So, who "are" the new black & white photographers?

[tim atherton]

I'm referring back to the recent post about Charlotte Cotton's essay The New Color: The Return of Black-and-White

(see this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23934))

I've been thinking about this and written a blog post on "So, who are the new black & white photographers?"

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/03/so-where-are-new-black-white.html

Let's assume for now that there is some truth to Cotton's argument, that there is a potential new wave of photographers working in black & white - in some way analogous to the new and exciting directions taken by colour over the last 20 or 30 years.

But if this is the case, who ARE the people doing what we could (perhaps -just perhaps) call "New Black and White"?

Sure there are the old guard - most towards the latter part of their careers. They did some pretty new and interesting stuff but that was a generation or two ago (even though many still continue to be innovative). Sure, they are certainly still going strong now, but who are the new guard?

Cotton listed some - I'm definitely not sure about a number of them, but there are perhaps a few in there

So, is there really much black and white work being done that's innovative, exploratory, vigorous (analogous to, but obviously not the same as, what has happened in colour over the last 25-30 years - and which still continues)?

(and if we want to argue about Cotton's basic premise, perhaps we can take that back to the original thread?)

[Walter Calahan]

I'm sure they know 'who' they are.

I'm too busy being myself to wondered what others are doing.

That's the B&W of it. Sorry to be so colorful. Grin.

[Ted Harris]

Tim,

There are also those of us who, totally excited for 20-30 year with the potential of color, find ourselves turning to black and white again with more frequency than we have for many years.

[tim atherton]

Tim,

There are also those of us who, totally excited for 20-30 year with the potential of color, find ourselves turning to black and white again with more frequency than we have for many years.

Oh, I'm sure (and in part it describes me), but are we basically going to say the limits of black and white have been set. There's a frame or a boundary around it and that's it?

We have pushed Modernism (or the old Topographics) or whatever to the limit. As long as we can make really good work along the same lineage as Atget/Kertesz/Sander (to pick just three areas of photography), that's the most we can do?

Some of the most interesting and intriguing colour work (indeed much of the everyday colour work) would have been hard to conceive of 30 or 40 years ago in many ways. I'm not quite sure the same can be said for black and white?

[paulr]

One of the photogs Cotton named is my friend Susan Lipper:
http://www.susanlipper.com/

You said you checked some of the others she mentioned. Which of them looked interesting to you?

[paulr]

Also up for consideration would be my friend Erik Gould:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/egould/

Old school? New School? A bit of each?

On this topic I've gotten conflicting reviews of my own black and white work. Some think it's a throwback to the 1930s, others a throwback to the 1970s, while a few have said it brings something new to the table. I'm open to feedback.

[julian]

One of the photogs Cotton named is my friend Susan Lipper:
http://www.susanlipper.com/

You said you checked some of the others she mentioned. Which of them looked interesting to you?

I like her stuff a lot, have done for a while but...
this
http://www.susanlipper.com/html/10.html
really needs colour.
IMO there has to be a reason to shoot BW o colour and I feel her stuff would simply be better in colour. She has a fantastic eye and I love her diptychs (no surprise there I guess) - in fact some of her pics are on the 'I could live with those on my wall category', and few reach that stage for me.

[Mark Sawyer]

Also up for consideration would be my friend Erik Gould:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/egould/

Old school? New School? A bit of each?

On this topic I've gotten conflicting reviews of my own black and white work. Some think it's a throwback to the 1930s, others a throwback to the 1970s, while a few have said it brings something new to the table. I'm open to feedback.

I think the works of Susan Lipper and Erik Gould would fit comfortably into the 1970's fine-art photography genre, to the point of being nostalgic today. Whether they intellectualize new intents or interests is another thing, but that was very much a part of 70's photography too...

I think we worry too much about being new and influential. But then, that's what "Art" is all about... unfortunately...

[Ken Lee]

http://ultralord0.googlepages.com/IMG_2166Small.JPG

This beautiful little fellow's name is Shyam, which if I'm not mistaken is a classical Indian name for the color of deep sky blue.

He's definitely new. Being of Indian ancestry, you might say he's black and white. And he's certainly a photographer.

[Kevin Crisp]

But if this is the case, who ARE the people doing what we could (perhaps -just perhaps) call "New Black and White"?


Uh....probably the people who've actually read the manuals with their digital point and shoots so they know how to do it?

[tim atherton]

One of the photogs Cotton named is my friend Susan Lipper:
http://www.susanlipper.com/

You said you checked some of the others she mentioned. Which of them looked interesting to you?

Yes, Lippers was also one of the ones she mentioned I found intersting.

A couple of the others I found interesting on her list were An-My Lê and Jason Evans

[tim atherton]

I like her stuff a lot, have done for a while but...
this
http://www.susanlipper.com/html/10.html
really needs colour.
IMO there has to be a reason to shoot BW o colour and I feel her stuff would simply be better in colour. She has a fantastic eye and I love her diptychs (no surprise there I guess) - in fact some of her pics are on the 'I could live with those on my wall category', and few reach that stage for me.

That's another thing I noticed Julian, searching through a lot of the "new" stuff - some of it would just work better in colour...

[tim atherton]

But if this is the case, who ARE the people doing what we could (perhaps -just perhaps) call "New Black and White"?


Uh....probably the people who've actually read the manuals with their digital point and shoots so they know how to do it?

well it's probably true that an awful lot of good colour work is being done with digital point and shoots...

(I'm glad Julian sticks with his cranky old Rollei though :) )

[Brian C. Miller]

Let's assume for now that there is some truth to Cotton's argument, that there is a potential new wave of photographers working in black & white - in some way analogous to the new and exciting directions taken by colour over the last 20 or 30 years.

But if this is the case, who ARE the people doing what we could (perhaps -just perhaps) call "New Black and White"?

One thing that pops into my mind is, what does Cotton really mean by "new?" Is this new to the curators, is this something new to other photographers, or is it something that would blow the minds of 90% of the global populace?

I think that it may be simply stuff that Cotton finds "new," not something that would radically stand out from the B&W photography section on Yahoo!'s website. I have seen some stuff that I thought was really neat, like a NZ photographer who did all of his work with unique lighting.

So the problem is, who are they, and where are they?

[Struan Gray]

Within 'art' photography I have seen a lot naval-gazing, self-examination type work in which colour and black and white is mixed, seemingly at random. Various levels of desaturation are included too. My take is that the mix of presentations is intended to enhance the snapshot, collected slice-of-life look, by making the individual photos within a collection blend in a bit less.

J.H. Engström (www.jhengstrom.com Warning: nudity for those that care) has had a lot of recent critical success, and his 'Trying to Dance' project has spawned a host of imitators in our local art photographic pond.

I keep seeing things in Sally Gall's landscapes that I missed before.

And then there's the whole F-group (gruppof.blogspot.com) neo-impressionist look at modern life.

The oldies aren't that bad either. Friedlander's Stems, the Apples and Olives and more recent urban landscapes feel very new to me, even if they are not part of the face-on, blank stare aesthetic.

One problem though is that viewers today are expected to appreciate the formal aspects of photographs without the 'crutch' of a B+W abstraction. Photographers then get told that they don't 'need' to use B+W, and that the old arguments about the 'distractions' of colour are now moot. I'm not sure that the human vision system evolves that fast: so I agree with Brian that it is really a question of who your photography is aimed at. I feel that B+W is still a great way to present formalist concerns to the general viewer.

[Struan Gray]

A corollory to my post: desaturation is the new Black and White. By which I mean, many of the traditional strengths of B+W are now addressable, and being addressed, by low-saturation photographs. It's particularly noticeable among cinematographers, but I think it applies to still photographs too.

[Ed Richards]

Struan,

I was looking at the WWW site for Engström - at least on the WWW, I cannot see what separates these from the snapshot world, esp. if you have a bad drug store print them. Is there something about the prints in real life that changes this? I know this is true with a lot of the best LF, esp. alt processes - the WWW cannot capture the look.

[Brian K]

I see a lot of effort being made to be different or unique, most often at the expense of actually producing images of any real merit. It seems that if you can do something different the fact that it's poorly composed, badly lit, obscure in concept, and that it requires a complete essay to explain the meaning and significance of the image, then museum curators will adore it. The more academic the image, the more art speak used to describe it, the greater chance it'll end up in a museum.

With this said, I'm not against new concepts or styles, just the use of "new" as an excuse to forget about all of the characteristics of creating art that require talent, effort or training.

Not trying to add any inflection here, or opinions of their work but what does it mean when the photographic darlings of the museum world are Sherman, Wegman and Close? Or that a Richard Prince photo of a Marlboro Man photo sells for over one million?

The new B&W photographers? The ones that gain recognition will most likely have the best gimmick.

[Struan Gray]

I was looking at the WWW site for Engström - at least on the WWW, I cannot see what separates these from the snapshot world, esp. if you have a bad drug store print them. Is there something about the prints in real life that changes this? I know this is true with a lot of the best LF, esp. alt processes - the WWW cannot capture the look.

Ed, I have only seen the photos in magazine reproductions, and in Engström's books. However, even there it is clear that despite the snapshot-y framing and off-kilter colours, these are not snapshots. There is a sharpness and tonal quality that tells anyone used to looking at photographs that whatever these photographs are, they are not from a disposable camera processed at the local cheapie chemist.

Not that they couldn't be art if they were (and I confess to loving 'found photography'), but Engström's photographs are using the snapshot aesthetic to suggest a mood, or the way the series should be read: they are not snapshots themselves. They are art adopting non-art, just as classical composers will take over a folk tune or serious novelists can write in a highly colloquial, vernacular patois.

I read a while back that Engström did have arcane - and jealously guarded - methods for producing his bleached-out blue look in an analogue darkroom, but he was after a look not a gold badge for effort, so it is wholly possible he does it digitally now.

I don't actually much like his work. Not because it is not beautiful, or because it lacks traditional photographic values, but because in the end the jumble of impressions, visual notes and key moments he chooses to show us don't (IMHO) add up to anything much. Like a short story writer who can't manage the larger form of a novel, there is no benefit to seeing more.

But I do like the method. I recently discovered the writings of W.G. Sebald: a rare example of fame and literary success coinciding with my personal preferances. He builds an overall view through the slow accumulation of observation and fact, presented in a deadpan way but with subtle changes of tone and occasional hints at a larger, more threatening or disturbing picture. I think that those working in the subdued snapshot aesthetic (as oppposed to, for example, Nan Goldin's Sunday supplement unambiguous laying it all on the table) are doing something similar: trying to build a meaningful larger picture by the agglomeration of mundane experience. Those like Engström who do it through a gallery or art-book setting can rely on the authority of the photographs' surroundings to avoid rank catagorisation as worthless, and to force the viewer to take them seriously.

[tim atherton]

I see a lot of effort being made to be different or unique, most often at the expense of actually producing images of any real merit. It seems that if you can do something different the fact that it's poorly composed, badly lit, obscure in concept, and that it requires a complete essay to explain the meaning and significance of the image, then museum curators will adore it. The more academic the image, the more art speak used to describe it, the greater chance it'll end up in a museum.

With this said, I'm not against new concepts or styles, just the use of "new" as an excuse to forget about all of the characteristics of creating art that require talent, effort or training.

Not trying to add any inflection here, or opinions of their work but what does it mean when the photographic darlings of the museum world are Sherman, Wegman and Close? Or that a Richard Prince photo of a Marlboro Man photo sells for over one million?

The new B&W photographers? The ones that gain recognition will most likely have the best gimmick.

But against this I would set, say, Sugimoto (although he's certainly not "new"... in the sense I talked about in having a whole career ahead of them).

His work does all these, things, but it's also rigorous, clear, not fuzzy in concept, clear, yet complex.

I'm not necessarily talking about novelty (novelty is here today and gone tomorrow - whereas for example a lot of Eglestons approach to colour was novel, but it has continued for 30+ years)

[tim atherton]

But I do like the method. I recently discovered the writings of W.G. Sebald: a rare example of fame and literary success coinciding with my personal preferances. He builds an overall view through the slow accumulation of observation and fact, presented in a deadpan way but with subtle changes of tone and occasional hints at a larger, more threatening or disturbing picture. I think that those working in the subdued snapshot aesthetic (as oppposed to, for example, Nan Goldin's Sunday supplement unambiguous laying it all on the table) are doing something similar: trying to build a meaningful larger picture by the agglomeration of mundane experience. Those like Engström who do it through a gallery or art-book setting can rely on the authority of the photographs' surroundings to avoid rank catagorisation as worthless, and to force the viewer to take them seriously.

Ha - Sebald's a genius

But back to the snapshot etc ethic (and a lot of it b&w at that), Mikahilov has a whole strand as well that has set a trail in that direction.

But again, but again, not exactly the "young" generation (though may he have many more years in him yet...).

[Struan Gray]

Ha - Sebald's a genius

Shame he had to go and die....

I would love to read a set of course notes from his teaching at UEA. It would be fascinating to see how he encouraged others to approach literature and writing.


But again, but again, not exactly the "young" generation...

Part of the problem is that although there is a fantastic variety of work being done and exhibited, the major big-league art venues, and media, inevitably seem to coalesce around one particular style. The suspicious part of me says that this is because it makes contemporary art easier to package and sell to people who do not trust their own judgement. The people who get the Nobel Prize generally deserve it, but that says nothing meaningful about the work of those who did not get it.

I am not sure what leaches the soul more: producing work derivative of current art trends in the hope of making money, or producing work that is self-conciously different from current art trends in the hope of being the next in line.

The people you are looking for are by definition not well-known. Like Pornography and the Judge, you'll know them when you see them.

[paulr]

I see a lot of effort being made to be different or unique, most often at the expense of actually producing images of any real merit.

There have always been examples of artists desperately trying to be different for the sake of being different. Great artists do unique work because they see in a way that's different from what's been done before, and they find a way to express it.

I think of it as the difference between novelty and innovation.

Curators and historians might be entertained by things that are new and shiny (they're people, after all) but the bigger concern is finding work that's representative of the unique time and place of the artist. Typically, here and now. Work that's truly representative of here and now--another way of saying work that's most culturally important--is bound to be different from work made in Carmel in 1920 or Rome in 1600.

Beyond that, if someone's work looks just like the work of one of their contemporaries from last year, why are we going to care about it? Why not go straight to the source? Any work's greatest value probably lies in whatever uniqueness it brings to the table. That uniqueness might be found in the details or in the broad strokes ... if we can find it at all.

[Brian K]

Paul, one of the problems with museums is that acceptance in museums, and shows at museums are dependant upon the choices made by the curators. Curators are people (most are ;) ) and are just as prone to wanting recognition and advancement in their field. You do not get noticed as a curator if you produce shows that are safe. While they'll trot out a safe,popular artist every now and then just to keep the donations to the museum going and not to alienate too many people, the types of shows that get you noticed, that get you paid and that get you status among your former classmates at art school, are the shows that are more radical or unusual. Showing traditional work, or work done in a more traditional genre doesn't get you attention. Kitsch works, gimmicks work, shock works, politics work and controversy works best .

One thing that I find to be more common is that the nature of art has changed. I was always taught that the purpose of doing your art was self expression, I was further taught that people should be able to see what you're trying to express in your work without reliance on any words or explanations. That the work should stand on it's own. It seems today that so much art requires a lengthy explanation.

It also seems to me that so much of today's work has become a Rorshack test. That is it's not up to the viewer to try to see what the artist is saying and the artist is responsible for communicating their thoughts, but instead for the viewer to interpret what they themselves see or feel. How is that self expression on the part of the artist? You could just as easily have chimpanzees throw paint at a canvas and then leave it up to the audience to project their own pyschologies onto the work.

I think we live in an age of convenience and self indulgence. It's easier for the artist to not go to the trouble of actually formulating work that does express their thoughts, and the viewers tend not to care about the artists thoughts anyway because the only thoughts they really care about are their own. This is a perfect match in today's world.

[Henry Ambrose]

Well said Brian!

[paulr]

One thing that I find to be more common is that the nature of art has changed. I was always taught that the purpose of doing your art was self expression ...

That is actually quite a modern understanding of art. The older traditions of art are concerned more with expressing and illuminating ideas larger than the individual--religious, mythological, moral, social, etc... Art was closer to ritual dance than it was to something that would be labelled as self expression. Of course, it's impossible to dance without expressing something about yourself ... same with making a visual object. It just happens that the personal part has become emphasized over the cultural part.



I was further taught that people should be able to see what you're trying to express in your work without reliance on any words or explanations. That the work should stand on it's own. It seems today that so much art requires a lengthy explanation.

This is going to be true if your viewers are fluent in the tradition that you're working in. Rennaissance people didn't need any explanations to understand the Christian iconography of the paintings and frescoes that surrounded them. They were fluent in the language of that imagery. We in the 21st century were not brought up with that visual tradition (unless we studied art history with an emphasis on that period), so to "understand" that work, in any way like it was understood by its contemporaries, requires us to learn a lot about the tradition and visual language and other background context.

Likewise, when someone works in a tradition that's new to us--either because we haven't kept up with all the movements and evolutions of contemporary art, or because we're witnessing something that represents a big leap--we're not going to be able to understand it without some help. We can get that help the easy way, by reading explanations, or the hard way, by immersing ourselves in the tradition and learning our way through it step by step.

This may be an age off convenience and self indulgence, but I'd suggest that this applies to viewers as much as artists. People expect to be able to go into a museum and "get" the work of a contemporary artist, without having looked seriously at the work of his contemporaries, or of the generation that influenced him, or of the generation that influenced that generation. They want to be able to go in with nothing but their familiarity of 19th or early 20th century painting, and without any other knowledge be able to understand and judge what they see. They're insulted by the presence of written explanations, and they're also insulted by their need for those explanations.

[Joseph O'Neil]

This may be an age off convenience and self indulgence, but I'd suggest that this applies to viewers as much as artists. People expect to be able to go into a museum and "get" the work of a contemporary artist, without having looked seriously at the work of his contemporaries, or of the generation that influenced him, or of the generation that influenced that generation. They want to be able to go in with nothing but their familiarity of 19th or early 20th century painting, and without any other knowledge be able to understand and judge what they see. They're insulted by the presence of written explanations, and they're also insulted by their need for those explanations.

-snip-

You might want to look closely at the reasons why some people do not want written explanations. An example is a friend of mine, mid 40's, who just lost his wife to Cancer.

For him, and others suffering loss, the need - emotionally speaking - is to comfort the spirit, the soul. There's no reason modern art cannot speak "to the masses" in some of these situations without explanations.

The other danger, in my opinion, is all art, of any kind - music, photography, poetry, watercolours, etc, is falling into the trap of art for other artists, art for peer review. Thus, it becomes totally out of touch with the common man, the comman women.

Granted, we live in an age of the Jerry Springer show, so I am of a mind that many people wouldn't understand any kind of art, but I am not sure where you strike the balance between too extremes

joe


PS - back to the original question, if as far as the use of B&W is concerned, I'm colour blind, so it's not like some of us had any choice to begin with

:)

[tim atherton]

You might want to look closely at the reasons why some people do not want written explanations. An example is a friend of mine, mid 40's, who just lost his wife to Cancer.

For him, and others suffering loss, the need - emotionally speaking - is to comfort the spirit, the soul. There's no reason modern art cannot speak "to the masses" in some of these situations without explanations.



That makes me think of a friend of mine in quite similar circumstances. I know that she drew great solace from a big Serra sculpture (the curved one you can walk inside?) and also from Janet Cardiff's sound installation Forty-Part Motet

[Robert Hughes]

That makes me think of a friend of mine in quite similar circumstances. I know that she drew great solace from a big Serra sculpture (the curved one you can walk inside?) and also from Janet Cardiff's sound installation Forty-Part Motet
That Serra sculpture - is that the one that used to be right outside the Lincoln Tunnel near Port Authority Bus Terminal? I loved that piece as a kid, but must have been the only one, as NYC removed it after a couple of months. Too many commuters thought it looked like junk.

[paulr]

-snip-

You might want to look closely at the reasons why some people do not want written explanations. An example is a friend of mine, mid 40's, who just lost his wife to Cancer.

For him, and others suffering loss, the need - emotionally speaking - is to comfort the spirit, the soul. There's no reason modern art cannot speak "to the masses" in some of these situations without explanations.

This suggests that some types of work fundamentally need written explanations and some types don't. Which is certainly not what I'm saying.

Whether or not you can understand a work of art without outside help depends on your fluency in the visual language and the artistic tradition of that work.

Think about the work you like, that speaks to you emotionally. Is it early 20th century modern photography (Weston, Strand, etc.)? European painting from the same period (the Cubists, Expressionists, or Fauves)? Paintings from the late 19th century (the Impressionists, the Barbizon school)? All of this work is comfort food to us now, because we have a lifetime of familiarity. But in its own day it was radical, and many, many people had no idea how to look at at. Critics railed at it for not being art, for being indulgent, unemotional, or meaningless.

They were blaming the art for their own lack of fluency in the art's language ... kind of like me giving a bad review to a chinese poet because I don't understand the words.

This whole idea of "the masses" that you bring up is always a troubling one. I don't think there's a reason art has to be either for the masses or for an elite group.

But I do see a rift between people who are interested in contemporary work, and those who relentlessly cling to hundred-year old styles. I don't think the art establishments are without blame, but I suspect that what passes for education here is at least as responsible. Art appreciation isn't the only arena in which we're a culturally backwards nation.

[tim atherton]

well, ego has never been an impediment to success in the art world... :)