The pillars of photography and the rest of us

[blueribbontea]

A question for discussion: What lays behind the enduring status of the “pillars of Photography?” I have read heated discussions about the significance of various photographers from 50, 75, 100 years ago; Is Adams better than Weston? who is better, Brett or Edward? The names of Stieglitz and Strand get thrown around almost as often.
On the other hand, I have seen dozens of photos on the various threads of this site that are technically and aesthetically as strong as works of Adams, the Westons, Strand etc… When Edward Weston and Paul Strand began working, photography was only about 75 years old. Already it had practitioners from the hyper realists to fuzzy wuzzys and in the early decades of the 20th century Modernist art was coming into its own.

My suggestion is that the placement in time meant that creative workers like Strand and Weston would play a big role in transforming expectation about what artistic photography could do, what it could photograph, and how it might impact the world of modern art overall. Thus their status as pillars.

For those of us doing large format film photography the times are very different. The cultural revolution now is the digital/social media revolution and our work is in some manner counter-intuitive to that. I love the work of these pillars of photography but I wonder too whether putting so much effort and thought into reflection on these photographers of the past is misplaced energy. I don’t want my work to be an exercise in nostalgia nor to be a regurgitation of past revolutions and accomplishments. As you can tell, I don’t have a personally satisfying answer to this and I put it out as a question.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Who was 'better' is perfectly bound to time for reasons that should be obvious.

[jp]

I like photo history, so I don't think studying "old pillars" is wasted energy unless you are focused singularly on those people. It would be useful to study folks who were great photographers but weren't written into the history books, because of lack of space or different tastes of the writers. e.g. Newhall's photo history is sort of like a DJ's pick of music to play; lots of great stuff didn't get picked and is still exciting.

I'm not more than casually interested in the current cultural revolution of Internet social media. I'm in the business, but not the creative aspect of it. The old styles and tech can be great stuff and rather than nostalgia, be just another otherwise rusty tool that can do a great job at communicating what you want as a photographer. Sort of like old books don't go out of style even with new stuff published all the time.

[Jody_S]

I also find it useful to study photographic history, and give due reverence when I think appropriate. But the name isn't everything, the 'pillars' that we know are simply representatives of given schools, or perhaps the founders of said schools or movements. In most cases, the masters have been surpassed by their students.


While I am not an art historian by any means, I find it useful in my particular area (both artistic and geographical) to study painting and social movements as well; all of this together helps to create a more cohesive narrative of the different movements. But because photography has not been studied academically as has painting, it is much harder to research horizontally and find different practitioners who follow the different movements. One is left with a trillion photos on Flickr grouped rather haphazardly, and with no means to search by style or quality. Or you can spend your life buying books and going to galleries without ever being able to see more than 1/10,000th of what is out there.

[blueribbontea]

Who was or is better is not a legitimate question in photography or the arts at the level of folks lie Strand and Weston as each worker brings his or her own contributions. Nor is that the focus of my question. Pillars of a field are those that we tend to measure our work against. We live in a revolutionary time but it is certainly a different time than that of Strand and Adams etc. How is our large format work a response to the revolution we live within? Does too much focus on those "pillars' from the first half of the 20th century hinder us somehow in our responses? That's what I am pondering.

[Drew Wiley]

It can be inspiring to look at the prints of past masters, but it's counterproductive to overthink all this nonsense. And ya gotta remember that quite a few superstars
of photography had come and gone before the names you might recognize were ever born. And most of today's alleged heroes will probably be totally forgotten in
another generation or two. Yeah, new art forms will arise from the newer technology, which is fine in its own right. I don't give a damn. I photograph for myself.
If someone else happens to like it (and quite a few apparently do), that's nice. But that's not why I do it. People who are addicted to hero worship in the arts tend
to be wannabees. Sooner or later you have to develop your own vision.

[Mark Sawyer]

For those of us doing large format film photography the times are very different. The cultural revolution now is the digital/social media revolution and our work is in some manner counter-intuitive to that...

For anyone interested in being in on whatever revolution is going on, the times are always different and counter-intuitive to whatever went before. That much has stayed the same.

The "pillars" are usually the early influential photographers in a movement that takes hold enough to have an importance. People today are working in every conceivable direction and jumping on whatever bandwagon shows any momentum, so it's hard to define movements. As Harry Nilsson pointed out, "a point in every direction is the same as no point at all." It would be curious to know who, in a hundred years' time, will be the "pillars" of today's photography, or if there will be any. I suppose they'll have to find someone to justify this mess...

[Merg Ross]

Does too much focus on those "pillars' from the first half of the 20th century hinder us somehow in our responses? That's what I am pondering.

Too much focus would surely be a hinderance. However, a knowledge of the work done by our predecessors might provide the inspiration for a personal vision. That should be the goal.

[Kirk Gittings]

Too much focus would surely be a hinderance. However, a knowledge of the work done by our predecessors might provide the inspiration for a personal vision. That should be the goal.

ditto. Also consciously knowing what "has been done" can aid one in absorbing it but not repeating it and developing a truly unique personal vision (the art school argument for studying art history which in IMHO has some limited validity). Having said that I think the first question that should be asked of new work in a traditional idiom is "is it any good?". Not "is it new?". In a very real sense all work builds on previous work and to a degree is inherently derivative. But the world we photograph is constantly changing so in that sense photography is always "new". So new, well executed, work in a well worn traditional path always has potential even in a "contemporary" venue.

[DrTang]

When I get in a 'funk'..I'll got to my photobooks and start browsing..maybe I get something..maybe I combine two or three things..maybe it is just a prop or backdrop idea

I don't wanna do what Strand or *Sander or Avedon has already done..I'm not gonna make people jump like Penn.. but I might be inspired by something in the photographs

It happens







*okay..maybe Sander..a bit