Landscape photography: dead and forgotten at art museums?

[John Kasaian]

Just about every hospital in Fresno has an Ansel Adams print on a wall somewhere. It's always a joy to see them.
I remember one, Vernal Falls, was up in the room where Lamaze classes where taught (which I enjoyed immensely all the while sitting the floor telling my bride to "Breathe--breathe! Push-push!")

[Drew Wiley]

The Kaiser hospital up here has a big long wall of Imogene Cunningham prints - of course they're not the real deal, but high quality larger reproductions. Still, made
waiting for the dermatologist a distinctly more pleasant experience. Nobody else even noticed them.

[tgtaylor]

Well, I'm lucky. I grew up (more or less) at the George Eastman House and can't remember everything I've seen there. Now I live in DC and there's all kinds of work to see, Muybridge to Winogrand to Lewis Baltz. But I take your point- photography is still a 'red-headed stepchild' to the art world, and that won't change in our lifetimes. But I've learned a lot from, and enjoyed a great deal of, the paintings and sculpture the art museums seem to prefer. We as photographers can all learn from all the artists, not just the photographers.

I think it is fair to say that photographers and painters have had a symbiotic relationship over the past couple of centuries that has proved to be very rewarding for all. Consider the influence that Watkins had on American landscape painters and recall that Atget made a living supplying prints to painters for them to paint from. From a personal perspective I recently stumbled onto the California painters while researching Watkins and that has proved to be a gold mine: Here's a link to a local Plein Air painter that I discovered that is on a year long quest of painting a local creek each week for a year: http://www.donaldneff.com/creeks.html That spurred me into breaking out the typos and scouting out the local creeks and waterways for subject material.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. Isaac Newton, 1676.

Thomas

[Tin Can]

That means you need to travel to big cities. London, NYC, Chicago, Paris, Amsterdam and countless more.


Drew wrote,
'I'd rather travel to where some of these kinds of things are on permanent display and take my time enjoying them.'

[koh303]

I think it is fair to say that photographers and painters have had a symbiotic relationship over the past couple of centuries that has proved to be very rewarding for all.

Good grief, don't let any MFA folk hear you say that aloud.

[Kirk Gittings]

Good grief, don't let any MFA folk hear you say that aloud.

What are you talking about? His statement reflects common knowledge and well accepted art history in academia.

[koh303]

What are you talking about? His statement reflects common knowledge and well accepted art history in academia.

Art History ≠ Academia ≠ MFA education institutions, and even if that was not the case, the above statement reflects only a dire conflict between moderiism and post modernism, the first being an existence where there are such things as well accepted common knowledge about anything or anywhere.

In the post modern era, there are no such absolute truths, and nowhere in fine art related academia is there such a thing as commonly accepted knowledge, especially when it comes to history, and more specifically the canonical art history as we read it in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). Photography is such a young thing, the language to read and describe it is still being written and and formed, where as the language used to read and analyze art has been around for a long long time, and has formal, publihed lexicons and definitions, none of which directly, or aptly apply to photography.

Art history changes every day, with new discoveries, and new undersandings. Walter Benjamin thought he new the truth, but all he said was no more then babling nonsense based on lack of knowledge. That did not hurt his work being a pillar of those commonly accepted whatevers in academia, until rosalind kraus ripped him a new one.

Until a while ago, atge, belloq, disfarmer and more recently vivian mayer were nothing more then names on a tombstone somewhere. Now - part of the commonly accepted course of history as we know it. Tomorrow, they might be replaced with other less or more influential folks. Just ask carrie mae weems...

[John Olsen]

Let's not get too hung up on museums. Museums seem to be mostly about collecting turning points in art; whereas galleries are mostly about presenting the efforts of contemporary artists. We need to visit museums to touch base with the innovative artists, and galleries to draw inspiration from the current practitioners.
I like exploring what I can do with more-or-less traditional photographic methods. Frantic art school shows often leave me completely puzzled. Museums will never collect my work, but some people hang my photos in their homes and look at them every day. For me, that's close enough to "art" to be satisfying.
If photographers are oriented towards some societal reverence, they're in it for the wrong reason. Do your photography because it's important to you. Some of us will make money at it; the rest will just be satisfied with a good print at the end of the day.

[Kirk Gittings]

Art History ≠ Academia ≠ MFA education institutions, and even if that was not the case, the above statement reflects only a dire conflict between moderiism and post modernism, the first being an existence where there are such things as well accepted common knowledge about anything or anywhere.

In the post modern era, there are no such absolute truths, and nowhere in fine art related academia is there such a thing as commonly accepted knowledge, especially when it comes to history, and more specifically the canonical art history as we read it in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). Photography is such a young thing, the language to read and describe it is still being written and and formed, where as the language used to read and analyze art has been around for a long long time, and has formal, publihed lexicons and definitions, none of which directly, or aptly apply to photography.

Art history changes every day, with new discoveries, and new undersandings. Walter Benjamin thought he new the truth, but all he said was no more then babling nonsense based on lack of knowledge. That did not hurt his work being a pillar of those commonly accepted whatevers in academia, until rosalind kraus ripped him a new one.

Until a while ago, atge, belloq, disfarmer and more recently vivian mayer were nothing more then names on a tombstone somewhere. Now - part of the commonly accepted course of history as we know it. Tomorrow, they might be replaced with other less or more influential folks. Just ask carrie mae weems...

Never-the-less your original statement reflects a total lack of knowledge about "MFA Folks". Thomas' statement "I think it is fair to say that photographers and painters have had a symbiotic relationship over the past couple of centuries that has proved to be very rewarding for all" is common knowledge. One of the icons of modern MFA programs, Van Deren Coke wrote a very influential book back in the 70's entitled "The Painter and the Photograph". It was hugely influential amongst MFA programs nationwide. I teach to MFA students and amongst MFA professors and your statement about "MFA Folks" is simply silly and inaccurate.

Just as this statement of yours is so profoundly inaccurate that I didn't bother even responding to it initially. Where are you getting your "facts".

What's the surprise - photography isen't art, that's why it is not in an ART museums permanent collection

You might not consider photography ART but the fact is that literally tons of photographs ARE in the permanent collections of ART museums. The first part of the statement is your opinion, fine. The second part is patently false. Even people at my level, I have many prints in Art museum permanent collections-the majority purchased. Your statement is simply wrong. The Art Institute of Chicago, under the classification "Works of Art", lists some 16,000+ photographs in their permanent collection. The High Museum lists 4,500 etc.

[paulr]

Are you sure you saw all the photography at MoMA and the Met? At MoMA, at least, there's always been a big couple of rooms housing 19th and 20th century work from the permanent collection. It rotates, but every time I've gone through there's been a healthy sampling of Weston, Strand, A. Adams, etc... Usually not the bigger, more bombastic late Adams stuff, but earlier, smaller stuff that came out of the beginnings of that tradition.