Deutsche Börse Prize 2015 nominees announced

[spidermike]

Just one example. The popular practice of erasing all traces of human activity from landscape photographs (e.g. the cloning out power cables, pylons, contrails etc). This creates a fantasy landscape; a landscape before the fall of man. By erasing culture and technology, the photographer is being political. Landscape photography is a conservative genre, fearful of change and difference.

Or maybe pylons and power cables are butt ugly and they don't want them there. By your reckoning, a protrait where someone removes a zit is 'political'.
If they wanted a landscape before man they would clone in a thousand trees to replicate the forests that predated human interference.

Landscape photography is a conservative genre, fearful of change and difference.

Total and utter BS (IMO, of course).

This creates a fantasy landscape

Any post processing, is trying to create  fantasy at some level and all photography is therefore political. In fact even taking a photo with a lens that creates a nice dreamy background that the human eye never sees (barring cataracts) is therefore 'political'.

The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.

Youcon;t get it do you. Majoli is herself trying to elicit an emotional response: one of empathy/sympathy with the victims of discrimination.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Or maybe pylons and power cables are butt ugly and they don't want them there.

Isn't considering pylons and power cables "ugly" a political statement?

By your reckoning, a protrait where someone removes a zit is 'political'.

On this I would be on elliot_n side: changing someone's appearance to make it fit some beauty canon is a political statement.

[elliot_n]

Doesn't this apply to almost any good photo?

No. Ed Ruscha etc.

[Diego Pigozzo]

No. Ed Ruscha etc.

Why do you think Ed ruscha's photo are not constructed to elicit a specific emotional response?

[elliot_n]

Why do you think Ed ruscha's photo are not constructed to elicit a specific emotional response?

Oh, they are. But they are not artful and they are not painterly.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Oh, they are. But they are not artful and they are not painterly.

On the painterly I agree, but I'm not sure they are not artful.
Why do you think they aren't?

[elliot_n]

On the painterly I agree, but I'm not sure they are not artful.
Why do you think they aren't?

Because they are executed according to a conceptual logic (e.g. every building on the sunset strip), which allows no space for the photographer to make 'artful' decisions. (Of course, the whole project is highly artful.)

[Diego Pigozzo]

Because they are executed according to a conceptual logic (e.g. every building on the sunset strip), which allows no space for the photographer to make 'artful' decisions. (Of course, the whole project is highly artful.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The artful construction of a picture, with painterly references, to elicit a specific emotional response.

Soooo...when a picture contains "artful construction, with painterly references, eliciting a specific emotional response," in other words, what many of us consider the very definition of Art, that's not it, it is actually a "manipulative political propaganda." And when it is devoid of any artistic references, but gains its meaning only when the accompanying political text is read, it isn't then a "manipulative propaganda" and gets a prize in an art competition?

Oookaaay then.

[elliot_n]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Ed Ruscha, and other conceptual artists who used photography (e.g Stephen Shore, between his stint at Warhol's Factory and 'American Surfaces'), were interested in divesting photography of its artfulness (composition, decisive moment etc) and embracing its mechanical nature. They executed projects according to a formal logic that specifically denied them the artistry that had previously been championed by the likes of Stieglitz, Weston and Minor White.

[elliot_n]

Soooo...when a picture contains "artful construction, with painterly references, eliciting a specific emotional response," in other words, what many of us consider the very definition of Art, that's not it, it is actually a "manipulative political propaganda." And when it is devoid of any artistic references, but gains its meaning only when the accompanying political text is read, it isn't then a "manipulative propaganda" and gets a prize in an art competition?

Oookaaay then.

Yup. That's contemporary art for you. Blame Duchamp or Warhol.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Ed Ruscha, and other conceptual artists who used photography (e.g Stephen Shore, between his stint at Warhol's Factory and 'American Surfaces'), were interested in divesting photography of its artfulness (composition, decisive moment etc) and embracing its mechanical nature. They executed projects according to a formal logic that specifically denied them the artistry that had previously been championed by the likes of Stieglitz, Weston and Minor White.

Now I get it: you meant that they didn't followed the most common artistic canons of their times.
OK, that's true, but that doesn't make their photos less artful, where "artful" means "showing creative skill or taste".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yup. That's contemporary art for you. Blame Duchamp or Warhol.

Ok, fair enough, I get that part (contemporary vs. classical art). What I do not get is that one is propaganda and the other is not.

[elliot_n]

Ok, fair enough, I get that part (contemporary vs. classical art). What I do not get is that one is propaganda and the other is not.

Well, it's probably all propaganda. I'm just pointing to the 'deadpan' tradition in photography (i.e. the tradition of the 'passport photo' or the artless photo), a tradition which goes all the way back to Atget, through Walker Evans, August Sander, The Bechers, Ed Ruscha, Lewis Baltz, Thomas Ruff etc etc.

[spidermike]

Isn't considering pylons and power cables "ugly" a political statement?

On this I would be on elliot_n side: changing someone's appearance to make it fit some beauty canon is a political statement.

Oh, boy.

Let's take two views:
someone does not like woman with facial hair so deletes it in photoshop - they are making a political statement
someone likes women with facial hair so empasises that facial hair - they are also making a political statement
That means all photographs are political statements - which means all aesthetics can be construed as a political statement and once you create a philosophy to encapsulate virtually everything the definition itself becomes meaningless.
And please don't respond with this bull about 'photographing them as they really are' because that is impossible and the very production process is impacted by our own beliefs.


As for Ed Ruscha - his very decisions about what colours to use, what lighting to use, how to develop the picture are all artistic decisions. Does this mean he therefore invalidates himself?

[Diego Pigozzo]

That means all photographs are political statements - which means all aesthetics can be construed as a political statement and once you create a philosophy to encapsulate virtually everything the definition itself becomes meaningless.

I'm not sure about the latter part, but on the former that's true: all photographs are political statements since they are product of humans being and therefore cannot be devoid of the photographer's values, ideas and opinions.
And you're absolutely right about the bull about "photographing them as they really": it's impossible not only because of the mechanical process but also because the person pressing the shutter (or even just taking a camera for a walk while on autoshot).

But that's hardly a novelty: the "classical arts" also made political statements, we just don't recognized them as such because those statements are not about today world.

As for Ed Ruscha - his very decisions about what colours to use, what lighting to use, how to develop the picture are all artistic decisions. Does this mean he therefore invalidates himself?

Of course not.

[AreBee]

elliot_n,

Just one example. The popular practice of erasing all traces of human activity from landscape photographs...

Thank you for clarifying.

If evidence of human activity is included in a landscape photograph, what then?
If the landscape that subsequently is captured in a photograph exhibits no trace of human activity, what then?

[elliot_n]

elliot_n,

Thank you for clarifying.

If evidence of human activity is included in a landscape photograph, what then?

It's political. Example: Robert Adams.

If the landscape that subsequently is captured in a photograph exhibits no trace of human activity, what then?

It's political. Example: Thomas Struth's Paradise series.

[spidermike]

It's political. Example: Robert Adams.

It's political. Example: Thomas Struth's Paradise series.

As I said, if your definition includes everything it becomes meaningless.
But then this is the trend in post-Marxist thinking when people try and develop a self-defeating point of view in an attempt to look insightful.   

[AreBee]

elliot_n,

Thanks again.