New Topographics 30 years later...

[Frank Petronio]

What seemed so radical at the time seems kind of lame to me now. I mean there have been 30 years of MFA shows with photographers rehashing the same things over and over, until they achieved art world acceptance by overwhelming the audience and waiting for sympathetic curators trained in the 1970s to assume responsibilities -- leading to Gursky, Struth, etc...

But looking back, the ideas of exploiting the Western landscape and the sameness of suburban sprawl -- the whole idea that mankind is a blight and the world would be a better place without us -- doesn't that seem to be a safe and quaint topic? Especially when we are confronted with more immediate threats, like "Will I have a job tomorrow?" and "Gee, we haven't had a big terrorist attack in a long time but security is still really lame..." and so on. It almost makes the notion of living in a tract house out in suburban Denver seem like a pretty sweet ideal.

So, why do people still shoot this stuff? Hasn't the horse been beaten to death? Isn't it as cliche a notion as "war is bad" and "children are beautiful"?

30 years from being radical to being kitsch I say!

[aphexafx]

I disagree in general because you cannot speak for anyone else, and declaring a style or intention to be outdated is only relevant within your own context. The fact that you are tired of this mode of photography means absolutely nothing to anyone who is perhaps coming into this type of work, where everything is essentially new, and the more recent attempts are probably going to hold more merit to those people on an individual basis.

I always get annoyed when industry long-timers start declaring what is and is not relevant. Yawn. And, no, Frank, I am not accusing you of doing this, because I think you are merely posting a good point. But anyone is welcome to scoff any current trend and sit at home in the dark, staring at ????? work from the beginning of their time, swirling brandy, and stewing over the old days.

What about your own style and process drives you, for instance, and why would this same passion not apply to someone with other interests, no matter how old and repetitive the subject may or may not be? I imagine that there are subtleties to your work that you consider refreshing, whereas you gloss over at subjects you consider tired. It works in all directions. (Don’t get me wrong, I love what you are doing, personally.)

I just checked out Baltz' "The new Industrial Parks near Irving, California" and cannot stop looking through it. Finding newer work in this fashion would interest me. What can I say, power grids and airports excite me. The after effects of humans are interesting to me at a level that goes beyond questions of the value of humankind itself.

I have no comment on current operating trends in the world of fine art politics.

Luckily I live in a retro/modern downtown semi-high-rise, otherwise I'd have to be disgruntled by your Denver comment.

Btw, can you point to any modern examples that you consider kitsch?

[Shutter]

[...]

"the whole idea that mankind is a blight and the world would be a better place without us"

[...]
So, why do people still shoot this stuff? Hasn't the horse been beaten to death? Isn't it as cliche a notion as "war is bad" and "children are beautiful"?

30 years from being radical to being kitsch I say!

I don't believe that this attitude has ever been considered radical, it's a simple succession of the self-reflection of mankind - and therefore it's a much more enduring motive/subject than terrorism or the fear of job loss. And I wouldn't compare a fact like 'war is bad' to an idea like 'the world would/could be a better place without us'.
Apart from that I don't believe that all aspects of this theme have already been covered, you can't answer a question like 'would the world be a better place without mankind' with a simple 'yes' or 'no' - there are a lot of things to consider:

Do you think it would be a better place because there would be no more wars?
Do you think it would be a better place because the Dodo would (perhaps) still be alive?
Do you think it would be a better place because there would be no more environmental pollution?
Do you think it would be a better place because the human race is the worst thing that the evolution has created?....

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, it's pretty lame these days. A good idea can support a boring photograph for only so long (speaking only for myself of course).

[BarryS]

I wouldn't characterize new Topographics and it's descendants as anything near monolithic and from everything I've seen and read--the message of the work can't be neatly summed up as "look at this blight". One of photography's charges is to examine the unexamined in great detail. It works in the opposite ways as well, like seeing so many images of underpasses--they've been elevated to sculptural forms. I see photographer's using the form to broadcast different messages.

There is ugliness in the mundane.
There is nothing in the mundane.
There is beauty in the mundane.
Look at the process, not the subject.

The Düsseldorf school owes its debts to the new Topographics, but Gursky's aesthetic is a long way from Robert Adams. I find it almost impossible to criticize a "movement" because at any given time, there are some outstanding artists that owe their creative lineage to a "played out" genre. The same exact argument can be made for the legions of Ansel-ites, the Arbus-ers, the Avedon-ists, and every other iconic photographer or movement.

[Lenny Eiger]

What seemed so radical at the time seems kind of lame to me now. I mean there have been 30 years of MFA shows with photographers rehashing the same things over and over, until they achieved art world acceptance by overwhelming the audience and waiting for sympathetic curators trained in the 1970s to assume responsibilities -- leading to Gursky, Struth, etc...

I was tired of this the day it started... What a waste of good talent.
They should have read a book or tow, looked at an old photo or two. Then they might have realized what a waste of time and film it was.... uhhh, is.

They're still the hot topic at the museums along with the rest of post modernism. I mean, I enjoy an avant gaarde thought or two, experimentation and change is good. But they sure threw the baby out with the bathwater, until all the juice in it was gone.

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

Well said Frank. Although for me it didn't take anything like 30 years.

I think the current movement(s) in photography are being driven by the creeds of "relevance" and "social criticism." But to me relevance is very personal. And do we really need yet another outlet for criticism? I mean, there's so much to be critical of, and so many people doing it already. I can see this being part of photography, but does it have to be all of photography? Apparently it does judging from the modern art exhibits I've seen over the last 20 years or more.

What I want from photography is an escape. There's plenty of ugliness around, from endless war to endless greed (if those are separate issues and I'm not sure they are). I don't need or want ugly photographs too. What I want is something beautiful and uplifting. I want some hope, some renewal. So yes, I've been known to rent a Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers film just to see some beautiful, inventive, intricate dancing that isn't relevant to anything but the joy of doing it (not to mention the gorgeous B&W cinematography), and of going to exhibits of Adams and Porter just to look at purely beautiful art. I still listen to Duke Ellington, Mozart, and Bach. I still make photographs of rocks, trees, and waterfalls.

I'm completely out of step with modern art in general and modern photography specifically. I know this. But I just don't care. That's the hard part: doing what works for one's self without caring what the art world thinks.

[Stefan Lungu]

It depends on what you want from art in general and photgraphy in particular. I am sure that there are people out there that find nothing in Ansel Adams. So it really is something personal and about every line has been beaten to death by followers. Some do it good, some do it exceptionally, some not so good. I think everything has it's place, but prefer to see what mankind is capable of in the positive way - for the negative I have newspapers and television these days. Other than some great talent in producing a graphical effect I never liked the kind of images you are talking about, but as I said, it is something personal. I am also not that kind of impressed by landscape photography, even if I am able to detect a good photograph in this area too. I'm sure many around here would disagree with me on this last subject.

[Terence McDonagh]

I'd say it depends. If it is just a photo for the sake of political statement, then yes, it's rather played out, but never excited me anyway. Is it an absolutely stunning photo that happens to ALSO carry some political freight, then I'd say no. A beautiful photo is a beautiful photo.

Most of the stuff I've seen along these lines falls into the "technically competent, but aesthetically garbage" category.

A good example othe opposite would be the National Geographic photo of the Afghan girl from 1985. It's an amazingly stunning portrait (to me, anyway) even without the back-story.

[Kirk Gittings]

Hasn't the horse been beaten to death? Isn't it as cliche a notion as "war is bad" and "children are beautiful"?

or NATURAL Landscape??, isn't nature profound, beautiful or whatever? Or the whole semi-nude young women in banal environments thing? Jeez, its all tired looking back because mostly its all been done, until someone comes along and just simply does it better.

New Topographics was simply a return to the documentary roots of photography with a contemporary sense of composition (minimalism) reacting cynically to the romanticized landscapes of the previous generation of landscape photographers. At the time it was profoundly refreshing and important and as a form of social commentary it retains some usefulness and life, as documentary photography always does.