroast

Saganich

Rolleiflexible

chuckroast

Rolleiflexible

chuckroast

Rolleiflexible

chuckroast

cowanw

Pieter12

logan2z

logan2z

Don_ih

GregY

Pieter12

Pioneer

Vivian Maier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vivian Maier - Wikipedia

Pieter12

chuckroast

chuckroast

Rolleiflexible

chuckroast

chuckroast

Don_ih

Rolleiflexible

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

FESTIVE RITUAL – PORTRAITS OF MONTREAL RAVE SCENE

Captioning Milton-Parc

Isabelle Hayeur - Maisons Modèles

Kiev_ 2008 — Éliane Excoffier

Women Photographers

Vivian Maier - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Vivian Maier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org