New York/East Coast bias in photography considered to be art

Boris, come on... I mean for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not suggesting that

landscape photographs have to be of pristine nature in order to qualify as art, but I would

like to hear which photographers of (at least relatively) pristine nature you consider worthy

of serious consideration by fine art museums. By the way, I think Misrach is great, but that

is beside the point.

Boris, Sarfati's work doesn't do enough for me to comment on her merit. The reference to jokes was made in connection with the predictability of some movies. Though surprise and humor are not necessary ingredients for art-worthy photographs, for any photographer deemed worthy enough to be pushing the boundaries of photography, at some point, in some of their images, you'd expect to see them. At least I would. The sheer predictability of the vast majority of the works from the photographers you link is boring, for me.

 

Among the current photographers, thanks to your mention of Pinkhassov elsewhere, I think I've found at least one whose work I'd consider to be credible and inspiring. Some of it is definitely art-worthy in my book. His "Sightwalk" is my latest acquisition, and his "Nordmeer" is on the way from some bookseller in Berlin - because it's not available in this land of milk and honey.

God? Please forgive me for writing truth.

 

Oxygen, light, sex, food and water pretty much sums up what's important. Turn the tele off, stop reading the newspaper and one finds out what's really important whether it's about art, sports or politics; I'll give science a pass.

 

When one doesn't have a clue, it sounds like it in their blather such as is the case in the above. Wax on silver moon but the boundaries aren't being challenged on anybody's part other than to see who can shove who's thumb the furthest into the eye of the opposition. You guys have no idea how empty your above is.

 

"It's black!" "No, it's white!" "It's black!" "No, it's white!" "It's black....."

 

And then the disinterested reaches over, flips the switch off and .........

 

It's all about taught thinking: bias and you guys don't have a clue.

 

What are "you" guys doing to push "your" boundries with all your "perceived" awareness? The heck with the notables and what they did in the past or are currently doing in the present.

I hate to say it, but Alex Soth is head and shoulders above the rest, with the possible exception of Paul Graham and that's because I only saw 3 images of Graham's. Not enough to get it. <p>Sarfati's work <i>looks like</i> ego centric student work too heavily influenced by Nan G and the coddling of art school. I'm surprised that so much is invested in the making of those photographs. The significance and value of time invested is much more evident in Alex Soth's work in Niagara. <a href="http://www.laurengreenfield.com/index.php?p=BCB2F3HH">Lauren Greenfield</a> does teen aged (yes <i>teen aged</i>) girls way better.<p>The homeless work may be well intentioned, but had me thinking "shooting fish in a barrel". He even says "...I often feel guilty of things I see and take pictures of". Mikhailov should do something about that or it will eat him up. Something about that reminds me of Serrano.<p>Now Misrach is a guy I can admire and have for many years. And if you want to see a guy with a great landscape portfolio that's pushing boundaries, check out <a href="http://www.f45.com/">Rolf Horn</a>, but you'll have to tolerate the occassional path or bench... t <p>(and the <a href="http://fhunter.com/appalachian.htm"> Appalachian portfolio</a> of Frank Hunter, whose work that engages human activity is worth seeing, too.<p>This is a weird thread. <p>And whoever is prepping Galen Rowell's photos for web display should be shot... t

"This is a weird thread"

 

Weirdness is the only positive possession that photonet has.

Tom, I see in those artist's images the stylized imagery that is common among today's contemporary standard; posed eye candy; graphic, hard, in your face.

 

If that's what one wants, cool, but pushing the envelope.

 

Thanks for the links, I'll revisit and spend time with them later today, tomorrow as work currently commands my attention.

The east coast / west coast line is more a reflection of urban versus rural differences or indoors versus outdoors.

 

The biases that I've seen tend to be more along the lines of edgy vs aesthetically pleasing, and ultimately B&W versus color.

 

Too many of these variables in the responses above to make sense of it all.

 

Although I'm not much of a nature photographer, I have to comment on Don E's uploaded landscape shots and remarks made by others about manipulation and say that some of you never seem to have had the experience of rising before dawn to go to a "tripod holes" location when the weather is right. Everyone should do it at least once. Velvia doesn't get all the credit (or blame.)

Velvia..... photographic steroids? :)

 

Should Velvia be banned or at least should it be stated up front that Velvia was used in the creation of the image being view and what you're seeing is not a representation of reality. :)

 

Parents, be warned, if your budding young photographer starts using the Hue slider to it's max or want's bricks of Velvia for Christmas instead of a bike, skateboard or a BB gun. :)

Don said he might have to shoot a roll, just to see. Shall I add you to the list? (For the record, I used Provia, mostly, but that's beside the point.)

<i>I think that stepping out your front door into the street and concocting something provocative with a homeless person on your block is the height of laziness, rather than artistic vigor, and indeed, some curators fall for it.</i><p>

 

I know this thread has moved on, but it's really annoying to see statements posted like this that nobody bothers to justify. Maybe Matt can give us some insight into which curators are "falling" for this.

Jeff, tell me if you think this qualifies.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/020524.htm

Carl, that looks like interesting documentary work rather than someone <i> stepping out your front door into the street and concocting something provocative with a homeless person on your block</i> but it's closer than anything that Matt has come up with to back up his statement.

<p>

The funny thing is that a nature shooter like Richard Misrach can walk out his back door and shoot there every day and have curators all over the world turn it into a show. Why doesn't that bother Matt?

So much of what is seen as "pushing the boundaries" is just a lot of maintenance art designed to provoke a reaction but signifying nothing other than that. I could barf on your table and call it art and then say, as Boris apparently does, that you just don't like art, or don't know it when you see it.

 

Someone photographs their S and M session and puts it up in the Museum in Chicago, and that's art, but Rowell's magnificent photographs, taking during daring climbs aren't art? And isn't "pushing the boundary"? You will forgive me if I don't regard so much of this "shock art" as passe, and Rowell's contemplation of the sublime and immortal as slightly more timeless.

Can you give a few examples of what you are ostensibly slamming? Slamming something in the abstract isn't particularly useful here.

I don't know why you need examples if you understand the concept; certainly you can think of them yourself. Robert Maplethorpe was one slightly talented artist who did a lot of this. There is no shortage whatsoever of this kind of silliness and those who regard it as art. You ask yourself the simple question; what will stand the test of time? Photography wasn't accepted as art for a long time. How much art exists whose simple purpose is to bring beauty into life?

 

A lot of this east-coast, shock schlock speaks of the saddening spectacle of man at variance with man, and narcissism. I guess I just don't find such art so fascinating that I would regard landscape photography as less worthy of attention. Even that which isn't very shocking, but man sits at the center, reeks of anthropomorphism.

 

The east coast publishers do basically run things. And so much of it is fantastic it's hard to complain. But let me give you one example of what happens.

 

I worked in Yosemite for over a year and was browsing this guidebook, written by a woman from the east coast. In it was a photograph of a waterfall, identifying it as a completely different waterfall that anyone even vaguely familiar with the valley would know.

 

In other words, the east coast establishment is like a mill that churns out product by well-connected and utterly clueless people who we are supposed to accept as worthy of merit because of the fact that they are in a book, or a gallery, or whatever. I can definitely get the feeling when I'm looking at a piece of work that it is the result of "who you know rather than what you know".

 

So I guess the debate over "people vs. things" isn't nearly as interesting as the question over how the east coast establishment controls a lot of what we see and hear. It's like the clearchannel of art.

 

I guess if you really want to "push the limit" (whatever that means) why are you using a camera?

And I apologize if that sounds disrespectful.

You don't seem to have any examples, other than Mapplethorpe, which is the example everyone uses, even though Mapplethorpe did some terrific portraits, CD covers, flower shots and other photos that everyone ignores in their attempt to make him the one "bad" example. And one mistake in one guidebook hardly seems like enough to draw any kind of conclusion.