I don't know what format he worked in, but you can't overlook Gordon Parks. The show that has been floating around the country over the past few years was astounding.
I don't know what format he worked in, but you can't overlook Gordon Parks. The show that has been floating around the country over the past few years was astounding.
Jim, There was a exhibit about a year ago at the Brooklyn Musuem of Art- "Committed to the Image: Contempoary Black Photographers". I'm not sure if any of the artists featured worked exclusively in Large Format but I'm sure you could probably get some information from the book that accompanied the show (same name as the show).
Sandy:
In Many ways you are very correct, and your point was the reason for my prior post. Jim's post raises a thorny issue for the Photographer who happens to be Black, as opposed the the Photographer whose focus is on a stereotyped (unfortunately) segment of the Black experiance. You have, we all have, seen quite a bit of work by Black Photographers yet there were no reasons to identify them as Black, they are simply and purely, Photographers. To have done so would have been rediculous, since the content made that moot. It would be emminently crazy to identify a bucolic, snow scene, of a red barn in Vermont made by a Black Photographer as having anything to do with skin color. Likewise, A portrait of the King of Spain, yet I can assure you both have been done by Photographers of color.
Once you say that you cannot ignore Gordon Parks, you create the real cause than many very prolific photographers do not wish to be identified as a Black Photographer. It closes doors. As Donald's post points out, Gordon is know for his photography hyphenated by his color. When the next equally hyphenated person comes along he finds the door to access a bit less open, because there had been a Gordon Parks show a few months ago. Been there, done that.
While is wonderful to be recognised, for the artist/generalist photographer, the lable and the hyphen can and does work against you. For the Photographer who's work is derived from an immersion in a sub culture, the hyphen is more than valid. There are far more hard working, productive, creative, professional Photographers and Artists (who may or may not be commercial in any way) who happen to have dark skin producing images that you see everyday, than will ever be widely known. The work is what matters. The photo editor of Horticulture Magazine was a Black Female. In what way could this fact have effected the content of what you saw? Her/my Friend, Mel Scott was the Picture Editor at Life Magazine, and neither had any exposure to the world that Gordon Parks knew and photographed.
It is not a matter of "we are all the same", it is a matter, that about 85% of the time etnicity, is not a valid distinction. For the other 15%, I am on your side. Do we call Dorthia Lange a "poor Photographer", she personally was far from poor. You would have been struck hard on the head, had you ever called Margaret Burke White, a "White Female shooter of big Dams and little Indians". Do we call Walker Evans a caustic-surly-drunk-artist? (When you did he smiled and growled, simultaniously) Roy De Carrava, who did that wonderful book on a period in Harlem, also is a full Professor in NY, and was the Dirctor of Photography at one of the Time Inc Magazines. Gordon Parks on the other hand, is a Black Photographer, Black Film Director, Black Composer and Black Author, and that is how he wants it. It has made him a wealthy man. To each his own.
There are 35 million Black people in this nation, and there are 35 million ways to be Black. One size does not fit all. This entire topic is a wonderful illustration as to how this nation has continued to get it all wrong. That is also the reason your post was very right.
Here here, Fred! I agree. If you create great work, I want to see it, if its crap I don't--what difference should it make as to what color/ sex the artist is?
Fred has some good points, especially the one that being identified black/Latino/female/whatever can be a drawback when exhibitions are scheduled. But more often these days it's an advantage, as an implicit or explicit "affirmative action of the arts" has been taking place in many institutions. I'm all for that.
I suppose there are many viewers of photography like Mark who do not care anything about the person who made the picture. I am not one of them. I believe that if you read about the photographer or hear her lecture about her work or know something about her homeland or culture, you can learn a lot more about photography and about the image itself. If you apprehend a picture in a vacuum, your experience of it is limited.
The magazine Aperture occasionally publishes entire issues of photographs by people of one country or culture. I have in my collection such titles as: "Haiti: Feeding the Spirit," "British Photography: Towards a Bigger Picture," "Ireland: A Troubled Mirror," "Immagini Italiane," "Strong Hearts: Native American Visions and Voices," and many others about specific cultures. While there is tremendous range and variety within each issue, it is fascinating to see a collective portrait of a place or culture arise from seeing them all together. It's a different experience from seeing each artist's work individually, certainly much richer than seeing his work out of context entirely, without knowing anything about him.
Personally, I am proud to have participated in group shows for women only, as well as shows by Philadelphians only or Pennsylvanians only. But because my work is about place, it is more important for me to identify my hometown in my artist's statements than it is for me to identify as female. (I'm not hiding anything, but my name is neutral.) If any individual does not think it's important to identify with a larger group, I have no problem with their decision to minimize that association. Nevertheless, critics, teachers, and historians will inevitably discuss that work in a larger context; after all, that's their job.
Sandy, I never said that I didn't care anything about the person who made the photograph. I simply said that the color of their skin makes no difference whatsoever.
color doesn't indicate life experiences. It seems to me that your opinion is based on very stereotypical views.
"affirmative action of the arts" what a horrible concept.
Of course I'm sure that your responses would have been identical if the original question stated that he was looking only for "white male" photographers only!
Hi Mark, The implication of your last line is correct; if he had been looking for white male photographers I would have just ignored the post, thinking it was stupid, because probably 85% of photographers (and 95% of LF photographers) represented in museum collections, books, and magazines are white males. (This is my estimation based on 25 years in the field and casual observation of the content of photo mags -- anyone have actual statistics?)
You said you didn't care what color/sex someone is, yet you also say you are interested in the person who took the picture. It doesn't sound like you realize how much color/sex is an essential part of what makes that person who s/he is. (As a person and a photographer.)
We'll just have to disagree on affirmative action. I'm for it, because young people of color and young women need role models in positions of power and respect in order for the inequities of the past 400 years to be addressed. Young artists of color and young women artists need the same in their field. My female photography students are dying for some mentors.
Cheers,
Dan, Fred and others who seem to have a difficult time with this... I sense a great deal of anger and frustration on your behalf. You are obviously having a very difficult time trying o rationalize and justify your reasoning on what has turned into a race issue. I suggest you go back and read my original post. I posed this question "Does anyone know of contemporary African American large format photographers? I have a deep appreciation for the originality, sensitivity, expression and emotion often conveyed by African American?s, regardless of the art form"
Now, if I had asked if you felt (taking cultures into consideration) African American photographers were any different, produced a different style of work, or were denied access to opportunities as compared to White or Chinese American photographers, then maybe you could have gone off in the direction you did. But I did not. One individual, who identifies himself as ?Polar? attempted to correct me and tell me how to rephrase the question. Well, at 50 years of age, I don?t need Polar?s help in asking questions. I am quite able to think and reason for myself. Unfortunately and sadly, race still matters in America. All to often an individual?s character and abilities are secondary to ones ethnicity, or even gender for that matter. Still more, in their own warped sense of security continue to seek, or are receptive to the negative stereotypes of people from other cultures, lifestyles or backgrounds only to reinforce a limited ability to truly open their eyes and emotions to what is around them, let alone think for themselves. Again, I want to thank everyone for responding to my question.
Regards,
Jim
For anyone interested, I came across a wonderful site called The "Chicago Alliance of African-American Photographers" http://www.caaap.org/main.html Their journey project, in which they document the Chicago African American community is the highlight!
They even received recognition on Kodaks website as well http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/magazine/photography/2001_02/project.s html in which they bring to light "the journey project"
Regards,
Jim
"Our cultural revolution must be the means of bringing us closer to our African brothers and sisters. It must begin in the community and be based on community participation. Afro-American will be free to create only when they can depend on the Afro-American community for support and Afro-American artists must realize that they depend on the Afro-Americans for inspiration."
- Malcolm X
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks