Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: bobtowery on November 10, 2010, 10:40:04 am
-
Thumbs up to this style. A great image, and the story behind the image that one can digest in one or two minutes. Better than no information, and better than a full fledged essay. Merci Alain!
-
I have a question for Alain, if he watch this thread, as I know he has been student in the Paris fine arts just before me (well, a lot before me) and therefore knows very well the european art scene.
I'm very surprised that landscape photography, that you call "art photography" in the us, is completly absent from the europeans galleries. There is no market here for landscapes.
Is that has something to do with culture according to you?
It seems that being a "landscaper" the only destination is the US. Am I right?
-
I have a question for Alain, if he watch this thread, as I know he has been student in the Paris fine arts just before me (well, a lot before me) and therefore knows very well the european art scene.
I'm very surprised that landscape photography, that you call "art photography" in the us, is completly absent from the europeans galleries. There is no market here for landscapes.
Is that has something to do with culture according to you?
It seems that being a "landscaper" the only destination is the US. Am I right?
Fred, again, we seem to be communicating as if by telepathy: I asked Alain more or less the same question some years ago, suggesting that with so much in his home country (he did some lovely stuff of Paris which, if memory serves, he had used to illustrate a new Epson non-pigment printer...) it seemed odd to have to go to the States. But hell, selling photography as art (in the sense of non-commissioned or stock) in Europe is no easy matter, whoever you are. On the other hand, I ended up in Spain because of locations too...
I guess it all comes down to a sustainable business model. If you find one, tell me about it!
Hoodoo: I'd never heard the term before; this one reminds me of the Sphinx with its tail up. But rather nice shot, Egypt notwithstanding.
Rob C
-
I also appreciate the quick descriptions of the images. Adds context to the visual.
And Rob, a 'hoodoo' is created by a 'capstone' of harder rock (usually volcanic) overlaying something softer, like sandstone. The capstone acts as an 'umbrella' of sorts, protecting the stone underneath and over millenia the surrounding stone is worn away by rain, wind, etc.
Mike.
-
Concise, snack-size essays served with a beautiful image, and a reminder that it is all about the light. Thank you, Alain.
-
The Canyon de Chelly essay is a beautiful essai of self discovery via light, very much appreciate Alain's sharing his self revelations...as much as I hate computers, how else would I have had the fortune to "overhear" this conversation... Thank you Alain...
-
Fredjeand, I hope you don't mind if I hijack your post ;-0
Interesting question. I am a European buyer, not an artist. And I confess, somewhat sheepishly here, that I probably wouldn't buy landscape photography. I have actually bought a few prints, but that was mostly to show support rather than by real interest. Why is that so? There's probably a deep cultural current under this. Assume a potential buyer with a decent interest but not a passion for art photography. In the US, that buyer will know Ansel Adams. In continental Europe, he'll know Cartier Bresson. In my case, I could immediately identify most significant Cartier Bresson images before I even heard the Ansel Adams name and I heard of him because of its zone system, not because of his works. Then, there is the issue of individual snobishness: for some reason, I'd go as far as saying that landscape photography carries some sort of stigma around here. If I had a large wonderful Grand Canyon picture in the entrance of my house, visitors would think "oh, he is the kind of guy that puts landscape pictures on his walls" and I'd think the same in the opposite situation, with some kind of fuzzy negative feeling. Now replace the Grand Canyon image by a B&W portraits, abstract stuff or even some controversial Larry Clark or Mapplethorpe style stuff and suddenly "the kind of guy" takes a positive connotation: the owner is "obviously" an educated interesting and sophisticated person...
That's all bull... of course, but that is the feeling.
We've hosted several arts exhibitions/sales at the office (I was loaning the rooms to a retired friend who had been running galleries her whole life): painting and sculptures did very, very well, nothing ground breaking but in the 2000 EUR to 10000 EUR range per piece. A photographer was piggybacking on the exhibit with 30 to 100 EUR prints, landscape style. He sold nothing. People would stop, look, say "wonderful pictures", but they never bought. Towards the end of the exhibition, we even wanted to give prints as a gift to buyers of large pieces - guess what, they were declined!
Very very tough market for art photographers here if they aren't the kind of "very fine" art photographers sold at Sothebys or Christies...
-
Now replace the Grand Canyon image by a B&W portraits, abstract stuff or even some controversial Larry Clark or Mapplethorpe style stuff and suddenly "the kind of guy" takes a positive connotation: the owner is "obviously" an educated interesting and sophisticated person...
That's all bull... of course, but that is the feeling.
We've hosted several arts exhibitions/sales at the office (I was loaning the rooms to a retired friend who had been running galleries her whole life): painting and sculptures did very, very well, nothing ground breaking but in the 2000 EUR to 10000 EUR range per piece. A photographer was piggybacking on the exhibit with 30 to 100 EUR prints, landscape style. He sold nothing. People would stop, look, say "wonderful pictures", but they never bought. Towards the end of the exhibition, we even wanted to give prints as a gift to buyers of large pieces - guess what, they were declined!
Very very tough market for art photographers here if they aren't the kind of "very fine" art photographers sold at Sothebys or Christies...
Pierre, you have identified the problem.
Those prices make any photography look cheap and relatively worthless; who wants stuff you can't give away?
It's a measure of the lack of confidence most photographers selling stuff as art face: low self-belief, which is a killer in any profession. I believe that buyers are of two main types: those who genuinely like photograhy; those who buy whatever they think is fashionable, regardless of anything else. There may be a third type, the investor, but I doubt most mortals deal with him as clients, though I suppose the bigger galleries must.
I don't put any prices on my website; if anyone is interested enough to want to buy, the route is there and it prepares the buyer for reality, which doesn't come cheaply. The beauty of my position is this: whilst I like the idea of my work on people's walls, it doesn't change my life if they don't buy. I spend a lot of time preparing something to the stage where I'm proud of it, why charge less than a plumber or an electrician for those hours?
Rob C
-
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2010, 10:10:42 AM » Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
I have a question for Alain, if he watch this thread, as I know he has been student in the Paris fine arts just before me (well, a lot before me) and therefore knows very well the european art scene.
I'm very surprised that landscape photography, that you call "art photography" in the us, is completly absent from the europeans galleries. There is no market here for landscapes.
Is that has something to do with culture according to you?
It seems that being a "landscaper" the only destination is the US. Am I right? "
Fred ...When I read your question it got me wondering and hoped for a reply...the open and honest reply from the buyer perspective really sheds a light on the matter that never crossed my radar before...Your question and the reply from Pierre gives a lot to think about ie works and imaginings of freely creatives...Thanks for opeening this door for a peek inside...P.
-
why charge less than a plumber or an electrician for those hours?
Indeed!
-
… why charge less than a plumber or an electrician for those hours?
You can choose to charge as a lawyer just as well… the result will be the same: people go to those professions when they really (and often badly) need them. People hardly need a blown-up postcard on their wall (in reference to the stigma landscape photography has, as per Pierre's posting).
-
Fredjeand, I hope you don't mind if I hijack your post ;-0
Interesting question. I am a European buyer, not an artist. And I confess, somewhat sheepishly here, that I probably wouldn't buy landscape photography. I have actually bought a few prints, but that was mostly to show support rather than by real interest. Why is that so? There's probably a deep cultural current under this. Assume a potential buyer with a decent interest but not a passion for art photography. In the US, that buyer will know Ansel Adams. In continental Europe, he'll know Cartier Bresson. In my case, I could immediately identify most significant Cartier Bresson images before I even heard the Ansel Adams name and I heard of him because of its zone system, not because of his works. Then, there is the issue of individual snobishness: for some reason, I'd go as far as saying that landscape photography carries some sort of stigma around here. If I had a large wonderful Grand Canyon picture in the entrance of my house, visitors would think "oh, he is the kind of guy that puts landscape pictures on his walls" and I'd think the same in the opposite situation, with some kind of fuzzy negative feeling. Now replace the Grand Canyon image by a B&W portraits, abstract stuff or even some controversial Larry Clark or Mapplethorpe style stuff and suddenly "the kind of guy" takes a positive connotation: the owner is "obviously" an educated interesting and sophisticated person...
That's all bull... of course, but that is the feeling.
We've hosted several arts exhibitions/sales at the office (I was loaning the rooms to a retired friend who had been running galleries her whole life): painting and sculptures did very, very well, nothing ground breaking but in the 2000 EUR to 10000 EUR range per piece. A photographer was piggybacking on the exhibit with 30 to 100 EUR prints, landscape style. He sold nothing. People would stop, look, say "wonderful pictures", but they never bought. Towards the end of the exhibition, we even wanted to give prints as a gift to buyers of large pieces - guess what, they were declined!
Very very tough market for art photographers here if they aren't the kind of "very fine" art photographers sold at Sothebys or Christies...
Pierre, I completly agree with all your lines. Great observations.
From France, I didn't know who Ansel Adams was (in fact I did but it was kind of a remote idea that had to be ignored, specially in Fine arts) until the zone system crossed my radar as Patricia would say (like this expression), and landscapes where considered almost like wedding photography, something kind of red-neck while the culture of snaps was indeed to the glory.
This is cultural and has not changed that much so far.
-
There's another perspective, too, that the Transatlantic photographers - and their buyers, for that matter - won't like to know. It's my view that in Europe, at least, there is a long-held impression that the New World is woefully lacking in cultural values. I add that this is my observation and not my personal opinion.
As a direct extension of that, not least because of a sense of envy (of pretty well everything, in fact, hence the Schadenfreude about Wall Street) that pervades much of European thought, America and its art, in which landscape photography is a big player, is never fully given its deserved place in the scheme of things. There is a sense of suspicion about much of it, from paint to photography and cinema, the latter being particularly suspect because of its overwhelming power in the world marketplace. You could say that the midgets are revolting...
But, from a personal perspective, which is something else again, I share part of the thing about landscape photography, but for different reasons. I learned long ago never willingly to hang photographs alongside paintings. Mediocre paintings will win any battles of comparison. Where paint offers, at the least, some show of artistic prowess, landscape photography seldom does, particularly in colour. It simply doesn't smell the smell; it's forever just a magazine page, a travel document torn from a brochure or a travel agent's wall.
But, if you venture into black and white, display a human figure doing something, or just existing in its own space of white, you have already taken a step out of reality and towards, if not exactly into, art. The finest colour print fails to do that: it’s forever just a photomechanical reproduction of what’s imagined to have been there all the time. You can play with it, twist it about in PS but even if you do it to retain or, rather, create a newer improved (in your view) version of the reality that you began with, it’s still seen to be what it is: just a photograph.
Maybe that’s why some of the American landscape shooters of the past also sell in Europe: they used b/w and are safely dead.
Colour photographs of people. I don’t think that they are ever art. They certainly are commercial in the sense that they sell actors and models and almost everything you can think about, but I wouldn’t hang one anymore either. At home, I have several paintings that I inherited and also two of my own colour landscape snaps in contradiction of what I wrote earlier. They still hang because my late wife liked them. I have some of my own b/w women and that’s it. Starting with an emotionally clean slate, I would dump them all and use my old fashion shots, but I don’t even have a damn negative left! I can’t win that one.
Perhaps it’s simply that b/w is seen to be artistic whereas colour is thought to be the province of commerce. I certainly think like that now – most stock agencies peddle colour for a reason.
Rob C
-
This is a great post Rob.
Very interesting statements.
-
Hi Rob. Some nice thoughts there.
Just curious, which midgets are revolting?
Just so that I know to stay clear of them.
Regards
Stefan
-
As a direct extension of that, not least because of a sense of envy (of pretty well everything, in fact, hence the Schadenfreude about Wall Street) that pervades much of European thought, America and its art, in which landscape photography is a big player, is never fully given its deserved place in the scheme of things. There is a sense of suspicion about much of it, from paint to photography and cinema, the latter being particularly suspect because of its overwhelming power in the world marketplace. You could say that the midgets are revolting...
But, from a personal perspective, which is something else again, I share part of the thing about landscape photography, but for different reasons. I learned long ago never willingly to hang photographs alongside paintings. Mediocre paintings will win any battles of comparison. Where paint offers, at the least, some show of artistic prowess, landscape photography seldom does, particularly in colour. It simply doesn't smell the smell; it's forever just a magazine page, a travel document torn from a brochure or a travel agent's wall.
There may be another explanation rooted in the art history approach (with the caveat that I am by no means an art historian, so the following view can be quickly discarded if you want). American painting has long been realism based and if you look at the great landscape schools of the 1800s there was never an attempt to break away as was seen in Europe, particularly France. It certainly does not surprise me about the what sells in French galleries. If you look at where the French impressionists took painting regarding nature and landscapes, it strongly argues against a naturalistic approach by photographers. Ansel Adams sells because it is Ansel Adams (iconographic images). Is there much of a market for his work in Europe (I don't know the answer to this).
It may also be that photography is not regarded as art since the presumption might be that anyone can get lucky taking a picture, or that the main use should be restricted to documentary (pace Cartier-Bresson).
Alan
-
Rob, Your thought rich, considered, articulate and quietly expansive contribution to this conversation is enriching beyond the thoughts expressed...in an almost subconscious flow...this is the very kind of back and forth, late night, maybe over a few cognacs I miss about my rather solitary life... you are a pure treasure in my eyes...Lula is my drug of choice dispossessed at end of day's demands for just such portals as these. P.
-
Hi Rob. Some nice thoughts there.
Just curious, which midgets are revolting?
Just so that I know to stay clear of them.
Regards
Stefan
Stefan, you and Slobodan (in another thread but on the same thing) are taking me for a ride!
Rob C
-
Rob, Your thought rich, considered, articulate and quietly expansive contribution to this conversation is enriching beyond the thoughts expressed...in an almost subconscious flow...this is the very kind of back and forth, late night, maybe over a few cognacs I miss about my rather solitary life... you are a pure treasure in my eyes...Lula is my drug of choice dispossessed at end of day's demands for just such portals as these. P.
Patricia, what are you trying to do to my cool? I sit here at this computer of an evening listening to klrzfm.com, tears in my heart if not down my cheeks, the blues my constant bedfellows, and photography that false little voice in the background telling me sweet little lies of a better tomorrow that might match the highlights of a lost yesterday. People here like landscape: landscape means weeping willows by the river; Cognac, pour moi, means death and rivers the Styx. I loved cognac on the rocks, as I also liked Jim Beam on the same and, at the risk of sounding pretentious I thought a Ricard very much the thing before lunch whereas my better half was more inclined to risk a Campari soda.
My various cardiologists tell me that a single glass of red wine per day, preferably Cabernet Sauvignon, is my permitted way to go, but I always liked well-chilled white so much more. (I said cardiologists, but I didn't mean I surround myself with a team, they just seem to replace one another over the years, but only one is there at a time, which is probably quite enough save for emergencies when I'd rather an entire hospital surround me.) I once asked a doctor in Scotland why CabSauv and he thought that it was probably because they have a more highly skilled team of PR people working for them than do the others grapes...
Kidding (possibly) aside, thanks for the vote of confidence!
;-)
Rob C
-
I have a question for Alain, if he watch this thread, as I know he has been student in the Paris fine arts just before me (well, a lot before me) and therefore knows very well the european art scene.
I'm very surprised that landscape photography, that you call "art photography" in the us, is completly absent from the europeans galleries. There is no market here for landscapes.
Is that has something to do with culture according to you?
It seems that being a "landscaper" the only destination is the US. Am I right?
Yes, the landscape photography genre is much more alive in the US. It started here essentially for one thing (Adams, Weston, Porter, etc.). In Europe photography has been focused primarily on people and places.
-
The Canyon de Chelly essay is a beautiful essai of self discovery via light, very much appreciate Alain's sharing his self revelations...as much as I hate computers, how else would I have had the fortune to "overhear" this conversation... Thank you Alain...
Patricia,
You are welcome.
-
Rob, Your thought rich, considered, articulate and quietly expansive contribution to this conversation is enriching beyond the thoughts expressed...in an almost subconscious flow...this is the very kind of back and forth, late night, maybe over a few cognacs I miss about my rather solitary life... you are a pure treasure in my eyes...Lula is my drug of choice dispossessed at end of day's demands for just such portals as these. P.
Wow! What a wonderful post, Patricia.This is an interesting plot for a Lula romance. Patricia enjoys a few cognacs, but more than one small glass of red wine is anathema to Rob's health. A marriage with problems from the start? Will Patricia be able to sacrifice her penchant for a few glasses of cognac in order to achieve harmonious union with Rob? We're holding our breath for the next episode. ;D
But let's not digress. The subject of 'which print to hang on one's wall' is interesting. Why are American landscapes not so widely appreciated in Europe? Why do people hang any prints or paintings on their walls, and what determines their choice?
I can think of two extremes, allowing for all degrees of permuatations betweeen those two extremes.
First, the obvious and most prevalent reason to hang any picture on a wall is because it has emotional relevance. It resonates with some past experience. It may be a picture of a dog, one's marriage, one's kids, one's wife, one's graduation ceremony, the Bratislava cup for Ice Hockey, one's father, one's great grandfather, the scene down the road, or even an Ansel Adam's photo of Yosemite because one visited the place and was mightily impressed by the beauty of the scenery, etc etc.
At the other extreme, one may have the need to create a persona that attempts to describe a fictional representation of who you would really like to be.
You may then choose paintings or photos to hang on your wall that correspond with that artificial persona. Paintings or photos that indicate to others that you are a person of taste, and/or great wealth, or simply 'cool' or avante guard, etc etc.
Of course, there are all sorts of combinations of these two extremes. It's conceivable that some people actually and truly admire Cartier-Bresson's photo of an anonymous man skipping across a puddle, and may hang such photo on their wall, irrespective of any other considerations of increasing monetary value, or cultural projections that fit their persona.
All this is just my personal perspective. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously worried about the fact that I consider my own photos to be the best of all. This bias suggests I'm very vain and egotistical, which is a bit of a worry.
-
American art was always dominated by some kind of landscape work, at least until the 1950s; even pop artists like Wayne Thiebaud did some pretty interesting landscapes; one of the best American abstractionists, Richard Diebenkorn, drew most of his best painting from the landscape. I believe it's because when the first European colonists got here, and well through the 19th century, land, and in particular, wild land and the frontier, were dominant cultural and political issues in a way they simply were not in Europe (of the time.) Americans developed an aesthetic around the idea of renewal and progress and possibilities, and land was central to all of those things. Hence, the Hudson River School and the romantics, and the later realists like Winslow Homer down through certain modernists like Edward Hopper...and on into photography. Does Europe even have an institution like the Sierra Club, an explicitly environmentalist group dating back 120 years, dedicated to the preservation of wilderness?
Another difference: In Europe, landscapes tended to involve an appreciation of the influence of humanity on the landscape -- Constable, for example, or Corot or Cezanne or van Gogh. House and fields and pastures. American painters tended to glorify the wild, the wilderness, God's realm.
A difference in taste and culture.
-
Alain replies to Fred in English. This is either very ironic; they have been expats so long they have forgotten their native tongue (can happen); they are internationalists of a high order; they are simply being kind to the rest of us.
What do they hold against the dictionary business and a little excitement?
;-)
Rob C
-
"Wow! What a wonderful post, Patricia.This is an interesting plot for a Lula romance. Patricia enjoys a few cognacs, but more than one small glass of red wine is anathema to Rob's health. A marriage with problems from the start? Will Patricia be able to sacrifice her penchant for a few glasses of cognac in order to achieve harmonious union with Rob? We're holding our breath for the next episode."
Ray, you simply have to consult with our people who will, in due course, consult with your people. We are ever open to negotiation and the exchange of business ideas. Perhaps LuLa might care to sponsor a boat trip along the Canal du Midi (with full mariner support included, of course, though an adventure by hotel barge instead would save the sponsor money on ancillary staff)? You know whom to contact.
I wonder about your twin options (I accept you cover your bets by including all the stops in between) as motivators for hanging a photograph, but I suppose there’s truth in both the extremes. Where there is no room for argument, however, is in your belief that your own work is the best. Of course it is. I have always shared that point of view – how else could one face the commercial world with less personal armour than that basic tenet?
“First, the obvious and most prevalent reason to hang any picture on a wall is because it has emotional relevance. It resonates with some past experience. It may be a picture of a dog, one's marriage, one's kids, one's wife, one's graduation ceremony, the Bratislava cup for Ice Hockey, one's father, one's great grandfather, the scene down the road, or even an Ansel Adam's photo of Yosemite because one visited the place and was mightily impressed by the beauty of the scenery, etc etc.”
I think you have posited the main reason for the young hanging posters in their bedroom. However filling the home with photographs of weddings, children, their children (ad infinitum), students wearing grad hats, all of that tends (to me) to smack of obligation rather than personal choice; I sense the presence of dominant others. Those photographs belong in albums or large biscuit tins. As an aside, I worry about the concatenation of dogs, marriage, kids and wife; whatever created that?
There’s some truth, borne out in my own experience, in the idea of the value of the photographic memento: we bought some prints (and books, too) from a talented photographer at his gallery in Sarlat. But, I really wonder if the motive was as simple as something to hang on the wall – in our bedroom, in the event – rather than something on which to hang! Emotions are strange things; I sometimes wonder if premonition can strike a decade before its time.
“At the other extreme, one may have the need to create a persona that attempts to describe a fictional representation of who you would really like to be.”
That’s a real and ever present danger. But, can one argue that if the need is already there to create that representation of self, then that’s who and what one really is, that it’s only circumstance that prevents the flowering of self that would permit what might otherwise be seen only as façade, a fiction of self? I certainly hope that most of the people that I’ve met are not really only what they appear to be!
“You may then choose paintings or photos to hang on your wall that correspond with that artificial persona. Paintings or photos that indicate to others that you are a person of taste, and/or great wealth, or simply 'cool' or avant-garde, etc. etc.”
The flaw in the position, of course, is that without that native taste one wouldn’t really know which things to choose in order to create the mythical ‘you’. (I am excluding, here, those who can afford to hire professional interior designers/decorators, by which stage they have no need to apologize to anyone for their decorative style. Was it not ever so?) And, even more fundamentally, would one even be aware of the lacking elements in one’s desired image were the intrinsic quality not already there in the current manifestation of the perceived self?
As I have noted before, and modern technology bears out, there are always more answers than questions, not a commonly shared opinion.
Rob C
-
Alain replies to Fred in English. This is either very ironic; they have been expats so long they have forgotten their native tongue (can happen); they are internationalists of a high order; they are simply being kind to the rest of us.
What do they hold against the dictionary business and a little excitement?
;-)
Rob C
That and so everyone can read my post. I don't want to leave anyone out.
-
I think Alain did it very well to move to the US for what he wanted to do.
I was told, and later saw, the writing on the wall!
-
That and so everyone can read my post. I don't want to leave anyone out.
I trust that the smile on your pic was echoed as you wrote?
;-)
Rob C
-
I was told, and later saw, the writing on the wall!
Just as well you don't shoot it: that's Michael's baby!
Rob C
-
My thanks too for the quick insights in these essays. And #2 makes a case for the importance to photography of patience in both photographer and spouse: apparently Alain kept his wife waiting at least half an hour in order to get that wonderful photo.
-
I trust that the smile on your pic was echoed as you wrote?
;-)
Rob C
Yes ;)
-
My thanks too for the quick insights in these essays. And #2 makes a case for the importance to photography of patience in both photographer and spouse: apparently Alain kept his wife waiting at least half an hour in order to get that wonderful photo.
You are welcome. I did leave her alone (actually she had to walk back home instead of me giving her a ride). But, this photograph paid for a lot of things afterwards so all is well ! Plus I never saw the same light ever again.
-
Just as well you don't shoot it: that's Michael's baby!
Rob C
To each his own. I actually did a lot of street photography in Paris when I started being interested in photography. Mostly black and white. In the end I prefered landscapes.
-
American art was always dominated by some kind of landscape work, at least until the 1950s; even pop artists like Wayne Thiebaud did some pretty interesting landscapes; one of the best American abstractionists, Richard Diebenkorn, drew most of his best painting from the landscape. I believe it's because when the first European colonists got here, and well through the 19th century, land, and in particular, wild land and the frontier, were dominant cultural and political issues in a way they simply were not in Europe (of the time.) Americans developed an aesthetic around the idea of renewal and progress and possibilities, and land was central to all of those things. Hence, the Hudson River School and the romantics, and the later realists like Winslow Homer down through certain modernists like Edward Hopper...and on into photography. Does Europe even have an institution like the Sierra Club, an explicitly environmentalist group dating back 120 years, dedicated to the preservation of wilderness?
Another difference: In Europe, landscapes tended to involve an appreciation of the influence of humanity on the landscape -- Constable, for example, or Corot or Cezanne or van Gogh. House and fields and pastures. American painters tended to glorify the wild, the wilderness, God's realm.
A difference in taste and culture.
I think John has hit it, but it's not just a difference in taste and culture, but a difference in history. Europe has been heavily populated for so long that “landscape” is that thing that people have been modifying, farming, and living on for millennia. It’s not “cool”. Large portions of the U.S. were wild frontier not too many generations ago (and in the case of large swaths of Alaska, even now). It was true wilderness. It was “cool”. I’m also thinking back to Ken Burns’ recent mega-documentary on the national park system. When the railroads were first being built across the country, they intentionally built them past some of the greatest natural wonders (such as Yellowstone, Glacier National Park, etc.) and built hotels there, in order to attract vacationers from the cities back east. They mounted large, long-running advertising campaigns in order to attract tourists there, including artists’ renditions of those places, which probably acted as a spur to the “landscape art is cool” attitude among Americans. Enough ramblings for now...
Lisa
-
I have a question for Alain, if he watch this thread, as I know he has been student in the Paris fine arts just before me (well, a lot before me) and therefore knows very well the european art scene.
I'm very surprised that landscape photography, that you call "art photography" in the us, is completly absent from the europeans galleries. There is no market here for landscapes.
Is that has something to do with culture according to you?
It seems that being a "landscaper" the only destination is the US. Am I right?
Intersting observation and I never really considered this actually.
In rubbing my chin on this for a minute, I would say this fact (if indeed it is a fact) boils down to two basic reasons: (1) There is no European nation that can in any way compare to the majesty and sheer size of the United States of America; and (2) Europe is defined more by a deep history in cultures (people, art, buildings, etc.) than it is by its natural terrain.
Regarding 1, the sheer size of America makes its land the attraction. I mean America has mere states that are larger than any European country. The notion of "The Wild Frontier" is what America really is all about (or at least it used to be) to many tourists and immigrants: majestic mountants, yawning canyons, endless forest terrain, prairies and prairies of rich soils and grass, more "ocean views" than any other nation ... America is all about ITS LAND. We simply have more "landscape opportunities" to offer in every natural respect than any European nation could possibly hold a candle to.
By contrast, regarding 2) Europe has a much richer people history than America--literally centuries-worth. People-wise, everyone in the US is a "mutt," a mix of different races and cultures, with no real "pure culture" of our own to speak of. In being a "melting pot," America became devoid of any real purity or individuality--and, hence, of little interest to anyone else, culturally. By contrast, people who go to France can get truly steeped in French culture and art; those who go Italy can immerse themselves here and do the same for this culture. It is the human art and culture which holds the interest in Europe ... whereas it is "The Call of the Wild" which holds the interest in America.
However, as America's wilderness areas rapidly decline, it is hard to say just how long this will last ...
That's my $0.02 ...
Jack
.
-
I think all the observations made in this thread are very good indeed.
The question emerge: Do we have in Europe enough material (enough good landscape locations) to photograph as in the US ?
-I do think so if we take it from the very north to the very south.
-The other advantage is that the climat and type of countryside changes faster in shorter distance than in America. So a motorised landscaper has access to more diversity in shorter distances.
I do not think it has that much to do with the terrain nature but indeed cultural-historical heritage.
-
I'm afraid John summed it up unintentionally "yawning canyons"...
Yes, Europe has a hell of a lot of diversity and probably within a short distance (relatively) from where you start your journey. For example, start in Cannes and drive up northwards a few miles... go to the Costa del Sol for beaches and snow in the same day (Cyprus claims the same thing), or try Almeria like Sergio Leone did if you want Wild West. Hell, try Scotland in winter and if it doesn't kill you, and it has actually snowed, your money just came home. Want lava? Try the Canaries.
The trouble is, much landscape of the canyon type depends on what you, as viewer, bring to the party; you expect 'huge and monumental' because all that you read about US landscape is steeped in the idea of the wide open spaces; you are preconditioned.
But that's not really the point, is it?
It's a psychological matter and not something dependent on photographic opportunity; it's a question of the type of subject matter that excites your juices into action. Does any of this mean that the 'European' image type doesn't sell in the States as well as the trees'n'rocks stuff, or is it more a matter of which economic group's doing the buying? Is it a question of sophistication, or is that as suspect a quantity as anything/everything(?) else?
Rob C
-
I'm afraid John summed it up unintentionally "yawning canyons"...
Yes, Europe has a hell of a lot of diversity and probably within a short distance (relatively) from where you start your journey. For example, start in Cannes and drive up northwards a few miles... go to the Costa del Sol for beaches and snow in the same day (Cyprus claims the same thing), or try Almeria like Sergio Leone did if you want Wild West. Hell, try Scotland in winter and if it doesn't kill you, and it has actually snowed, your money just came home. Want lava? Try the Canaries.
The trouble is, much landscape of the canyon type depends on what you, as viewer, bring to the party; you expect 'huge and monumental' because all that you read about US landscape is steeped in the idea of the wide open spaces; you are preconditioned.
But that's not really the point, is it?
It's a psychological matter and not something dependent on photographic opportunity; it's a question of the type of subject matter that excites your juices into action. Does any of this mean that the 'European' image type doesn't sell in the States as well as the trees'n'rocks stuff, or is it more a matter of which economic group's doing the buying? Is it a question of sophistication, or is that as suspect a quantity as anything/everything(?) else?
Rob C
Great question!
I think the answer maybe included in the question itself.
-
Great question!
I think the answer maybe included in the question itself.
Could be why the thread seems to have run out. Pity; it was full of promise.
Rob C
-
I do not think it has that much to do with the terrain nature but indeed cultural-historical heritage.
Me too...
First, there are a few successful landscape photographer here in France, like Yann Arthus-Bertrand ; with YAB the main twist with the classical american landscape is that there is always someone somewhere in the photos (yes, that tiny red speck is an assistant in a red parka freezing alone on the ice shelf while the boss enjoys the helicopter ride ;) ).
But there are very few (YAB, Plisson, and...) , and they are much more in the popular market than in the high-end art market.
Second, I'm not quite sure of that so I'll put it as a question : did the more "sophisticated" landscape styles like the new topographics manage to conquer the european art market?
I'd rather think that here, art is deeply associated with manly creation, and that goes down to the art subject as well. Something natural can't quite be real art in this vision.
-
Me too...
First, there are a few successful landscape photographer here in France, like Yann Arthus-Bertrand ; with YAB the main twist with the classical american landscape is that there is always someone somewhere in the photos (yes, that tiny red speck is an assistant in a red parka freezing alone on the ice shelf while the boss enjoys the helicopter ride ;) ).
But there are very few (YAB, Plisson, and...) , and they are much more in the popular market than in the high-end art market.
Second, I'm not quite sure of that so I'll put it as a question : did the more "sophisticated" landscape styles like the new topographics manage to conquer the european art market?
I'd rather think that here, art is deeply associated with manly creation, and that goes down to the art subject as well. Something natural can't quite be real art in this vision.
Well, YA-B has carved his reputation by flying; anything else he might do is probably just riding on the back of that seminal work.
But I do believe you have touched a very important factor: creations by Man. That's where Man's art comes in as compared with God's art of creation. I said much the same thing some months ago about landscape photography and creativity: to me, rightly or wrongly, all the landscape shooter is doing is framing what God's provided. He isn't creating anything, no matter how much he overworks the subject once it's in the computer. An unpopular credo in the New World, but I think many share that conviction elsewhere. It's far more challenging and interesting to create something from the bare bits and pieces, like the letters of the alphabet are used to make a poem, a novel or a prayer...
Maybe that's why those old photos of the Flatiron (?) building are so interesting; not only as historical documention but as art, too, both in the good photography and the strange construction itself. But, I would exclude anything with that horrid Parisian Tower, the Houses of Parliament, any of that stuff. It belongs to travel brochure illustration, and nada mas.
I have a Philip Plisson book (El Mar, dia a dia; Lunwerg Editores), it has great sea photographs, but I wouldn't classify any of his work as art; it is a form of specialized documentary (for me). I see his son, I think it is, Guillaume, has some shots in the same book.
In the end, I think photo art starts with a blank canvas and only exists after the shooter has put something interesting into that space, turned it this way and that, then finally made up his mind and shot! The photographer gazing out into the over-populated word is not starting with a blank canvas though he might, like me, be starting with a pretty blank mind!
Rob C
-
I have a Philip Plisson book [...] I wouldn't classify any of his work as art; it is a form of specialized documentary (for me).
That's interesting, and raises a few questions...
Couldn't this kind of "specialized documentary" be applied to eg Ansel Adams, Bradford Washburn or Ed Weston landscapes? I feel they document the mountains in the way not unlike someone like Plisson documents the sea?
And though, the latter did also start with a blank canvas and put a cabbage on a table or a pepper in a tin gutter?
Basically, what I'm asking to myself is - does that excludes art?
Coukld one say one the other hand say that it is not the same level of art?
Isn't art there to document things like feelings and emotions?
-
That's interesting, and raises a few questions...
Couldn't this kind of "specialized documentary" be applied to eg Ansel Adams, Bradford Washburn or Ed Weston landscapes? I feel they document the mountains in the way not unlike someone like Plisson documents the sea?
And though, the latter did also start with a blank canvas and put a cabbage on a table or a pepper in a tin gutter?
Basically, what I'm asking to myself is - does that excludes art?
Coukld one say one the other hand say that it is not the same level of art?
Isn't art there to document things like feelings and emotions?
Niko
I think you have just written the same point of view as my own. As far as Adams is concerned, yes, he did exactly the same thing as PP but on the land and without the personal risk of being up in the air where only birds should venture. That he exercised a lot of skill and perseverance in getting a print to look just as he wished is not in dispute, however that mood might have changed over time, but it is not what makes or does not make something art (again, just for me); that’s skill.
People wax eloquent about the magnificent print talents that some ‘star’ art photographers display; I can tell you, they can’t hold a candle to some of the even more demanding skills that in-house printers used to display, day after day, where I began my career. We had to print, in both b/w and colour, photographs of damaged turbine blades, flame tubes etc. etc. where the correct rendition of colour and/or grey tonality was essential to the scientists using the photographs for investigative and/or research motives. There was simply no room for error. Compared with that precision, art photography prints are something to decorate the seaside fun-park. (You can bet the ranch that a lot of ultra hi-fi snaps are currently being made of engine parts at Rolls-Royce!)
Isn’t art there to document things like feelings and emotions, you asked or, rather, suggested.
Of course, and I think that’s where people shooters come into their own, and landscape takes the also-ran prize. With people shots, unless it’s stolen stuff, it is very much the putting onto paper of something that happened between minds. Which, of course, is why models are so vital: only the good can have the natural emotions and then express them physically, and the photographers have to have the connected ability of contributing to the intellectual game and also to illustrate the resulting conclusion from that meeting of minds. That sounds both very difficult, which it is not, and very simple, which it is, to those blessed with the talents.
I’ve tried landscape too - who hasn’t? – but any emotional wow! factor is there because it’s there, not because of anything I, as snapper, have brought to the meeting. It’s the existing glory that instructs the viewer, not the other way around, which is where art begins and ends: human creation. In such situations, landscape, the photographer can only be the editor of the landscape, and that’s hardly creative in the sense of taking that piece of clay and fashioning something with life. All he does is select, and that's pretty basic, within the scheme of things.
Photographing a pepper? Well, I have previously said that I believe the still-life shooter can also be a pretty damn good artist. He starts with just an idea and an empty table top, which is what it's all about.
Of course, one can take the word creative and twist it to mean most anything, as the gallery world proves time after time. But, at root, I think the fraud is always patently obvious.
Rob C
-
I’ve tried landscape too - who hasn’t? – but any emotional wow! factor is there because it’s there, not because of anything I, as snapper, have brought to the meeting. It’s the existing glory that instructs the viewer, not the other way around, which is where art begins and ends: human creation. In such situations, landscape, the photographer can only be the editor of the landscape, and that’s hardly creative in the sense of taking that piece of clay and fashioning something with life. All he does is select, and that's pretty basic, within the scheme of things.
Photographing a pepper? Well, I have previously said that I believe the still-life shooter can also be a pretty damn good artist. He starts with just an idea and an empty table top, which is what it's all about.
Rob C
Hmmm...
In my own musings, I come to a rather different conclusion. In photography, as opposed to say painting, I find the value to be in rendering found things rather than made things. For example, I find studio photography, or those photographs that are about deliberately assembling items to express some kind of clever idea, to be contrived and dull. I admire people who make spontaneous photographs from the real world - i.e. people who wander around and suddenly spot an arrangement of somethings (perhaps fleeting) that generate an image that speaks to us. Landscapes are like this (for me). A good landscape shot is not repeatable because it is a rendering of a unique moment...
-
Hmmm...
In my own musings, I come to a rather different conclusion. In photography, as opposed to say painting, I find the value to be in rendering found things rather than made things. For example, I find studio photography, or those photographs that are about deliberately assembling items to express some kind of clever idea, to be contrived and dull. I admire people who make spontaneous photographs from the real world - i.e. people who wander around and suddenly spot an arrangement of somethings (perhaps fleeting) that generate an image that speaks to us. Landscapes are like this (for me). A good landscape shot is not repeatable because it is a rendering of a unique moment...
Well put, and I agree 100%.
I have been trying to figure out how to reply to Rob on this point, and what I was thinking of posting would go something like this:
"I’ve tried photos of people too - who hasn’t? – but any emotional wow! factor is there because it’s there, not because of anything I, as snapper, have brought to the meeting. It’s the existing glory of the person photographed that instructs the viewer, not the other way around, which is where art begins and ends: human creation," but then I thought maybe I shouldn't. ;)
Eric
-
Well put, and I agree 100%.
I have been trying to figure out how to reply to Rob on this point, and what I was thinking of posting would go something like this:
"I’ve tried photos of people too - who hasn’t? – but any emotional wow! factor is there because it’s there, not because of anything I, as snapper, have brought to the meeting. It’s the existing glory of the person photographed that instructs the viewer, not the other way around, which is where art begins and ends: human creation," but then I thought maybe I shouldn't. ;)
Eric
And you'd have been mistaken, Eric.
It's what they do together for the camera that counts, that's the creative bit - and I'm not talking porn here...!
You can make the 'normal' person look special if the magic is there, which is more than reportage will do. More than recording the found object will do. More than shooting the bleedin' sunset will do.
;-)
Rob C
-
Hmmm...
In my own musings, I come to a rather different conclusion. In photography, as opposed to say painting, I find the value to be in rendering found things rather than made things. For example, I find studio photography, or those photographs that are about deliberately assembling items to express some kind of clever idea, to be contrived and dull. I admire people who make spontaneous photographs from the real world - i.e. people who wander around and suddenly spot an arrangement of somethings (perhaps fleeting) that generate an image that speaks to us. Landscapes are like this (for me). A good landscape shot is not repeatable because it is a rendering of a unique moment...
That's a point of view, as you indicate, but I still think that the still-life artist (photographer) who starts with nothing in front of his camera is creating. Whether well or badly is another matter, but he's still creating rather than just framing what's already there, which is the point I was making.
That's not to say that the work of the landscape 'framer' isn't attractive. Take Michael's current cover shot with the cat lens: that's very creative to me because it simply never existed in nature. And better yet, he brought his eye and sense of balance to bear as well. So, he framed, too, but framed something that only existed after he brought his art to the meeting.
Anyway, we've trawled this one quite often before, and it goes nowhere.
Rob C
-
Well put, and I agree 100%.
I have been trying to figure out how to reply to Rob on this point, and what I was thinking of posting would go something like this:
"I’ve tried photos of people too - who hasn’t? – but any emotional wow! factor is there because it’s there, not because of anything I, as snapper, have brought to the meeting. It’s the existing glory of the person photographed that instructs the viewer, not the other way around, which is where art begins and ends: human creation," but then I thought maybe I shouldn't. ;)
Eric
Arnold Newman....Lillian Bassman
-
Arnold was good at portraits, and Lillian so good at fashion that she dumped it for many years at the moment when the hairdressers, makeup artists and stylist took rôles at centre stage. Her contention, as mine, was that they were superfluous to the artistic interaction of model, camera and photographer.
In other words, they destroyed artistic integrity.
I think she did make eventual, sporadic kinds of vague and token returns at some recent(ish) period...
Part of the problem of making an association with the idea of the subject being the reason for the greatness of a photograph is that, by default, such a stance couldn't logically preclude the best/worst efforts of the paparazzi, either. And not much of their oeuvre would rate as art, though it certainly seems to be very marketable. Like enormous photographs of blocks of apartments, for instance. Even like piles of bricks. Or dirty, unmade beds.
Speaking of which, after I'd wasted most of the morning at the keyboard, I went to the bedroom to get to the loo and pee - as one needs to do, from time to time - and I noticed that I'd not even made up the bed. I gave myself a stern lecture about priorities, did what had to be done, and then reverted to keyboard mode. I can depend on myself to act in atavistic mode every time. But at least the bed wasn't dirty. One up on the galleries.
But, reverting to the topic, being associated with famous subjects is also a very mixed blessing in some ways. Look at Bailey: every book or article about him seems to feature Mick Jagger in a fur hood, the Kray brotherhood, actors or some other noted characters of the 60s period. Snowdon and Lichfield, both excellent snappers too, were ever haunted and taunted with envious jibes about royal associations and success.Yet, all three could shoot spots off most of the rest.
Rob C