NY Times Photography Article

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is another interesting article on the state of the photography market:

www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/arts/design/19phot.html?pagewanted=1

Supposedly with the advent of digital processes and contemporary influences, we're more intent these days "on altering than on recording reality." Really? When St. Ansel darkened the sky in "Moonrise" so that the upper clouds disappeared, he was enhancing rather than altering reality? Did someone decree somewhere that photography was supposed to be literal? Perhaps I should relive the sixties and enjoy some mind-altering substances while taking photographs, so I can alter reality even before I record it?

The quote "Large format is the painting of the poor" is another nice tidbit.

Still, contemporary photographic prints are still reportedly commanding $1K-$20K, so the modern stuff can't be all bad..... :-)

[paulr]

i think the thrust of the article is that photography has gone from being the bastard child of the art world to its rising star in a short time.

as far as altering reality, i think the writer is talking about work that actually strives for a sense of invention rather than a sense of documentation.

this month i've been designing the catalog for next year's armory art show (yet another one of these gigantic art expos for rich dealers and rich collectors). every gallery gets a page in the catalog and a single image. i was amazed at how many of these galleries have chosen a photograph. i bet that wouldn't have been the case 10 years ago.

in general, these photographs have indeed been more about altering (or inventing) reality than about capturing it. lots and lots of staged work, a fair amount of obvious digital manipulation. and a lot of mixed media, montage, collage, etc... if anything seems bigger than photography it's mixed media and installation pieces.

the real question is how much does this matter? i realize that the commercial gallery world is basically a fashion world. which means it's not about what's great as much as it's about what's hip. it does offer some clues about what people the world over are interested in looking at and thinking about at any given time.

some of the work i'm laying out in the catalog seems quite good. not all, but some.

[Micah Marty]

Interesting article; hard to judge trends by one show, even a large one.

As far as the "literal" vs. "altered" issue is concerned, I think a lot of people subconsciously make a distinction between changes to "tones and colors" in photographs vs. changes to "forms and shapes."

The latter kind of changes were very difficult to do **undetectably** in the pre-digital era and clearly have proliferated in the past few years; that seems to be what the NYTimes article is referring to. (Of course, changes to "tones and colors" can quickly affect content, as with “Moonrise”!)

Because the word for "photo-graph" comes from the Greek for "light-writing," the distinction between changes to "light"-related aspects of photographs (brightness, contrast, hue, saturation) vs. other all other aspects is not an unreasonable one. (It is part of the underpinning of TrustImage, for example; see http://trustimage.org/photograph.html).

Anyway, thanks for the link to NYTimes.

P.S. Recently I’ve also e-mailed privately to three or four people in this forum a link to the page http://trustimage.org/onWonder.html and they’ve said that it strikes a chord, so maybe other things at TrustImage will prove provocative to frequenters of this forum.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I would agree with the idea we are more intent "on altering than on recording reality." I see it all the time.

"Oh nice pciture, but why don't you put it in photoshop and take out those pwoer lines" or somebody wants lines out of their face or add somebody to a picture that was missing, etc, etc. I am talking too, not commercial level stuff, but what the "everyday Joe" wants.

Yes, in the past, people did want pictures altered, but it just wasn't feasable most of the time. Now we have turned 180 degrees, and it almost seems expected, the norm instead of the exception. Funny how fast attitudes change.

joe

[William Mortensen]

The "created" image goes back to at least Robinson and Rejlander in their combination prints of the 1850's, a technique revived by Uelsmann in the 1960's. While digital technology brings a new process and individual artists bring their own visions, this is more another resurgeance of an old aesthetic than anything new. But it *is* perversely fascinating to watch the trends coelesce, shine, then fade under the somehow-seemingly-coordinated guidance of the art-world illuminati. It holds all the makings of a good conspiracy theory, if only it mattered in the least...

Does anyone have a schedule that tells when traditional lf contact prints will be the new ground-breaking movement?

[paulr]

Most of what's going on now has very little with differences (perceived or real) between digital and analog. A lot of the trendy work that creates a new reality does it with staged situations, not digital alterations.

Staged photography has been around over a hundred years, too. For whatever reason, certain kinds of it have been popular over the last ten years or so.

when it comes to altered images, i think the only real contribution of digital media has been to make it much more convenient. I agree with Mark and say that no one's using photoshop to do anything fundamentally different from the things explored in the 19th century.

[Eric Leppanen]

It's interesting to me how contemporary fine art photography has struggled to find legitimacy in the art world. Many painters live solely from the sales of their work, while few (if any) fine art photographers do. I have been told that Paris art schools (and many folks elsewhere) view photography as the province of people who lack the talent to paint: "Those who can, paint; those who can't, photograph." Certainly the basic mechanics of creating an image is far easier using a camera, but creating art that resonates with a significant audience is a different matter. All good art stays with us in some way; it ultimately transcends its medium. Yet the gallery and exhibition world remains largely enamored with arbitrary categories and a preoccupation with process: "Painting requires far more skill and talent than pulling a shutter, therefore it is worth far more."

But this paradigm leads to some interesting contradictions. When Andrew Wyeth painted "Christina's World", he used an existing landscape but added buildings and other compositional elements to better enhance the piece. Because he painted on canvas, this work is considered art. If he had taken a photograph instead and added these elements via Photoshop, the resulting work (at least with many folks) would have been considered an abomination. "Photographic art" critics would sniff, a category associated with computer fakery and an absence of artistic integrity. Yet the content of this piece is what impacts the viewer, not the details of how it was made. Who cares how it came about, just so it exists for us all to enjoy?

So it's great to see contemporary photography becoming accepted as an art form rather than a literal documentary medium. Hopefully many more photographic artists can now achieve well-deserved critical and commercial acceptance. Ultimately, it's the result that counts, right?

[John_4185]

Eric It's interesting to me how contemporary fine art photography has struggled to find legitimacy in the art world.

Why do you think it has struggled? Photography is well established. If you are thinking of the work of a few photographers who's work has not been recognized, then you are merely focused on them; there are innumerable artists of other media who aren't recognized either. It has nothing to do with them being "good artists".

Many painters live solely from the sales of their work, while few (if any) fine art photographers do.

Numbers, please. If you count all 'painters' who make a living painting, then it is likely the majority are merely producing decorative work. Plenty of photographers make money on their prints, and of course much of the work is quite poor. It works both ways.

I have been told that Paris art schools (and many folks elsewhere) view photography as the province of people who lack the talent to paint: "Those who can, paint; those who can't, photograph."

You have been told nonsense.

Who cares how it came about, just so it exists for us all to enjoy?

Art is viewed in various frames, realms, as ideas that speak to art. It is of human discourse. It seems that you want feelie-good schmaltz, which is just fine for you, but not everyone.

Ultimately, it's the result that counts, right?

There is plenty of good work in art and outside 'art', but the anti-intellectual flag won't fly. Sorry.

[William Mortensen]

"When Andrew Wyeth painted "Christina's World", he used an existing landscape but added buildings and other compositional elements to better enhance the piece. Because he painted on canvas, this work is considered art." --Eric Leppanen

Interesting that you chose Wyeth, as quite a few critics consider him an illustrator, not an artist. In the current (post-modern) art world, technical virtuosity and directness of vision seem disqualifying traits for "fine" art. I wonder sometimes if those truly dedicated to traditional large format photography could legitimately consider themselves part of an "outsider" art movement...

"Ultimately, it's the result that counts, right?"

Yes, and isn't it wonderful that while we both view the same images, we can see different results?

[Eric Leppanen]

JJ,

Making a living solely by selling fine art photographic prints is a tough go. Most photographers supplement their fine art print sales with commercial work, workshops, stock photography, calendar sales, portraits, weddings and other income sources. For example, please reference this recent thread (largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503549.html) and Kirk Gittings' comment: "A few years back when he was living in New Mexico, Caponigro told me once, in all sincerity (with some bitterness), that if he were a painter and as well known as he was that he would be wealthy. As it was he was just getting by with print sales and the workshops." Members of the southern California photography community have also expressed similar sentiments to me. I'm not saying that no one solely makes a living selling fine art prints; I know several photographers that do. But they have fairly innovative business models (one, Michael Seewald, gets would-be clients to finance his photography trips by pre-paying for fine art prints on spec) that help them get by.

In contrast, there is a population of painters in this country that earn a decent living from selling their paintings. There are a number of them in several beach art colonies near where I live.

To the extent that fine art photography is pigeon-holed as a strictly literal, documentary medium, it's creative content will be perceived as limited versus painting. It also will be valued less, which empirically appears to be the case given the few people able to make a living at it. The NY Times article, although giving an erroneous impression that artistic license in photography is a relatively recent development, provides some hope that maybe at long last times are changing.