How Little Visual Information Can there be?

Here�s my question. How little visual information can there be in a

picture and still have a satisfying image? I�ve attached an image

by Richard Misrach I purloined from the net. It�s from his, �The

Sky Book�. I�m not asking specifically about this image, but more

generally about minimalist photography. For example, Robert Adams

suburbia pictures often have very little information and yet are

considered by many to be seminal work. Some of Weston�s images were

very spare. Whaddaya think?<div></div>

Misrach is noted for large format images of sky and ocean horizons with almost no objects at all, just showing gradual changes in color and pattern. That's his style. I often take Holga and Pinhole photos, and that my thing to do. It's simply a matter of whatever turns you on. There no right or wrong answer to your question.

Misrach is noted for large format images of sky and ocean horizons with almost no objects at all, just showing gradual changes in color and pattern. That's his style. I often take Holga and Pinhole photos, and that my thing to do. It's simply a matter of whatever turns you on. There no right or wrong answer to your question. A neurotic is jammed with rules; an artist has none.

Well, I like the one you posted. I think that whether a photo like this (or any other) is valid depends on the concept and the execution. If I tried it, it might be a flop, and if you did it, it might fly.

And you complained about my thread? I think Misrach is laughing up his sleeve.

Frankly, you seem so eager to justify your thread you didn't address the question which was not about Misrach, but about the visual content of images. I know there is no right or wrong answer to my question, but I'm curious about what people think. Photography is a dynamic art and is always changing. Other than slagging Misrach, do you have an opinion?

I believe you'll discover that the amount of minimalism that is esteemed in a work corresponds to the stature of the maker as an *artist*. Appreciation is an aspect of context. People respond dutifully and approvingly to the works of those who've been canonized by the cultural elite. Works by an unknown tend to be assessed upon more reasonable grounds.

Art, you bring up an interesting point regarding context. Are you simply saying once an artist has been "canonized" then whatever he or she does becomes exceptable and no one is willing to say the Emperor has no clothes. Can you explain a little more what you mean when you say, "Works by an unknown tend to be assessed upon by more reasonable grounds".

 

Thanks.

<i>Are you simply saying once an artist has been "canonized" then whatever he or she does becomes exceptable...</i><br><br>

 

That's it!

Minimalism: a fixed out and archivaly washed piece of fiber based double weight undeveloped paper. Image size 8x10 on 8x10 paper. Edition of 25, signed, numbered and dated by the photographer. Special for forum members: $100.00 each including shipping in the U.S.

An unknown does not have the luxury of having his work assessed by association with his importance or stature within the established artistic and academic communities. Therefore the real merits of a piece (if any) must be discovered without the influence of the artists name or importance.

And yes, Jake, I think it all operates very much like "The Emperor's New Clothes"!!

Al, Believe it or not years ago at the Everson Museum in Syracuse, New York there was a show called "this is not here". There were blank spaces on the walls with name tags describing the "work". So, my question to you is what are you going to call your minimalist masterpiece? How about, "Silver Waiting for Light"

Jack, I normaly don't name my photos. Plenty of room to write it big though! How many prints do you want. Check my eBay feedback under Preacherspop. Thanks

Al, I admire your concept but if your serious about marketing it don't limit your prospects by the paper size. You'd be lucky to sell an 8 x 10. A gigantic paper roll print (sized by feet, not inches) would probably get representation at a prestigious NY gallery!

I usually find that people busy ridiculing what others may create are themselves not particularly successful at creating anything.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/wallpueb.jpg"><br>

<i>Temporary Autonomous Zone, Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

<p>

And most of them would benefit from spending more time in art museums and less time in the attempted comedy business.

Lighten up, Jeff. The world's not going to end over a bit of levity!

Why is there so much distrust/dislike of what is found in museums and galleries? Having traveled quite a bit this seems more true of American viewers than others. I think we really are quite provincial here. Most think a pretty picture is a good picture. What's often true is the most creative artists/photographers are often ahead of their time visually. Does anyone know how Wegee's distortions or Man Ray's work was recieved when first shown?

 

Jeff, it's great to see your work. I find that some of the folks most critical of "contemporary" art don't deign to post their stuff on Photo.net.

If it's levity, I'll give you his address and you can send your comments to him. Write me offline for it.

Jeff, I perceive a growing trend that seems dedicated to stifling any variety of supposed dissent from the *belief system* that is currently promulgated by the majority in the art world. Any view these days is considered fashionable if it is blindly enthusiastic and universally positive. An individual of genuine, personal, passion is bound to have feelings and opinions which may at times diverge from the current trends. I would question the integrity of anyone who is always, dutifully, in favour of everything.

Art and others who are skeptical of what is endorsed by the cultural elite might enjoy reading "The Painted Word" by Tom Wolfe. I've recommended it before. Although I don't agree with everything Wolfe says, he makes some interesting and devastating points about who controls the art world. Also, check out Dave Hickey who is setting the Art Establishment on their collective ear with his art theory, criticism and commentaries.

 

For the record, I am a fan of much of what is dismissed here as a scam. I think the intellectual aspect of art is as important as the execution. I don't think art/photography has to be beautiful to be good, nor do I think the artist's "hand" has to be omnipresent. Ansel Adams bores me...nice technique though. I think Misrach's best work was his "desert cantos" not the picture I posted at the top of the thread. Robert Park Harrison, Kahn and Selesnick and Gregory Crewdson all create staged photographs which are facinating and push the concept of what is real in photography. I could go on, but the bottom line is I try to keep an open mind to all visual expression. I'm not going to like it all, but I don't/won't dismiss things out of hand because at first I don't get it. There is a value to cultivating an ecclectic sensibilty.

Jake, You are so right about the desirability of cultivating an eclectic sensibility. When I was in my early teens I discovered the world of Asian art, and the necessity of having to understand it through the context of the whole culture was a near psychedelic experience. I don't allow myself the luxury of dismissing anything through the excuse of not understanding it. But one must beware of substituting compliance with propaganda for approval born of informed affection or a genuine personal rapport. Regarding the issue of photography and minimalism I feel that it (minimalism) fails to exploit one of the primary attributes of the medium which is the characteristic ability to describe detail and express *information*. Of course photography doesn't have to conform to any particular esthetic application. I really don't feel very strongly about this and reserve most of my energy in these matters for my own photographic projects.

I remember an English auction house (can't recall which one) defining that, if the seller says it's art, and the buyer agrees it's art, then the object of discussion is art. This pragmatic definition isn't satisfying; if it's the only one we manage to agree on, it's nevertheless useful.<p>Some centuries ago art in the modern sense didn't exist--poetry, scuplting, painting, etc., were supposed to be primarily of practical value! Masons, musicians, sculptors, and carpenters were <i>all</i> craftsmen in those days. We can't imagine that Johann Sebastian Bach was obliged to deliver a certain amount of new compositions at given dates, but things were like this 300 years ago.

I remember an English auction house (can't recall which one) defining that, if the seller says it's art, and the buyer

agrees it's art, then the object of discussion is art. This pragmatic definition isn't satisfying; if it's the only one we

manage to agree on, it's nevertheless useful.

 

Oliver

 

I agree with you this is as good a definition as we will get. Another, equally unsatisfactory, is that it is art if the person doing it is an "artist". In fact everything can be or is art - but the real issue is whether it is good or bad or indifferent. Unfortunately, deciding which of these is also dependent on you knowing what "art" is...

Viewing a tiny little image on the web isn't going to represent a Misrach print at all. I've seen his prints and they are huge, printed five or six feet across. (In fact, the "enlargement" factor of this scan is about 0.5x from the original negative.)

 

I'm sure in a 60"x72" print you'd get a little more subtle detail from the 8x10 negative than you do in this jpeg at screen resolution.