Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

[arca andy]

Trolling, written to sell papers and advertising.

I agree with his opinion about the massive prints. But he's putting too much effort and opinion into stacking up two very different mediums, and sounds off a hundred year old argument doing so. Ear tickler for painters. Actually if he weren't complaining about the big inkjet prints, I'd wonder if it was one of those from the archives things being recycled for filler.

I agree....and I have always thought its much easier to be a painter than photographer! That's if you can paint!

[Arne Croell]

He must have stolen H.G. Wells time machine and jumped straight to 2014 - that kind of argument sounds an awful lot like it comes from the late 19th century (Wells' novel was published 1895)...

[Jac@stafford.net]

The author states: "Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and 'mindfulness' ".

He has never been to an Ad Reinhardt exhibition.
.

[Robert Bowring]

Really? Wasn't this pretty much resolved about 100 years ago. What a useless argument. I have seen many paintings that are "flat, stupid and soulless". It is not important what materials you use or how long it takes or the process you use, it is what you produce. I too have noticed the trend toward really big prints. Some work as large prints and some don't. It seems that they make large prints just because they can. I don't think quality should be based on sq. ft. of print area.

[MIke Sherck]

We've been through this. The author or the article should learn to read, then they wouldn't have to recapitulate dead old people.

[Robert Bowring]

You are correct Mr. Sherck. But it is so difficult today to get anyone to read or think past 140 characters.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

There have always been flat, soulless and boring photographs just as there have always been flat, soulless and boring paintings, dance, sculpture, etc.

I think this is a good article in that it's a look at what we do by someone who doesn't do what we do, which is never a bad thing. As photographers, we have a different take on the art than others who are not so absorbed by it. Instead of writing this off so quickly, it might be good to take some time and think about it.

There are more photographers than ever before and what we love is so commonplace now that perhaps it is getting a little more flat and soulless than in the past (or the not so great work has an easier time finding it's way to the market than in the past). Perhaps people walk more quickly past photographs, even very good ones, and don't take the time to really look at them because it is so common. Perhaps, the average person doesn't see the value in large images any more, they are not as "cool" as they were a few years ago. Could it be the average person who may go to a museum or gallery will have a deeper appreciation for a good painting than a good photograph? As I say, people value that which they cannot do themselves (or think they can do).

Now, I don't agree that all photography is this way. I see plenty of excellent work done by talented photographers that has depth, meaning and soul in it (many on this forum). But, as a photographer, I search this out. We are serious collectors and workers in the art form, so it is natural that we dig more deeply than the average person. The same can be said for serious collectors of any art. But, I do think the average person will be more "wowed" by a beautiful painting or sculpture than a photograph. In some ways this has always been the case, but I think today it may be even more so.

PS: I don't say "average" as a bad thing or mean it to be a cut in anyway, what I mean is that someone who is not so into photography or other forms of art. Sorry if it came across as rude.

[Tin Can]

Screen dead, monitor hypnotized.

His words don't belong on paper either.

I never got past his opening salvo.

[Peter Lewin]

First, I think Eric Biggerstaff's response deserves careful reading, he has expressed my own incoherent thoughts much more articulately than I can.

Let's take a look at one sentence from the original Guardian article: "That is because when you put a photograph on the wall I cannot help comparing it with the paintings whose framed grandeur it emulates, and I can’t help finding photography wanting."

The "argument" which many have posted about as having been resolved over 100 years ago was whether photography was art. What I don't think was ever resolved, and cannot be resolved, since it is purely judgmental, is whether (great) photography is necessarily the equal of (great) painting. In the original article, the author challenges us to look at an exhibit of photography, and then an exhibit of Rembrandt, and to compare the two.

I don't think in Eric's terms I am "average." I have been an avid photographer and darkroom printer (albeit at the hobbyist level) for over 40 years, I collect photographs (admittedly at a minor level), I grew up spending a lot of time at the Metropolitan and MOMA in NYC admiring paintings, and I still love museums. And given all that, I find it hard to argue that there have been any photographers "as great" at their art as Rembrandt, Monet, Goya (all I'm doing is listing the pantheon of universally referenced painters). Let's be honest, would any of you argue that Adams, Steichen, Stieglitz, Clift, Penn (again, substitute your favorite photographer) is really as wonderful as one of those painters? Or to put the question differently, whose work would give you more enjoyment hanging on your wall if you really had the choice?

I stress again that my own walls are quite covered with photographs, both my own, and those I have collected. But I can't argue that the original article is completely wrong when it prefers the great paintings over great photographs.

[paulr]

To the Guardian's credit, the comment thread is filled with articulate and literate skewerings of the article. We could learn something from the Brits.