PBS Art Special--No Photogrpahy

[Raymond Bleesz]

In an article in today's NT Times, there will be a TV PBS Art Special tonight entitled, "Imagining America", however, there is no one photographically contributing to the documentary--Stiegliz's name is mentioned more in association with O'keeffe.

I still have to wonder why these authorities in the "Arts" believe that photography historically has not contributed to the art scene in our culture.

Raymond

[John_4185]

David Wojnarowicz is mentioned. He did photography among other media, for better or worse.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny, why didnt they just call it "painting in America" since they did not include photography? What I find even more ironic is the term "imaging" which came around with digital.....a capture method that could not be further apart from painting! (Well, unless you apply the water color PS filter... :-) )

[Bruce Watson]

And people wonder why I killed my TV.

Ain't nothin' worth watchin'. Including, apparently, PBS.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Imagining America" Jorge - not Imaging. But don't let that stop your predictable knee-jerk anti-digital mini rant :-)

Perhaps most photography just lacks true imagination? (we seem a pretty anal lot after all...)

It is subtitled "Icons of 20th Century American Art" - it would be pretty hard to put almost any American photographer of the 20th Century in that category. Steiglitz, Weston (Adams...) - they all come across in the end as really rather parochial

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

But don't let that stop your predictable knee-jerk anti-digital mini rant :-)

You mean like your predictable knee jerk reaction to respond to my posts? Did I posted anything anti digital? No, but I imagine you wont let a small detail like that stop you either huh?... ;-)

Funny thing, is that I am not anti digital, I am anti BS......

[Paddy Quinn]

Oh Mr. Hobbes - you are so quaintly disingenuous when you get so flustered

[paulr]

even today, there a lot of people who have studied art but who just haven't studied photography. it's off their radar.

i'm not too surprised, just based on art textbooks i've seen. some of them give a disproportional amount of attention to photography, others treat it like a footnote.

documentaries always choose what to focus on and what to tune out. sometimes the decisions are questionable. i had similar problems with ken burns' jazz documentary. the music world according to ken (and wynton marsalis) didn't much resemble the one i knew and loved.

but i can still think of better reasons to kill my tv than pbs.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh Mr. Hobbes - you are so quaintly disingenuous when you get so flustered

LOL...it takes someone far smarter than you to fluster me..... ;-)

[Walter Foscari]

Cindy Sherman is supposed to be there according to the NY Times article.
On the other hand photography is not the only medium to be snobbed by the authors, the very same article says that "barely any sculptor" is mentioned.

[David Vickery]

Hello,
Perhaps this should be posted as a new question, and I guess if there isn't much response here then maybe I'll do that.

Just exactly how is it that one could consider Stieglitz, Weston, or Adams to be limited in their oeuvre ("parochial")???

[Paddy Quinn]

I'm not quite sure how you are using oeuvre? Because all them had quite substantial bodies of work - their ouvres (pl?). But I was talking about their places overall in both American and (really, World) art of the 20th Century.

Even in terms of photography, outside of N. America, while all three are generally well known they always aren't quite the photogrpahic icons they are seen as across here.

As for sculptors, I certainly hope they included Serra

[paulr]

it just sounds like the scope of the thing was limited mostly to painting. which is fine, but it's annoying if the title implies it's about art in general.

as far as paddy's issue, i'd suggest that stieglitz, weston, and strand should be able to hold their own as icons of modernism. stieglitz especially, since he was THE impressario of early modernism in america. while his own photography was often behind the curve (led by people like strand, whom he mentorred) stieglitz provided much of the foundation, the philosophy, and the inspiration. he brought the paintings over from europe, championed them in the face of unaccepting criticism, and urged his community of photographers to do even more.

all three of these photographers have a formidable presence in the history of art. they practically define the range of american formal modernism in photography. their influence and cross-polination with poets and painters was profound, and maybe even unprecedented. it's true that in europe people will often be more aware of atget or the constructivists and bauhaus guys, but i don't think this qualifies the american guys as parochial. adams, certainly ... expecially in the larger art context, where his best-known work starts to look like a rehash of minor 19th century figures like thomas moran.

[William Mortensen]

The local PBS station lists the program as "American artists impact the country's cultural identity." I think if one needs a good laugh, one could imagine all the artists going on strike in an attempt to deprive the country of its "cultural identity."

Regarding "parochialism," if meant as assigning someone to a restricted area of the art world, current diversification and classification by historians and critics would suggest all art and artists are parochial. But if it is meant to suggest some naivete towards Adams, Weston, or especially Stieglitz, I doubt it could be taken seriously. All three were very intelligent, well-read and involved with the art, culture, and outside world events of their times.

[Dan_5988]

I think in terms of how evolved painting is, it is still the forefront of 'fine art' in the world. Photography is still pretty young compared to things like sculpture and painting...and in terms of how conceptual or intellectual painting and sculpture and even video stuff (this seemed to make leap frog progress) they are way more out there than the majority of contemporary photography...which might just be a positive attribute to photography (at least in my mind...I can only take so many pure white cubes and sculptures made from vaseline)

"imagining" could also be a key word here (it should be but who knows)

I think of photography as traditionally very documentary and analytic, and not in the realm of the imagination that painting and other more overtly synthetic art forms require...

"It is subtitled "Icons of 20th Century American Art" - it would be pretty hard to put almost any American photographer of the 20th Century in that category. Steiglitz, Weston (Adams...) - they all come across in the end as really rather parochial"

well, if theyre talking about o'keefe in there...thats about as parochial as you can get in 'fine art.' and someone like AA is certanly as much of an Icon as O'keefe.

I recently took a class of art since 1945 (i guess this is what would be called post-modernism?)...all the photographers mentioned (not many) were ones that seemed to play second fiddle to painting like Cindy Sherman or Yasumasa Morimura...

[Randy_5116]

Having taken "Art" courses, as well as photography, and having studied the fine arts (music) I can well see where the differentiation is made between the two mediums. In all the photo courses, (two years ++) only one Prof even "mentioned" any of the fab three, and that was a mention-in-passing of St. Ansel. Photography is an "art form" - of sorts. Kinda. It is taking "existing" elements or settings, and attempting to capture the emotions they may have towards that object, at that moment, and transfer those emotions onto a tangible object (paper, etc). However, it is still just a re-creation, or image, of an existing object that was made/created by someone or something else. Paint and sculpture are taking the thoughts, fears, emotions, etc and forming, or creating, something totally new that has never existed beforehand, from those thoughts feelings and emotions. And then displayed for the photo/artist to take pictures of. Are A, W, and S artists? In the field of photography, yes. As artists that have made major impacts on the community in their respective area? Not hardly.

[paulr]

that's a pretty good summary of the reasons photography fought for recognition over fifty years ago, but they're not given much credit anymore. there's dense literature on the topic ... it's worthing looking at. in the mean time, it's interesting to notice that photography and photo-based media (like video, and photo and video installations) are at the vanguard of the art world, and the more traditional media are following.

the last century and a half of phography has shown us a few things even more significant. as szarkowsky observed, there are now more photographs in the world than there are bricks, yet no two are exactly alike. art theorists have noticed this and found that in practice photography is as plastic a medium as fresco or marble. the chances of you and me creating the same image with a camera or a paintbrush are equally slim. another observation: the techniques of photography tend to be easier to learn that the traditional techniques of painting or sculpture--it's much easier to become competent at photography. but it's no easier to become a master at photography. the success rate of photographers striving to master the medium as an expressive art form seems every bit as low as the rate among painters. the reasons for success and failure appear to be the same in both cases.

i'm not sure i understand the standard you're applying to stieglitz and adams in determining whether they're artists ... what you mean by "major impacts on the community in their respective area." ansel's impact seemed to be mostly outside the world of art, but it's hard to imagine someone having a greater impact on the art community than stieglitz.

[Paddy Quinn]

stieglitz especially, since he was THE impressario of early modernism in america. while his own photography was often behind the curve (led by people like strand, whom he mentorred) stieglitz provided much of the foundation, the philosophy, and the inspiration. he brought the paintings over from europe, championed them in the face of unaccepting criticism, and urged his community of photographers to do even more.

exactly Steiglitz was an impressario, a fixer, a middleman - a networker we might call him today. A gallery owner and publisher. The man to know for an artist to make a nme for themselves.

But in terms of his own art and photogrpahy - good, but not really an iconic artist. As you say, often behind the curve

[William Mortensen]

"But in terms of his own art and photogrpahy - good, but not really an iconic artist. As you say, often behind the curve."

I would disagree with this; when viewed in the context of his days "fine art" photography,(ie: pictorialism), Steiglitz' early work is a strong step towards formal modernism that paralleled or preceded Strand's. Looking at his later works, his nudes of the early twenties, (Georgia Engelhard in the window of a weathered wooden structure, 1923; Rebecca Strand floating in water, 1922-23), strongly presage Weston's later nudes. Add in "Spiritual America," (the harnessed, castrated horse), and his "Equivalents" (cloud studies), and Steiglitz had found directions and created sequences of work still being picked over, even by photography's "masters", many decades later.

Steiglitz important roles as a gallery-owner, publisher, curator, critic, and "charismatic guru" of the day's art world cause us to overlook the power and impotance of his imagery...

BTW, I watched the PBS special last night. Some good moments of archival footage, but the commentary was survey-level at best. A very narrow selection of artists chosen for how well they could be shoe-horned-in-hindsight into the evolutionary line imagined by whoever wrote the script. Oh, and the important news we were all waiting for: the new catch-phrase in the art world is now "Radical Re-invention."

[paulr]

I agree with Mark.

Stieglitz was behind some of his disciples when it came to applying principles of modernism to photography, but the depth and constant innovation he brought to the medium was second to none. He really came into his own and started doing much of his best work after the age of fifty, which is unusual.

Several bodies of his work strike me as iconic american modernism (or in some cases iconic american romanticism). these would include his early new york street photographs, his later formal urban studies, his extended portrait of o'keefe, and just about everything he did at lake george, particularly his equivalents.

i recommend the book Alfred Stieglitz at Lake George ... it's a catalog to a show at the modern, with nice reproductions, excellent editing, and the most insightful essay on Stieglitz that i've seen (by szarkowsky).

i think it's a tragedy of pop culture that he's often presented as a footnote in o'keefe's story; if anything, the reverse would be more appropriate.

[tim atherton]

"He really came
into his own and started doing much of his best work after the age of
fifty, which is unusual. "

Perhaps it's not really that unusual. I can think of Louis Kahn and Frank Lloyd Wright for starters

[Kevin Crisp]

I accidentally saw parts of this. (Hate to get back to the point.) My daughter the art history major had it on. I didn't think Steiglitz was treated as a mere footnote. Quite a bit of his photography was in it. The interviews with his wife were quite interesting.