Picker and the New England Esthetic

[Kirk Gittings]

It strikes me after seeing the fine show at the recent VC Conference in Sprinfield that there is a "New England"LF esthetic based on the visual legacy of perhaps Fred Picker, Strand and Paul Caponogro, that is as distinct as the West Coast esthetic based on the legacy of Adams and Weston.

I noticed in particular how different the character of the exhibit was from the first VC Conference and show in Albuquerque, NM. Part of it of course is subject matter, i.e. weather, geology, light etc. but there is something else beyond subject matter which speaks to a different way of seeing, perhaps with less drama and a more contemplative approach. Just a thought..

[Louie Powell]

One of the things that struck me about the show in Springfield wa the preponderance of roots and rocks. That's a natural subject for LF photographers - roots and rocks don't move. But they also afford an interesting and dramatic study of lines and textures.

But I think the difference you are hinting at is that East Coast photography has an intimacy that is not present in West Coast work. Obviously, we don't have the dramatic landscapes to work with, but I think that another factor is that the greater congestion that exists on the East Coast forces photographers to focuse on more intimate details.

Something that I found missing from that show, however, was a photography of the industrial presence that exists in the East. Jett Lowe's HAER presentation on Sunday morning offered some examples of that genre, and of course those of us who went on the Friday morning field trip to the Amrak station with Paul Wainright got to indulge our desire for decrepitomania. But I can only recall two images (by one photographer) in the show that reflected the old architectural and industrial presence of the East.

[Alan Barton]

Kirk is on to something here. Both landscape and history are very different as one goes East to West-East has an important immigrant and industrial heritage-crowded cities, bustling ports and railroad hubs; the industrial revolution and its consequences and aftermath. Population density is high in the East affecting architecture and urban design. Our landscape is rolling and forested rather than monumental and spartan and last but not least we have all seen the huge differences in light. Not only does this impact WHAT there is to photograph (or paint etc) but how it is interpreted on film.

Being an East Coast photographer that loves to go West this dichotomy hits me on each trip-schizo-maybe!

This could/should be the subject of a critical review (MFA thesis?)

Alan

[Kirk Gittings]

" But I can only recall two images (by one photographer) in the show that reflected the old architectural and industrial presence of the East."

I think you are refering to the P/P prints of Michael Mutmansky? One of those images, of the steel beams, was taken here in Albuquerque I believe at the old SF Railyards.

[Kirk Gittings]

"This could/should be the subject of a critical review (MFA thesis?)"

I did one of those already on the history of LF landscape photography in 1983. I'd rather go make images!

[sanking]

Kirk,

I think what you say is really very true, though we could find numerous exceptions. For further study of the roots of the difference I would highly recommend the book, Landscape as Photography, by Estelle Jussim and Elizabeth Lindquist-Cock.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but there is something else beyond subject matter which speaks to a different way of seeing, perhaps with less drama and a more contemplative approach.

Could it be that the terrain is different? If we accept ( and please lets not make this another pissing match) that our environment shapes our behavior and if we cut the nation right smack the middle we see the "left" side has the grand vistas....Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, the Oregon/Washington/Cal coast line, the desserts, caves of Utah, NM, etc, etc.....The "right" side, has the industrial, farming, social epicenters. New York, Chicago, Boston...etc, etc, etc....

From personal experience I found that photographing in the East coast was far harder for me than when I did jobs in the West coast. I might get flamed for saying this but I always thought the West coast had "ready made" photographs, hell in some places all that was left out was a sign that with the legend "put your tripod in these holes"....
Not so in the East coast, I had to "hunt" for the picture and really "look," I had to work at seeing the unusual in the ordinary. IMO in the West coast if you have a handle on the basics of exposure/development there are places where there is almost down right impossible to make a bad picture. At least this was my experience. When I was transfered to CA, I visited the Page, AZ are and found the place so "boring" in the sense that most of what I saw had been done before, and done very well that I saw no reason for me to take my camera out, might as well enjoy the place without taking pictures, so I took just two pictures....one of the slot canyons (yeah had to get it out of my system) and this one from my hotel`s room balcony.

So I am really not surprised the styles are different, the environment is different.

[Bill_1856]

I don't think that Weston should be lumped under the heading "West Coast Landscape Photographner." Most of his best work (still-lifes, portraits, nudes) were in fact studio shots, and could have been done anywhere.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, now that Bill opened the door, I would not have put Picker in the same sentence as Caponigro or Strand. Picker took the obvious shots, Caponigro and Strand could make a turd look beautiful.... :-)

[Mark Sawyer]

I would agree that the eastern school is more introspective and intimate in its creations and philosophies, while the western photographers work on a grander scale perhaps commensurate with the light and landscape there. In some ways, western photography seems more site-specific, whereas eastern seems more often to take the subject as metaphor.

The Ansel's show at An American Place in 1936 was, in my mind, a more eastern aesthetic than his better-known later work. Smaller, quieter, more delicate prints, few landscapes, far different than what he is known for now. I believe he thought of that exhibition as one of his best.

Incidentally, as someone who grew up on the eastern seaboard and transplanted himself to Arizona, I confess that, even after thirty years, the light, landscape, architecture, and people here have often left me feeling like the proverbial "stranger in a strange land..."

Kirk- did your thesis confront the dichotomy of the east-west approaches to the image? And is it accessible anywhere?