andrew goldsworthy... a sort of photographer ?

<p>You probably know of Andrew Goldsworthy...</p>

<p>I thought of him as a sculptural sort of graphics person (in beautiful books of photographs) until I saw this and other videos...now I think of him as a sculptural sort of photographer, though he thinks of himself in other ways..he deals with time that's longer than instants.</p>

<p>Familiar with Goldsworthy?

<p>Is he less of a photographer than is someone who "captures" nothings with techno devices?</p>

 

<p>You need to watch the documentary on him. He is a sculptor who take photographs of his work - some that are temporary and some that are permanent - to document them. The photographs are often very arresting, which has more to do with the work (sculpture) than a photographic technique. He is very competent with a camera, but his medium of expression is the sculptural works themselves.</p>

<p>This strand has surfaced before. I personally think that this distinction is an unreal one. The labelling of a practitioner according to one technical means of production is artificial.<br>

My short hand for (not definition of) Andy Goldworthy would be "landscape artist". I would apply the same shorthand to Martin Sobey of this parish, though he describes his own work as "photographic installation". In both cases, my description has more to do with convenience and mental habit than anything real.<br>

Andy Goldsworthy rarely refers to his work in definitional terms at all; I think he's right. Labels limit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I personally think that this distinction is an unreal one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't. The galleries represent him as a sculptor, and the commissions he gets are for sculptures (or built works, assembleges, 3-dimensional works - whatever you want to call them) - not photographs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Labels limit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This has little to do with "labels" - and everything to do with a common way to talk about his art other than pointing at photographs and grunting...since this is a written forum, it's a bit difficult to point and grunt.</p>

<p> I see Goldsworthy's photography as a form of still-life photography. Once you look at his smaller-scale works, and some have been<em> </em> very small<em>,</em> this becomes evident. Of course, the photography is, as with constructed still-lifes, only one aspect of the work. I agree that he is primarily a sculptor.</p>

 

<p>Luis: I agree. Sculpture is the dominant component, photography also an essential one.<br>

Steve: I recognise your different viewpoint as an equally valid one; I just don't share it. It is perfectly possible to discuss work without labelling it in ways which include or exclude it. False dichotomy is the danger I see here.<br>

I would say that these words are both labels <em>and</em> ways to talk about art. Human beings have to have labels in order to talk (or think) about anything ... but to mistake signifier for signified, or let any one signifier (or group of signifiers) <em>define</em> how we talk about the art, is fatal to any attempt to talk or think meaningfully. To say (as I do) that the existing signifiers, especially in dichotomy, are inadequate for meaningful discussion is not to disagree with you that signifiers are essential or that the old ones have a part to play.<br>

Andy Goldsworthy, Richard Long, Martin Hill, and many others, have developed a new conceptual and practice space which both blends and moves beyond traditional technique based practice areas such as "sculpture" and "photography", also (as Luis's reply illustrates) to a lesser extent thematic ones such as "landscape". All three use both sculpture and photography (in different proportions) as components in their work; none of those three is defined by either. To try and define the new by pinning it back to old is not an approach which I personally find productive.<br>

The fact that some works are ephemeral or their location unrevealed, the physical sculptural artefact is never seen by anyone else, the photograph the only permanent result, makes it (in my view) impossible to categorise him as "sculptor, not photographer".<br>

Luis's comparison with table top photography is a good one. We do not say that a table top photographer, or a food photographer, or many other types of photographer who produce ephemeral structures and photograph them, are not "photographers" but "sculptors" – though I would personally say that they are both and, more usefully, more than either.<br>

Another point is the fact that none of us are one thing over time. When I encountered Andy Goldsworthy in the late seventies, his practice and thinking were primarily photographic and he referred to them in photographic terms. Later he moved towards a position in which sculpture predominated in his discussion of his work. But there have been times (think of <em>Summer snowballs</em> , for example) in which performance was a significant component in what he did. Whatever he "is", it varies with time.<br>

To <em>describe</em> him as "photographer" or "sculptor" is illuminating, but only if we accept that both are only partial, local, temporal, nonexclusive placeholders; to <em>define</em> him as just one of those can only erect a shell from which he will always be absent. He <em>is</em> a sculptor; he <em>is</em> a photographer; he <em>is</em> many other things as well. The interesting thing is how those components interact.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 28, 2009; 05:40 p.m.</em></p>

<p ><em>Is he less of a photographer than is someone who "captures" nothings with techno devices?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p >John, I'm not clear on what you mean here. It sounds like you're saying that photographers capture "nothings" (?) with techno devices. I doubt that you mean to marginalize photographers.</p>

<p >Could you elaborate ?</p>

<p >Thanks,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill, photographers, like everybody else does, "marginalize" (or "diminish") themselves by labeling themselves. We dimish ourselves when we say we are a "....". </p>

<p>I much prefer to describe what I "do" or how I feel about something. Doubt and paradox are typically closer to truth (a high value for me) than are labels.</p>

<p>If I write "I am a photographer" it means something different to each person who reads that, but it doesn't begin to identify me. I am a person who shoots wooden arrows, a good cook, I enjoy difficult social situations, I ask questions, I've made money photographing oysters and I spontaneously do portraits for free. But I am not the person someone imagines if they call me a photographer. .</p>

<p> Steve Swinehart's perspective is perfectly valid, but I don't know how it's helpful beyond marketing purposes (as he noted with galleries). Different strokes. As I've said before, I don't like labels: they propose to define undefinables. </p>

<p>I'm probably misreading your post: I don't want to squabble and I don't think less of digicam snapshooters than I do of "artists," since those labels are used intentionally to divide rather than to communicate. </p>

<p>As well, for my own antiquated purposes, my photographs ("captures") barely exist unless I print them personally. I'm not a devotee, but I think Ansel Adams held a worthwhile and related view ("score" vs "performance").</p>

<p>Goldsworthy came to mind when I photographed the new local installation by a perhaps-similarly-motivated person last weekend : <a href="http://www.stickwork.net">www.stickwork.net</a> (worth a visit).</p>

<p>I take credit for my prints of his work (I initialed them) but it was his work...I'm not sure who made the "photographs" but I held the camera, framed images, and clicked the shutter, so...</p>

<p>And of course, there's <a href="http://www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/spiral_jetty.htm">www.robertsmithson.com/earthworks/<strong>spiral</strong>_<strong>jetty</strong>.htm</a> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 29, 2009; 02:56 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill, photographers, like everybody else does, "marginalize" (or "diminish") themselves by labeling themselves. We dimish ourselves when we say we are a "....". </em></p>

 

<p><em>I much prefer to describe what I "do" or how I feel about something. Doubt and paradox are typically closer to truth (a high value for me) than are labels.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I see what you mean now. I use labels as conventions in conversations with people who understand labels as part of their vocabluary. I personally hold to a viewpoint much closer to yours. I find that most people get confused whan they think I'm a photographer and then find that I am also versed in music composition and arranging. They feel betrayed somehow, like a broke a promise to be a photographer, like I'm cheating on them.<br>

I watched the Andrew Goldsworthy movie that you linked and found it interesting and I also found no desire to "categorize" him in any way.<br>

Is he a sculptor, an assemblage artist, a landscaper, an actor in his own movies ?<br>

I just sat back and enjoyed the movie. The truth comes forward more easily when it doesn't have to skate around labels.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I recommend the essay (and the related book) : <a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm">http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm</a> . Taking the implied advice to heart leads in particular to attempt to avoid putting labels on people or their activities.</p>

<p><strong>[John K] "</strong> I don't think less of digicam snapshooters than I do of "artists," since those labels are used intentionally to divide rather than to communicate."</p>

<p> John, since this is an extraordinary indictment, just how do you know that there is <strong>intention</strong> , of the consciously malicious kind in using a word, and that the intention is to <strong>divide</strong> ? <strong>Who</strong> is using them in that way?</p>

<p> Some people actually understand that the map of the Sonoran Desert is not the Sonoran Desert. Or that when we say to someone about their daughter: "Janie is cute (or brilliant, funny, sassy, photographer, dancer, artist, sculptress, earthwork artist, physicist, etc.) " that it doesn't mean that <em>to the exclusion of all other possibilities</em> .</p>

<p><strong>Felix </strong> pegged this clearly when he typed: "Another point is the fact that none of us are one thing over time. When I encountered Andy Goldsworthy in the late seventies, his practice and thinking were primarily photographic and he referred to them in photographic terms. Later he moved towards a position in which sculpture predominated in his discussion of his work. But there have been times (think of <em>Summer snowballs</em> , for example) in which performance was a significant component in what he did. Whatever he "is", it varies with time.<br /> To <em>describe</em> him as "photographer" or "sculptor" is illuminating, but only if we accept that both are only partial, local, temporal, nonexclusive placeholders; to <em>define</em> him as just one of those can only erect a shell from which he will always be absent. He <em>is</em> a sculptor; he <em>is</em> a photographer; he <em>is</em> many other things as well. The interesting thing is how those components interact."</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

<p>These issues seem pretty straight forward, self-evident except when forced into pseudo-philosophic verbal boxes. Goldsworthy's work is obviously not "either/or" and there aren't "two ways" of labeling it, there are instead infinite responses and ideas.</p>

<p>I asked if we thought Goldsworthy was a "sort of photographer," hoping to get responses as evocative, new, fluid, and as free of verbal knots as most of these have been. Thanks!</p>

 

<p><strong>[John K]</strong> - "These issues seem pretty straight forward, self-evident except when forced into pseudo-philosophic verbal boxes."</p>

<p> <strong>[<em>Subtext</em> :</strong> "I have no proof of any kind. I must resort to insults"<strong>]</strong></p>

<p>What you think is so unquestionably true that it not warrant explanation? That it is <strong>beyond question?</strong> <strong> </strong> Do you have a clue as to how that sounds?</p>

<p>I do, and I'm sure others here do too. Here you literally condemn millions of people, accusing them of maliciously divisive activity, and you can't put forth even a wisp of evidence. <em>Nothing? </em> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have none. Zip, zero nada. Surely you must realize this is too big to just "take your word for it", so until you can manage to cobble up some visible means of support for that assertion, there is no reason to believe it is true.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, please participate without the personal abuse. Express an idea of your own.</p>

<p>I'm not the topic. Nobody is required to buy into your notions of authorized expression.</p>

<p>John, as you well know, I am expressing an idea of my own: Asking you for proof/support/evidence for a sweeping statement maligning millions of people is hardly abuse, though it is easy to see why you would mischaracterize it as such.</p>

<p> You're not the topic. Your ideas <em>are</em> . I'm not authorizing anything. This is a forum for <em>discussion</em> , and all I've done is ask "what makes you think that?". Your answer so far is that nothing makes you think that, which hardly lends support or validity to your stated-as-fact assertion. If I didn't think you had a reason for saying what you did, or weren't interested, I would not have wasted my time addressing it, then or now. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 30, 2009; 08:40 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em><strong>[John K] "</strong> I don't think less of digicam snapshooters than I do of "artists," since those labels are used intentionally to divide rather than to communicate."</em></p>

 

<p><em>John, since this is an extraordinary indictment, just how do you know that there is <strong>intention</strong> , of the consciously malicious kind in using a word, and that the intention is to <strong>divide</strong> ? <strong>Who</strong> is using them in that way?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everybody who communicates uses labels to divide and separate for the sake of clarity.<br>

That's why we have names. It helps to get our attention in a crowded room.<br>

Am I "Bill", "Wild Bill", "Mr. Bill" ?<br>

No, but when those labels are used in my presence, I know it's to get my attention.<br>

A transistor doesn't get offended if we label it as such, and the tubes are happy that they're not lumped together with our three legged friends. In the same way, road signs separate travel concepts into useful directions. so the intention of labels is obvious, at least to me.<br>

John takes the next step, and asks that we as humans go beyond simple labels and expand our ideas into the vast realm of analogue thought, an area that seems to be uniquely reserved for humans.<br>

Humans are typically comfortable with binary thinking, baseball is a win/lose propostiiion, as are most contests.<br>

John is askig us to push ourselves a little, go beyond the comfort zone and kick it up a notch.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p> Bill, I appreciate your response. The pivotal point here is when you wrote: " Everybody who communicates uses labels to divide and separate for the sake of clarity."</p>

<p> Understood. It's basic semiotic structure. Clarity and your other subsequent observations are all about <em>facilitating </em> communication. But that is the exact opposite of what John said: "...<em>to divide <strong>rather than</strong> to communicate." </em></p>

<p> That is what I am having a problem with, Bill. That labels are intentionally used to divide <strong>instead of</strong> communicating. Your position, that labels are used to divide so we <strong>can</strong> communicate is my own, but John's is not. It has nothing to do with the analogous part (although John furnishes no examples of that, either), but with the supposed non-communicative (hierarchical?) intention.</p>

<p> I have no problem with someone holding strong opinions with nothing to support them. My problem is that he stated it as fact, and that, it isn't.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Name-calling (see posts above) in response to individual experience and expression, and the need to push politically correct thinking, are tiresome and not well-intended. </p>

<p> Name-calling and obsession (to the point of stalking) of people with whom we disagree doesn't seem appropriate on Photo.net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is he less of a photographer than is someone who "captures" nothings with techno devices?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. If a professional fly guide carries a camera with him on an outing and has passion in what he sees, is he less of a photographer? No.<br>

<br /> I had the pleasure and privilege of being hired by one of my local clients to document Andy and his great crew hand building "River of Life" for a new Institute building. I can tell you by first hand experience he is just as dedicated to his crafting of great photographs as he is in his ephemeral work or sculpture. And he despises digital by the way for the same reasons I think of it playing second fiddle to analog use. Buried deep in the wall is a time capsule I made that contains both a Kodachrome of me at the site and all of the crew working away by hand.<br /> <br /> He is truly a great artist and it was an honor to photograph him for over 6 months.</p><div></div>

<p>I look at it like this - Andy is an artist, who uses photography to record his work. What he creates 'in the field' can only exist there, to bring it to you or me, he has to photograph it. In some cases, the only record of his work will be the photograph. But the art is not the photograph but the original 3-D form. the 3-D form can exist without the photograph, but the photograph cannot exist without the 3-D form.<br>

I will say, though I'm sure it wasn't Andy's intention particularly, that he has become an inspiration to many 'A' level school kids, as Andy has been used as a 'reference' for many a school art project, especially for those students a little less 'drawry paintery' than conventional art students - for some reason they tend to engage with his thinking out of the box within a natural environment. Good luck to him.</p>

<p>Daniel, I agree whole-heartedly, especially with your fly-guide analogy. A friend happened to send me <strong>Rivers and Tides</strong> video two days ago (a week after this thread started)...one thing that impressed me was the video/film-friendly nature of his work (not to mention the perfection of the accompanying perhaps-John Cage-like music). Much better than the stills in his Abrams books, which themselves are stunning. Interestingly, perhaps not importantly, it showed him reviewing his elegant slide file system and at work with a Hasselblad.<br>

Congratulations on your enviable experience with him and his work.</p>

<p>Stephen, to your point about AG's art-vs-photographs: yes. He made an interesting comment distinguishing his "permanent" (ie rock) work from his "ephemeral" (leaves, ice) work...then stepped back to observe that neither of them are really permanent (even his stone walls will crumble, and quickly when trees are involved as at Storm King). However, I wonder if photographs, especially digital files in that context might affect his thinking because digital really does offer something approaching "eternal" with an adequate backup plan :-) </p>

<p>digital really does offer something approaching "eternal" with an adequate backup plan :-)<br>

I think there's another discussion associated with this suggestion : - insofar that we can't 'see' a digital file, we can't feel it, in fact none of our senses will oblige us in recognising one digital file from another.<br>

I guess there's also a discussion around the 'fragility' of art/photography set against value - in the sense that 'value' is set against the backdrop of the uniqueness of something - ie it's fragility, should it become damaged/destroyed. In that sense, digital images become valueless, because the resulting image can be duplicated as required - there is no particular vulnerability (presuming backups - which raises a supplementaray question regarding the value of a digital file or it's dupicate....)</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2416431"><em>Stephen Hipperson</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Nov 07, 2009; 06:15 a.m.</em><br>

<em>digital really does offer something approaching "eternal" with an adequate backup plan :-)<br />I think there's another discussion associated with this suggestion : - insofar that we can't 'see' a digital file, we can't feel it, in fact none of our senses will oblige us in recognising one digital file from another, etc.........</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen, unless a person can "sight read", musical notation is meaningless.<br>

I wouldn't want to guage the "value" of Richard Wagner's works by the fragility of the paper they were written on.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p><strong>Bill P:</strong> without disagreeing with your main point, I'm intrigued by your analogy.<br>

One can learn to sight read musical notation; I can't imagine being able to do the same with a digital image file? In one case, it can be done unaided by eye and brain, in the other a reader technology is required.<br>

Going back to "value" ... it's a word with many meanings. The value of Wagner's <em>music</em> is one thing; it varies with the listener, but is independent of scarcity or abundance of physical score copies. The value of the score to a collector would, however, vary with scarcity (and, therefore, fragility) as well as many other factors largely independent of the value of the music which it represented.</p>

<p><strong>Stephen Hipperson:</strong> As far as collector market value of digitally produced prints is concerned ... it seems to me largely the same case as prints from a negative – a situation which led Ansel Adems to physically deface negatives after a producing limited edition run of prints.<br>

A negative was, admittedly, far more fragile than well backed up digital files ... but it introduced the "infinite reproducibility" element into the art sales market, and a digital file only extends that slightly in real terms.<br>

As time and a half goes by, that may change; a hundred years from now, enough negatives may be beyond use to produce a rising value which does not accrue to digital prints. But it's impossible to know ... all sorts of other factors could affect the value of both, in either direction.<br>

Personally, as far as sales in the present are concerned (and at my drastically lower position in the market than Adams, Goldworthy or Wagner!!), I've never found that a potential buyer was that worried by the infinite reproducibility difference between film and digital origination. In either case, they always take the signed statement "<em>n</em> in an limited edition run of <em>NNN</em> prints" on trust – and base their decision to buy (or not buy) at the asked price on that.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - "I wouldn't want to guage the "value" of Richard Wagner's works by the fragility of the paper they were written on."<br>

But how much for a the original paper score compared to the cost of a modern 'copy'? Similarly the difference between, perhaps the cost of a performance of an orchestra compared to that of a CD. Also the score might be considered similar to a digital file, in that you could give a copy of a digital file to somebody to make of it what they will, much in the way a copy of the score can be 'interpreted' as the conductor/orchestra sees it.<br>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1706103">Felix Grant</a><br>

I don't have an 'issue' with your points, except to say, perhaps, an 'original' Adams/White/Sugimoto/Kenna/whoever photograph is going to be far more valuable than a print (over time). I don't think a digital print will be the same (unless it's marked by the photographer as a unique identification) - it's almost as if digital working misses out the 'photograph, produced by the photographer' stage - ie 'prints' (in the meaning of reproduced, as opposed to original sense) are all that's available. (That's not to say that individuals don't derive as much pleasure from the image itself - how many 'Spanish Lady', "Boy with Bubbles", "Haywain" prints exist on the walls of the western world?)<br>

Of course on the other side of things, a photographer is likely to be able to make more money (if that's their aim) from a digital source than a film source - ie multiple sales, digitsation of film to enable mass reproduction.</p>