Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RSL on March 21, 2017, 10:25:40 am
-
Hi All,
Don’t know how many of you subscribe to or look at LensWork magazine, but the current issue has an editorial by its publisher, Brooks Jensen, that I couldn’t let slide by. Brooks is horrified by the fact that nowadays just anybody – anybody – can make a technically competent picture. It no longer requires hauling around a view camera and it no longer requires hours and hours in the darkroom. Since Brooks seems to believe that art is defined by the amount of work that goes into its product, and that art is pretty much defined by technical excellence, he’s horrified by what’s happening. I had to write an essay on the subject, and it’s on my web.
I have a lot of respect for Brooks. He’s sort of like Bill Buckley, holding up his hand against the onrush of left-wing liberalism and shouting “stop!” But Brooks is yelling “stop” to the onrush of improvements in photography. LensWork magazine is still rooted in a branch of 19th century Pictorialism. Many of its pictures are a bit too precious. But Brooks’s editorials always are worth reading, and I highly recommend his book, Letting Go of the Camera, published in 2004.
For anyone interested, here’s the link to my essay: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TechnicalExcellence.htm
-
Hi Russ,
I don't have access to the original, so not sure what to make of the essay you have written.
However, I don't hold with the concept of technical excellence being key, either in 'art' photography or painting: nobody could have accused Vincent van G of being the world's greatest technician, yet his works assume a power based far more deeply in the emotional pull that comes from knowing a little bit about his life and career. Likewise with HC-B: not the greatest photographic technician in the world, either, but a master of instinct and emotional know-how. How much better (or worse) his work might have become had he done his own processing, is another matter that sometimes occupies my mind. It could either have bogged him down into proper metering and cost him spontaneity, or allowed him to shoot in exactly the same way but make more 'personal' prints. Breathing heavily behind a printer is not a way of endearing oneself to a printer; you have to be a printer to know what makes the hackles rise.
"complexity and difficulty are what define a fine art photograph." This seems a bit contrary: I'd have opted for the view that it, attraction, has nothing whatsoever to do with either difficulty or complexity, but is a spontaneous reaction to something we suddenly come across as we turn a page or look at a magazine cover, though the latter is probably no longer a good example because they (mag covers) have long become anything but clean works of graphic art, but mere catalogues, external contents pages ruining the best efforts of the cover photographer; a desperate attempt to hook the casual passer-by with something that might appeal... which shows the difference between such a buyer and a regular subscriber who needs no such scribbled hooks.
I also take a somewhat skeptical view of the assumption of understanding a photograph. This makes perfect sense in such things as industrial photography: I spent a few years printing, among other things, colour shots of damaged flame tubes, where colour fidelity was key to the understanding of problems by the technicians/engineers needing those prints. Remove industry and science from photography, and there is absolutely no need for 'understanding'; what's to understand about the gent leaping over a puddle behind a railway station? Nothing: it's just a good photograph that wouldn't mean a thing as a painting. Why? because a painter can do anything his skill and imagination allow, whereas a snapper has to be able to catch something on the hop. Different abilities; different options.
Cellphones killing photographic art? Maybe photograhic 'art' is just moving its violin across the room to stop in front of another table and engage with a different diner... Reminds me of a BBC interview with David Bailey where, on being asked what he thought of them (cellphones) and everybody being a photographer today, he said it was great, because it made him look better because he could do what the others could not.
However, none of the above is to deny the pernicious effect that the Internet age is having on the world of print. I hate the idea of reading books on a screen, and even worse the chore of trying to thumb the pages of a virtual magazine. How much has been lost! A magazine had a smell, offered a really tactile experience and held an excitement all its own. Picking one up from beneath the letterbox in the morning was a thrill all of its own - as if a wanted friend had just come round to say hello! Maybe web-based magazines offer thrills for the very young with no paper experience if only because they have nothing with which to compare. Maybe the act of changing real, physical money for the item had something to do with appreciating it.
Rob
-
Well, this would equate to "no more literary works of art because everybody is a blogger these days". Clearly something doesn't quite ring true in that. A far greater danger however might be the fact that these days the more prominent works of art perhaps exist solely on the merits of some commercial success. And that of course could easily mean a certain untimely death.
-
Hi Russ -
Your essay very much makes me want to go pick up the current Lenswork and have a look, because the idea that technical perfection alone is enough to make something a work of art, or perhaps that when there are *enough* technically perfect images out there that they make culling the truly worthy ones out impossible, seems to me to be sort of absurd on its face, and contradicted by mounds of evidence to the contrary (as your examples of HCB's work show, easily and convincingly).
Composition, color, shading, light, pattern, subject (and for you, Russ, humanity, though I disagree ;) ) - these are the things that make an image, painted or photographed, stand out, and technical perfection need not play any role in that reaction.
Perhaps I'll have more to say if I can get a copy of his piece - thanks for sharing your opinion on it though.
-
Well, this would equate to "no more literary works of art because everybody is a blogger these days". Clearly something doesn't quite ring true in that. A far greater danger however might be the fact that these days the more prominent works of art perhaps exist solely on the merits of some commercial success. And that of course could easily mean a certain untimely death.
Can't quite see that happen: those truly expensive works are in the hands of very affluent galleries, institutions and/or individuals with a vested interest in keeping a fairly high value alive within their group. It's not as if the works are going out on any open market beyond a limited financial one. As such, because it wouldn't be in the best interests of the group, competition downwards isn't likely to get very far, though of course, there is still an element of "fashionable" present (with the recent Britart one being, I believe, a bit of a loser), but I don't think anyone need sell the Matisse or the Degas in a hurry. I wouldn't put the same long-term faith in contemporary photographs, though, by anyone.
Rob
-
I read Brook's "Editorial Comments" in Lenswork #129 in a much different manner. I think the essay is a provocation to photographers to think about the art and craft of photography in the context of today: billions of images and tremendous technological advancements – i.e. the ease with which an amateur can take a technically excellent image (although, perhaps soulless) – and the effect of that on the public's appreciation of those images. Are all these things diminishing the value of fine art photography to the general public? I don't think Brooks actually equates technical excellence with art (or he wouldn't publish what he does) or thinks that fine art photography is dead (or he would stop publishing). And to the degree that it has excited discussion, his essay has been successful.
-
John, what you're saying is that Brooks thinks the main result of more technically excellent photography is the effect on the public's appreciation of images. You're exactly right. Yes, the "value" of "fine art" photography has been diminished for those who believe that the value of an art object has to do with its existence as a physical artifact.
But I guess I don't understand your idea that Brooks doesn't equate technical excellence with art because of what he publishes. He publishes nothing but stuff that's technically excellent, and his method of publishing it is technically excellent -- probably the best I've seen for photography; which is the reason I continue to subscribe to the magazine. The current issue has enough color pictures of rippling water to put you in danger of going to sleep and falling out of your chair. But every one of those pictures of rippling water is technically superb and beautifully printed. Brooks is a perfectionist, and I have a lot of respect for that even if I don't often agree with his ideas about art.
-
But I guess I don't understand your idea that Brooks doesn't equate technical excellence with art because of what he publishes. He publishes nothing but stuff that's technically excellent, and his method of publishing it is technically excellent -- probably the best I've seen for photography; which is the reason I continue to subscribe to the magazine. The current issue has enough color pictures of rippling water to put you in danger of going to sleep and falling out of your chair. But every one of those pictures of rippling water is technically superb and beautifully printed. Brooks is a perfectionist, and I have a lot of respect for that even if I don't often agree with his ideas about art.
What I mean by that, is that Brooks most often publishes images that he believes have merit beyond simply being technically excellent. Yes, almost all of the submissions are technically excellent. But he's not choosing to publish them simply for their technical excellence. One can certainly argue about his choices, however, many of which I find "meh", but some of which I admire greatly (which is why I continue to subscribe). Occasionally, Lenswork does publish a photographer or set of images because it showcases a technical ability or innovation (Harold J. Ross (http://www.haroldrossfineart.com/still-life/28_14_386.html) with light painting, for example), but so did Stieglitz in Camera Work (1903-17).
However, I have to admit that, for me, the percentage of really good/exciting work found in Lenswork is less these days than it was, say, five or ten years ago. And I could say that for most photography publications (or online sites).
-
À propos... Petapixel posted an article about the trend of street photo. I liked the rant pointing out to "random photos of nothing", technically sound but offering blah.
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/20/street-photography-killing/
-
He’s sort of like Bill Buckley, holding up his hand against the onrush of left-wing liberalism and shouting “stop!”
Hey, Russ - how about breaking with tradition and writing something that doesn't include reference to your nutty political beliefs?
Just a suggestion.
-
À propos... Petapixel posted an article about the trend of street photo. I liked the rant pointing out to "random photos of nothing", technically sound but offering blah.
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/20/street-photography-killing/
The article is written in a nice, hippish and contemporary manner but boy, does his indigestion repeat!
In his own way he's attempting to define for others, yet at the same time tell them it's okay to do anything... as with much (most) writing on photography it's pointless, because the subject matter is simply far too wide to fit and please any one writer's mindset, and thus all we can hope for is that old buzzard: opinon. Really, this points up the sense behind the magazines of the fifties: they were generally nothing but a series of how-to publications running through the various stages of learning to process and to print, tied up with seasonal pictorial examples of how to apply the lessons. New readers were expected as new cameras were bought by neophytes, and so it continued until it became boring and, worse for the publishers, obsolete. Today, who learns anything? Who needs to learn anything?
Rob
-
Can't quite see that happen: those truly expensive works are in the hands of very affluent galleries, institutions and/or individuals with a vested interest in keeping a fairly high value alive within their group. It's not as if the works are going out on any open market beyond a limited financial one. As such, because it wouldn't be in the best interests of the group, competition downwards isn't likely to get very far, though of course, there is still an element of "fashionable" present (with the recent Britart one being, I believe, a bit of a loser), but I don't think anyone need sell the Matisse or the Degas in a hurry. I wouldn't put the same long-term faith in contemporary photographs, though, by anyone.
Rob
It's not so much the price of the works, especially existing works, but the fact that the art of the marketing-savvy artist has a greater change to be noticed than the art of some truly evocative (or provocative) artist that represents well some period and idiosyncracies of our society but doesn't get noticed due to lack of promotion. Both will produce technical excellence where photography is concerned, but the latter type of art may be more necessary than ever, yet remain unnoticed for all eternity.
Your photograph called "The Driver" could serve as an example. You clearly don't desire any longer to go through all the troubles of promotion, but, man, that picture so brilliantly represents current state of society, and even more: it could even be considered a statement regarding development of self-driving cars (and the corresponding use of AI computertech.) This picture should be printed at larger-than-life size and hung in the entrance hallway of the Tesla motors company.
-
Maybe more succinctly: true art reminds us that we're human, and the economic reality of modern commerce is everything but that.
-
Hey, Russ - how about breaking with tradition and writing something that doesn't include reference to your nutty political beliefs?
Just a suggestion.
Here's another suggestion, Jeremy: How about explaining what you think is nutty about it. Buckley was very, very effective. With the help of a few others he stopped the onrush of nutty left-wing liberalism. Check the current proportion of Republican governors, Republican state legislatures, Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Republicans in the presidency. He and others like him brought the nuttiness to a screeching halt. Of course that didn't stop the nuttiness in the MSM. Gradually, though, free enterprise is going to solve that problem all on its own.
-
Here's another suggestion, Jeremy: How about explaining what you think is nutty about it. Buckley was very, very effective. With the help of a few others he stopped the onrush of nutty left-wing liberalism. Check the current proportion of Republican governors, Republican state legislatures, Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, and Republicans in the presidency. He and others like him brought the nuttiness to a screeching halt. Of course that didn't stop the nuttiness in the MSM. Gradually, though, free enterprise is going to solve that problem all on its own.
You'd be 1000% wrong to consider the current situation a victory of ideas. Rather, it's the outcome of a specific and well-executed strategic plan that's somewhat (albeit poorly) analogous to the WWII island hopping strategy used against Japan. Specific state races and legislatures were targeted, leading to gerrymandered states, the result of which is places like Ohio, where votes are split close to 50/50 but state delegations are tilted heavily Republican. Since you won't believe me, Karl Rove explains it well. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099670689398044)
Sorry for the digression...
-
That may be true, James. But you can't gerrymander a state unless you're in the majority. The Democrats have been demonstrating how to do that since 1932. The Republicans have learned from them. And yes, I read Karl's editorial when it came out. Rove is one of the best editorialists out there.
A victory of ideas? In order for ideas to gain victories in politics you have to have an electorate that can grasp ideas. What you have at the moment, and progressively so (to coin a phrase) is an electorate that salivates, like Pavlov's dogs, in response to blond TV talking heads who look cute and shriek fake news and high-sounding platitudes.
I predict that as the dumbing down continues in our union-run schools the situation will get worse and gerrymandering will increase -- on both sides. Eventually, once our electorate has lost what's left of its knowledge of United States history and the social norms and ethical values of Western civilization, somebody's going to try to take over as dictator. I'd like to think that our until now relatively uncorrupted military will prevent that. But who knows? Since I turned 87 nine days ago I won't be around to find out.
Oh, and you weren't the one who started the digression, so don't sweat it.
-
... stopped the onrush of nutty left-wing liberalism.
As opposed to right-wing liberalism?
-
Has anyone realised this topic has strayed far from home, and appears lost?
Rob
-
If you look at my sig line, below, you may get a sense of my opinion. It is certainly true that technical advances have made it easy for anyone with a credit card and half a brain to take technically excellent photos. If you work for calendar companies, fine, but this is not art. Do we really need yet another photo of a blue iceberg, a mountain range with sunset, a cottony waterfall?
I have been struggling with this for a while - and to be honest, I miss the days when having the unusual skill to use a 4x5 camera, film, enlarger, etc set me apart from 99.9% of people. Those days are gone. I find myself doing more painting recently.
-
"Photography, it's the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody with a point & shoot camera can take a competent picture. But it's the hardest medium in which to express some kind of personal vision, because there is no touch. There is no hand. There is no physicality. The fact that you can have something that's recognizable from fifty feet across the gallery—a Diane Arbus, or an Irving Penn—the fact that you can have recognizable authorship means they really have done something. Because it's a damn hard thing to do."
~ Chuck Close
Source: Smash His Camera
-
Right, Chris.
-
Right, Chris.
The question though is this: is a personal signature look harder to achieve in photography than any other artform?
-
...- and to be honest, I miss the days when having the unusual skill to use a 4x5 camera, film, enlarger, etc set me apart from 99.9% of people. Those days are gone. I find myself doing more painting recently.
Maybe i don't understand, but what keeps you from still doing that; would make you standout from 99,9999% of the crowd...
Personally i think that being really busy and give attention and time to photowork is what makes somebody standout as a photographer.
Most people do not even look when they make a photograph, and it is mostly keeping personal memories alive. ( one of the very important things you can do with a photograph, and it works no matter how bad the photo is)
-
The question though is this: is a personal signature look harder to achieve in photography than any other artform?
Depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting landscape I think it's next to impossible -- actually, not even next to. It's impossible. When you bring people and their artifacts into the picture (sorry) it's possible, but very, very difficult.
-
The question though is this: is a personal signature look harder to achieve in photography than any other artform?
Perhaps, by virtue of the fact that the cell phone has put a camera into the hands of billions of people.
However, your question also prompts me to think about the nature of "achieving a personal signature look". IMO, those who have been/are most successful are usually following their own passion to wherever it may lead, and however it may develop. Too often, however, photographers/artists create work that is either "a copy of" or "premeditated" to look different in order to stand out. And it shows. And when art critics (the mediocre ones) laud and promote it, everyone loses.
At the same time, it's easy for critics to dismiss and scorn work as "derivative", when, in fact, it may bring a new perspective or interpretation into play.
I used to struggle with the notion that I had to "find my passion", develop a body of work, develop a signature look. Fortunately, as an amateur, my subsistence and self worth does not depend on these things ::). My hobby spans different genres and interests, and my efforts to create a cohesive body of work often end up with one or two good pictures among a raft of mediocre ones. One day, however, another member of my local photo club told me that she could always spot my images from among a random group of pictures. "Good or bad?" I asked. "Mostly good, and almost always interesting," she said. I'll take that as a compliment.
-
Maybe i don't understand, but what keeps you from still doing that; would make you standout from 99,9999% of the crowd...
Back in "the days," shooting on 4 x 5 and making silver prints really gave my photos a special quality, and enabled me to express my vision in an unusual way. Plus, I was young and able to easily carry the camera, heavy tripod, and all the gear up and down hills for hours. Not any more.
With technical advances, the image quality advantages of a 4 x 5 and skilled wet print-making have vanished. Anyone with a high-end Nikon or Canon and a good printer can, with skill, create B&W prints to rival those of the past. The artistry is another matter
-
Back in "the days," shooting on 4 x 5 and making silver prints really gave my photos a special quality, and enabled me to express my vision in an unusual way. Plus, I was young and able to easily carry the camera, heavy tripod, and all the gear up and down hills for hours. Not any more.
With technical advances, the image quality advantages of a 4 x 5 and skilled wet print-making have vanished. Anyone with a high-end Nikon or Canon and a good printer can, with skill, create B&W prints to rival those of the past. The artistry is another matter
That single proviso makes all the difference.
Well before my first heart attack I bought a very heavy Gitzo because I had decided to go Pentax 67 and was still interested in shooting stock material. One day, walking along the local seashore, I suddenly became aware of how heavy that tripod had become, and that I'd better think of the distance back to the car. Two things: I should have realised I was getting to the wrong side of the years equation; I should have thought about it a step further and gone for a medical check-up. That single, latter step could have saved me a lot of future grief. Hindsight... hmmm.
Rob