Robert Adams at the Getty [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Merg Ross

1-Mar-2006, 22:39

Last week I had the opportunity to view the Robert Adams exhibition at Getty Center. I was in town to attend the exhibition, Perceptions, currently at Los Angeles Valley College featuring the works of Adams, Weston, Cunningham, Lange, White and others. My thread, West Coast Photography, several days ago details the history of that exhibition.

The Robert Adams exhibition left me mystified as to his popularity. Technically the images were poor and the subject matter repetitious. In my opinion there were far too many prints displayed and my interest waned after about ten minutes.

For those who visit Getty Center be sure to view the Courbet and the Modern Landscape exhibition. It demonstrates how Courbet (1819-1877) was influenced by the new medium (photography) and the effect it had on framing and composition of landscape painting. Photographs from the Getty Collection, including a Gustave Le gray albumen silver print accompany the exhibition.

Paddy Quinn

2-Mar-2006, 00:08

"The Robert Adams exhibition left me mystified as to his popularity. Technically the images were poor and the subject matter repetitious."

I must say I remain confused by these comments. I admit to not having seen the particular exhibit in question, but any Adams prints I have seen in the past have generally been very good quality. Are you saying the Getty has a batch of bad prints?

Or are you saying you have a personal dislike for his technique, style and subject matter?

What set of standards are you using to define "technically poor" images?

paulr

2-Mar-2006, 00:58

applying the standards of 19th century romanticism to 20th century late modernism often leads to conclusions like "technically poor."

the step of asking, "what vision does technique serve?" gets left out.

adrian tyler

2-Mar-2006, 01:49

susan sontag make very interesting comments on modernist photography in her book "on-phoyography" and how time has revealed its rather shallow nature, at the time it was challanging but with the acceleration and sophistication of visual culture the once challanging modernist perceptions are now commonplace in every haidressing salon and ikea "rady-made lifestyle" furniture warehouse.

the thing i find violent about the reaction to adams work, is not aesthetic, but rather moral. here is an artist who is making a statement about our treatment of the enviroment. and i feel that this here is the problem for these posters. he is classified as "in with the enviromentalists".

and here is the partadox which i really find quite frigtening, the majority of scientific research points to the fact that we are on the verge of a major global disaster, global warming, overpoulation, etc. and yet the very people who are damming mr adams work, revere photographers whos' work sing to the beauty of nature, or rather what's left of it.

now i am assuming that you have all had a college eduction, and here is where it become difficult to believe that with the overwelming evidence you are faced with, you cannot see what mr adams is trying so say, or even be the sightest bit sympathetic towards it.

Enrico

2-Mar-2006, 04:10

I'd have to agree with Adrian Tyler's comments.

Late last year, 2005, I was at Moma in San Francisco and viewed the exhibition there of Adams' work. At first I thought that the images were a little repetitive however about two-thirds the way through I realised why the images were being displayed that way..

It was great, it was like walking through a huge life size contact sheet of numerous images. One could see the progression. Being designed that way it really made the viewer stop and think about the cause. My perception changed quickly - and what I mean by that is that my expectations of what I was going to see changed. I was expecting that all images be a 'fine' peice of work but it didnt need to be. Personally I chose a few images that I thought were outstanding (as anyone would - and as you would when viewing a contact sheet).

I was glad that I was able to 'realise' the purpose of the body of work prior to viewing the end of the display of images. So then I had to back track and peice it all together in my head.

There are many images by many photographers of the past and present that show the beauty of our environment but dont necessarily address the current issues of major concern. To be able to produce this idea through images is not an easy thing. So I figured Adams has chosen a specific area and produced a body of work from that, that highlights an environmental cause.

Ellis Vener

2-Mar-2006, 07:10

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but a couple of points Mr. Evins brings up are just plain factually wrong.

Robert Adams has been documenting the real state of the American West in a non-romaticized way for a very long time, atleat 30 if not 40 yearsTo claim that "he is pandering to the environmentalist crowd to give him stature. Not so unusual, that." reveals how uninformed Mr. Evins is. Robert Adams is also a first rate printer as well as a photographer and judging the quality of his work from reproductions in books is a pretty silly thing to do: We have all seen plenty of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and paul Strand photogrpahs reproduced badly too.

You might not like what Robert (or Ansel) Adams has to say with his photographs and writing (politics) or how he says it (aesthetics) , or you might embrace it whole heartedly, but either approach says more about someone and the blinkered biases they bring to the work then the objective realities of the work itself.

Ellis Vener

2-Mar-2006, 07:17

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some of what Mr. Evins writes is just plain factually wrong.

Robert Adams has been documenting the real state of the American West in a non-romaticized way for a very long time, at least 35 years. To claim that "he is pandering to the environmentalist crowd to give him stature..." reveals how uninformed Mr. Evins is about Adams.

I also don't think Adams has ever given a particualr damn about his "stature" either. I say that based on a telephone interview I did with him a few years ago.

Robert Adams is also a first rate printer as well as a photographer. Judging the quality of his work from reproductions in books is a pretty silly thing to do: We have all seen plenty of bad reproductions in books of the photographs by Ansel Adams, Brett Weston, Edward Weston, Cole Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Minor White, John Sexton, Howard Bond, Jerry Uelsmann, and Paul Strand.

You might not like what Robert (or Ansel) Adams has to say with his photographs and writing (politics) or how he says it (aesthetics), or you might embrace it whole heartedly, but either approach says more about someone and the blinkered biases they bring to the work then the objective realities of the work itself.

Jorge Gasteazoro

2-Mar-2006, 07:33

the majority of scientific research points to the fact that we are on the verge of a major global disaster, global warming, overpoulation

Pluease!!!! I have stayed out of this thread because it is as always the same issue with the same participants. If someone states "I dont like this" and find it substandard....there they are Paul and Paddy arguing one does not know anything about art and one is shallow....so be it. But to read these alarmist statements that in fact are wrong, is another thing.

Global warming is not such a cut a dry issue, in fact, if charts are drawn it shows the planet has warmed by less than a °C in the last 100 years. We are certainly not in the "verge" of a disaster by global warming. The same goes for overpopulation. The planet is capable of sustaining far more people than there is at the moment. The problem is (as always) money, countries where people are dying of starvation it is not because the land cannot sustain them, but because of poor land management, outdated crop planting and harvesting techniques which coupled with poor health mantainance and internal warfare make these places hell on earth, but lets make no mistake these are man made factors, not a global disaster due to overpopulation.

If you guys want to argue back and forth about the prints being good or not, knock yourselves out. Arguing that Adams' work is relevant because of it's environmental "impact" IMO is silly and shallow, the pictures are rather obvious, and like it was written above repetitive.

adrian tyler

2-Mar-2006, 07:43

thank you jorge for illuminating so brilliantly the point i was trying to make in my previos post.

tim atherton

2-Mar-2006, 09:08

"Robert Adams has been documenting the real state of the American West in a non-romaticized way for a very long time, at least 35 years."

I think this is part of the key to Adams work. I must say in all the years I've looked at his work, it never occurred to me that he was an "environmentalist" - much more that he just photographed what he saw.

Huge tracts of N America are just plain butt ugly. And we are making it uglier all the time. The place most people live are mind numbingly mundane. In large part, to drive across the West can be a profoundly depressing experience, never quite off-set by moment of the beautiful or sublime that are encountered along the way. Yet - as human beings are wont to do - we adapt to this - emotionally, psychologically (a bit like he "wealthy tourist or snowbird who can vacation in comfort some second world country while ignoring the poverty and dilapidation around them). I've always thought of Adams work as being much more "humanist" (small h and for want of a better word?) than environmentalist. He focuses on what is, not what we would like it to be or what it once was - yet he never quite seems to lose hope. If he has a message, I think it's "just look"

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 09:25

"People would walk in and just walk right out of the two rooms he was in"

Twenty five years ago, the Museum of New Mexico opened a new wing with an exhibit of Ansel Adams and Georgia Okeefe. Ansel on one side and Georgia on the other. This was arguable some of the most important work done in the American West this century. I went to the exhibit many times just sitting and absorbing. It was one of those really profound museum experiences.

90 percent of the people walked less than 4 feet into this wing, glanced around for a few seconds and immediately walked out.

We live in a largely visually illiterate society that does not appreciate established masters much less more conceptual artists like Robert Adams.

adrian tyler

2-Mar-2006, 09:25

right tim, he seems very reticent too about the possiblity of his work making any change to the way that we are, and sees is more as an affirmation of life rather than an admonishon.

Chris S

2-Mar-2006, 10:06

"We live in a largely visually illiterate society that does not appreciate established masters much less more conceptual artists like Robert Adams."

Well then I guess I fall in right along with them

William Mortensen

2-Mar-2006, 10:12

"We live in a largely visually illiterate society that does not appreciate established masters much less more conceptual artists like Robert Adams."

I'd agree with Kirk on this, but opine that at the time people were ignoring the Ansel Adams/Georgia Okeefe exhibit, they would probably have spent more time in a room of Remingtons and Bierstadts. Today, they would walk out of the Robert Adams exhibit to spend time looking at Ansel Adams' work. Popular visual literacy seems to lag a few decades...

Regarding RA's technical capabilities, I think his prints are well-made and "perfectly adequate" for their purpose. I suspect he strove more for this than the grand-scale, tour-de-force print that shows off more what the photographer can do in the darkroom while getting in the way of whatever he might have been concerned about in the image.

As to global warming, I think it will be balance out by an impending nuclear winter, so everything will be just fine...

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 10:19

But Chris I presume you actually went in and looked at it and then decided that it was not your cup of tea and moved on to work which you appreciated. I am more talking about the people who don't even bother to really give something a look. If work doesn't scream intertainment at them they don't even see it.

Chris S

2-Mar-2006, 10:28

Help me learn to appreciate these

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/56724720/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/56724722/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/56724724/original.jpg

adrian tyler

2-Mar-2006, 10:38

his printing is terrrrrrrible!!!!!!!!!!

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 11:17

More on the content later. Do you have permission to reproduce those?

Chris S

2-Mar-2006, 11:27

"More on the content later. Do you have permission to reproduce those?"

I see no copyright notices on the sites these were downloaded from.Now onto that content

Chris S

2-Mar-2006, 11:35

Ok buddy, if you insist I did run into this on the site just now, and feel the use of these lovely, meaningful technically excellent images fall under the catagory of "criticism" and "commentary"

Fair Use is Permitted

Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for noncommercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download or print text and image files from MoCP’s Web site for such uses are welcome to do so without MoCP’s express permission. Users must cite the author and source of this material as they would material from any printed work; the citation should include the URL “http://www.mocp.org”.

By downloading, printing, or otherwise using text and image files from this Web site, users agree that they will limit their use of such files to fair use, and will not violate MoCP’s or any other party’s proprietary rights.

Merg Ross

2-Mar-2006, 11:39

Reflecting on my previous comments, they were not intended to diminish the worth of Robert Adams' work. His message is not lost on me as I travel around this and neighboring countries. However, as Kirk suggests, it was not my cup of tea.

As to technique, I stand by my previous assessment although Mark makes a good point.

paulr

2-Mar-2006, 12:49

"Help me learn to appreciate these"

the first step is to sincerely want to see them for what they are, and not as fodder to confirm an oppinion you already hold.

then i'd say to spend more than the usual amount of time looking at later westons--1930s and 1940s. and then at walker evans.

and then think a bit about what tim said next time you drive anywhere in north america: "The place most people live are mind numbingly mundane. In large part, to drive across the West can be a profoundly depressing experience, never quite off-set by moment of the beautiful or sublime that are encountered along the way. Yet - as human beings are wont to do - we adapt to this - emotionally, psychologically (a bit like he "wealthy tourist or snowbird who can vacation in comfort some second world country while ignoring the poverty and dilapidation around them)."

and consideer tim's thought that adams is more of a humanist than an environmentalist--and that his work is ultimately more about coming to terms with something than about furthering an agenda.

and i'd suggest spending more time than you're used to spending looking at adams' work. assume it's subtle. assume it reveals itself slowly. few people who love his work were bowled over by it at first glance. it's not calendar photography, nor is it trying to be.

if you still have trouble with his prints, maybe ask yourself what you expect from a print--is it supposed to be a fetish object that always conforms to a fixed set of standards? or is it the physical vehicle for an artist's vision--one that should conform to whatever standards best convey that vision?

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 12:53

Sorry Chris, responding to you is not a priority right now.

Chris S

2-Mar-2006, 14:16

"Sorry Chris, responding to you is not a priority right now."

No worrys Kirk

William Mortensen

2-Mar-2006, 15:19

"... and consider Tim's thought that Adams is more of a humanist than an environmentalist--and that his work is ultimately more about coming to terms with something than about furthering an agenda. "

I'd concur with Paul and Tim on this one, and offer an observation regarding why we seem to have similar converastions whenever Robert Adams' work is discussed: most photographers, especially in large format photography, have photography itself or art-for-art's-sake as a central, sometimes sole, interest. Adams more than most uses photography as a vehicle to express other completely different interests. He is not a "photographer's photographer", and to some extent, criticizing his work, positively or negatively, from a purely photographic viewpoint, is akin to criticizing "Fahrenheit 9/11" from a film-making viewpoint while missing its political viewpoint completely. The medium is sometimes not the message.

William Mortensen

2-Mar-2006, 15:31

"Yet - as human beings are wont to do - we adapt to this - emotionally, psychologically (a bit like he "wealthy tourist or snowbird who can vacation in comfort some second world country while ignoring the poverty and dilapidation around them). "

While not a completely parallel, I'm reminded of seeing W. Eugene Smith's Minamata photographs in an art museum and overhearing people discuss them as artworks, not records or artifacts of a terrible situation. I wonder whether art museums are the most effective venues for such bodies of work.

Oren Grad

2-Mar-2006, 16:04

Adams more than most uses photography as a vehicle to express other completely different interests. He is not a "photographer's photographer", and to some extent, criticizing his work, positively or negatively, from a purely photographic viewpoint, is akin to criticizing "Fahrenheit 9/11" from a film-making viewpoint while missing its political viewpoint completely. The medium is sometimes not the message.

But then he needs to package his pictures with words and deliver them through a different channel (as per your following post). If you present them to me as "fine art" photographs with all the trappings and rituals traditionally associated with that, but they don't work as visual artifacts, I'm not interested in excuses about what hidden agendas may be lurking behind them.

BTW, that observation is about the logic here; it's not intended to imply that I've concluded that Adams' photographs don't have merit as such. As I think I've said elsewhere, so far I've found Adams' pictures to be a mixed bag, but some of them that I've seen in book reproduction do have some resonance for me, and I look forward to seeing more of his books as well as actual prints to judge for myself.

adrian tyler

2-Mar-2006, 16:10

"I wonder whether art museums are the most effective venues for such bodies of work"

certainly people go into large institutions with different expectations to say a local art centre, which is going to be a problem for "difficult" work such as parts of the adams show which as someone pointed out has concurrently the "courbet and the modern landscape" exhibition for example.

but then again photography's recent, and massive, acceptance into the contemporary "art" world, i think is an interesting development, due to and fueld by the consumer culture we are part of, if used in the way that mr adams does makes important contribution to museum programming, even those who dislike it are motivated to speak out, which has to be better than more cnn.

tim atherton

2-Mar-2006, 16:11

Oren

"But then he needs to package his pictures with words and deliver them through a different channel (as per your following post). If you present them to me as "fine art" photographs with all the trappings and rituals traditionally associated with that, but they don't work as visual artifacts, I'm not interested in excuses about what hidden agendas may be lurking behind them."

But art does (and has done) this all the time - it's very frequently not only (or even) about "pure" aesthetics.

And for many they do work as visual artifacts too (though I'm not sure what the relationship is between a visual artifact and art?)

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 16:11

It is still useful to look back to the days of "New Topographics" to understand the intellectual and artistic climate that Robert Adams emerged from. I remember it well because I was around in those days and later looked up RA and had many visits and much communication with him throughout the late 70's and early 80's. Here is a link that I think describes that period well.

www.presentationhousegall.com/altered_landscape.html (http://www.presentationhousegall.com/altered_landscape.html)

Oren Grad

2-Mar-2006, 17:08

But art does (and has done) this all the time - it's very frequently not only (or even) about "pure" aesthetics.

Of course. It can be driven by whatever agenda you want. My point is simply that if it doesn't elicit some resonance purely on a visual level, then I don't consider it to be good art. Depending how it's packaged it may be good something else - journalism, polemic, propaganda, whatever - but that's a different issue. And regardless of what you want it to be, you don't get credit for intentions - only for the effectiveness of the product you actually create.

Sorry about the term "visual artifact" - I didn't mean anything special by it other than the point I hope I just clarified.

Oren Grad

2-Mar-2006, 17:16

Thanks Kirk, that's a handy precis and a nice reminder of what the fuss was about.

Jim Ewins

2-Mar-2006, 17:27

My prior remarks were my opinons based on Mr Adams book on the West, so I have reviewed his book, Turning Back. Many of the images I saw there were well printed with lovely tonal gradation. I find it difficult to comment on composition of page after page of timber slash and stumps. I'd much rather spend my time reading New Mexico magazine and viewing Kirt's beautiful work.

Oren Grad

2-Mar-2006, 17:36

I should also have added that you don't get credit for motivations either. I don't see any correlation between either the substance or the expressive cleverness of a photographer's account of what he's trying to accomplish or why, and my own reaction to the work itself.

Kirk Gittings

2-Mar-2006, 21:43

I appreciate that Jim. I truely do. My work comes from my gut rather than my head, and in the final analysis I work in the tradition that "New Topographics" was rebeling against. I hold a romantic view of the West.

Having said that, I have a deep appreciation for the work of Robert Adams, because he forces me to look at and question the fundamentals of my aesthetic. Ultimately I reject his vision for myself and return to that which moves me, but I really appreciate what he has done and how what he has done makes me question my work. He and I corrsponded for many years and I treasure his gentle and illuminating critiques of my work. I view him as the most influential landscape photographer of the later half of the twentieth century and I truly love many of his images. Outside of perhaps Ansel Adams, I have more books by Robert Adams than anyone else.

paulr

2-Mar-2006, 21:54

I disagree with any sentiment that R. Adams' work is about ideas first, visual concerns second--that it's conceptual, illustrates rhetoric, or is best as an accompaniment to text.

Oren says, "My point is simply that if it doesn't elicit some resonance purely on a visual level, then I don't consider it to be good art" ... but this presupposes literacy in the tradition of that art.

Kirk is onto something when he brings up the subject of visual literacy. Which is not to suggest that someone who doesn't "get" adams' work is ipso facto visually illiterate. but it's likely that that person lacks fluency in the particular visual tradition that adams comes out of. you might be fluent in the traditions 14th century japanese art, 18th century islamic art, and even the 19th century romantic art that informs the vocabulary of Ansel Adams--but it doesn't automatically mean you'll get late modern american landscape photography on a gut level.

Since R. Adams comes out of the tradition that I've studied and enjoyed the most, I have a degree of fluency that allows his work to resonate for me visually and viscerally. I don't need the words. I don't even need the "ideas" in most cases--in fact, for anyone complaining that his work needs words, I'm curious to know what words you feel should accompany Summer Nights, or Cottonwoods. These works speak to me about simple visual pleasures of time and place, as much as about anything else.

I bring all this up, because everyone needs to acknowledge that you get the work that you get for exactly the same reasons. You didn't come into this world liking Ansel Adams and early Weston. You grew up and along the way became immersed, consciously or not, in one or more visual traditons. There's little that's "fundamental" about great art. When the early modernists first showed up, the world was full of people howling and decrying that they were frauds, abominations, naked emperors, whatever. The prevailing opinion was that if it doesn't look like [insert iconic figure from previous century] it's not art. Only a small minority who were already on the cusp of something new were ready for Weston and Strand and Stieglitz. The rest needed some help--sometimes in the form of education and words, sometimes in the form continued immersion. Others just died thinking the world went to hell, but their kids grew up liking the modern stuff because it's what they knew.

This cycle has repeated over and over again throughout history. Some other's who were seen as an abomination by many in the beginning: Picasso and all the cubists, Monet and the impressionists, Wagner, Brahms, all of Italian Opera, James Joyce, most 19th century novelists ...

It all comes from giving unquestioned authority to one's prejudices.

Oren Grad

2-Mar-2006, 23:45

Which is not to suggest that someone who doesn't "get" adams' work is ipso facto visually illiterate. but it's likely that that person lacks fluency in the particular visual tradition that adams comes out of.... Since R. Adams comes out of the tradition that I've studied and enjoyed the most, I have a degree of fluency that allows his work to resonate for me visually and viscerally.

What do you mean by "get"?

If I were to give you a learned lecture about the cultural and historical context of a particular body of work, but also assert that work classified under that rubric has no emotional or esthetic resonance for me whatsoever, would you insist that my understanding must necessarily be defective? Or are you asserting that that is an impossible state of affairs?

If somebody who lacks that knowledge asserts that the work does have emotional or esthetic resonance, is that response invalid? Or are you asserting that that is an impossible state of affairs?

Is there no body of photographic work that lacks merit, in your judgment? If there is work that lacks merit, how do you recognize it as such?

paulr

3-Mar-2006, 01:01

"What do you mean by "get"?

If I were to give you a learned lecture about the cultural and historical context of a particular body of work, but also assert that work classified under that rubric has no emotional or esthetic resonance for me whatsoever would you insist that my understanding must necessarily be defective?"

not at all. i think you can understand work without feeling it emotionally ... and vice versa.

but very often lack of feeling and lack of understunding go together. if work doesn't resonate for you, rather than having the knee-jerk response of dismissing it, it's helpful to ask first if you understand what it's trying to do, or even if you speak its language at all.

no one's under any obligation to like anything or to respond emotionally to anything ... but it's a foolish leap to go straight from a personal disconnect to judgement and general dismissal.

i will only judge work that i'm sure i understand. because what value could a judgement ever have if it's passed by someone who doesn't get what they're judging?

and i do see a lot of work that i don't get. all the time. mostly in media other than photography. i have a lousy education in painting done in the last 30 years, but i see a fair amount of it at museums, especially living in new york. it would be easy to dismiss the paintings that don't move me, but what would i get out of this, besides a momentary ego boost ... and the relief of feeling i don't have to learn anything new? isn't better to just realize there's another language out there that i don't speak ... and that i take the time to learn it another world is waiting to open up to me?

Oren Grad

3-Mar-2006, 08:09

Paulr, let's just say that I think I "get" where your approach to "consuming" photography and other arts comes from, though it has no emotional resonance for me... ;-)

I think that if your argument always comes back to the assertion that resistance to your way of thinking amounts to evidence of a complacent ignorance - "giving unquestioned authority to one's prejudices", dismissing things one doesn't get is really about a "momentary ego boost" - you should not be surprised if you have a hard time swaying people who are not already believers.

Cheers...

tim atherton

3-Mar-2006, 08:56

"If somebody who lacks that knowledge asserts that the work does have
emotional or esthetic resonance, is that response invalid? "

having an emotional response to something doesn't mean it's good art and good art doesn't depend on a good emotional response. (and I would have to assume you mean having a positve emotional response, because you are quite clearly expressing a strong emotional response in your posts - just not a feel good one...).

tim atherton

3-Mar-2006, 09:04

"Is there no body of photographic work that lacks merit, in your judgment?
If there is work that lacks merit, how do you recognize it as such?"

not talking about photography, but here is an interesting little piece on art the has or lacks merit - i.e. good/bad art and how one person figures it is recognised:

Re-Framing the Supposed Elitist Response to Popular Commercial Art

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2006/02/re-framing-supposed-elitist-response.html

with an interesting discussion following...

Oren Grad

3-Mar-2006, 10:00

having an emotional response to something doesn't mean it's good art and good art doesn't depend on a good emotional response

There are different understandings of what art is "for". No single one is uniquely privileged.

I would have to assume you mean having a positve emotional response

You would be incorrect.

because you are quite clearly expressing a strong emotional response in your posts - just not a feel good one

This is true.

Cheers...

paulr

3-Mar-2006, 10:31

" I "get" where your approach to "consuming" photography and other arts comes from, though it has no emotional resonance for me... ;-)"

which part? would you advocating judging something that you don't understand? i'm curious to hear a well reasoned alternative view.

William Mortensen

3-Mar-2006, 10:43

There is a difference between understanding ("getting it") and appreciating a work of visual art, and one is not necessary to the other. There are works I think I understnd fully but don't appreciate, and some of the images I appreciate most still challenge my understanding.

Regardless of whether you appreciate RA's work, it does repeatedly generate some of the best conversations and disagreements on this forum.

Incidentally, does anyone know the value of an original Robert Adams print on the gallery circuit? Just wondering how he fits into the art world's status structure. (I'm still struggling to comprehend the $1.2 million for the Richard Prince color photograph of another photograph. Now that one I must admit I don't get *or* appreciate...)

Oren Grad

3-Mar-2006, 10:49

One's conceptual framework for assimilating visual works - one's "understanding" - can derive from many sources other than formal study of history and criticism written by art professionals, or of manifestos written by creators of visual works.

As for judging things one doesn't "understand", every one of us does it all the time. There's no other way to get through life.

paulr

3-Mar-2006, 10:55

"Incidentally, does anyone know the value of an original Robert Adams print on the gallery circuit?"

my memory is that he's a bargain compared to, say, steichen's $3 million print. last time i saw a show (4 or 5 years ago) they were in the few thousand dollar range, i think.

"I'm still struggling to comprehend the $1.2 million for the Richard Prince color photograph of another photograph"

i'm offering a limited edition of screen grabs of that photographed photograph for considerably less than 1.2 million. contact me privately!

paulr

3-Mar-2006, 11:04

"one's "understanding" - can derive from many sources other than formal study of history and criticism written by art professionals, or of manifestos"

i would hope so. how about informal study, like looking at a lot of the pictures in question, and at a lot of pictures from the same tradition that came before--and doing so in a genuine spirit of curiousity? this should suffice for something as close to our cultural frame of reference as robert adams.

"As for judging things one doesn't "understand", every one of us does it all the time."

what's at issue here might be better stated as judging things one hasn't made any effort to understand. i'm sure sure we all do this, too, but it isn't something to brag about.

Oren Grad

3-Mar-2006, 11:50

Paul, this will have to be my final word for the moment, because I actually need to go earn a living.

When Chris S said "I just don't get it" and "Help me learn to appreciate these", your response started with "the first step is to sincerely want to see them for what they are, and not as fodder to confirm an oppinion you already hold".

In other words, you started with your own prejudice - that there is a class of people whose preference for unsubtle pictures that proclaim "ain't nature grand" is attributable to a complacent, willful, ego-gratifying ignorance - assumed that Chris S is such a person, and proceeded to lecture him accordingly.

Totally apart from the tactical question of whether such a rhetorical strategy is likely to be successful in motivating its target to think about things differently, it's a direct violation of your own ardently and repeatedly expressed principle that one should try hard to move beyond initial, knee-jerk reactions and seek to understand where the object of one's attention is really coming from, and why, before unleashing the artillery.

Think about it.

Kirk Gittings

3-Mar-2006, 11:58

The subtlety and lack of rhetoric of RA's work suggests the instructive model..... to simply see the West beyond mythology and romantic artiface.

paulr

3-Mar-2006, 13:00

"in other words, you started with your own prejudice - that there is a class of people whose preference for unsubtle pictures that proclaim "ain't nature grand" is attributable to a complacent, willful, ego-gratifying ignorance - assumed that Chris S is such a person, and proceeded to lecture him accordingly."

if that's what you thought i meant then i was very unclear. when i said, "the first step is to sincerely want to see them for what they are ..." i wasn't directing it exclusively at people who prefer one adams over the other. i meant it for anyone, myself included, who ever looks at something and thinks "i don't get it."

that reaction, "i don't get it," can have a couple of different sentiments behind it. one of them is "this is b.s.! there's nothing here worth getting!" the other is "i dont' get it now, but i'm interested in getting it." my point is that it's helpful to guide yourself to the second path. make an effort to get it before passing judgement or dismissing something as not worth getting.

on a larger note, i think the widely held idea that all imagery belongs to a universal language (and therefore should be instantly accessible to everyone) has done a lot of harm. when people expect that they should instantly get a piece of visual art, anything that they don't get is perceived as a challenge ... it prompts the reaction to either feel superior or inferior to the piece. which ultimately is unhelpful to anyone involved, and is kind of silly.

if i gave you a book of poetry written in turkish, i don't think you'd have any similar reaction. you'd just say something like, "i don't speak this language, so i don't know what these poems are saying." and there's no shame in this, because we all know that there thousands more verbal languages in the world than any one person can hope to know.

part of the confusion stems from the fact that there ARE universal visual elements. human expressions like a smile or a scream transcend all cultures and time periods. and there are certain geometric forms and spacial relationships that have been considered pleasing or restful or dynamic to cultures across time periods as well. but other visual signs are more limited. in asian cultures white is the color of death. mountains symbolize a completely different range of things to contemporary westerners than they did to westerners 500 years ago. religious art of any culture depends on a vocabulary of iconography that is learned by its native audience like any other language. none of this stuff is universally human. there may be certain elements of it that you can feel without digging deeper, but it's also possible to completely misread something by doing so--not that your feelings would be "wrong," but that they'd be completey ahistorical--they'd run completely counter to interpretations of someone who speaks the language.

in a more subtle way, late 20th century american landscape photography uses a different vocabulary than romantic landscape photgraphy. fluency in one doesn't magically lead to fluency in the other.