185 years, and counting - is it impossible for photography to produce a great artist?

<p> I think of the photographers that <em>have </em> defined the medium and didn't/don't do their own printing: Ernst Haas, Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Eggleston, Sonia Bullaty, Jay Maisel, Galen Rowell, Peter Beard, Marylin Bridges, Bill Jacobson, Antonin Krachtovil, James Nachtwey, Mary Ellen Mark, Nadav Kander, Mapplethorpe, Sarah Moon, Pete Turner, Irving Penn, almost everyone at Magnum, Cindy Sherman, Gordon Parks, Phil Marco, Roman Vishniac, Eliot Porter, Ruth Orkin, and scores of others that John would denigrate to the rank of "camera operators". </p>

<p> I suspect that more people than ever are printing their own, from 4x6 to bigger sizes.</p>

<p> Before the attack comes, <em></em> I want to make it clear that I have nothing against doing one's own prints. I did it for decades, and appreciate the degree of intimacy that is possible with the finished print, which is more difficult to achieve when collaborating with a printer. But, don't kid yourself: A professional printer who prints hundreds of prints, 40+ hrs a week can print <em>much</em> better than you can. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"The basic material of photographs is not intrinsically beautiful. It's not like ivory or tapestry or bronze or oil on canvas. You're not supposed to look at the thing, you're supposed to look through it. It's a window" John Szarkowski</p>

<p>"<em>If you can support the presence of great and continuous artistic creation in photography by examples, or, unlike me, name a photographer who has become a great artist (one who has communicated the essence of life, its beauty and its ugly aspects, and in an unexpected and ground-breaking manner), perhaps also (and necessarily) having suffered in their pursuits like Van Gogjh and Munch, then I may be convinced (and perhaps others who read this forum) that photography can create great and highly sensitive artists.</em> "</p>

<p>I think of Diane Arbus in those terms to some degree.</p>

<p>Completely disagree with you Arthur,<br>

Photography is just what you want to do with it... As long as the work of spanish photographer Chema Madoz is so fundamentally different to the work of Ansel Adams (To name one among the hundreds if not thousands of great photographers), there is a lot of room for art and expresion for each individual, in my opnion:<br>

http://haha.nu/creative/creative-photos-by-chema-madoz/<br>

I really do not see the point in classifying the "threshold" of an art in absolute terms. In my opinion, this is one of the good points in tasting good art. You do not have to apply a scientific approach, but an emotive one, and photography has definitely proven his value in this regard (Always in my opinion). You may think oil painting is a superior art than photography, but I can enjoy a lot more a show of photos by Mr Bill Brandt than a show of oil paintings by Jason Pollock.<br>

And I know my taste is not so unique,<br>

Kar</p>

<p>Luis G objected to this, by me: <br>

<em>I don't think significant photographers have ever had to "deal with the cards they're dealt." That'd include Capa on Normandy.</em><br>

<em>Think of the many photographers who still consider their own prints the ultimate, literally defining "photography"... and think of the camera operators who think flickr or P.N gallery or "prosumer" printing can be significant :-)</em><br>

...using that observation for personal attack, Luis responded:</p>

<p><em>"...scores of others that John would denigrate to the rank of "camera operators".</em> "</p>

<p> Luis wishes to hold that all camera operators are"photographers" in full, and that's OK by me.</p>

<p>And I agree with him that there's often merit in "prosumer" 4X6, Wally World, and Flickr.</p>

<p>However others (myself among them) feel that photography may (still) ultimately be expressed through print-making craft, despite Luis's newfound "kumbayah" theory. </p>

<p> Galen Rowell was my lab's client in his early years...we made hundreds of big prints for him..so I know that he didn't personally print them...but he was as intimately involved in their production as were our high-level craftspeople. He didn't merely post online or send away to Adorama, he was maximum-demanding.</p>

<p> Same with Eliott Porter (who built a commercial dye transfer lab in Mexico to his own standards) and the Magnum Photographers, all of whom imposed high standards on their labs.</p>

<p> Luis holds a leveling sort of respect for all photography, I don't. I'm not as "good " a person as Luis (who follows my every post :-). That's his right of course .. ,but my point was simply a reminder that some photographers have different (I didn't say "better") standards than he does. That he wishes I wouldn't be so bold as to say that is his problem.</p>

<p>Luis properly mentioned photographers who used labs (not minilabs or Flickr fwiw) <em>"Ernst Haas, Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Eggleston, Sonia Bullaty, Jay Maisel, Galen Rowell, Peter Beard, Marylin Bridges, Bill Jacobson, Antonin Krachtovil, James Nachtwey, Mary Ellen Mark, Nadav Kander, Mapplethorpe, Sarah Moon, Pete Turner, Irving Penn, almost everyone at Magnum, Cindy Sherman, Gordon Parks, Phil Marco, Roman Vishniac, Eliot Porter, Ruth Orkin".</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

<em></em><br>

<strong>Those photographers put heavy demands on their labs and their technicians. They didn't just post on Flickr or send their work to a sweat-shop-minilab ...yet, for some reason, renditions of their prints are displayed all over the Internet. </strong></p>

<p> I'm not going to dignify John's ad hominem barrage with an itemized response. What a shame that John K. insists on being the turd in the punchbowl in this forum, because when he's in a congenial mood, he has interesting insights, a good sense of humor, and much to say.</p>

<p><strong> <br /> </strong></p>

<p>1. All those great artists were also - photographers, but slow:-); we're coming from no camera to great camera photographers( now we have a "good camera" photographers)<br>

2. Sindy Sherman photographs could fetch $1M!..can you compare this # to the "money"those greats have ever gotten; so who is a better artist?-)<br>

3. the greatest camera in the world - a human eye; but we have to fill couple of missing links: abilty to memorize whatever we see through our "lenses";-);ablity to zoom on remote objects & go inside the matter (microscopic photography)...& that we gonna get as long ago they get a paint and paper and brushes...</p>

<p>IMHO, it's all matter of the degree of separation from the dear "creator" if you believe in such a thing.<br>

Sculptor can create without any tool but his own hands.<br>

Painter needs simple pre-fabricated tools to get his work started.<br>

The modern photographer has at least 40% of his work done before he even started - the sensor, the camera, the lens, the software, the printing equipment, yes, the internet too, etc, etc.<br>

That's why there's accidental great shots, but there is no accidental great sculptor.<br>

All these different art forms (yes, I'd like to believe that photography is a great modern art form enjoyed by and inspiring to many) are in the end, tools used to reflect the creator's grace (or lack thereof sometimes). Just that some art forms need more collective effort than others.</p>

<p>Yumming Cai beat me to the punch and I want to continue his line of thought.<br>

An important characteristic of art is a strong degree of compression of information, stripping away of inessentials and efficiency of expression.<br>

The primitive tools of classical art forms necessitate this compression.<br>

Digital photography is the opposite of all that. Not only do we carefully record Gigabytes of data(equivalent not to books but rather entire libraries) but in completing this process the digital photographer is but a louse on the back of an elephant supported by truly gigantic processes, enterprises and theories (operating systems, computer hardware, dsp processors, quantum optics, mathematical algorithms, material science ...) all of which he has no undertanding of or feeling for --- contrary to the relation of the traditional artist with his tools.<br>

This enterprise is characterised by extreme wastefulness and informational overkill. There is a horrific grinding of unimaginable flows of humanly incomprehensible "information" at incomprehensible speeds --- equating to hundreds of thousands of man years --- to express something a single painter might equally well express in work of several weeks. There is a certain misproportion of means and ends to be seen in the act of digital photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"An important characteristic of art is a strong degree of compression of information, stripping away of inessentials and efficiency of expression." --Mike Meyer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree if only you'd included the word "some" . . . "An important characteristic of <em>some</em> art . . . "</p>

<p>Russian Avant-Garde, for example isn't interested in stripping away inessentials or efficiency of expression. Nor is German Expressionism in many cases. Nor is Baroque architecture, which is often quite over-the-top . . . and wonderful. Of course full of inessentials and added expression and elements are Art Nouveau, Abstract Expressionism, and some forms of both film and digital photography.</p>

<p>I'm joining the conversation late, but wanted to offer just one observation. The idea that great art must grow out of suffering has specific historic roots, primarily in 19th century Romanticism. <br>

Actually, there is no particular reason, on the surface of it, that suffering should produce anything but bad art. We don't require brain surgeons to suffer, or car mechanics, or computer programmers, other than to suffer the hard work required to learn their craft.<br>

An artist I know, who is quite good, also happens to be schizophrenic. I asked once whether he thought that condition aided his art. "Would you ask me that about the flu?" he said.</p>

<p>Maybe the great artists are overated anyways? :D (How dare me!)</p>

<p>Grand palaces and castles used to mean something in early histories. Who really care where the next tallest building is gonna be now (besides the builders)? Gave Beethovan a synchersizer and a wifi connection, he might have forgotten all about his symphonies :)</p>

<p>Maybe this is the way the world is going, faster turn around, shorter attention span, nothing last long, hopefully except human life expectancy. Maybe photography just came too late in the evolution process.</p>

<p>If you ask me personally, I think we already have plenty of great photographers on this website alone - so many pictures here just make me awe struck!</p>

<p>I would like to congratulate the OP and posters to sticking with it and exploring the topic. In many forums this would've degraded into a flame war. The OP admitted that the OT was intended to be provocative and that his thinking is confused on what constitutes a 'great artist.' Perhaps for him photography has produced no great artists. But I disagree, I think Photography in the last 100 years has produced AT LEAST as many 'great artists' as painting or sculpture.<br>

<br /><br>

I found it interesting that the OP brought up scientific method, because it was so clearly not used. Instead of hypothesizing what traits make up a great artists, the OP seemed to come up with a couple of great painters and then tried to think of comparable Photographers. The OP seems to meander toward this idea he kind of has about what a great artist might be. But he never quite gets there. He has some examples of great artists But his examples don't really follow from his ideas on what a great artists might be.</p>

<p>I'll summarize what I've gleaned of the OP's ideas on great artists.<br>

1. "Communicates strong sentiment to the viewer"<br>

2. "completely dedicated to a search for manners of visually communicating their innermost feelings and artistic ideas"<br>

3. "decades of that pursuit and difficulty of recognition, eventually ostracizing them from their social communities and artistic communities"<br>

4. "despair and loss of confidence"<br>

5. "treatment of mental hospitals"<br>

6. "incredible suffering in the name of art"<br>

7. "communicated the essence of life, it's beauty and ugly aspects"<br>

8. "unexpected and ground breaking manner"<br>

9. "interrogate the soul of the viewer"<br>

10. "dedicated in their intentions"<br>

11. causes viewers to be "seized with uncontrolled emotions"<br>

12. "Intensity of creative process, requiring days and days of intense thought and experimental iteration"<br>

13. "reject the commisions and try to express my inner self and issues"<br>

14. "profound intent" </p>

<p>Or in my own words the romantic ideal of a great artists is a deeply talented, tortured soul who is inwardly directed and hostile to commercial intent, capable of producing dramatic works, but is also a dramatic work.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly reject this notion. If I listed my own traits of a great artist they would be:<br>

A. Creates profound, emotionally vivid works, 'Touches the soul' of the viewer/listener. (Obviously)<br>

B. Master of his craft. (Back to the roots of the word 'artisan') evidenced by continually produced great work.<br>

C. Transcends the primary medium. </p>

<p>I think 'C' is the part that makes good artists, great. A great artist needs to be able to touch more than just people who would observe the art anyway. To use a sports analogy, Michael Jordan isn't a 'great athlete' because he set records in basketball. He is great because he got people to pay attention to the sport of basketball, he was an ambassador for sports. A 'great artist' must become an ambassador for art. One doesn't have to be alive to do this. </p>

<p>IMHO great works of art only require 'A'. Great artists meet all three criteria. While an artists personal experience, charisma, ability to overcome rejection and mental instability may produce great rewards with respect to 'C', it isn't a requirement. Personally, I've never been touched by a painting the way I've been touched by a photograph. For me, music, photography and poetry are much more likely to touch my soul. But just because I personally have never been "seized with uncontrolled emotion" while looking at a Van Gogh, doesn't mean he isn't a great artist. </p>

<p>Honestly, Ansel Adams has managed to touch me in a way that few paintings can. It is a personal thing. For me, Ansel can convey the emotions I feel when I'm in a place like Yosemite Valley, looking at "God's art." He is also one of the most well known and well liked (by non photographers too) out there. Many of his pictures took many months to conceive and shoot. Others only seconds. His technical skill and mastery were very good. Do I think he is the best photographer ever? No. But I think his artistry was sufficient to put him in the conversation with Van Gogh or Munch.</p>

<p>I think that many people overlook many of the creative aspects of photography. By first lumping all photography together, two by overlooking the subtlety and skill present. Many landscape photographers for example might be driving someplace and say, that is a great shot, I'd like to shoot that after a snowfall, or in the autumn. They do their planning and setup, visualizing the image many months ahead. Other times there are fleeting moments and we rush to capture them. </p>

<p>Many 'art world' types, IMHO, are unwilling to consider art that was created for commercial purposes. Yet many sports photographers have an uncanny ability to capture the intensity and determination of an Olympic event. Too many people say, but I see the intensity in the runner too, I could've taken that photograph. But seeing and capturing the intensity are two completely different things. </p>

<p>If you've read this far, I hope I've been able to provide some clarity. Personally I have been taught that most things are self evident, but frequently, I'm too impatient to look at the evidence. </p>

<p > </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em> "Many 'art world' types, IMHO, are unwilling to consider art that was created for commercial purposes. Yet many sports photographers have an uncanny ability to capture the intensity and determination of an Olympic event. Too many people say, but I see the intensity in the runner too, I could've taken that photograph. But seeing and capturing the intensity are two completely different things. "</em><br>

Isaac, perceptions like yours routinely lead to flames here...usually from the same non-photographers who insist that we look down on any photographer who works intentionally rather than purportedly "spontaneously," especially if he's a "professional" :-)</p>

<p><em> "Many 'art world' types, IMHO, are unwilling to consider art that was created for commercial purposes. Yet many sports photographers have an uncanny ability to capture the intensity and determination of an Olympic event. Too many people say, but I see the intensity in the runner too, I could've taken that photograph. But seeing and capturing the intensity are two completely different things. "</em><br>

Isaac, perceptions like yours routinely lead to flames here...usually from the same non-photographers who insist that we look down on any photographer who works intentionally rather than purportedly "spontaneously," especially if he's a "professional" :-)</p>

<p>Sorry for the double post. I'm sensitive to the common hostility expressed by photo "artists" to the work of their more financially successful peers (most of the "great" photographers mentioned here would qualify as financially successful because they made their living photographically)...a tale is told when those "artists" lack the skill to print (like a painter who can't stretch canvas), or enough visual significance to be cited by others.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams, as most of the "famous" and "great" photographers that have been identified in this thread, was highly commercial, operating a virtual teaching/printing/publishing factory.</p>

<p><strong>Isaac, your "ambassador" idea deserves attention. Maybe you could expand on it.</strong> Perhaps it relates to the "generosity" idea that's in currency with some poets: the poet (or "great photographer") steps into a void with something that enriches the recipients, doesn't just deliver the same old sunsets, technique, and canned-pathos. Paid or not, that question is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Pfft, there's no point trying to make "art" with a camera, Arthur... You may as well try making "art" with a voltmeter... Let's face it, it's simply the wrong tool for the job. Having said that, it is rather amusing to watch camera operators struggle with this futile task, especially when they attempt to justify their utterly self-deluded nonsense to themselves with endless waffle... :)</p>

<p>I mean, at the end of the day, camera operators calling their recordings "art" is just laughable codswallop... The only reason they may get away with it - in certain vanishingly small circles, at least - is that the silly old art world has clearly revolved around laughable codswallop for quite some time... :) And, well, we all know that people who've made some kind of psychological or financial investment in that daft world of nonsense will basically believe any old crap - especially their own - if it makes them feel better... (I mean about themselves, of course...) It's simply the classic art world ego-driven cliche, and you can see it in action on countless web sites every day. Well, if you even bother to look, which most people won't, naturally.</p>

<p>Sure, the camera is a very simple, convenient tool for recording relative light levels, as "seen" by the sensor... Just press the appropriate button(s) and there's a picture for ya... Let's be honest, it's monkey work. And it's that simplicity and automation - and distinct paucity of human skill and imagination during the picture-making process - that reduces the photograph to little more than a mechanized, two-dimensional "photocopy". And there are millions of these photocopies being produced every day. And, yep, every single one of them is clear example of why photography can never be "art". Well, not to me anyway...</p>

<p>There are, however, some interesting recordings, depending on who happens to be looking them... For example, I was looking at some photos of old motorcycle engine parts earlier... I can honestly say that they were more interesting to me than 99.999% of pics I've seen on this site... Go figure.</p>

<p>Paul-</p>

<p>I think it is generally accepted that art is primarily made in the mind. Tools to accomplish that are varied, just as the abilities applied to their use varies greatly. A brush and paint are tools (some painters also use lenses to examine the visual perspective); the stone sculptor's compressed air hammer/chisel is a tool; the microphone, recording equipment are a singer or musician's tools, the CD being a copy of the musician's art. Whether one uses these, or whether he uses lenses, photon sensitive film, paper or solid state sensors to realise his imagined or observed and imagined image is not important. Because the camera is as available to everyone as a pair of shoes does not make everyone a serious photographer or (even less) an artist.</p>

<p>The initial post was interested in the question of whether great artists have been produced by photography, as opposed to the higly talented artists that have been acclaimed in photography and whose work can be found in major museums (side by side with the work of highly talented but not always great painters and sculptors). </p>

<p>".....especially when they attempt to justify their utterly self-deluded nonsense to themselves with endless waffle"</p>

<p>Waffle is hardly the unique realm of the photographer. Many artists of the "fine arts" and their often parasitic journals or reviews are pretty good at that, even the more scholarly and academic ones. </p>

<p>It is also a terrain available to writers and also to anyone with a computer and word processor. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think it is generally accepted that art is primarily made in the mind."</p>

<p>Indeed, Arthur. It's made in the mind of the viewer... This may be the person that made the work, or someone else.</p>

<p>Now, if I look at pictures (be they paintings, photos, PC desktop icons, road signs, whatever...) I'm the viewer. I'm the critic. I'm the judge. I decide what is "art" or not. For myself. We're all perfectly free to do that, naturally. The thing is, when I look at photographs, I don't see artistry. I see photography. Pictures made by cameras. Framed by humans, made by cameras.</p>

<p>"Waffle is hardly the unique realm of the photographer. Many artists of the "fine arts" and their often parasitic journals or reviews are pretty good at that, even the more scholarly and academic ones."</p>

<p>Very true, Arthur. "True" meaning "I agree"... Which is all it can ever mean... :)</p>

<p>Art:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36_Views_of_Mount_Fuji_(Hokusai)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36_Views_of_Mount_Fuji_(Hokusai)</a></p>

<p>Photography:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Fuji#Gallery">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Fuji#Gallery</a></p>

<p>Paul-</p>

<p>I have been on the road the last few days. Your examples of mount Fuji, with all respect for the Japanese and this sacred mountain and the attempts of the artists, although very fine, are in my humble opinion not of the highest order, either as paintings or as photographs. It's subjective, no?</p>