DeadPan Aesthetic

**Walter Foscari** · 9-Dec-2005, 14:59

“in europe, i think charles marville could be seen as a precursor to atget (though i have no idea if atget knew his work).”
Indeed I seem to remember reading somewhere that Atget was well aware of Marville and his contemporaries that stalked the streets of Paris in the second half of the 1800.

And it’s also hard to disagree that every pictures has already been done sometime in those early days of the medium. After over 150 years, what’s different perhaps are not the pictures but the photographers (and the viewers). Along the style of photographs discussed on this thread if you look first at the pioneers of the 19th century then move on to Atget and Evans to the new topographers, to the Dusseldorf guys you can notice in the overall output of each a progressive narrowing of focus. Photographers are increasingly more deliberate in their intent and striving to convey that in their pictures. This certainly makes for strong and clear images, whether it makes more beautiful ones it’s a different question.

**Sarah Carroll** · 10-Dec-2005, 08:44

Well before this lovely chat I had never heard of Walker Evans, so I will have to check him out. Are there any more contemporary names that spring to mind ? And not necessarily photographers that have taken close up portrait style ones ?

And Thanks for all your help so far with this question.

**John_4185** · 10-Dec-2005, 09:36

The expression "Dead pan" comes from the same device that "Flash in the pan" does. I don't think I have to explain it.

Do you think humankind really wants to look embalmed in pictures? I don't. However, through the ages most painters worked from life subjects who had to stay still. Not even Mona could have done that. And we all know that photography required the very same stillness for decades. A carefull, mirror-practiced smile is now considered safe, but the convulsive laughing face is just borderline to being terrifying. Now THAT would be an interesting series. Oh, laughing while jumping. Okay. In the nude! Right.

**Ken Lee** · 10-Dec-2005, 11:16

Not contemporary (1950's), but worthy of admiration:

Portrait of Murdoch McRury, Hebrides Islands by Paul Strand

**Walt Calahan** · 10-Dec-2005, 11:44

jj

Your posting covers it "lock, stock and barrel." ;-)

Remember everyone, keep your power dry!

No one wants to be a flash in the pan, but it is alright to react to my posting with a dead pan reply.

Now let's see how many nautical terms apply to photography?

I keep my equipment ship shape!

HA!

**Oren Grad** · 10-Dec-2005, 12:35

Check out Lee Friedlander's "At Work" series. Some of those pans are as dead as anyone could possibly want.

**jhogan** · 10-Dec-2005, 13:16

Hey Sarah- This site is a great resource, huh? By the way, what's the name of your class? No doubt you'll be crediting this forum and its posters as sources for the work you turn in.

In the hopes I'll be able to contribute to your education (not having had the luxury of obtaining one myself), I'm going provide you with a clue that will, without a doubt, illuminate a key figure in the development of what you are calling the "dead-pan aesthetic."

Ready? Okay, here we go: He is routinely cited as one of the most important photographers of the late 20th century. His work is now hailed as brilliant, though was widely dismissed (and sometimes reviled) by many who saw it when first shown. Many of today's young photographic up and comers ape- errrr..., have appropriated elements of his style- whether knowingly or not. Check out Flickr!

PLEASE folks, before I give Sarah her clue, I'm going to ask that the other members of the forum not give it away- it's important for students to develop fundamental research skills if they want to achieve the maximum benefit from their expensive educations.

Now, Sarah- you already know this photographer is a man- that should make your research easier. So without further adieu, here is your clue: "guide."

Good luck Sarah- Have fun reading books!

**paulr** · 10-Dec-2005, 13:40

i think another reason people looked so gloomy in old pictures is that being photographed was a big deal. it was only a little less upper-crust than having a family painting done. it was a privilege and it was typically expensive. and since it was an event, people were even more self-conscious about the kind of image they projected than they are in pictures now (you don't see too many formal 19th century portraits with people giving each other bunny ears or mooning the camera). this was the time, if there ever was one, to pretend you were dignified.

i bet the whole "smile!!!" esthetic evolved later, when photography became more informal and spontaneous.

**tim atherton** · 10-Dec-2005, 14:08

"i think another reason people looked so gloomy in old pictures is that being photographed was a big deal. it was only a little less upper-crust than having a family painting done. it was a privilege and it was typically expensive. and since it was an event, people were even more self-conscious about the kind of image they projected than they are in pictures now (you don't see too many formal 19th century portraits with people giving each other bunny ears or mooning the camera). this was the time, if there ever was one, to pretend you were dignified.
i bet the whole "smile!!!" esthetic evolved later, when photography became more informal and spontaneous."

Slightly long story - over the last few years Yellowknife has been in the midst of a diamond boom with multi-multi million dollar diamond mines starting up on the Barrens. Out of this grew a small secondary diamond industry - cutting and polishing.

One of the companies which set up was Armenian (originally started by Armenian diamond experts from the diaspora until the Soviet Union fell when they reutern4ed to Armenia and bought up the old Soviet diamond cutting/polishing industry). They imported a whole team (in deep midwinter) of about 40 direct from Yerevan to set up the factory and get it running while they trained local people. Most of these people - from late 20's to 60's had never been outside Armenia (except perhaps to Moscow or Kiev) and had also mostly grown up under Soviet Russian control.

I did a couple of stories on them - their work as well as this Armenian enclave in subartctic Canada. I spent quite a lot of time with them at home and at work in the end and most of it was 35mm b&w HEGR work. But at the end - mainly for myself and not directly, linked tot he story I set up a temporary studio in the lobby of the cutting works and used 4x5 B7W to photograph anyone who wanted to be photographed - which tuned out to Be most of them

There was a bit of joking as few still spoke english, but knew me well by now - but when it came to take the photograph - with a bigger than normal camera in this semi formal setting, down to a one they took it very seriously - and were nearly all deadpan. I realized that for them taking a photograph like this - especially a semi-formal portrait was serious business and was taken very seriously.

Copies of all those photographs were sent back to Armenia and, as I understood it, many joined the formal photographic portraits of several generations gone before.

**austin granger** · 10-Dec-2005, 15:42

"How would anyone else compare the photos of artists that deal with the deadpan aesthetic, such as bernd and hiller becher, thomas struth, thomas ruff, andreas gursky, renike dijkstra? and if anyone could name any other similar artists/ photgraphers that would be great."

The NASA robot photographers are working with the deadpan aesthetic...(and making staggering images!)

I'm reminded of the line (not sure where heard it):

"Photography can be art, but almost never when it thinks it is."