Stephen Shore's latest Aperture article

<p>Why do you equate chaos with destruction?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you equate chaos with destruction?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't. I associated them in this instance.</p>

<p>There can be chaotic aspects to destruction. My point was that chaos is not only <em>found</em> by artists. I was adding to your statement that "art <em>is</em> an exploration of or into the chaotic." It can also be the <em>creation</em> of chaos. I think Duchamp's destructivism (we can question another time how successful it was) did create some chaos. But, no, it's not the same thing as chaos.</p>

<p>Art can be "<em></em> an exploration of or into the chaotic.", "...the <em>creation</em> of chaos.", & the acknowledgement or denial of chaos as well. Though learning to dance to its beat is an accomplishment in itself. I think Shore got tightly wound up about imposing order with the 8x10.</p>

<p>Fred, your Shore and Duchamp quotes are very helpful. Since Shore picks the time of day and vantage point for his heightened awareness, there is a limit to his chaos.</p>

<p>I happen to love Paul Strand's work. He certainly had heightened awareness in his large format "straight" photography, but was able to convey (for me) an empathy between the photograph and viewer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"denial of chaos as well . . . imposing order"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. Look at Bach, Mondrian, Blossfeldt's flowers.</p>

<p>Order and chaos are two sides of the same coin and they reciprocate. The creation of order out of chaos can be seen as a new kind of chaos. The creation of a kind of chaos can suggest a re-ordering.</p>

Luis: "When looking at all those streets and intersections in Uncommon Places, why are they there? There's nowhere near that many in American Surfaces. What happened between those two series? Did the 8x10 Deardorff gravitate towards the street?"

 

Shore on American Surfaces:

 

“I had a structural question in mind: What does natural look like? How can I take a picture that contains less of the artifice of visual convention?”

 

That is a good question (re "natural") because I don't think artists (painting, photography) often have asked it or attempted it. I think his perspective ("structural") led him to 8x10, led him to go to the prom handcuffed to a corpse (iow, that Victorian relic Art) for Uncommon Places. The choice might have been sabotage.

Considering the above, I should say I admire Shore's photos, including Uncommon Places. A lot of what I understand about color in photos comes from looking a his work.

<p>I do not think there is a "natural". Approaching the conventions and signifiers is something I am and have been concerned with. There's been enough research to show that Inuit Eskimos see differently from Ituri Pygmies, etc. What we can see begins to congeal in part at the moment of conception & DNA swap, then as we grow depending on a staggering number of variables.</p>

<p><strong>Don E. - </strong>"The choice might have been sabotage"</p>

<p>I like that, Don!<br>

______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>LG - "</strong>When looking at all those streets and intersections in Uncommon Places, why are they there? There's nowhere near that many in American Surfaces. What happened between those two series? Did the 8x10 Deardorff gravitate towards the street?"</p>

<p>No. In spite of all the theory, that part of what we see in Shore's work is the result of a significant nexus between two prominent photographic powerhouses of the day. Shore had visited the Dusseldorf school, met Bernd & Hilla Becher and befriended them. The couple was impressed enough to purchase some prints of Shore's work (from <em>American Surfaces</em>) from his European rep. Hilla had a grown son that at the time lived in NYC (and maybe still does). She would fly across the Atlantic to visit with him, and sometimes she would visit Shore. On one of those trips, before Shore embarked on his first <em>Uncommon Places </em>trip, he met with Hilla, who suggested the idea of <em>doing a typology of the American Main Street. </em></p>

<p>Shore followed her advice, which is why there are so many street and intersection views in <em>Uncommon Ground </em>woven in between the sequel to the introspective work from <em>American Surfaces</em>. One can see the Becher influence in many, down to a somewhat consistent light, although Shore was not as rigid as the Bechers about keeping the light a constant. It was a kind of light that was not conventional at the time. This crossover from the August Sander ---> Becher ---> Shore is fascinating. And there has been talk that when the Bechers showed Shore's prints in their classes, it inspired some of their star students (at the time Gursky, Struth, Ruff and Hofer) more toward working in color. The influence worked both ways. </p>

 

Luis: "I do not think there is a "natural". Approaching the conventions and signifiers is something I am and have been concerned with. There's been enough research to show that Inuit Eskimos see differently from Ituri Pygmies, etc. What we can see begins to congeal in part at the moment of conception & DNA swap, then as we grow depending on a staggering number of variables."

 

 

Shore juxtaposed "natural" with "the artifice of visual convention", and I took that to mean conventional artistic representation in photography and painting.

 

I do not think there is anything biological about the way various peoples see. It is cultural. My next door neighbors are two Hindu brothers. They're from Omaha and as cornfed looking young guys as the stereotypical Husker except they aren't blond or blue-eyed. Built like linebackers. All 7 billion of us are closely related. We should expect the end of cultural diversity as it has been known, soon, given the globalization of culture.

 

I find the distaste expressed here -- not only in this discussion, but just about anywhere anytime here -- of Eggleston and Shore to be solidly inline with conventional art critics in 1870. They are about the subjects. Landscape, romantically, should be awesome, majestic, and spiritual, and not banal and ordinary things like gas stations which are subjects not even fit for the lowest genre. They are not the subjects of high or elevated Art. Mere snapshots, tourist trivia. At best, one might tsk tsk Shore for wasting his talent on such trash.

<p><strong>Don - "</strong>I do not think there is anything biological about the way various peoples see."</p>

<p>I don't either. I do think there's biology involved in the way <em>individuals </em>see, which is what I was referring to.</p>

<p>Last week I was able to see the two Shore street photographs at the San Francisco MOMA. On the wall, the "structured" photo definitely had a mechanical feel. Shore's "preferred" photo had energy. </p>

<p>I now think how we perceive a photograph has a great deal to do with the media in which it is presented. On the wall, the photograph is independent and has a presence. Surrounded by type in a magazine or book, the photo must struggle to disengage from the page. Maybe a photo with a familiar structure has an easier time rising from the page. </p>

<p>On a separate note, SFMOMA's Francesca Woodman exhibition consists of small, extremely beautiful prints. They reminded me of B&W egg tempera paintings. In contrast, the exhibition book consists of oversize, muddy, low dynamic range pictures. Looking at the book, you probably would not be inclined to go see the prints.</p>