Contemporary Masters? Are there any advancements left?

I am relatively new to photography but have the love and desire to

hopefully make it a profession.

 

With that said, I read alot about old and new photographers and have

been pondering what advances there are left in the field. Are there

any advances in photography that don't require degrees in micro

engineering or chemistry? What advances are left in the field at all?

 

I am sure people could imagine things such as the zone system or

color photographs before they were developed, but what is there left

to imagine?

 

This question ties loosely to Thomas Gardner's questions about the

originality of contemporary images. Is there any room for a

contemporary photographer to become a "master"? Not just take

beautiful photographs but give advances to the medium as well.

Adam, I am going to state the obvious here, but if a given 'advance' was so easy to imagine <i>before</i> it had been developed, then <i>anybody</i> could (and would) introduce it, and such people would hardly need to be considered masters, would they?? It is the fact that it is <i>not</i> easy to imagine new ideas that make those few people who <i>do</i> develop new advances masters!!

<p>

I'm sorry, I know this was not the kind of answer you were after...

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography<p></a>Adam<p> Most "Master" photographers work within the constraints of existing technologies and techniques. Their work is celebrated for the insight they bring to their images rather than any advances they introduce to the medium.<p>Great photographs are made by people and whilst there are those with the necessary insight there will always be "Master" photographers.

I suggest you read 'The First Principles of the Third World of Photography' by Clarence John Laughlin. Although written many years ago they are still pertinent to the matter.

First a word of advice. If you love photography, think very hard before making it the way you earn your living, and make sure you get a good understanding of how photography works as a business. An ordinary photographer can make a good living, and a great one can end up poor based on their respective business skills.

 

Once you have a light-tight box, something to form the image a recording mechanism and a shutter, everything else is just convenience.

In the 1950's and 60s integrating the light meter into the camera was fairly obvious, but a camera which could focus for itself was not practical. Now we take autofocus for granted.

We're begining to see anti-shake systems in cameras and that may become more common too.

Even 10 years ago the idea of a mass-market digital camera was just not practical (not just sensors, but storage. 25 years ago when I first used computers they used paper tape. It would take 10 miles of tape to hold a JPEG from my camera, and 2 days to write it !)

Obvious steps in digital are increasing the number of bits per colour (that means moving on from JPEG).

As for other advances, 25 years ago, arpanet existed, but no-one thought it would grown into the internet as we know it.

 

What is left to imagine is a bit of a silly question, because we can extrapolate some things, but the step changes are the things we haven't thought of yet.

 

There is no originality in Music (nothing new has been done in Popular music in 20 years, and in classical if you go back to Mozart he wasn't doing anything 'original' either), or painting, or sculpture, or literature, or dance. That doesn't mean there are no master composers, writers or photographers out there. If you worry about "advancing the medium" you are more likely to replicate things other people have done but rejected, than to come up with something worthwhile. A master probably doesn't worry about it, but later people realise what made them a master ...

There's plenty. I'd worry about something else.

I think the attachment of "master" to "advancements" is an incorrect one. A

master is someone who has mastered avery wide range of the existing

technology/methodology whereas someone who advances the technology is

an "innovator"

Bradley, I am not worried I was just pondering it. I completely agree with you Kosoff (I love your images by the way). I meant the term "master" loosely. I understand that not anyone who comes up with an advancement is a master, and not every master comes up with an advancement. Thank you for your responses.

Here's the link to...<p>

 

 

<a href=http://homepage.mac.com/photomorphose/cjlaughlin.html>'The First Principles of the Third World of Photography' by Clarence John Laughlin</a><p>

I think what Adam meant, was are there any more questions out there......or at least that is the way I read the question......that's what I thought was meant........are even,... what are the questions today?

<P>

Perhaps that's what I would like to know....what are the recent questions....what kinds of dialogue, or dialectics are happening these days...........as a kind of "post painter", there were healthy bunches of questions, and conversations, and arguments, ....which....with a bottle of gin/or a few martinis-whatever your style....could be extremely engrossing......that's from the old days....and I sometimes think, the older the days, the more engrossing the conversation....but then I haven't been around lately...and don't know what's going on......

<P>

But at many times in the past, questions were haunting and marvelous......points of references were cherished......one could mention a name and sigh at a whole philosophy......

<P>

Is anyone saying anything today? Is there a contemporary "master".......in anything.....are there "heroes" like the WPA artists......are there people who still "believe"......or do they just "do" and go.......I think Masters believe.........

<P>

For me, things/times/people are becoming less exciting, rather than more exciting.....less referenced..(less educated?).........

 

<P>

.......in spite of the access to photography that digital has brought me....for me, digital is a kind of one time set-up.....one camera, one 1G card.....several good batteries.....and I'm good for an adventure....and my limitations in this equipment as I look and shoot feed my thoughts of what I might do with other ranges......an exercise in translating what I don't have into what I do have.....and the conditions and circumstances to which I must limit myself.....

<P>

I have heard musicians say (I don't know if it's a peculiarity of theirs or if by chance I have heard only musicians mention this)upon the death of a master musician, that "a spot is left open", or as I heard Paul Shaeffer say on David Letterman upon the death of Ray Charles...."Everyone gets to move up one." It's a funny kind of "queue philosophy", isn't it?

<P>

So maybe that is what Adam had in mind also. Who's on first? Good question.

"What are the questions today?"

 

That's a really good question.

 

"Who?s on first?"

 

Pete Turner is going strong today, and in my mind has been a duke of color photography for decades. I think a lot of people look at photography in terms of the present, or the past. Not often the future. It is good to look that way. I think there will be advances in photography; the same as there are advances in any other field. There are a lot of people coming out of art schools with Master?s Degrees in Photography, lets give them a few years and see what they have done. Let's see what new wacky stuff comes out of RIT. Grant, who is on this forum, has greatness inside him. Let?s see what he does. There are others, like Brian, who chooses to look to the past for his inspiration. His work is great, and vastly appealing. Sometimes it is difficult for people new to the medium to see past the stuff they find familiar. Right now, there are so many living greats; it?s hard to know whom to turn to. We live in a renaissance, and photography is in its infancy. Look at the incredible photos from Mars we've been looking at these past several months. I say this universe is infinite and magical, the possibilities endless.

 

All sorts of new things exist. This year I would like to make some photos only out of flowers. I've been into paper and book making, (and photography of course.) It would be easy to make paper out of flower stalks, and a light sensitive emulsion from flower petals. I plan to make sun prints or photograms, using flowers as subjects. Maybe I?ll do flowers from Shakespeare. I don't know if the idea is new or original, but I honestly don?t worry about it too much, it?s new to me.

We always look back on eras with nostalgia and infuse them with warm feelings that may not have existed at that time. I believe it's the job of future generations to answer this question. We're too caught up in our reverie of the past to see the nose in front of our face.

Adam wrote<p>

 

<i>With that said, I read alot about old and new photographers and have been pondering what advances there are left in the field. Are there any advances in photography that don't require degrees in micro engineering or chemistry? What advances are left in the field at all?</i><p>

 

Sure there are advances. As humanity goes through their changes, so will go the arts.<p>

 

When you ask the question; "What advances are left in the field at all?" Could you expand on this question a bit more as the question is a bit wide ranging in nature.<p>

Answer it however you please

Adam wrote<p>

 

<i>Answer it however you please.</i><p>

 

I'd love to but I haven't a clue what you're wanting and as much as I'd like to ramble on for your benefit, I still need a compass heading:)<p>

Whether or not there are any advancements left depends on if you look at

photography as art or not. I see it as art, and therefore limitless

advancements. Sure, no one may come up with a totally original philosophy

or approach to photography, but I don't see how that matters. As an artist I am

more concerned with my own self expression than with originality.

I strongly doubt it is possible to determine if there are any remaining

advancements left in photography or anything else for that matter. Over a

hundred yeaars ago it was thought that there were no more advancements

possible in physics, then Michelson and Morley did their experiment which

led to Einstein developing the theory of relativity. That was a watershed

moment for new advancements in physics and mathematics. To say there are

no more advancements left in photography cannot be truthfully done. Who

knows what can be contributed to the medium in the future.

A question to ask yourself. Do you want to do photography for your own

personal satisfaction, or for recognition? If for recongition then I would say put

the camera down. If for personal satisfaction, then learn what you can and

develop your own style and see what happens. Again, I'm not talking about

the more techincal aspects of photography.

Pick up a copy of "Finite and Infinite Games" by James Carse. It's short, and it addresses this question directly, although that's not the main focus. Carse argues that each new school of painting saw the implicit assumptions of the previous schools. Thus, they were able to look at world differently, even though they were looking at the same physical objects.

 

One example of this happening was the shift from the pictoralists and their gauzy photograhs to the f64'ers and maximum sharpness.

 

There's a cool quote by some famous person to the effect that real art consists in viewing what everyone has viewed and seeing what no one has seen.

 

You posed your question in terms of technical advances: BW vs color; chemistry; electronics. What I'm talking about here has got absolutely zero (zip, nada, nothing) to do with technology and everything to do with vision. Michelangelo, Vermeer, Monet, and Picasso had access to roughly equivalent technology, but they painted in completely different styles and each made major contributions to the medium of painting.

 

Ansel Adams provides an example of reaching art through craftsmanship, but there are other paths. HCB, for example, was much more intetested in getting a good photograph than in making a perfect negative. Supposedly, Weston would take lots of light readings, then sort of throw them away.

 

My problem, as I've said a few times previously, is that I know where I can get technology, vision continues to elude me...

<i>My problem, as I've said a few times previously, is that I know where I can get technology, vision continues to elude me...</i><p>

Most teachers will tell you that they can only teach technique, not how to see.

Wow - must be a crappy school. When I did my BFA - professors would refuse

to show/teach/demonstrate ANY technique. That's what the school library

was for. School was all about developing critical tools and language.

Looking at our photographs relative to our intentions and wallowing

around in the muck trying to figure out why this worked and that didn't. It

was terrific.

Did Adams NOT espouse a school of 'avoiding the hard questions'?? Don't

you think that focussing on the technical frees one's mind from having to

address one's concsicousness and one's politic? I mean - it's all very safe and

comfy, right?? Just gotta save up enough for the new, improved spotmeter!

That way I'll be able to avoid the question of "why am I photographing?"

and "why am I pursuing certain subject matter?" , "who does this serve?",

"what is my photography doing in the world?"

Okay - I'm hogging this thread I know - but as for the original question (sorry

- got sidetracked) - as long as you ignore the question of originality, then, it

seems to me - the problem will not exist. Which is to say that there are still

infinite possibilites - that has never changed - especially when you consider

the territory covered thus far has been utterly, utterly miniscule. We seem

to have a propensity for putting ourselves in boxes where we are

comfortable. People, I think, LIKE the idea that "it's all been done". That

frees them from having to question themselves or their world view or their

critical establishments.

At any rate - I could only hope for the death of technical advancements -

then we might get on to the task of actually exploring photographs and the

making of them.