photo assignments

[paulr]

"It is difficult to separate the artisanal and the artistic aspects of photography from one another."

No, it really isn't. One topic is the tools, the other is the message. There is necessary overlap, but it's a mistake to confuse the two topics. A program geared towards teaching commercial photography is going to have to be different from one that teaches art photography, because, the goals are so completely different (even if many of the tools are the same).

A commercial photographer must learn many different tools, and must learn several specific esthetics, since the goal is to be able to serve a range of clients, each demanding pictures of a certain "type." The standards and esthetics of each of these kinds of commercial photographs is already defined by what's actually a pretty strict tradition.

An artist who uses photography is going to be focussed largely on what he or she is trying to explore. The tools needed for the job will sort themselves out. Someone might go half their career using nothing but a pinhole camera, or using nothig but black and white film and ambrotypes. They don't have to have a pre-determined repertory of tools and techniques or an ability to make pictures in a bunch of pre-determined styles. Having those skills might help in some cases; might hinder in some others. But it isn't central.

At a beginning level, the education for both might be the same. Both need a basic level of competence in their basic tools. Beyond that, the focus of the education is going to change dramatically for any of it to be worthwhile.

"Intellectualizing arts and literature is, in my opinion, a superficial activity"

What exactly do you mean by "intellectualizing?" Do you mean talking about art? Trying to understand it more deeply? Trying to understand what you get out of it, and what you bring to it? Are Szarkowski's essays about photography superficial? Robert Adams's essays?

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

paulr,

This is what I meant: "A commercial photographer must learn many different tools, and must learn several specific esthetics, since the goal is to be able to serve a range of clients, each demanding pictures of a certain "type." The standards and esthetics of each of these kinds of commercial photographs is already defined by what's actually a pretty strict tradition." I meant the overlap, that is, a commercial photograph can have quite an artistic appeal, as you indicate.

With respect to the other point, I do not claim, nor do I think that Szarkowski's, or Adams' essays would be useless. Those particular writers are great communicators. Sometimes it seems to me that (without meaning any particular person here) people (usually art critics) ascribe certain qualities to artists or their work that the artists themselves may never have thought. They create a language of their own, which is full of platitudes and jargonism. In my opinion, the artist expresses himself in a certain way, using a language of his own; and that's art, because it appeals to our sensibilities, our powers of perception in a special way, and it’s unique. It's a form of expression, some kind of social comment perhaps. You get what you get out of it, if it appeals to you at all. If there’s photograph you like for whatever reason, do you need anybody explaining it to you? For individuals who don’t appreciate or aren’t interested in aesthetic creations, such comments and exclusivist (and usually arrogant and self-important) pseudo-academic pedantry doesn’t matter anyway.

Weston appreciated photography for it was a new form of individual expression. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to “read” it in his/her individual way. Matisse was critical of impressionists because the way colors were used distorted form and contours. Does it matter what Matisse thought if you simply like impressionists’ paintings and if that sort of art resonates with you? The meaning attributed to 19th century Romanticism is so confusing that it is almost meaningless because it means different things in different areas.

Briefly, the discourse created on arts is an interception between the artist and the viewer; it can be misleading. When the artist himself/herself makes a pronouncement on his/her work, that is no problem. But, I think this was mentioned in an earlier thread, there are many “couch critics” that muddy the waters, acting like the final authority. No need to say, everyone is free to express his or her own views, and I’m not advocating any censorship or anything of that sort.

[Jack_5762]

ii'

I think your instructor was a lot better than you want to admit.

[paulr]

"Weston appreciated photography for it was a new form of individual expression. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to “read” it in his/her individual way."

There's always a range of possible interpretations of any art. A problem that's encountered all the time with artists showing something really new (like Weston's work was) is that the possible interpretations include befuddlement, anger, and a belief that there's "nothing to look at." Keep in mind that no one on this list ever saw his work when it was new (at least I don't think anyone here dates back that far). By the time we were seriously looking at art, his peppers and nudes were cannonized and conventional. We can only imagine the experience of coming to them with visual skills honed in the 19th century, our expectations about to collide with the avante garde.

There are some people who are going to come to new work with the ability to really see it. These people are in the right place to take that next step forward, either because of their particular life experiences or because of their exposure to the progression of art leading up to the new work in front of them. These people don't need help from any criticism or artist's statements or anything else.

For other people, the right critical exposition can profoundly help them see the work. It doesn't substitute for the work, nor does it explain it. But it can establish a context for it ... a sense of what led up to it historically, what kinds of concerns went into its making, what similarities it shares with more familiar work, and what its most significant points of departure are. This kind of exposition, done well, can illuminate without smothering. We don't blame the gallery lights for getting between us and the work; we appreciate them for making it more visible. Excellent criticism inspires the same kind of reaction.

Granted, there's a lot of bad criticism, and almost as much really bad criticism. We can say the same thing about photography. It's just not reasonable to use the bad examples as a reason to dismiss the good ones.

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Agree.

[Mark Sawyer]

I agree too, and have been arguing much the same with Brian on another thread. But it occurs to me that there is some work and criticism I have trouble finding value in. Specifically, the majority of work in Aperture over the past decade seems haphazard or deliberately esoteric even by academic high-art standards. I appreciate that this is considered a leading journal, put together by a group I respect for their intellect, acheivements, and dedication. I'm open to the probability (near certainty) that it's just that I "don't get it." But I usually at least partially get it...

I'm curious what others think of the past ten years of content of Aperture?

[paulr]

I haven't read much of it over the last many years. I typically get it when someone I know has work in it, or if it really catches my eye ... once in a great while. The writing never struck me as being unusually good or bad ... definitely less obtuse than Afterimage.

We should have a contest to see who can find the most horrible piece of critical writing.

[Jack_5762]

Mark,
Your statement "Ijust dont get it" concerning the contents of Afterimage shows that you really, really do get it. Its just impossible to see the emporers new clothes especially when the emporer is clothed in artspeak.

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Mark,

I used to subscribe to Aperture, but that was a long time ago. Then came a point when I realized that it was not my cup of tea anymore. I have nothing bad to say about it, maybe I miss the point, but if I feel it does not appeal to me anymore, there is no point in continuing it. "The writing never struck me as being unusually good or bad."

I think one decent journal right now is LensWork. Some years ago I wanted to subscribe to Steve Simmons's View Camera (hint..hint...) but the cost was prohibitive for overseas, so I never got it. All this said, and this perhaps sounds funny, I think my membership in this forum is some kind of a substitution for photographic journals. Thanks to the Internet God, I personally benefited immensely from this particular forum and various web sites (photographically and otherwise) that I can access. So in a way not having a "really great" magazine does not bother me that much anymore. Once in a while I buy a book that interests me, and I find it sufficient.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Mark, Your statement "Ijust dont get it" concerning the contents of Afterimage shows that you really, really do get it. Its just impossible to see the emporers new clothes especially when the emporer is clothed in artspeak."

I'm not familiar with Afterimage, but it may well be similar to Aperture. In Aperture, I get the feeling that for some articles, the photographs are just an excuse for the writer to impress others with flowery esoteric language. Usually, the language is as much or more open to interpretation as the images, and neither the writing nor images hold much interest.

The issue I have with myself over this is that my criticisms/dismissal of Aperture sound suspiciously like other people's dismissal of Robert Adams, Paul Caponigro, even Edward Weston, all of whom I admire. Making it worse, the people behind Aperture are the educated elite of the academic/art world. Just checking to see if anyone could enlighten me...