photo assignments

[Jack_5762]

I've taught photography at the university undergraduate level for many years. Throughout this time my teaching style has varied a bit but I remain adament that students must learn by doing. Listening to me accomplishes very little but doing something with me or by yourself places the whole process in an intuitive mode. Making art is not an intellectual pursuit. It is a pursuit of the heart. Working in the darkroom today I began ruminating about my ideas and what the rest of the world thinks. What do you think undergrad photo students should be doing? If you were formally trained what were your best assignments? When were you the most challenged? If you have learned from experience what do you think university photo students need to know and to do? I begin every semester by saying,"No one ever learned how to hit a baseball out of the park by reading a book of theory on batting. They learned how to hit the ball out of the park by spending countless hours in a batting cage." I'm not anti-intellectual, I just feel that by studying something from an academic point of view provides knowledge about that thing. The ability to do that thing is comletely experiential. I would appreciate your ideas.

[John_4185]

I appreciate your direction, Jack. Our U has three photography oriented courses.

In "Appreciation of Photography" they get to see photography from what I call the 30-thousand foot historical overview with specific insight into Why The Pictures Look Like That, photographers objectives, social influences, and stories about the photographers' lifes.

Photo 101 is the practice of making pictures In The Camera on an assignment basis. It is very important in this digital era for students to know how to make the picture In Camera. (Until our senior instructor retired, they also learned how to use the view camera.)

The third course is Criticizing Photography and a prerequsite is a passing gradein Critical Thinking. Criticizing Photography has the highest drop-out rate because the students learn that their personal impressionistic opinions are not important; the task is to understand what they learned in Critical Thinking, Appreciation and Photo 101 to find how picture(s) fit into a certain domain (or don't). The dropouts are shocked they cannot just bullshit their way through. (It no longer amazes me that our students were patronized, made to "feel good" about their opinions throughout K12 and that instructors did not suggest that feeling good is not the same as pursuing scholarship at the college level.

May I ask where you teach, Jack?

[paulr]

this isn't a complete answer to your question by any means, but it's a point made by Julia Camerron in The Artist's Way, and it also echoes my personal experience.

A creative writing professor once did an experiment. He split the class right down the middle, and told the students on the left that they would be graded on the quality of their one best story. All they were ultimately responsible for was turning in a single, excellent, well polished piece. He told the students on the right that they would be graded on nothing but volume. The higher the number of stories turned in, regardless of quality, would earn the highest grade.

The result was that with hardly any exceptions, the best stories came from the students on the high-volume side of the class. The work from the students on the perfectionist side tended to be stiff, forced, formulaic, overworked, and dead.

In retrospect, I realize now that my best teachers of creative things had discovered this on their own. The one college fiction writing professor I had and the one photography professor I had both insisted on us producing an amount of work that seemed brutal and unrealistic at the time. I remember protesting that there would be no way to produce that volume of polished work in the time available, and I remember neither professor caring. In both cases, the volume of work, and the resulting pressure to just keep creating, led to many surprises and discoveries that I'm thankful for to this day.

So yeah, get them to learn not just by doing, but by doing a lot. And sure, lecture them too, and create a structure for excellent critiques, but know that none of those ideas will really sink in until they're deeply immersed in the doing.

[Randy_5116]

As a photojournalist student that just finished two years of photog classes, yes, there is a certain element of truth in "learn-by-doing". However, I had been shooting medium and large format for a few years prior to taking these courses, and I found that I still had a "LOT" to learn in the lecture series. It was in the lecture series that I found out why my pics were "fuzzy". It was not by doing the same stupid thing time after time. I did have one instructor that thought time spent shooting and developing was the best teacher. Turns out he was incorrect. Only thing learned was that he was too damn lazy to teach. At the end of the semester, my final pics were no better than the first. True, you can never hit a home run by reading theories, but if you don't know which end of the bat to use, you can stand in the box forever and never get on first base. Five minutes of lecture can save several hours of wasted time in the darkroom. My theory has always been that "anybody" can do "anything" IF, someone is willing to take the time and effort to first learn how that person learns, and then take the time to teach them. If indeed you have a passion for the subject you are teaching, then share that enthusiam and love of the subject with the student. Lead, don't push. Who knows. The next student you "lead" into a love of photography may well be the next A.A.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Making art is not an intellectual pursuit. It is a pursuit of the heart."

There you've already invalidated much of art. There can be art for the thinking person as much as for the feeling person, and much of "artistic" photography involves intelligent perception.

My assignments (admittedly, I only teach high school and community college) are usually technical assignments, but loose enough that students can do whatever nature of photography they wish. We also look at the work of other photographers and artists, and have in-class critiques. All have mixed results, as everything in art does...

[paulr]

I don't think critical thinking should be dismissed or de-emphasized when teaching art. Even the most emotional, intuitive artist at some point needs to evaluate what was done, to edit and sequence and structure, and to learn from it all.

I think critical thinking is probably the second most important tool any artist can have. The most important is being able to stop doing it.

A tallent I see universally among great artists is being able to turn the critical brain on and off. It's got to be off for the creative process ... at least for much of it. Nothing can disrupt a creative flow state, or a free, playful session of experimenting faster than the nagging, educated voice of your critical mind. Those who can't turn it off tend to be doomed to only make what they already know--which tends to be very similar to what they've already seen.

Those who can't turn it on often make wonderful, innovative things ... along with a lot of unformed, abortive attempts. And they frequently don't know the difference, nor do they know how to edit, sequence, and structure a project to emphasize a vision and communicate it to others. They also tend to have a hard time learning from their own creations, and moving forward from them.

Teaching students to have excellent critical skills is important. Teaching them to have a foolproof off-switch for those skills is at least as important .. and unfortunately, a lot harder to do.

[John Cook]

You are correct that photography cannot be completely learned from a book, alone.

My experience has been that classroom lectures are not much better.

Being turned loose with an assignment to fend for oneself with only sketchy knowledge produces equally poor results.

In fact, all of the above sounds like a description of my days in art school. A lecturer would talk about making executive portraits for four hours in class.

We were then sent out alone to make our very first attempted Karsh-like image for class discussion the following week. Most were disasters.

I believe the single greatest educational tragedy of the 20th Century is the demise and total collapse of the apprentice system.

I learned infinitely more as an assistant to the photographer Sid Avery in Hollywood in six months than I learned at Art Center in three years.

Not sure how to work that phenomenon into a school curriculum. Perhaps more field trips?

[Armin Seeholzer]

John is right.

I learned how strange things can go if somebody only has very much theory but almost non practical expirience. I have known a lightmaster which had the highest degree in stage lighting wich was at the time possible in germany but the first time he had to do in practical it was a total mess!
So some practical parts have to be in a balance to the theory or the people just get confused. And in me opinion the practical part is like the food for it. Just do it is not always easy but if you have a mentor then its starts to work very good.
So Photogs have to play assi and then they get it really!

[Daniel Geiger]

I firmly believe that everyone needs to understand the physics and chemistry of the craft first, before you can go on and apply it and modify it according to what you intend to acheive. Starting out with looking at art is for art history folks, i.e., those who don't actually do it, just pretend to have a learned opinion about it. It's like in painting: first you do a naturalistic rendition of a still life, before you abstract it. First the craft, then the art.

I took photography in the physical chemistry department. We looked a chemical reaction formulas, absorbtion/transmission spectra, etc. Then applied that in highly controlled lab conditions. The intended audience were science students who wanted to get publication-quality images for their research papers. In that it succeeded beautifully. Lecture titles were: Reproduction photography and slide production (that was before powerpoint in the early 90's), B&W processing, Color Processing, Optics, Digital image manipulation (prototype photoshoping back then). Thanks to Dr. Gschwind and Dr. Heilbronner.

The most challenging part is to get reproducible results. That shows that you know how to achieve consistent outcomes and that the technique is mastered, particularly when you have to hand-calculate a few parameters.

John Cook's comments about the lack of an apprentice system in the US (I think it still is going in Europe) is well on the mark. I also concur that you learn most by doing it. Shoot more frames/sheets/files. However, just shooting mindlessly, shooting bulk, will only produce happy accidents. IMHO, that should not be the goal. One should know how certain subtle changes can affect the final product, and you may experiment with these fine adjustments. HOWEVER, just shooting blindly and hope for that happy accident should not be encouraged.

Last but not least, some design "rules" (rules of thirds, red advances-blue recedes, middle bisects) etc. can be introduced, but only after the technical craft has been reasonably understood. Critical thinking is fine, but also realize that not all images appeal to all in the same way. I just do some stock, and some images that my wife pushed me to submit (which I think are kind of boring) have sold, and some which she thinks are bland but I like also sold. That is not to say that I support pomo-type arguments that "everybody's right". But one shoe does not fit all.

When I get the chromes back from the lab, I am looking forward to some good images. But after I determined which are usable (i.e., can be submitted to the agency), then the task starts where I ask myself, what could have been improved. There may be 1 in 1000 that I don't think I could improve, all the others have some flaw. I have tried the route through some local photo-clubs with judged critique sessions, but found them rather unhelpful. So I wonder whether a class-room critique session will actually help. It may shape students into a particular mold, but what about finding one's own direction? I am not sure how that could be instilled in a class-room setting. There I think, some people just have it, some don't. One needs to recognize that there are different types of people who work differently. For instance, when I was in grad-school, some friends had weekly lab-meetings [= critique sessions]. Would have driven my nuts. I locked myself into a room, and once in a while a manuscript appeared on my advisor's desk. But don't ask me what I have done today.

Possibly, that is one of my main critique points of the US-anglosachsen university teaching approach: it is too structured. Two midterms, one final, 10 quizzes, 3 essays, 16 deadlines for one class in one semester. Times four classes = 64 deadlines. When do you have time to think it all over? Students learn what they have to learn to pass the test and then forget it right away again. We had exams that covered maybe 20-30 units taken over 2 years even on what would correspond to undergraduate level in the US. Now you have time to mull it all over, to make connections. I am always surprised to see US upper division students who do not retain elementary knowledge from the lower division classes. But the overplanned curriculum is certainly to blame for it.

enough rambling already. Hope there is a nugget or two in there anyway

[Mark Sawyer]

Something I'm probably more aware of in my high school classes is that some degree of interest (if not actual commitment) is necessary to producing more than a snapshot. I'd hope that at a university level this would be more common.

That said, what any "successful" (insert your own criteria) photographer or artist needs is a *methodology* of working. With a consistency in one's way of working, one can develop a consistency of vision. The methodology will evolve to suit the vision and intent, but without it, one can only hope for isolated "happy accidents." Developing this methodology requires commitment of time, resources, and critical thinking.

As large format photographers, we are more aware of our methodologies than most, (look at all the threads by people trying to find the "right" process and materials for shooting/developing/presenting/etc.) If you consider the work of any "master" (or even competant) photographer, you will find each has developed his own consistent way of working that suits his style and vision.

At the beginning photography level, the students are just being exposed to the materials, tools, and processes. If they are interested in going somewhere with it, they need to work with a few different formats and look at (perhaps try) many different styles of creating images. I would expect a lot of jumping around at this stage. The next level up is selecting and perfecting how they will work.

I would discuss this early on with your students. They should be aware of why they are looking at and sampling different techniques and styles. It will also give them more consciously-informed insights into how other photographers work.

[Mark Sawyer]

"It no longer amazes me that our students were patronized, made to "feel good" about their opinions throughout K12 and that instructors did not suggest that feeling good is not the same as pursuing scholarship at the college level."

Sorry to wander off here, but some quick observations from a high school photo teacher, (hoping my high school administration never finds this thread...)

* Most high school photo classes are dumping grounds for special ed students. Mine are 30-40% SE, often with one or two mentally retarded kids thrown in.

* The really bright college bound students generally can't take photography. They take "weighted" classes that allow them to earn a 4.2 grade. An "A" in photography would drag down their GPA.

* High school classes are overcrowded (I have about 35 to a class) and underfunded (I have $300 for equipment this year for five classes, and am expected to provided everything.)

* High school students tend to be teen-agers, (need I say more?) I deal with pregnancies, relationship and home problems, serious emotional problems, eating disorders, drop-outs, run-aways, vandalism, fights, bullying, drugs, alcohol, racism, etc. as much as photography.

* The last thing I want to do is have 170+ students a year thinking "hey, I'm gonna be a rich-and-famous professional photographer!"

That said, I've had quite a few students produce wonderful images, some even wonderful portfolios, and most grow as people, if not so much through photography, then by at least by working with each other and helping each other out through the class. A few have gone on to study at the university or trade school level, or gone to work with local photographers. That's about all one can expect from a high school photo class these days...

[Randy_5116]

Mark, I adamantly disagree with your generalizations and obvious lack of love for, and/or commitment to your work or the ethics involved in such. You seem to have undertaken a study that you have no feeling that you have anything to contribute to your students. The LD, SE student could very possibly benefit more from your expertise than any "4.2" student, simply because they have the desire and insight to produce work that is not merely done to "suck up" to the instructor for the grade, but as an expression of themselves. I worked for the local DHS as a job developer and coach for these same kids. (Adults with developmental disabilities) I also taught comp science at a homeschool co-op. My education was in elementary ed with LD minor and music minor. Take what you may have, break it into small bites, and teach it to the all of the students, from the "4.2" college bound, to the SE that just may grow up to take your position. Seems the photographers that take all the ribbons and trophies here in the local area go not to the "professional", but to the high-school kids that have developed a love of the art form and have taken their level of expertise to a higher degree. In spite of, not due to, their instructors.

Just for info, I am a 52 year old photojournalist major (second year), shoot large format for fun (two 5x7 and a 4x5), have taught at the elementary level, all the way to DHS shelters, was labeled as LD and SE in high school, was tested prior to being allowed to enter college because of the labels, tested on three different IQ evals at 145+ IQ, passed ACT with a 28, carried a 3.25 overall GPA, and will stand toe-to-toe with any arrogant, egotistical, megalomanic, self-centered instructor that talks down to any student in their classroom. Love kids of all ages, and especially the ones that some so-and-so has labeled. If teaching is that much a hardship on your self-esteem and patience, get yourself a job as a door-greeter at the local whatchacallit store.

[Jack_5762]

ii

Sam Houston State University, Huntsville Texas, go Bearkats!!!

[paulr]

Seems like there are a couple of different discussions going on here ... one about teaching photography as an art medium, and one about teaching it as a trade. I think both require very different approaches, so it would be helpful make clear which one you're addressing.

[Mark Sawyer]

"...obvious lack of love for, and/or commitment to your work or the ethics involved in such...you have no feeling...arrogant, egotistical, megalomanic, self-centered instructor that talks down to any student in their classroom...get yourself a job as a door-greeter at the local whatchacallit store..."

And sometimes I get to poke 'em in the eye with a sharp stick.

My (obviously badly-made) point was that at a high school level, photography (or whatever elective subject) often takes a back seat to teaching kids tolerance, cooperation, problem-solving, and more basic skills like reading, math, or maybe speaking English, and at a very wide variety of levels. And for some kids making them "feel good" about themselves is a serious challenge.

This thread was about photography assignments for a university level class. I apologize for diverting it.

[Randy_5116]

My apologies too. Tequila and conversation regarding educational concepts do not mix well. I get very irate at instructors that spend their time "making eight and going home". I strive to learn something new every day. I have little tolerance for stupidity. Ignorance can be overcome by education. Stupidity is self-inflicted. You know better, but choose to do contrary. In college-level courses in photography, I experienced both ends of the teaching realm. One instructor was of the mind-set that if you shot enough rolls of film, eventually you would figure out how to do so correctly. Another taught nothing but textbook. My most enjoyable, and where I learned the most was an instructor that loved what they did and loved the subject she was teaching. She would lecture for a brief period of time, and then allow us to put into practice what she had just told us. She stood side-by-side with us behind the camera, setting up lighting, darkroom techniques, etc etc. She has the patience of Job in the classroom. And there are no dumb questions asked. It is only dumb if you don't ask, cause then you will never know the answer. Most challenging task? Portrait work. Small kids. Most rewarding? Was when the instructor taught split-filter printing, and it worked!! When an instructor took the time to actually tell me what I was doing wrong, and showed me how I could fix it. When I learned about why the various chemicals did what they did and how. Some of the previous crap I had been "told", I finally "learned". Someone that loves their work, and passing on not only their knowledge, but their passion.

[Mark Sawyer]

No problem, Randy- I appreciate your passion about something important!

"Most rewarding? Was when the instructor taught split-filter printing, and it worked!! When an instructor took the time to actually tell me what I was doing wrong, and showed me how I could fix it."

Some of the best teaching happens when a student has a great image in a negative, but is struggling to get it out. This is where one can corral a few students, haul them into the darkroom, and literally show them something that works.

Thinking back to my undergrad days, most classes were critiques of student work, with little practicum or looking at outside work. It should have been more helpful than it was, but generated a lot of blank stares and blanker formal criticisms. I think this was the wing-it-with-no-prep method of lazy professors...

What helped most was the support of being part of a small community of aspiring art photographers, getting together away from classes to b.s. about anything, and finding long and wonderful conversations about life/art/our work/whatever all rolled into one stream-of-consciousness. It may be impossible to beat a long dinner for five or six young artists, and I wish I could find that again... Beyond anything taught in the classroom, if a university program can inspire this among its students, it's half-way there.

[Joe Smigiel]

My favorite assignment in the Introductory Photography class is something I dreamed up and call "The Scavenger Hunt." I have a list of about 18 words with equivocal meanings such as mold, slip, hip, strip, tip... I have several sets of cards with a single word on each. I shuffle the cards and randomly deal out 4 to each student and replace any duplicates so each student has 4 distinct words. (They have a brief opportunity to trade cards with anyone willing to do so - doesn't happen much.) For the assignment they have to seek out and find, or set-up (always less successful) a photograph that contains the subject they have been dealt. The subject only has to be present in the image, it does not have to be dominant. Each student is required to turn in two photographs, each revolving around a different one of their four words. I stress that the photographs are not to be simple documents (i.e., See, I found the object, etc.,) but rather they need to be creative in how they photograph the subject.

This really gets them thinking and looking not only for things, but also at things, and seeing in a different way. It is also very interesting, and part of the reason for the assignment, to see how different individuals interpret the meanings of the words. For example, given the word "slip" ceramic students might photograph their pots, others photograph in marinas, I get a few banana images, and of course, lingerie.

It becomes really interesting when hip, strip, slip, and tip are all dealt to a single individual. :)

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

It is difficult to separate the artisanal and the artistic aspects of photography from one another. Although a photograph that shows no technical flaws (light, printing, etc..) would not always be an artistic piece, it is not necessarily so vice versa. One has to learn the chemistry and physics behind it.

Quoting John Cook above, "I believe the single greatest educational tragedy of the 20th Century is the demise and total collapse of the apprentice system." How could one disagree with him? However, let me add that this applies not only to the teaching of photography (I have no formal training in photography, I am self-taught), but to all disciplines and at all levels, including doctoral studies. Basically what we call education, including the highest caliber institutions, is to put the cow at one end and get the hot dog from the other end of the processing plant, with no time to think things over, or to have the student digest the material given to him/her. E.g., every year thousands of PhDs are churned out in all fields all over the world, but how many of them are real contributions to the realm of academia? Most of them are artificial works that somehow meet the basic criteria to be considered scholarly research. Most articles published in academic journals are based on artificial arguments that are embellished in certain ways, put in proper jargon, and get published because of the "publish or perish" attitude that prevails in the institutions of late capitalism. If you "critically read" those publications, you can see that they have no substance.

I fully sympathize with Mark; it is not simply a matter of loving your work. Students are increasingly becoming impatient to get their diplomas in their pockets w/o putting in the required work. Increased plagiarism is one indication of it. Despite what so-called educators might claim, standardization in the 20th century has killed any sense of true achievement and creativity in schools. We are all trying to work around tight schedules making sure production continues uninterrupted in the factory.

Intellectualizing arts and literature is, in my opinion, a superficial activity (to a large extent), that does not contribute to the arts themselves. In art, "heart" weighs more heavily than "the intellect." It is, of course, important to place things in perspective and look at arts in their proper socio-political context, but most of what is produced in the name of art critique is gibberish.

The bottom line is, just go out & take your photographs. At the end of the day if you like what you've produced, that's what matters. If others also appreciate what you show them, so much the better. There is no need for, excuse me for the expression, verbal masturbation. So, in response to Jack's question, I think the answer is, without excluding theory, to practice and learn it by doing. Guidance by a master photographer is probably the best thing to have, whether in a formal or an informal setting.

Forgive me for this lenghty post, I just tried to address a couple of points that I think are related. My best to all and my condolences to those who have suffered as a result of the disaster in NO and elsewhere...

[John_4185]

Emrehan said, Intellectualizing arts and literature is, in my opinion, a superficial activity (to a large extent), that does not contribute to the arts themselves.

I rather admire what Emrehan wrote above. I cannot come up with a better example of a self-evincing superficial statement. It is further reinforced by the later reference to verbal masturbation. I am led to believe that enough of the same makes one intellectually blind.

Look, intellectualization does not replace the visual work itself. So-called Art is of making, reflection, criticism that attempts deeper understanding of the discourse itself. Why people feel threatened by study is a study in itself.

Leaving with a humbling statement: I am almost entirely autodidactic. Unfortunately, I had a poor instructor.

[paulr]

"It is difficult to separate the artisanal and the artistic aspects of photography from one another."

No, it really isn't. One topic is the tools, the other is the message. There is necessary overlap, but it's a mistake to confuse the two topics. A program geared towards teaching commercial photography is going to have to be different from one that teaches art photography, because, the goals are so completely different (even if many of the tools are the same).

A commercial photographer must learn many different tools, and must learn several specific esthetics, since the goal is to be able to serve a range of clients, each demanding pictures of a certain "type." The standards and esthetics of each of these kinds of commercial photographs is already defined by what's actually a pretty strict tradition.

An artist who uses photography is going to be focussed largely on what he or she is trying to explore. The tools needed for the job will sort themselves out. Someone might go half their career using nothing but a pinhole camera, or using nothig but black and white film and ambrotypes. They don't have to have a pre-determined repertory of tools and techniques or an ability to make pictures in a bunch of pre-determined styles. Having those skills might help in some cases; might hinder in some others. But it isn't central.

At a beginning level, the education for both might be the same. Both need a basic level of competence in their basic tools. Beyond that, the focus of the education is going to change dramatically for any of it to be worthwhile.

"Intellectualizing arts and literature is, in my opinion, a superficial activity"

What exactly do you mean by "intellectualizing?" Do you mean talking about art? Trying to understand it more deeply? Trying to understand what you get out of it, and what you bring to it? Are Szarkowski's essays about photography superficial? Robert Adams's essays?

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

paulr,

This is what I meant: "A commercial photographer must learn many different tools, and must learn several specific esthetics, since the goal is to be able to serve a range of clients, each demanding pictures of a certain "type." The standards and esthetics of each of these kinds of commercial photographs is already defined by what's actually a pretty strict tradition." I meant the overlap, that is, a commercial photograph can have quite an artistic appeal, as you indicate.

With respect to the other point, I do not claim, nor do I think that Szarkowski's, or Adams' essays would be useless. Those particular writers are great communicators. Sometimes it seems to me that (without meaning any particular person here) people (usually art critics) ascribe certain qualities to artists or their work that the artists themselves may never have thought. They create a language of their own, which is full of platitudes and jargonism. In my opinion, the artist expresses himself in a certain way, using a language of his own; and that's art, because it appeals to our sensibilities, our powers of perception in a special way, and it’s unique. It's a form of expression, some kind of social comment perhaps. You get what you get out of it, if it appeals to you at all. If there’s photograph you like for whatever reason, do you need anybody explaining it to you? For individuals who don’t appreciate or aren’t interested in aesthetic creations, such comments and exclusivist (and usually arrogant and self-important) pseudo-academic pedantry doesn’t matter anyway.

Weston appreciated photography for it was a new form of individual expression. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to “read” it in his/her individual way. Matisse was critical of impressionists because the way colors were used distorted form and contours. Does it matter what Matisse thought if you simply like impressionists’ paintings and if that sort of art resonates with you? The meaning attributed to 19th century Romanticism is so confusing that it is almost meaningless because it means different things in different areas.

Briefly, the discourse created on arts is an interception between the artist and the viewer; it can be misleading. When the artist himself/herself makes a pronouncement on his/her work, that is no problem. But, I think this was mentioned in an earlier thread, there are many “couch critics” that muddy the waters, acting like the final authority. No need to say, everyone is free to express his or her own views, and I’m not advocating any censorship or anything of that sort.

[Jack_5762]

ii'

I think your instructor was a lot better than you want to admit.

[paulr]

"Weston appreciated photography for it was a new form of individual expression. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to “read” it in his/her individual way."

There's always a range of possible interpretations of any art. A problem that's encountered all the time with artists showing something really new (like Weston's work was) is that the possible interpretations include befuddlement, anger, and a belief that there's "nothing to look at." Keep in mind that no one on this list ever saw his work when it was new (at least I don't think anyone here dates back that far). By the time we were seriously looking at art, his peppers and nudes were cannonized and conventional. We can only imagine the experience of coming to them with visual skills honed in the 19th century, our expectations about to collide with the avante garde.

There are some people who are going to come to new work with the ability to really see it. These people are in the right place to take that next step forward, either because of their particular life experiences or because of their exposure to the progression of art leading up to the new work in front of them. These people don't need help from any criticism or artist's statements or anything else.

For other people, the right critical exposition can profoundly help them see the work. It doesn't substitute for the work, nor does it explain it. But it can establish a context for it ... a sense of what led up to it historically, what kinds of concerns went into its making, what similarities it shares with more familiar work, and what its most significant points of departure are. This kind of exposition, done well, can illuminate without smothering. We don't blame the gallery lights for getting between us and the work; we appreciate them for making it more visible. Excellent criticism inspires the same kind of reaction.

Granted, there's a lot of bad criticism, and almost as much really bad criticism. We can say the same thing about photography. It's just not reasonable to use the bad examples as a reason to dismiss the good ones.

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Agree.

[Mark Sawyer]

I agree too, and have been arguing much the same with Brian on another thread. But it occurs to me that there is some work and criticism I have trouble finding value in. Specifically, the majority of work in Aperture over the past decade seems haphazard or deliberately esoteric even by academic high-art standards. I appreciate that this is considered a leading journal, put together by a group I respect for their intellect, acheivements, and dedication. I'm open to the probability (near certainty) that it's just that I "don't get it." But I usually at least partially get it...

I'm curious what others think of the past ten years of content of Aperture?

[paulr]

I haven't read much of it over the last many years. I typically get it when someone I know has work in it, or if it really catches my eye ... once in a great while. The writing never struck me as being unusually good or bad ... definitely less obtuse than Afterimage.

We should have a contest to see who can find the most horrible piece of critical writing.

[Jack_5762]

Mark,
Your statement "Ijust dont get it" concerning the contents of Afterimage shows that you really, really do get it. Its just impossible to see the emporers new clothes especially when the emporer is clothed in artspeak.

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Mark,

I used to subscribe to Aperture, but that was a long time ago. Then came a point when I realized that it was not my cup of tea anymore. I have nothing bad to say about it, maybe I miss the point, but if I feel it does not appeal to me anymore, there is no point in continuing it. "The writing never struck me as being unusually good or bad."

I think one decent journal right now is LensWork. Some years ago I wanted to subscribe to Steve Simmons's View Camera (hint..hint...) but the cost was prohibitive for overseas, so I never got it. All this said, and this perhaps sounds funny, I think my membership in this forum is some kind of a substitution for photographic journals. Thanks to the Internet God, I personally benefited immensely from this particular forum and various web sites (photographically and otherwise) that I can access. So in a way not having a "really great" magazine does not bother me that much anymore. Once in a while I buy a book that interests me, and I find it sufficient.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Mark, Your statement "Ijust dont get it" concerning the contents of Afterimage shows that you really, really do get it. Its just impossible to see the emporers new clothes especially when the emporer is clothed in artspeak."

I'm not familiar with Afterimage, but it may well be similar to Aperture. In Aperture, I get the feeling that for some articles, the photographs are just an excuse for the writer to impress others with flowery esoteric language. Usually, the language is as much or more open to interpretation as the images, and neither the writing nor images hold much interest.

The issue I have with myself over this is that my criticisms/dismissal of Aperture sound suspiciously like other people's dismissal of Robert Adams, Paul Caponigro, even Edward Weston, all of whom I admire. Making it worse, the people behind Aperture are the educated elite of the academic/art world. Just checking to see if anyone could enlighten me...

[Mark Sawyer]

"I think one decent journal right now is LensWork. Some years ago I wanted to subscribe to Steve Simmons's View Camera (hint..hint...) but the cost was prohibitive for overseas, so I never got it. All this said, and this perhaps sounds funny, I think my membership in this forum is some kind of a substitution for photographic journals." -Emrehan Zeybekoglu

I just resubscribed to Lenswork and View Camera. There's a Britich magazine ("Black & White" I think) that I almost subscribed to, "but the cost was prohibitive for overseas, so I never got it." Lenswork is the best I've seen, but I wouldn't want to lose View Camera either. Both serve us well in different ways. Still watching for other journals worth subscribing to, and open to suggestions...

[paulr]

Are there any examples of these incomprehensible/meaningless artspeak Aperture articles online? I read the magazine infrequently but always thought the articles were pretty low-key ... certainly closer to the mainstream than what's in a lot of more academic journals.

I'm wondering if the real objection is to the photographic content. Aperture has always tried to stay contemporary, and photography (as well as our critical understanding of it) has changed over the decades. From what I see on this list, a lot of large format photographers come to the medium from a fairly rigid late-19th/early-20th century perspective on the medium ... in other words, an esthetic that was already considered "classic" back in the days when we were all learning to look at photographs. Anyone whose interests don't change at all over the years is going to feel a sense of growing alienation with a publication that attempts to keep up with whatever's going on now.

None of this, of course speaks of the quality of editorship (of both pictures and words), which is going to go up and down over the years with any publication. Or with individual tastes that just won't accomodate one or another trend ... I pretty much had to stop looking at contemporary work in the mid 80s, (just as I had to stop listening to the radio then) but by the late nineties, I started finding more and more new work i liked seeing ... or listening to). That was a time when Aperture was particuarly unintersting to me ... but it wasn't the magazine's fault. I just didn't like the work that most people were doing.

The best photo magazine I ever saw (for my interestes) was Doubletake ... I loved the wide swath it cut through documentary photography (loosely defined), essays, stories, and poetry. Like so many great things it was short lived.