Cultural traditions in photography

Triggered by a related thread....

 

I am aware of some of the differences in landscape traditions in

Europe/Japan/US, but what about other genre?

 

Are there similar, culturally influenced, differences in other genre

or does the fact they are more media oriented produce a more

homogenised 'international style'?

Hi John,

<p>

Very interesting question.

<p>

Browsing through countless wedding photography sites, the differences between the average Dutch, USA or Hong Kong (or whatever) wedding photos are quite obvious.

<p>

Most of it has to do with the appreciation of a wedding as such. In general American brides (or their mothers) want a more glamorous approach, while most of my clients (in the Netherlands) want a natural look. I suppose, this has to do with the kind of expectations girls get of their big day.

<p>

The same (but I am less sure here) seems to apply to commercial photography. Most portraits of American businessmen show the use of many flash units (often with impeccable technique), but in my eyes tend to be a bit lifeless. Too 'finished'.<br />

In Dutch (European?) magazines portraits of these kind of people tend to be out of the studio, in an environment natural to the depicted person.

<p>

I know I am generalising a lot here, but you get my point.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

Wim

 

I guess not! Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

 

I had PJ/Fashion/Documentary in mind and their need to appeal to a globalised media market, hadn't thought of weddings. Interesting insight though.

 

 

John

Of course. The American vision has been dominated by Ansel Adams and Ansel Adams wannabees for 30 years now. In Europe, this stuff is a joke.

>Of course. The American vision has been dominated by Ansel Adams and >Ansel Adams wannabees for 30 years now. In Europe, this stuff is a >joke.

 

As a student, not by choice, of AA, I'm not quite sure how to respond to that overly prejudicial statement. I suppose anybody that adheres to "The Dutch Masters" could have the same said about them.

 

The point, influences are influences and aren't necessarily a bad thing.

 

I myself don't think of AA or anybody else when I'm trying to capture and image. Even though I've studied in the seventies, local Californian photographic artists, "The Camel Gang" if you will, I worked hard on developing and continue to do so, my own idea of what I what people to see in my work photographically speaking. The more I photograph, the better I understand what I want people to see. In fact right now, my photography is on hold for a few weeks as I let the next new level/direction sink into my psychic. It's kinda exciting to let this metamorphous happen. I love the sub-conscience when it grinds away:)

 

The point, in America, it's not all about AA or any one potographer in particual. Everybody has outside influence and all influences are valid but in the end, it's your point of view that needs to be evaluated.

 

Below are links to a couple of images from about ten months ago, a couple months ago, a couple weeks ago and a week ago. This from a student who studied the "Zone System" and the "Carmel" school of photography. I'm not bragging or blowing my horn. I'm only trying to show that it's not all AA's way of photogrphy over here in his neck of the woods. I don't do B&W as I grew up with B&W, yuck! There are many noted American photographers of (which I'm not one of) yesterday and today, besides AA. Hope my above and below gives you a different view of those that have studied AA's way of photography and how they photograph today.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1903901&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1915720&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1910607&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1950297&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1954960&size=lg

Thomas:

 

The most important thing about what was said was not what Americans do, but that 'in Europe this stuff is a joke', by which I am referring to Adams.

 

Bob Schwalberg's remark on AA:

 

"It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

 

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

Hans.

 

Thomas:

 

The most important thing about what was said was not what Americans do, but that 'in Europe this stuff is a joke', by which I am referring to Adams.

 

--------------------

 

Hans.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I kinda read the comment to mean that everybody in America was doing the AA thing. How was AA's work received in Europe in the forties and fifties? What are people saying about American art when they're not laughing? The reason I ask, time in of itself is the context. I haven't a clue the difference between European art and American art other then I see a lot of photography on this forum and fredmiranda.com. I sort of see us as a worldly art community as opposed to a country centric art forum.

 

--------------------------

 

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

 

--------------------------

 

I might argue that the count is more like five or six but then I'd be accused of splitting hairs:)

 

I know that America is not appreciated in Europe all that much right now but I do hope that our art is at least given a political pass in conversation, considering the politics of the time:)

"I kinda read the comment to mean that everybody in America was doing the AA thing."

 

That too, but the work being produced is not even as good as AA, as is true of most derivitive work.

As an anthropologist who works in Latin America, I can say there is a definite style in which most rural folk, peasants, and indigenous people expect to be photographed. They want to photographed wearing their best clothes, standing at attention (with their arms at their sides), staring directly at the camera (with serious expressions on their faces), and they want a full body image. If you tell people you want to take a picture they will say "Wait while I go change my clothes." When they return they will strike their "standing at attention" pose. If you ask if they want a head and shoulder portrait, they will say they want the whole body. If someone starts to smile they will suppress it with a hand over the mouth until they regain their composure.

 

This is all fine and good and I try to accomodate people's wishes and provide them with prints. But I also want to take more natural shots of people engaged in everyday activities, including closer shots that don't include the full body. But I don't attempt such pictures unless I have established excellent rapport with my subjects - in essence, I can do this when people have come to trust me.

 

I think part of the explanation of these preferences is that most of these people have never owned a camera, and for them the act of being photographed has always been an uncommon and formal occasion. They want something to document their existence ... the creation of an image that will be cherished and passed on. But it will be rare ... one of the few images belonging to the family.

I am not an expert on the subject but I have a tendency to discount generalizations per sé.

 

I don't understand this belief of "European" photography versus "American" photography. Let us not forget that the photographer, while being an individual is only a sum total of his/her past experiences; hence, he/she is "influenced" by many factors (cultural, economical/social factors, personal likes and dislikes, level of education and training, etc) and as such is only an individual. What is this about "European" and "American" photography? Does that mean that someone in Los Angeles, California does the same kind of photography as someone from New York or Florida? For that matter, does someone from Germany do the same photography as someone from Spain or the Netherlands? No two artists have the same degree of natural talent or developed skills; I tend to believe this holds true in photography. Each individual captures an image from a different perspective, and is influenced by his/her own idea of beauty.

 

In my humble opinion, I can tell you that American photography differs from one photographer to another. All of those pseudo-critiques with pompous "theories" are really nothing but groundless opinions and any comments based on political issues are, to me, baseless commentaries. I enjoy the photography of people, regardless of their country of origin and politics, because I have my own likes and dislikes... but my likes and dislikes are not based on nationality prejudices, but on what I find aesthetically appealing. Rather than looking at personal differences, based on a person's birthplace or citizenship, why don't we simply look at the IMAGES and see them as a work of art from someone born on this Earth, without prejudging the artist (photographer) because he/she was born here, there or wherever?

It's simply obtuse to pretend that cultural differences don't affect how people take pictures. The example that triggered this thread, I think, was the effect of the wilderness myth on North American landscape photography. Yes, culture does matter, and understanding it is an aid to reading photographs.

 

Writing off all American photography on nationalistic grounds is stupid, but pretending that culture (nationality) is irrelevant is stupider still.

Not that I can recall names off hand but the large amount of eastern european photography that I've seen is much different than the western european and american photography of the same genre. The look is much grittier and more stark. And usually higher in contrast. There is a lot of very thought provoking photography from the eastern european and scandinavian realm.

James is on to something. It's interesting how gritty the Eastern European stuff is. The only stuff here that really compares is William Klein.

Gritty existence=gritty photography? Arrogance unchecked by poor education = arrogant and stupid remarks? Personal perspective and the ability to recognize limitations and to escape from the cultural box=more interesting photography? Spinoffs from an opressive cultural upbringing=depressing photographs?...