Will the Real Landscape Photography Please Stand Up ?

[RSL]

Slobodan, the confusion arises because you keep using the term "art" to mean painting, or at least to mean everything other than photography. Photography is just as much "art" as is painting or sculpture or printmaking or any of the other arts. When you mean painting, say "painting."

[elliot_n]

What about a non-historic example of "real landscape photography"?
Unless it's like pornography, we should be able to say "look, this is real landscape photography" while showing a photo.

If by 'non-historic' you mean recent, I've already given an example - Mishka Henner:

'Feedlots' - http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Feedlots
'No man's Land' - http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/No-Man-s-Land
'Dutch Landscapes' - http://mishkahenner.com/filter/works/Dutch-Landscapes

The idea of photography that is implicit in your responses - that the history of photography has come to a halt, and that originality in photography is no longer possible - is interesting. I've heard similar arguments about pop music - specifically that the internet, by making readily available the whole of pop's back catalog (Spotify), has deprived us of any sense of progress, of the radically new. This phenomenon of 'post-internet atemporality' (to use the jargon), is something I'm sure many of us have a sense of, but I'd very surprised if, in 5 or 10 years time, art photography had made no advances. Whilst in some ways history seems to have ground to a halt, in other ways it's accelerating ever faster.

[amolitor]

I am gently teasing you, Slobodan, because you have more than once pointed out that the difference between Art and Decor is somewhat artificial and completely modern. This current discussion - which I find fascinating - does not seem consistent with that approach to the subject!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, the confusion arises because you keep using the term "art" to mean painting, or at least to mean everything other than photography. Photography is just as much "art" as is painting or sculpture or printmaking or any of the other arts. When you mean painting, say "painting."

The short answer: no
The long answer:  too long to answer

Ok, Russ, now seriously: No, by "art" I do not mean painting or "everything other than photography." Photography can be "just as much "art" as is painting or sculpture or printmaking or any of the other arts," but more often than not it isn't. And even when it is, it is not "just as much." There are too many people, general public as much as art historians and critics, that do not consider it at the same level as painting (yourself included, I believe). In monetary terms, yes, photography is starting to sell for millions, but paintings are still going for hundred times more.

[RSL]

So what you're saying is that the extent to which photography is art depends on its price in the auction houses?

I certainly don't consider painting to be more "art" than photography. It's a different art. I think you're confused by the fact that I pointed out that you can distort linear perspective in painting but you can't really do it in photography. That doesn't make painting better art than photography, though I think it does make it, in some cases, much better at producing the feeling of certain mountain scenes.

In general, I think painting can beat photography when it comes to landscape. I don't think painting can hold a candle to photography when it comes to the kind of thing you did with "Lonely in Chicago" and it certainly can't when it comes to showing the lives of people in their natural state.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So what you're saying is that the extent to which photography is art depends on its price in the auction houses?...

No, that is not what I am saying, but rather a non sequitur. I specifically prefaced my statement with "in monetary terms." There are other, non-monetary, ways, some of which I mentioned as "general public... art historians and critics" I think it is fair to estimate that a majority of those do not put photography at the same level as painting. Monetary value is just one way of illustrating that tendency.

[RSL]

When you say "art historians and critics" I suspect you're referring to the people surrounding auction houses and museums -- whose livelihood depends on pumping up the "value," otherwise known as the selling price, of what they call "art objects." Of course an "art object" that's one-of-a-kind potentially is more "valuable" than an art object that's infinitely reproducible. But that has absolutely nothing to do with its visual effectiveness, which is what I'd use as a basis upon which to judge its value as "art." Part of the problem is the meaning of "art," a slippery term if ever there was such a thing.

[Isaac]

Of course we can. We can certainly tell postcard-pretty landscape photography from New Topographics.

Well, if "we can" then asking the "real landscape photography" to stand up doesn't make sense: it already has stood up in new Topographics, didn't it?

We can, but the blogger who asked that question seems to have been fixated by "a slideshow of landscape photos" while "munching on some bratwurst and drinking a beer" in Munich. You might think there are more sensible places to look for variety in photography.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am gently teasing you, Slobodan, because you have more than once pointed out that the difference between Art and Decor is somewhat artificial and completely modern. This current discussion - which I find fascinating - does not seem consistent with that approach to the subject!

Teasing is ok. I think I ultimately saw the value in your comment about Art vs. Decor that the distinction is much more pronounced with modern art than in the past (where I found the inspiration for my claim that most, if not all, art started as decor).

As for parsing, semantic-hair splitting, etc., no, I am not fond of that at all, though I might fall into that trap from time to time. I prefer broad generalizations (the likes of my "profound difference"), that are rather intuitive insights and open to your own interpretations, depending on the context. They are meant to provoke your own thinking about the issue, rather than tell you in no uncertain terms what the issue (and solutions to it) are. Not unlike saying "all is fair in love and war."*

Too many people, some on this thread, are measurbators and would like to know "how long is a piece of string," what the definition of "harmony," "profound," "historic," "real" etc., etc., is (and what the definition of "is" is). They want to put every photographer in their little boxes and label them as this or that, then measure the distance between boxes (e.g. how far is Ansel Adams from Peter Lik) and between a box and the ultimate goal (e.g. how far is Lik from Art).

* Parse that, measurbators!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...We can, but the blogger who asked that question seems to have been fixated by "a slideshow of landscape photos" while "munching on some bratwurst and drinking a beer" in Munich. You might think there are more sensible places to look for variety in photography.

Indeed.

By the way, the term "real landscape photography" is not mine, nor I understand what its author meant by that, so whatever I say about the issue here is not to defend the term.

As for the slideshow... most people love chocolate, yet if eating too much of it might make them sick. I heard that workers in chocolate factories wouldn't want to see it for the rest of their lives. The same with a certain type of landscape photography, exemplified by 500px.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I prefer BS to be accompanied by beer or Barolo :-)

So far, Isaac, you have not been known to resort to banal vulgarities to make your point. Looks like you already had too much of that beer or wine.

[elliot_n]

Too many people, some on this thread, are measurbators and would like to know "how long is a piece of string," what the definition of "harmony," "profound," "historic," "real" etc., etc., is (and what the definition of "is" is). They want to put every photographer in their little boxes and label them as this or that, then measure the distance between boxes (e.g. how far is Ansel Adams from Peter Lik) and between a box and the ultimate goal (e.g. how far is Lik from Art).

I was just trying to ground a potentially interesting philosophical discussion with some specific examples. I'm not sure what a 'measurebator' is, but it sounds offensive. Is such language necessary?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I was just trying to ground a potentially interesting philosophical discussion with some specific examples. I'm not sure what a 'measurebator' is, but it sounds offensive. Is such language necessary?

For the record, I did not have you in mind, nor to offend. From what I've seen, you have a better theoretical background in art history/philosophy than I do, and I respect that and your contribution to the thread.

"Measurbator" is a term originated by the founder of this site, Michael Reichmann, and often used by its frequent posters, and is meant to mean, humorously, not offensively, photographers who would rather spend their time measuring megapixels, dynamic range, this or that technical aspect of photography, etc. than taking pictures or discussing esthetics of photography. I just used it in the context of this debate to indicate those who would slice and dice every statement to its atoms, and reduce every generalization, meant to be intuitively grasped, to measurable and quantifiable ingredients.

[Isaac]

I just used it in the context of this debate to indicate those who would slice and dice every statement to its atoms, and reduce every generalization, meant to be intuitively grasped, to measurable and quantifiable ingredients.

Do you think we should just accept generalizations without question? Do you think it's possible to be specific without being reductionist?

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

Too many people, some on this thread, are measurbators and would like to know "how long is a piece of string," what the definition of "harmony," "profound," "historic," "real" etc., etc., is (and what the definition of "is" is). They want to put every photographer in their little boxes and label them as this or that, then measure the distance between boxes (e.g. how far is Ansel Adams from Peter Lik) and between a box and the ultimate goal (e.g. how far is Lik from Art).

Please have the courage of your convictions and directly address the person(s) you criticise.

...measurbator...

Which box does this label fit in?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,

Please have the courage of your convictions and directly address the person(s) you criticise...

If you insist: you, Diego and Isaac come first to mind. I used a more generic term not out of cowardice, but simply because the three of you are not so unique and original in your way of thinking.

I've encountered a lot of jerks on the Internet (and I am sure the feeling is mutual), but you didn't strike me as one, at least not initially. At some point, however, I've begin to wonder if you are asking those simplistic questions (e.g., "define harmony," "why rush") because you genuinely do not know and want to learn, or you think that using Socratic method is always cool, or you are simply enjoying yanking somebody's chain.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

...you...

Thank you.

Since I apparently upset you I will retire from the thread.

[Isaac]

… and Isaac come first to mind.

I am, of course, flattered that you keep me so much in mind. It's sweet.

… photographers who would rather spend their time measuring megapixels, dynamic range, this or that technical aspect of photography, etc. than taking pictures or discussing esthetics of photography.

The only time I remember doing something like that was in response to your comment on a technical aspect of photography.

I just used it in the context of this debate to indicate those who would slice and dice every statement to its atoms, and reduce every generalization, meant to be intuitively grasped, to measurable and quantifiable ingredients.

A generalization "meant to be intuitively grasped" can still be plain wrong.

[Diego Pigozzo]

I learned a new word, today: "jerk" defined as "person telling someone that 'because I say so' isn't an argument".

[Iluvmycam]

Landscapes??

Pretty pix are a dime a dozen...or even free.

http://www.amazon.com/Sunrise-around-world-Photo-Gallery-ebook/dp/B00ROCZ2JG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kstore_9?ie=UTF8&refRID=16FNDDPK30NZ1MN5T7FJ

 

http://www.amazon.com/Spectacular-Mountain-Lakes-Photo-Gallery-ebook/dp/B00QU1H3NK/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kstore_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0GHX6N388YGCDGWS8V3J

Lik just figured out how to make lots of money from his work instead of pennies. It would be nice if Lik will used some of his riches to create a foundation to give grants to struggling phoogs out there for worthwhile projects.