Does it have to say anything?

[Merg Ross]

If you ask about photographs "saying" something, there's pressure to know what you're trying to say before pointing the camera, or before leaving the house. Good work rarely comes out of this. For one thing, it tends to limit you to saying what you already know.

I am in agreement, concluding this early in my career. Otherwise, where is the accommodation for a happy accident, revelation, or growth? A question for you Paul, do you believe that a photographer must always understand his or her own work?

[RodinalDuchamp]

One irony I find in these discussions. Oftentimes the critics of old school peeling paint photography are obvious descendants of New Topographics. So while one is following a 40 year old tradition (New Topographics and criticizing a 45-65 year old tradition (late modernism-Brett Weston to Siskind).

In my mind the first question is never "is it new" but in my mind "is it any good". IMHO very little is actually new and even less is any good.

Always so rich with information. I did not know of these two artists and googled them. I like their work! Thanks for opening a new avenue for me.

[koh303]

Always so rich with information. I did not know of these two artists and googled them. I like their work! Thanks for opening a new avenue for me.

If you in an MFA and never heard of new topographics at the end of your first year, you should ask for your money back.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I will be honest with you landscape photography is not being emphasized at least at the 2 schools I've attended. The programs revolve around mainly 35mm work. The big names are HCB, winogrand, frank etc. I don't think I've ever even seen Ansel Adams be discussed despite his huge contribution to the national parks.

Just to clarify I am still an undergrad so maybe this affects the curriculum significantly.

[Tin Can]

I am in agreement, concluding this early in my career. Otherwise, where is the accommodation for a happy accident, revelation, or growth? A question for you Paul, do you believe that a photographer must always understand his or her own work?

Great question!

[RodinalDuchamp]

In my mind the first question is never "is it new" but in my mind "is it any good". IMHO very little is actually new and even less is any good.

I have to agree here. However the new stuff I've seen at least is not for me, seems overworked over-thought probably just for the sake of doing it.

My opinion is that I'd probably be good at what I'm doing instead of doing something new for the sake of novelty.

[koh303]

I will be honest with you landscape photography is not being emphasized at least at the 2 schools I've attended. The programs revolve around mainly 35mm work. The big names are HCB, winogrand, frank etc. I don't think I've ever even seen Ansel Adams be discussed despite his huge contribution to the national parks.

Just to clarify I am still an undergrad so maybe this affects the curriculum significantly.

Well - you should start taking more history of photography classes, and i am guessing you will if you are not yet a 4th year student, so you still have to learn and hear about all kinds of stuff. That said, format has naught to do with what is being photographed.

Ansel adams is boring and only referenced as backing for something else, if ever in art school. New topographics on the other hand is the basis for about 90% of all work currently being made and shown in galleries showing photography. The canonical US/American version of history of photography is pretty aggressive about who it does and does not include.

Bill Burke (?) + Joe Deal: Yes. Marry Ellen Mark + Elliot Erwit: No. Why? Thats the topic of your thread isent it?

[appletree]

In my mind the first question is never "is it new" but in my mind "is it any good". IMHO very little is actually new and even less is any good.

But, this goes to the age old question of what exactly is new? And honestly, does it matter if any good? Maybe for the artist or starving student or advancing the world of art, but if it is art to the originator then is that enough? If it is good to them, even when they claim and feel it is underwhelming, won't this feeling of it being never good enough drive them more and more.


I also think, some people are searching for answers, some think they found the answers, while some suppress/ignore the feeling of answers having any meaning to them. So how someone approaches life in general will ultimately play out in their artistic expressions. Yet if a person is not yearning to grow and learn, how then can one ever ponder meaning and trying to piecemeal a story together. Whether pointing and shooting, adjusting lighting, or framing a shot for 3 hours, I think it expresses something no matter what. Some particular moment in time. Although I feel like anything if we make have our identity in earthly things, it may shift over time. And like the artist themselves or the viewer what something might express one day takes on a different meaning another. Perhaps for years it says little to nothing, leaving it up to the person viewing it. Perhaps after life changes around it takes root of particular meaning or expression. Ultimately one day, perhaps all meaning is lost along with the art, or only subject to how a person stumbling onto feels from viewing.

[tgtaylor]

Great question!

Man if you have to ask, you'll never know. - Louis Armstrong

Thomas

[Kimberly Anderson]

If you ask about photographs "saying" something, there's pressure to know what you're trying to say before pointing the camera, or before leaving the house. Good work rarely comes out of this.

I completely disagree. The last 25 years of my photographic career have been based on knowing what I wanted to say before I went out.

Think instead in terms of what your photographs are exploring.

I completely agree. The last 25 years of my photographic career have been based on what I was trying to figure out what I wanted to be asking while I was out photographing.

IOW, I gradually came to the conclusion that the asking was more important than the saying.