teaching photography

[Jack_5762]

At one of the country's most distinguished universities a search committee has been formed to fill a vacancy in the photography department. The committee has sifted through hundreds of portfolios and only five remain. From this group they will make the decision that will fill the teaching vacancy and because of the gravitas of this program will have a lasting effect on the next generation of photographers. The portfolios that remain are labeled with the names of the applicants. The names are A.Adams, D. Arbus, E. Atget, R. Mapplethorpe and A. Steiglitz. The committe is composed of artist teachers who are not photogrphers. They have vowed to fill the vacancy based solely on the images in the portfolios. Who gerts the job and why?

[paulr]

Mapplethorpe, because based on the behavior of many tenured art professors, it's safe to assume that they suffer from sexual repression, sometimes severely, sometimes in ways too humiliating to fathom, and that upon seeing Mapplethorpe's portfolio, a significant number will say to themselves, "what I really want is a piece of that."

[John_4185]

Gawd Paul, you really crack me up! Whew!

Well, to answer the OP: the candidates are deceased, but that won't stop an evaluation. The person chosen will be the one who will attract the greatest gifts to the college's endowment, while at the same time not being an embarassement in-real-life. He will lecture a few times a year and grad-assistants will do the rest of the work.

[Conrad Hoffman]

Trick question. They vowed to base their decision on the portfolios, but in reality it will come down to personalities and educational politics. IMO, it will be Steiglitz, as the control-freak self-aggrandizing personality type often gravitates to education.

[paulr]

But would the control-freak self-aggrandizing personality type who already chairs the department want another one on board?

[Ansel Adams]

I guess I am out of the running.

Which one is the most liberal, left wing excentric ?

[Mark Sawyer]

IMHO, of course...

Fire someone and hire Stieglitz AND Adams. Together they would create a dynamic atmosphere for creativity and discussion, and would draw other significant photographers to visit the program. This creation of a serious art-oriented community is the single most important thing one could bring to an art program, as this is what most serious students will come for and benefit most from.

Arbus and Mapplethorpe were great photographers, but I don't know what they would have to offer students. From the little I've read about their personalities, they would not be the most accessible to students, and may not offer much beyond their names and general presences. (That's probably too harsh, but still somewhat true...)

Atget would hide from the students and concentrate on his own work.

I have ther priviledge of living about a mile from the Center for Creative Photography, which was largely founded by Adams, and holds his archives. That's about as close as one could get to having His Anselness on faculty. What do I get out of it? Last night, I went to "A Conversation with John Szarkowski," hosted by Joel Peterson, in conjunction with an exhibit of Szarkowski's own photography. Sept. 7 is a big presentation on Frederick Sommer. No AA, no CCP. Thanks, Ansel, I enjoyed it!

[Mark Sawyer]

Oops, that was Joel Snyder, not Joel Peterson hosting the Szarkowski conversation. Got my Joels mixed up. Saturday morning... need coffee...

[Steven Barall]

Steiglitz did more for art in the 20th century than just about anyone. He introduced the New World to European modernism. He was an interested and curious guy. What's better than that. You can always find someone to teach photo chemistry and printing techniques.

Finding someone who is visionary and understands the Big Picture like Steiglitz did is a different story. He was expansive. He believed in looking around and finding new things and he wasn't stopped by convention and he worked to get new artist seen. If you're an artist that's the best thing anyone can do for you and if you are an art lover you have to see that Steiglitz is providing a great service. Steiglitz was anything but a one trick pony.

Interesting question. Thanks.

[Stew]

Stieglitz, because the images in his portfolio include several of a woman who was more important than the rest of these people put together, and she comes with Stieglitz as part of the deal :)

[John T.]

The original proposal makes the assumption that the five mentioned will have a great impact on current and future students. Since all were modernists and since you mentioned that art teachers, not photographers were on the selection committee, I would find it hard to believe that there weren't any other modernists in the running. This is especially important because it the department wants to attract attention in the art world, modernism is often viewed as safe and somewhat looked down upon.

Based on observations of the images in the galleries and comments on this forum, it seems that it is primarily visited by people who work in a more modernist tradition. Because of this, I can understand why these photographers were chosen. (Except Mapplethorpe: Jack, why him? His inclusion doesn't makes sense to me, unless you just wanted a controversial photographer.)

That said, I somewhat agree with Conrad-except the nasty cynical comment "IMO, it will be Steiglitz, as the control-freak self-aggrandizing personality type often gravitates to education." All of the great photographers that are famous and even some that aren't so great or famous must be control freaks and have a self aggrandizing personality. Those are the qualities that will drive a person to succeed. It's how they control and exhibit those qualities that makes them a better person or educator. In addition, I hope that Conrad has never helped another photographer learn anything or else he has the same personality traits that the has denigrated.

John

[Mark Sawyer]

"Since all were modernists ..."

Hmmm.. never heard Atget called a Modernist before. He was a bit of a throwback even in his own time.

Stieglitz could be called a Modernist, especially in the work he curated at 291 and An American Place. Adams and the f/64 were definitely not part of the Modern Art movement; look to Man Ray and Moholy-Nagy for that.

Arbus flitted around the edges of Post-Modern, but Mapplethorpe came even after that. He's harder to define, working in a tradition of straight photography with heavy commercial influences (Avedon, etc.) but with his own little twists... One nice thing about the post-Post-Modern age is that with no clearly defined direction, photographers have more freedom to move in any direction they want. (But the BFA/MFA-crowd still moves as a herd...)

[John Kasaian]

Naaaah! They'd just hire a grad student part time to fill in---a paltry stipend and no benifits is what keeps the academic bus on the highway of institutional learning. ;-)

[paulr]

"Hmmm.. never heard Atget called a Modernist before. He was a bit of a throwback even in his own time."

He was a throwback in terms of technique, but he was a modernist's modernist in terms of images. It was other modernists and the surrealists who were greatly inspired by his work, particularly his formal and spacial innovations.

"Adams and the f/64 were definitely not part of the Modern Art movement; look to Man Ray and Moholy-Nagy for that."

There was a big difference between the European modernists and the American modernists. The Europeans were more directly inspired by European modern paintng, while the American modernists studied the formal (and philosophical) lessons of the Europeans and applied them to a more straight photography style.

No one questions Weston and Strand as modernists. Adams is a more interesting question, since his inspiration seemed to come much more from 19th century painting of the "ain't nature grand" variety (particularly Thomas Moran). But I think that by the thirties, he had definitely become modern in some key ways.

I agree that Mapplethorpe is harder to pin down. Formally, he comes right out of early modernism, but of course by his time that was a retro thing to be doing. His other influences are from all over the place, including fashion, but also classical painting and S&M porn.

[Robert Skeoch]

It depends where the school is. I live in Ontario and although the list of photographers includes some greats, they can't teach at college or university in Ontario unless they have a degree in the field. I guess a degree would make a photographer more qualified than a portfolio.
-Rob Skeoch

[Mark Sawyer]

(Re: Atget): "He was a throwback in terms of technique, but he was a modernist's modernist in terms of images. It was other modernists and the surrealists who were greatly inspired by his work, particularly his formal and spacial innovations. "

I don't think so, though I can repect those who would disagree. I think Atget's work, other than the heavily published images of reflections and mannequins in store windows, are very typical (but wonderful) examples of late 19th century straight photography. Having Bernice Abbott (who was part of the American Modern Art movement) controlling the selection and interpretation of his images caused him to be pushed more into the "Modern" camp. And while much has been made of his selling a few prints to surrealist painters, his main clients were museums interested in simply documenting "old Paris," which was modernizing quickly at the time.

"No one questions Weston and Strand as modernists."

While they were definitely at the cutting edge of where (uncapitalized) modern art photography would go over the next few decades, there was a defined group of movements that made up (capitalized) Modern Art; Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, maybe Abstract Expressionism. Weston and Strand were familiar with these schools, but I think their work was aesthetically very separate from it.

I'm not sure we could resolve this argument; even the art historians, critics, and probably the photographers themselves would argue over just where they fit. But it's a good arguement...

[Frank Petronio]

Diane Arbus of course. The Society for Photographic Education pressured the committee to hire a female and the university ups their number of female professors in the arts because they can't find them in the sciences - but it makes their numbers look better. Since all the images in the portfolio are judged subjectively, nobody is going to argue that any male's photos are "better" -- that would be too judgemental and arbitrary. The beauty is that Adams, Stieglitz, et al are dead so they won't file any lawsuits.

Being dead herself, Diane can handle all the grungy committees and assignments, hold 8am classes, and do all the scut work.

[Mark_3899]

Stieglitz.

Because from my personal experience back in art school the teachers who were the best artists who's work I admired most, were not very good teachers, unlike the teachers that just loved being teachers. From what I have read Stieglitz was a mentor first and foremost.

[John_4185]

Mark Sawyer: Were you refering to Joel Snyder of the U of Chicago?

[Mark Sawyer]

jj- Yes, he's a Professor of Art History there. He's also the editor of "The Journal Critical Inquiry," and Director of the Chicago Albumen Works.

[robert_4927]

Stieglitz, no matter how great he was, would have been a terrible teacher. His searing critiques would have discouraged many a young photographer to the point of never picking up a camera again. But the bigger question would be ...Where do we find a university big enough to house his ego?

[Mike H.]

Gee, Mark, I was there at the CCP also (but with a two hour drive from the north). Didn't see you. As if I would have known when I did... :-)

As to the selection process, look at the applicants for this position. Four guys and a gal. IF - If the panel is composed of at least 50% women, the gal gets the nod. If it's all guys, some of them are going to vote for the woman - giving her the advantage. If they are all women - she's a shoo in.

If they were able to get past the gender issue and truly look at the prints in the portfolios, my hope is that they really like motion stopped as a series of consecutive images (Maplethorpe). I'd hate to have any of the other four spending their time in a classroom when they should be out making more of their really great images.

And why "artist teachers who are not photogrphers (sic)"? If you are a photographer teaching art, wouldn't you have a little more expertise about what makes a great photograph?

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

In my sixty years of earning a crust in the arts photographic world and otherwise, I have yet to meet a person in full time teaching that has been a truly successful, dependent, exponent of their craft.

I have a sympathetic understanding as to the many and varied reasons why a person would choose to teach rather than follow their primary calling. Nevertheless, I consider it usually shows some of degree of failure on their part. This is not intended to be a put down for teaching, a noble profession - when the right person is involved. However, the right persons for teaching are thin on the ground in most subjects and all areas of the world.

Robert and Mark seem to have had some experience of questionble teaching, perhaps they too conclude that it will always pay to be cautious when taking up such teaching posts.
I will now keep my head down below the parapet!

[Conrad Hoffman]

I have to admit to more knowledge of Stieglitz and his personality from various readings, whereas I know the others only by their images. My earlier comment was definitely cynical, but Stieglitz could be a very arbitrary SOB, and I wouldn't wish him on anyone not having the experience and strength to know how to deal with that personality type. That leaves out most students. Regardless, he had the greatest influence on the direction of the photographic arts (directly and indirectly) of anyone I can think of. A very interesting read is "O'Keeffe & Stieglitz - An American Romance" by Benita Eisler.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wouldn't hire any of them as full time faculty, they were too much into there art. There is allot of bureacracy and general bs in art schools that require broader efforts and tolerance for the endless meetings and whinny students etc., ie its about more than great art work. Teaching full time would have cut into their art production and I would not have desired that from any of these extraordinary people. They would have been extraordinary sessionals, but the wrong people for full time teaching.

[paulr]

"In my sixty years of earning a crust in the arts photographic world and otherwise, I have yet to meet a person in full time teaching that has been a truly successful, dependent, exponent of their craft.
I have a sympathetic understanding as to the many and varied reasons why a person would choose to teach rather than follow their primary calling. Nevertheless, I consider it usually shows some of degree of failure on their part."

The trouble is, there isn't any direct correlation between how great someone's art is and how commercially succsesful it is. Which is why there are so many important, great artists who are unable to support themselves on sales and grants alone. Any other solution, including teaching, is going to be compromise. So the question is, is it an acceptable compromise, or maybe even the best one, for some people?

As far as excellent photographers who teach (or used to teach) full time, I can think of at least a few:

Frank Gohlke

Nick Nixon

Mike Smith

Andrew Boroweic

Mnor White

Walker Evans

Emmit Gowin

Linda Connor

Ed Ranney

Abe Morrel

[tim atherton]

There's a good argument to be made that Muybridge was possibly one of the first truly Modern photographers

"(Re: Atget): "He was a throwback in terms of technique, but he was a modernist's modernist in terms of images. It was other modernists and the surrealists who were greatly inspired by his work, particularly his formal and spacial innovations. "
I don't think so, though I can repect those who would disagree. I think Atget's work, other than the heavily published images of reflections and mannequins in store windows, are very typical (but wonderful) examples of late 19th century straight photography. Having Bernice Abbott (who was part of the American Modern Art movement) controlling the selection and interpretation of his images caused him to be pushed more into the "Modern" camp. And while much has been made of his selling a few prints to surrealist painters, his main clients were museums interested in simply documenting "old Paris," which was modernizing quickly at the time. "

The truth of Atget probably lies somewhere between Nesbitt''s commercial artisan with his albums and the Szarkowski/Abbott/Hombourg Modernist and father of the surrealist photographers.

Putting aside the parc and trees photography and the exceptional street/city work such as the reflections and mannekins etc, even in his most workaday photogorpahs cataloguing the Paris streets, there is easily enough of something different that moves Atget beyond the purely journeyman photographer. His working life coincides almost exactly with the growth of Modernism and Paris was where that took place. The are enough instances among his everyday work of this something different that move it beyond Le Gray, Marville and his many other predecessors in the 19th centry, the more obviously exceptional work aside. His materials may have been anachronistic and from the 19th century, but his work isn't

[David Karp]

paulr:

We can add Henry Gilpin to the list too. And from all accounts a really great guy and solid family man. Something that some of the other greats were not able to accomplish at the same time as their art.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paulr

Ed Ranney? I have known Ed for twenty years, but I have never known him to teach full time anywhere. Have I missed something? Great photographer, especially the stuff on Incan stone work.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd add Todd Walker, Jerry Uelsmann, and Barbara Crane, three excellent full-time teachers and prolific in their own work.

[paulr]

Kirk,
I could be wrong, but I thought he used to be on the faculty at yale. Maybe he just taught part time (i had the pleasure of taking a summer class from him when i was at colorado college ... only photo class i ever took and it was amazing).

[Kirk Gittings]

As I understand it Ed is able to teach when he wants to as he is-shall we say-without economic pressures.

[paulr]

Ahhh, to be without economic pressures ...

anyway, i looked him up and found nothing about him teaching full time at yale or anywhere else. so scratch him off the list. i must have heard him describing a part time gig there.

are you in touch with him? i'd ask you to say hi, but can't imagine he'd remember me after all these years. last i saw him was for a letter of recommendation in 91 or 92.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Thanks Paul for the dropping of names that mean nothing to me or most others, you have proved my point...

[Paddy Quinn]

"Thanks Paul for the dropping of names that mean nothing to me or most others, you have proved my point..."

Are you talking of :

Frank Gohlke

Nick Nixon

Mike Smith

Minor White

Walker Evans

Emmit Gowin

Linda Connor

?

If so I'd suggest some big chunks from the "arts photographic world" are missing from your education

[John_4185]

Stan. Laurenson-Batten Thanks Paul for the dropping of names that mean nothing to me or most others, you have proved my point...

Speak for yourself. No point made.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Thanks Paul for the dropping of names that mean nothing to me or most others, you have proved my point..."

Any large format photographer who is not familiar with the work of those artists has missed some great art and should investigate them. They have a treat instore.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Declaration of Intent..

Jack, Kirk, John, Paddy, & Paul.

Many thanks for your replies. It was far from my intent to cause any offence to you or any other persons in my posting. It seems my reply was taken as aggresive and out of order with the tone of the forum, for this I apologise.
Being in forensics and reporting, I plead guilty to the charge of, ' lack of education in the art of large format'. In consequence, it is my intention to make every effort in the future to put right my failings.
I look forward with enthusiasm to the future in my large format photography and to your valued contributions to this informative forum. Best wishes. Stan. L-B

[paulr]

No offense taken, Stan, If you're at all curious to see work by any of those mentioned, say the word and i'll post some links.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Thanks Paul.

Any information or links will be greatfully received and faithfuly applied.
PicTecUK@aol.com
Stan. L-B

[paulr]

i'll post them here in case anyone else wants to look (or add to them)

Mnor White, Walker Evans, and Emmit Gowin you can find at
www.masters-of-photography.com

Frank Gohlke's site is www.frankgohlke.com

Nick Nixon has some work at http://www.zabriskiegallery.com/Nixon/NixonHomePage.html#1

Mike Smith has some work at www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Smith/

Andrew Boroweic has some work at www.mocp.org/collections/mpp/borowiec_andrew.php

Linda Connor has some work at www.edelmangallery.com/connor.htm

Abe Morrel's site is http://www.abelardomorell.net/ (check out the camera obscura work ...cool)

[Ellis Vener]

Ahh ! A thread for conservatives to freely rant on!



I guess I am out of the running.
Which one is the most liberal, left wing excentric ?

If that is the sole criteria, then (the real) Ansel Adams would easily be the hands down winner.

[Mark Sawyer]

Odd that all choices were "straight" photographers, (no Mapplethorpe jokes, please), and that all but Arbus were noted for their craftsmanship as well as their vision.

[paulr]

That's a good point, Mark, because if we looked at the real finalists in most searches of this type, we'd probably see photographers whose work could hardly be any more different from the work by these candidates. All of our candidates are either modernists or have deep roots in the modern ... which makes them pretty out of fashion now (except maybe for mapplethorpe, whose work plays on a few trends that are still vaguely contemporary--he's only a bit out of fashion).

[Mark Sawyer]

You know, Paul, you and Tim still have me arguing with myself whether Atget was a Modernist or not. But is surfing for his work, I ran across the "Atget Rephotographic" site, which may be of interest to some:

http://www.art.usf.edu/marcus/atgetrephoto.html

[Mark Woods]

It's too bad that the "new" photographers didn't actually correct the perspective and shoot more accurately in terms of distance from the subject. I found the new photos almost unviewable.

[Mark Sawyer]

Actually, the perspective that bothered me in the modern photographs was the lack of atmospheric perspective (ie: haze). It was very evident in Atget's images, at least partially the result of blue-sensitive plates, I suspect, but perhaps Paris was more hazy too back then, what with wood and coal fires and general lack of pollution control. You're right, Mark, it could have been done better, but it's still interesting to see, at least for me...

[paulr]

Thanks for the link, Mark. I think the project is fascinating. It's not about making pictures to compete with Atget's, guys. It's a historical project, abaout paris nearly a century later. I'm interested in how much things have changed in some settings, and how little they've changed in others (like les jardins de luxemburg). in one there are even the same kinds of chairs, but they've been rearanged. in another you can see that a tree has grown up. I like the ones where an original building has been engulfed by a new one.

As far as the question, "was Atget a modernist ..." my inclination is that he was not. Nor was he any other kind of "ist." He was just doing his thing for his own reasons. But a vision and a body of work that was decidedly modern in many fundamental ways somehow emerged. It's a case of some amazing modern work being created by someone in a completely unselfconscious way ... much like Timothy O'Sullivan. And possibly also the young Lartigue.

[Ellis Vener]

Odd that all choices were "straight" photographers, (no Mapplethorpe jokes, please), and that all but Arbus were noted for their craftsmanship as well as their vision.

Actually Arbus was a pretty damn good printer.

If I were king of that school I'd hire Duane Michaels, Mary Ellen Mark, Jim Nachtwey, Gregory Heisler, Nicholas Nixon, Robert Adams, Jay Maisel, Arnold Newman, John Sexton, Jack Dykinga, Thomas Struth, Chris Callis, Irving Penn, Greg Gorman, Bruce Fraser, John Paul Caponigro, Paul Caponigro, Lauren Greenfield, MANUAL, Jodi Cobb, Lori Grinker & Sebastio Salgado.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ellis: Yes, her prints are excellent, but their quality is really overwhelmed by the strength of her subject matter and vision. In that respect, her craft perfectly supported what she was doing, rather than being an active part of what she was doing. (Stated another way, only an obsessive photographic craftsman would walk away from an Arbus exhibit thinking, "wow, what great prints..." And I think that's what she wanted.)

With Adams, Steiglitz, Atget, Mapplethorpe, the print quality was more actively part of the aesthetic, something the average viewer would conciously note while looking. Just my take...

When you become king, can I get a scholarship to your school? Pleeeeeeeeeease?

[Mark Sawyer]

" It's not about making pictures to compete with Atget's, guys. It's a historical project, abaout paris nearly a century later. I'm interested in how much things have changed..."

Agreed. But the almost audible clank of putting modern prints next to his vintage prints comes through even on a computer monitor. Guess that's how things have changed, too...

"He was just doing his thing for his own reasons. But a vision and a body of work that was decidedly modern in many fundamental ways somehow emerged. It's a case of some amazing modern work being created by someone in a completely unselfconscious way ... much like Timothy O'Sullivan. And possibly also the young Lartigue."

To a large extent, I think some of this goes to the editing. Bernice Abbott (a Modernist") "discovered" Atget, and surprise! He's a proto-modernist!

Newhall reintroduced O'Sullivan as a western landscape survey photographer foreshadowing later western straight photographers, and that's how we still see him. But look at his Civil War photographs, and you can see a foreshadowing of other post-modern photography, even Witkin.

I think to some degree, and with Lartigue too, these were simply insightful, open people photographing with uncommon individual instinct and visually/culturally powerful subject matter. After decades of the contrivances of pictorialism, the formal staightforwardness of early American modernism finally caught up to them.

[paulr]

"To a large extent, I think some of this goes to the editing"

that's an interesting idea. sounds like something someone might explore in an art history thesis. I'd have to see more of his outtakes to have any idea.

A friend of mine who has an amazing collection (spanning 1839 through the 1970s) had a theory that every kind of picture that's ever been conceived of was made in one way or another in the 19th century. He makes a pretty convincing case. The suggestion is that photography (which, as Szarkowski notes, is only precariously under the control of the phtographer's hands and mind) makes a lot of accidental innovation possible.

What seems to set photographers like Atget and O'Sullivan apart is that they produced whole bodies of work that were unusual for their times ... suggesting that something was going on that was a bit deeper and more drawn out than just serendipity. You could be right that a lot of editing went into crafting a modernist body of work from Atget, but it's still remarkable that he produced a quantity of modern looking work that allowed this.

[Struan Gray]

The Hasselblad Foundation has a number of touring exhibitions it loans out to other galleries and museums. One is (was) a collection of Disfarmer prints that makes him look like Avedon long before his time. A more comprehensive look at Disfarmer's photos was - for me - a little bit of a letdown: the urgency and intensity of vision in the selection I first saw was revealed to be as much a curatorial as photographic. It doesn't make the original show any less impressive, but it did radically change my perception of Disfarmer as a working artist.