Wwhat Is Post Modernism In Photography?

[Jonathan Brewer]

Art is the ability to view life differently through the inspiration of another, those who can provide that inspiration on a consistent basis are Artists and Artisans, although Art, and Artistry can come albeit accidentally from anybody. The Art of true friendship, the Art of love, the Art of living, all involve the inspiration gotten from another and/or their paintings, sculptures, writings, performance Art, or whatever conduit this inspiration travels through.

[domenicco]

This is a lot of fun.

Brian,everybody is entitled to an opinion, i agree with you, but when somebody asks informations about something that's all He or she Should get( in this case Rebecca) ,. She was asking for informations not opinions.

Brian,Why are you so interested in my opinion? why is so important to you? If you are an artist in the true sense of the word you should understand that there are no clean cut denominations, evrything blends together .

You say that Art is supposed to invigorate the viewer: invigorate,...it could be... Art has many different aims , it can caress people estetics, it can challenge people estetics, it can riaffirm people's view of life, but it can also challenge it. It can shake people beliefs, it can be a social commentarie, it can have a spiritual connotations, it can offend some people and and riaffirm other people views. Art can also leave you feeling crappy. Art , in its true essence is a huge deal, has a higher goal than that of hanging off your walls. If people want to break loose from stagnant rules that keep art as a mere rapresentation of form , without any substance to it , they deserve all my respect. Will i like it? It doesn't matter. If a work doesn't have depth, i will not tear the artist to pieces. I will hope that something will happen in his or her life to get in those depths where an artist can strive,

You cannot just generalize talking about PoMo how you call it, it is a simplistic way of hiding your ignorance. There are among what some of you call Post-Modern photographers, plenty of extremely talented ones. What you and Chris Jordan don't like , is the fact they challenge the idea of how a camera , or film or paper or any other photographic tool should be used. An artist should be free to get to his or her goal by any means necessary. You see , in art especially there should be no" shoulds". I . personally , don't like the work of Ansel Adams , but i own all his books because the man has done to photography such a service with his technical knowledge. Chris Jordan defines the work of PoMo photographers recognisable for the burnt edges in the prints etc, but maybe he is not aware that Durhkroop in the late 1800 was applyng "tricky edge effects" in his gorgeous bromoils. Also how can we deny the artistic value of works from people like Drtikol, Tomatsu, Rainer, Maar, Whitkin? There are so many more..... Why are we so adamant against the work of other people? Why don't we realise that it is really our problem if we are so outraged by it? How can we espect that the creative process should be dealt by other artists in the way we conceive it? I have given my view that you wanted, i could have been more specific , but as i said before i have no intention to change anybody's opinions. I will stand alone (sigh!), by my ideas in this ocean of "purists".

[tim atherton]

> The "rocks, lakes, trees" bunch are also post-modern, having > skipped > modernism altogether. While their product is derided because it > graces calendars, it IS there BECAUSE it's worth looking at for a > whole month at a time by a large mass of people.

And then, of course, happily dispossed of after 30 day. It's decor.



> and > print them with tricky edge effects and other gimmicks (such as > enormous size and cutesy frames) to hide their pathetic lack of > substance,

Why the issue with printing things big? I've always felt it rather strange that we always insist on printing things in minature?

tim

[tim atherton]

> The "rocks, lakes, trees" bunch are also post-modern, having >skipped > modernism altogether. While their product is derided because it > graces calendars, it IS there BECAUSE it's worth looking at for a > whole month at a time by a large mass of people.

And then, of course, happily dispossed of after 30 day. It's decor.



> and > print them with tricky edge effects and other gimmicks (such as > enormous size and cutesy frames) to hide their pathetic lack of > substance,

Why the issue with printing things big? I've always felt it rather strange that we always insist on printing things in minature?

tim

[Steve Gangi]

I waited a while before replying to those who replied to me. It seems that anyone who has no use for postmodernism (me) is obviously ignorant or stupid. I still think most if not all of it is worthless self-posturing. There are many many photographs that need no words to accompany them and so they indeed *stand on their own*. Given a choice, I prefer the "rocks and trees" work. I prefer well made portraits also. It's not that I don't get it, maybe the problem is that I do get it. Let's say I decide to photograph road kills, and then write a lot of words about how it parallels the futility of life (a little nihilism for flavoring). Or, I pee in the snow and photograph it and then say it represents the fleeting nature of existence. Is it art? No, it is still junk. Now suppose I deliberately break all the "rules" of good composition and good lighting, and then for fun, screw up the development too. Is it art? No, it's garbage. Now if I buy a bunch of worms at the bait shop, dip them in paint and then drop them on a canvas to crawl around, someone will call it art and buy it (that really happened a few years ago). Another "expert" waxed poetic about a painting that was nothing more than the scrawlings of a chimpanzee. So what is art, and why do we have to like whatever the hucksters present to us???

[domenicco]

Steve, nobody said stupid. And i realized just now that when i said ignorant i was wrong , even though wasn't intended with malice. I take it back and i apologize for what i said , sometimes as a Mediterranean , i am too passionate, and let my emotions seep through. What i should have said was " afraid".

I think is a mistake restrict photography to thet raditional role that has had so far for the most part,, in a way i define myself a trditional photographer ,sometime i enjoy to break loose in my work, but for me composition, tonal values, and other important quality i are still vital in my images. I believe that when we reject new ideas, because they go against our s, we are just giving voice to our fears.

This behaviour restricts the potential of photography, which is truly vast. We have in our hands a series of tools that can give many different characteristics to our finished images... How many times has anybody had a voice inside that wanted to do something against the grain i n an image and refrained from doing it just because of self-censorship?

[Jonathan Brewer]

Not only has there been monkey business,.....there was a well documented case of about 20yrs ago of an Elephant making big money for his paintings. Everybody know from the start it was an Elephant and he still made money.

[Riaan Lombard]

So while everyone is going quiet around the dying fire I'll just shove another wet log in the coals(a few disapproving grimaces from across the settling cloud of sparks and ash). Ah-hem... Forgive my interrupting the cricket in the background, but I always thought that many forms of art(skills really) are almost like dots surrounding a ball, all connected to it in tentacles growing in size as it approaches the surface(pro-pomo people present will probably have no problem visualising this, alas in some randomly twisted way). If you are in the state of mind that places you at one(or many) of these points then you are a purist(a master maybe or trying to master a craft). A voyage towards the edge takes you further away from mathematical precision and closer to chaos, aka the ball, where things are rarely repeatable and often includes illegal substances (probably related). In there anything goes. Elephants painting, edge effects, digital effects(sorry), worms drowning in paint, hippy young people subjecting mediums(the points) and sometimes themselves to a variety of strange new experiences and generally pomo aplenty - much of which should bypass censorship all together and be plucked out of existence. Naturally those at the points will disapprove of those further down(somewhat akin to road rage when the 'assholes' drive faster than you and the 'idiots' drive slower). Fwiw, I personally don't mind those skimming at the edge, it makes for new art 'points' to be pulled out into outer perfection, the ball is after all where a lot of creation takes place(those pro-pomo around the fire are probably staring perplexed at the embers by now, the others are in various states of siesta and by the sound of it the cricket's still hoping he'll get a humpin before morning)

I know a potter who explicitly makes bowls, vases, plates and such mundane crockery to perfection. Asking her to make anything that vaguely falls below her standards is nothing short of an insult, and rightly so. She is a master at what she makes, anyone who ever saw her work would agree, whether or not it would grace the walls of some 'fashion museum', awaiting judgement. And that is just my point, if you make something and wish many other people to see it then you should be 100% prepared for criticism. But on top of that, if someone thinks it is post modern(again, it depends only on where on the tentacle they are stuck) then you'd better exchange yours for a QuickLight2000[TM] Torch instead(Or the XP version if you are one of those who are fooled by midnight commercials). Not exactly 2 cents, I suppose. If you're pro-pomo YMMV a lot.

[Pete Andrews]

Well put Riaan. I kind of nodded off at one point, but the rythm of your words was very pleasant.

William Blake condensed the essence of artistic and spiritual aspiration in the phrase "To see the world in a grain of sand".I would hope that anyone with any artisitic leaning has their moments of sublime understanding, where that phrase expresses their state of mind and spirit perfectly. However, it takes an exceptional artist to convey that feeling in their work, and even more rarely does that work convey those same feelings to every beholder. The fact that there isn't always a direct connection between the artist and their every viewer doesn't mean that the whole process is wrong.Yes, we all percieve a work in a different and individual way. But no, no, NO, that doesn't give the 'artist' the right to show us any old shit; on the understanding that we'll put our own interpretation on it anyway.The difference is: between Blake penning a poem which expressed his feeling of spiritual oneness with the godhead and the universe, and him simply showing us a grain of sand and letting us draw our own conclusions.One approach takes the courage to bare one's soul; the other doesn't even have the courage of its own convictions.

If art reflects life, then I suppose a post-modern movement is only to be expected. After all, we have a society which hero-worships and highly rewards some of its least useful members, and in which many individuals seek to aportion blame for every unpalatable aspect of their lives. We also have 'content free' theatre, television and politics. Why not a content-free art movement, where the artist denies any responsibility to their audience?

[Jonathan Brewer]

A toilet seat has nothing in it until you supply the contents.