Conceptual Photography?

[cyrus]

Anyway, what do you folks think of "conceptual photography"? I like Misha Gordin
http://www.bsimple.com/home.htm

Or Alessandro Bovari
http://www.alessandrobavari.com/engl..._gomorrah.htm#

Or Robert Gregory Griffeth

http://www.robertgregorygriffeth.com/

Though I am not sure where the boundary is between digital drawing vs photography (or if that matters since by definition, conceptual art ignores the method/materials and even the "product" itself in favor of concentrating on the underlying idea or concept that is intended to be communicated...but on the other hand much of these photos aren't really conceptual because they;re not really communicating a point of any sort that I can make out. Seems to me that rahter than conceptual photography, these are more like examples of surrealist photography)

[Gordon Moat]

Some of it might be more correctly termed photo-illustration, instead of photography. The things that have been somewhat more common in advertising photography are, in some corners, becoming more common in art photography.

Jeff Wall comes immediately to mind, mostly because the production and results are what I would more commonly find with advertising photography. Several other individuals spring to mind, such as Olaf Veltman. Some of the latest conceptual works I have been viewing are on the website of photo-rep Tim Mitchell; I particularly like the work of Andric.

Most of the sites and photographers you linked might also be called surrealists. Obviously there is an appeal to this sort of work amongst some collectors. The ideas are not really often new, though the incorporation of different tools to reach the end result might be different. Jerry Uelsmann would be another example, and despite his film and darkroom usage, I still view this as photo-illustration. Not to state that it is any lesser than photography, since I think much of this is well done and quite compelling.

Of course there are photographers only interested in images of old buildings, or only in barren landscapes. The appeal can still be an escape for the viewer, and since the camera points both ways, works can also show the escapism of the photographer. Then we might separate to realistic, representational, surrealistic, or abstract as the main forms of images. Photography can rarely be entirely realistic, and more often is representational. Planning an image through ideas leads towards more conceptual imagery.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[paulr]

I disagree with the idea that there's some separate medium called photo illustration. People have been using photography to construct images since the mid nineteenth century, and it's always been called photography.

Talking about 'conceptual photography' can be tough, because few people agree on what it means, including people who say they do it. In my personal dictionary, conceptual work is work where the idea is primary, and the work itself exists mainly to illustrate that idea. This is in contrast to work that starts with simply looking at something, and that unfolds as an exploration.

I tend to strongly favor work of the latter type. I find that in all media, people tend to do much more profound work when they let their art lead them somewhere than when they know the destination from the beginning.

There's obviously a big gray area ... work that starts with a concept and then leads somewhere else. At least to someplace subtly different.

I don't know to what degree I would think of the work Cyrus posted as conceptual. Except that Misha Gordin calls it conceptual (and he might have a completely different definition than mine). All these photographers create staged or constructed images, many of which feel a bit like surrealism as Gordon said. These can all be modes exploration, not just concepualism. It's sometimes hard to tell at a glance.

For some famous examples of work I consider conceptual, take a look at Bernd and Hilla Becher, John Pfahl, or Sherry Levine. Levine might be the purest example ... you get as much from a description of her work as you do from the work itself!

[Walter Calahan]

Whatever floats your boat.

Looks like some people can actually remember the nightmares. Ha!

[tim atherton]

I'd add the work of the Atlas Group...

http://www.theatlasgroup.org/

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/...las-group.html

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/...winner-is.html

or Sophie Calle

http://www.sophiecalle.net/detective.htm

I know there are some who don't consider them photographers but "artists". Though I'm not quite sure what the difference is. In both cases, concept and photography tends to be central to most of what they do - as far as I'm concerned that pretty much makes them photographers.

[John Kasaian]

I don't know if this counts, but Zbigniew Rybczynski's visual arts are always a pleasure

[paulr]

I've always thought the Czechs and Slovaks did wonderful work ... more in the constructed/staged/fantasy vein than conceptualism:

http://www.czechslovakphotos.com/

(Pavel Pecha is my fave)

[Kirk Gittings]

Does anyone really work without a preconceived concept? None that I know of. Even so called "straight" traditional photographers conceptualize projects. In a sense it is a false way of cataloging visual approaches. To some extent you might say that some artist value their concept over traditional values of craft. That might have some small relevance, but not much as I see it.

I am in a upcoming show with Barbara Degenevieve, Patrick Nagatani, Tom Barrow, Adrienne Salinger, Alan Labb, Wafaa Bilal, Joyce Neimanas and many other notable artists from academia. One might argue that I am the most traditional photographer of the group yet all of us work conceptually, and having known many of these people for 20+ years, I know for a fact how much these people are concerned with and labor over their craft. However the production values of their craft may not be popular values. Distinctions like "conceptual" break down when looking closely at any group of artists. More often these distinctions are the tools of historians and critics divining a convenient tool to display their cleverness.

[cyrus]

I'd add the work of the Atlas Group...

http://www.theatlasgroup.org/

(Off topic but my God, this is one of the worst websites I have ever come across from a useability angle...)

[paulr]

Does anyone really work without a preconceived concept? None that I know of. Even so called "straight" traditional photographers conceptualize projects.

There's a difference between using an idea as a starting point or guide, and using one as a predetermined conclusion.

Sherry Levine's work from the 80s can be described 100% using the idea she started with. As can Duchamp's Readymades. Yours can't. Their work served to illustrate an idea. Yours managed to discover some things after it's conception.

I think the difference is important. It's not about the presence of a concept, but the primacy of the concept.