Will the Real Landscape Photography Please Stand Up ?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Many in the art world are suspicious of Salgado's aestheticism.

Can you elaborate?

[elliot_n]

Can you elaborate?

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/24/arts/photography-review-a-unified-vision-of-the-world-s-varied-workers.html

[amolitor]

I don't find:

"There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art."

to be particularly hard to grasp. Simplifying and eliminating some detail, it can be read as:

"there is a difference between artists (of a kind) and photographers (of another kind)"

What could be simpler? The fact that "artists" are not the same as "photographers" is surely not terribly hard to grasp. The details, once filled back in, and elucidate Slobodan's point some more, of course. But the meat of the thing is pretty simple.

[Diego Pigozzo]

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/24/arts/photography-review-a-unified-vision-of-the-world-s-varied-workers.html

Ok, Mr. Karmel doesn't liked Salgado back in 1995 (as many others probably did and still do).
Therefore...?

[elliot_n]

Ok, Mr. Karmel doesn't liked Salgado back in 1995 (as many others probably did and still do).
Therefore...?

In his first paragraph he refers to the fact that opinion is divided on Salgado. Some find his work kitsch. That is all.

[Diego Pigozzo]

In his first paragraph he refers to the fact that opinion is divided on Salgado. Some find his work kitsch. That is all.

Well, I would be surprised (and worried, to be honest) if there was    unanimity of judgment on a photographer's work.

[elliot_n]

I don't find:

"There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art."

to be particularly hard to grasp. Simplifying and eliminating some detail, it can be read as:

"there is a difference between artists (of a kind) and photographers (of another kind)"

What could be simpler?

Well it's simple if the 'kind' of artist is a sculptor, and the 'kind' of photographer is a press photographer. But Slobodan is comparing an artist whose medium is photography, and a photographer whose practice is art. Surely the difference is then less obvious.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I like Salgado, but I would not consider him an artist (who uses photography as a medium), but rather a photographer who strives to use aesthetic elements borrowed from classic arts. In his case, mostly Rembrandt-esque lighting, chiaroscuro.

If I dare continue along this path, I'd venture to say that most of us (myself certainly included) posting on this and similar forums belong to the same group of photographers (with various degrees of success, of course), trying to infuse elements of classical composition, balance, color contrast and harmony, etc. into our photographs.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...But Slobodan is comparing an artist whose medium is photography, and a photographer whose practice is art. Surely the difference then is less obvious.

And that is, I think, my point. You'd expect that the two would actually meet at some point, being so close to each other in such a premise, and the difference should all but disappear. And yet, I continue to argue, there still is a profound difference between them.

[elliot_n]

Then there are artists who use photography as a medium, but who prefer to call themselves photographers (e.g. James Welling).

[elliot_n]

And that is, I think, my point. You'd expect that the two would actually meet at some point, being so close to each other in such a premise, and the difference should all but disappear. And yet, I continue to argue, there still is a profound difference between them.

I agree there's a difference, but it's complicated. I can see a sliding scale. Richard Prince on one end... but who on the other? Edward Weston or Peter Lik? Where does Ansel Adams fit in? Or Robert Adams?

[Diego Pigozzo]

I like Salgado, but I would not consider him an artist (who uses photography as a medium), but rather a photographer who strives to use aesthetic elements borrowed from classic arts. In his case, mostly Rembrandt-esque lighting, chiaroscuro.

May I ask why?

[hjulenissen]

I hear Mozart used to make songs to pay his bills, even listening to his customers requirements.

I guess one has got do to what one has got to do. Pay your bills, enjoy life, do what you do best.

-h

[AreBee]

Diego,

I think the "most correct" answer is no, because what someone perceive and/or understand depends not only on the message but also on the personal background of the receiver.

On what should the photographer base a photograph's message if the message received will differ from viewer to viewer?

[stamper]

Only one message....the one concocted in the photographer's mind.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Diego,

On what should the photographer base a photograph's message if the message received will differ from viewer to viewer?

On the little common cultural and biological background and yet there is no guarantee that the message will be perceived equally by all viewers.
In fact it is guarantee that the message will not be perceived equally by all viewers.

Just to give you an extreme example of different cultural background: a food shot.
Show the shot to some Mr. Doe and he could perceive a message of something tasteful, maybe and idea of a dinner with a friend.
Show the same shot to someone who was in a concentration camp during WWII and he'll get a completly different message (1).

On the other hand, an example of common biological background is the psycology of color.


I think one of the ability a photographer should have is exploit the things that commons us to get the attention of the viewer and get some of them to dig into the shot to try to explore the intended message.



(1) I once read an interview with a man who was in a concentration camp, and He told the interviewer that he never leave anything uneaten on the plate.

[AreBee]

stamper,

Only one message....the one concocted in the photographer's mind.

What if a message was not concocted?

[stamper]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concocted

To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive:

[Isaac]

But Slobodan is comparing an artist whose medium is photography, and a photographer whose practice is art. Surely the difference is then less obvious.

And that is, I think, my point. You'd expect that the two would actually meet at some point, being so close to each other in such a premise, and the difference should all but disappear. And yet, I continue to argue, there still is a profound difference between them.

Maybe compare the photographs of Andreas Gursky with the photographs of Thomas Struth.

[amolitor]

"Artists who work in the photographic medium" is certainly a category that overlaps with "photographers who strive to creat art" but I don't see why that's a problem.

"brown dogs" and "large dogs" are two categories which overlap, and yet we can sort out the meanings pretty well, right? Arguably there is no profound difference in this case, so I suppose one could argue that there can be no profound differences between categories which overlap. I think that is wrong. I think there can be.

The differences are not in the individuals, but in the categories and the way we define them. A specific Large Brown Dog belongs in both categories, and isn't at all different from itself. So you cannot say that every individual brown dog is different from every individual large dog. Still, the category of large dogs IS quite different from the brown ones.

In the same way, I think that "Artists who use photography" is a category that is different -- even profoundly so -- from "photographers who strive to create art".