The pillars of photography and the rest of us

[Lenny Eiger]

DrTang. If you like jumping photographs, check out Philipe Halsman's Jump Book. This guy was a good friend of my Father's. Book is hilarious.

As to the question I would say this: You can't build a house from the roof down. You must start with a foundation. Everything that has been done is within a genre, and someone else started that genre. Most great artists have said that they're standing on the shoulders of giants. Everything comes from what has come before.

That said, you are correct to understand today's world. Everything is a commodity, everyone's a photographer, and the intellectual component is more and more important. Still, those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it and this is certainly the case.

I wish I had an answer for what kind of photography will come out of this. As a child of the 60's, I did not imagine a world in which bankers would rip everyone off, where congressional leaders would be utterly useless and where we would lose all the humanity of our culture. I don't know what that will look like photographically.

I had actually hoped for a backlash, maybe where people would value a photographer like Lewis Hine, or Dorothea Lange, that actually cared about people. I don't see this happening, at least not yet.

Lenny

[John Olsen]

And how do you know someone is a "giant"? I was strolling through the last room in a show at the Tokyo Photography Museum last May, really just searching for the exit after exhausting myself on the annual show in the earlier rooms. A casual glance to one side and I was riveted! On inspection of the title sheet, it was an Ansel Adams print that I don't think I'd ever seen before. That's one way to know a giant - able to stop a weary viewer at four paces. There are other measures of excellence, perhaps more nuanced than Adam's drama, but the great ones really do stand out.
Just ordered more film - must try again!
John O

[ScottPhotoCo]

I have been pondering this thread and the thought behind it for a few days now. It all began last week when I went gallery hopping here in LA...

First stop was a big exhibition of Richard Avedon's work at the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills. A huge exhibition of prints ranging from actual 6x6 contact prints to 15+ foot prints of some of his most famous images. I spent a good 2 hours looking and plan to return before the exhibition ends in January. So much better in person than any book I've ever seen. An I have a LOT of books.

The second stop was Fahey/Klein Gallery on La Brea in LA to see the Von Unwerth exhibition. Her exhibition was good. I am a fan of hers but I felt that the work shown was good but not, in my opinion, her best work. The printing was solid but it didn't knock my socks off. HOWEVER, in a side room right next to her exhibition was photographic heaven. There were original prints from so many incredible masters that it was easily the most incredible photographic experience I have ever had. They had original works from Newton, Ritts, Bassman, Horst and so many more. Including a signed edition 1 of 14 from his Around the Clock series. Wow. Just wow. "Pillars"?

I was thinking about this thread and the sentiment herein while in the car (Sitting in traffic in LA. Good time for thinking.) and I discovered a few things that make this clearer for me.

1. "Pillars" or "masters" is a relative term based on your personal perspective. Some of the traditional "pillars" I find inspiration in and others I don't. I can often find just as much inspiration on Flickr as I can at a gallery show. It just depends on the images.

2. I personally don't look at others work as a "catalogue" but rather a chance to learn. I see images that I like and I try to determine why. I look at light, composition, subject, process and any other detail that I can determine and take away something that I may be able to "see" in the future and have that learning and knowledge as I'm planning or making images of my own. The foundations of great images are the same, light, subject, composition, content, etc., but it is the way that they're put together that creates greatness. I also strive to have an element that facilitates an emotional response to me as I make them. All of these tools help me see things and hopefully also help with my continuing education of the ART of photography.

3. "Greatness" to me is seeing work that makes me want to shoot. That keeps me up at night with a vision forming or project to begin. Images that make me see things in a way I hadn't previously. Not all great photographers are great all of the time. Some are great more often than others. Some are really great but nobody has noticed them yet. That, to me, is the true beauty of photography. To be consistently great is one of the hardest tasks of all. To be original and creative in your perspective is also a big challenge.

4. All of this comes to the idea of WHY you make photographs. Do you photograph for commercial gain? Do you photograph for your own personal edification or inspiration? There are so many variables to this question to the point that there is no hard and firm answer. Photography is what you want it to be. Photographs are what you make them. Photographs are WHY you make them.

There is a great quote attributed to Jay Maisel that was his reply to a young photographer about advice he has for getting into photography. He said "Quit...if you can".

I can't. This feeds me. Pushes my buttons. Makes me think. Inspires me. All of this began with those before us who made good photographs, bad photographs, depressing photographs, inspirational photographs. We all have our road and find the drive and inspiration to travel down that road in different places for different reasons.

"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." Henri Cartier-Bresson

I have a long way to go...


Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Heroique]

...I wonder too whether putting so much effort and thought into reflection on these photographers of the past is misplaced energy. I don’t want my work to be an exercise in nostalgia nor to be a regurgitation of past revolutions and accomplishments...

I think there's an assumption here that studying the past can only prepare you to repeat it.

But the greatest artists, I think, are like Janus.

(The Roman God with two faces, looking at past and future at once.)

Mahler worshipped Mozart, his dying words praised him.

[Kirk Gittings]

Heroique. That's what I get from some here too. Like it is some kind of irresistible drug that one will not be able to break free of. Of course there is the other POV-study history so that you are conscious of what's been done and therefore can avoid repeating it.

The fact is that no one approach works for everyone. Some people can avoid the gravity of studying history and some may need to avoid it altogether. But avoiding it is not necessarily a solution either.

I have to say though in all honesty. I feel that young photographers generally do not seriously study art history (as I was required to do at UNM back in the day) and naively oftentimes think they are doing something fresh and unique when in fact they are largely repeating earlier work and simply not aware of it.

Whether one studies the history of a medium or not, no one is really immune from the influence of history as it is present in our culture in advertising etc..

[NancyP]

I think that there is something to be learned from studying the historical "high art" photographic images with respect to the available technology at the time of creation. It is also worthwhile studying "popular" photographic images contemporaneous to the "high art" images of interest. I tend to be interested in a lot of subjects, however, and I don't consider it wasted time to visit art museums, contemporary galleries, view graphics annuals, etc. I am an amateur, though.

Photojournalism has gone by the wayside largely due to the conglomeratization of media companies, with the expectation that news should have a profit margin similar to the printing of grocery store crossword puzzle books and romance novels. Publicly traded newsmedia companies are more beholden to the stock holders than to the public at large. Showing American poor people is bad for attracting advertising. There will be no new Lewis Hine.

[Bruce Barlow]

I tried to imitate the masters. Went out and really tried to make pictures like theirs, and did so recently, when I was researching my book on composition.

I failed, miserably. I kept creeping into the pictures, so that they became mine, rather than merely some cheesy imitation. Therefore, it was a really wonderful thing to do. My own pictures. Not as good, but my own.

I also tried to learn how to do minimalist compositions. Again, I failed. I love complex compositions, and I could not strip away enough, or complexity crept in. Either way, not minimalist.

The Pillars are the Pillars because they are that good. To suppose that anyone here is making stuff as good as Weston's Point Lobos stuff is hubris on a grand scale. The Cardinal Sin of Pride. It just ain't so.

That said, imitation is a powerful tool for learning and developing one's own voice (or is it eye?). You can try to be Strand, but you won't escape yourself, and that's a good thing.

[Jac@stafford.net]

NancyP expressed the Way it is, as much as I regret it.

I believe there is a revival of photojournalism to become for the same reasons from which it arose. People want presence, personal immersion with great talent from the photographer.

The current iPhone stuff will become weary crap and people will eventually demand more.