Cultural Style in Photography?

<p>More of a musing than a hard question - but can/does photography give an outlet for culteral style? If we look at many forms of artistic output, we can often see some evidence of culture within particular pieces. European sculpture differs from, for example Japanese or African sculpture. In music, Latin rythms differ from Chinese or Indian rythms. Do we see a similar difference in photography - or is photography 'too new' as the differences I refer to tend to be largely historical? Or is it simply impossible to introduce this type of style difference because the output tends to be directly related to a machine based input? </p>

<p>Interesting subject, Stephen, and one approached previously in different ways on this forum. Perhaps globalisation of culture will remove such distinctions, but I think not, as cultural differences have not been erased by it. Nor do I feel that the use of optical recording devices like the camera or pixel modifying devices like the computer remove what takes place in the brain of the Asian or American or European photographer, including cultural factors. We tend to mainly see in the press or other media images from mainstream photographers of each culture, who have crossovers or homogenised outlooks in regard to their objectives, and not so much the images from the more culturally based photographers and artists. Subject matter varies according to culture, and the differences may thus seem important on the surface, but does the way it is perceived change greatly from culture to culture? Possibly not. Time for examples, but I have to think about them first. Not so easy, as many examples simply show what the subject matter is and how it differs from culture to culture, but not how it is approached differently by the photographers of different cultures. On a vertically integrated cultural scale, putting a camera into the hands of a young child is likely to provide considerable differences to photos made in the hands of an adult photographer.</p>

<p>I agree that it is an interesting subject. However, we have some "difficulty". In music, for example, different cultures tend to use different instruments. That make them sound very different. You may say that Japanese music and French music differ a lot. But classical music for piano in France and in Japan don't differ much. In photography, nowadays, we almost use the same gears (5DII or D700?) and same software (Photoshop). It would have been more different if Japanese were mainly into B&W film photography and French were into HD Videos only. That is not the case</p>

<p> </p>

<p>... " is it simply impossible to introduce this type of style difference ...?" You mean escape the obstructions and misunderstandings of cultural biases and prejudices? Yes, I think photography does this quite naturally. Isn't it wonderful? Something for the other arts to aspire to.</p>

<p>On the other hand, what a viewer brings to a picture, what he can and does choose to see or not to see ... about that, we can't do very much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>because the output tends to be directly related to a machine based input</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm.... and I thought the brain behind that machine had got something to do with that output ;-)<br>

I agree with what Arthur brings up. Style goes well beyong the camera, the lens, the film, the software etc. If you feel your style is defined by the exact recording medium you use, the paper you print on and what's more, then I think you fail to understand the image as an expression of who you are. And each of us, we're a product of the culture(s) in which we grew up, in which we live and the other cultural expressions we encounter.<br>

Symbols are the easiest example, as well as values attributed to some colours (virgin white and mourning black or purple are distinct western concepts, for example). Facial expressions, gestures, significance of certain events - it all differs between cultures. Photography does not escape these notions - not in the photographer's intent, nor in the viewer's reception.<br>

___<br>

Julie, how do you believe photography does overcome these cultural biases and prejudices, in ways other arts cannot? And are there only obstructions and misunderstandings in it, or can these biases and prejudices also carry their own significant meaning?</p>

<p>John Tran - I wonder if 'classical' is in itself a constraint, music from different cultures will have it's own 'classical'. While we recognise particular musical instruments as being indicative of a particular culture, do musicians adapt these to play music of their own cultures? Can we go so far as to say that the photography process (excluding digital art) is insufficiently versatile to allow for cultural cultural style to develop?<br>

Julie Heyward - <em>"Isn't it wonderful?" - </em>Definitely not in my book . Simply consider how rich the art world is with the huge diversity of output from different cultures using the same medium. It's the differences that make the world beautiful - whether individuals can accept the differences is another thing, but that's down to individuals.</p>

<p>I have been told that I 'read' pictures left to right, and as a consequence I tend to construct them this way (lines leading in or out) because I read the written word left to right- I've also been told that those who read right to left will read their pictures right to left, I have to presume they will tend to construct their images right to left as a consequence - if this is so, is this not a cultural difference in itself?</p>

<p>Wouter, I don't think it "overcomes" them. They are just left out; photographs happen before ...</p>

<p>Stephen H., photography allows infinite difference. Cultural difference boxes it in.</p>

<p>I think the differences are more generational than cultural. As to whether those differences represent a global cultural shift remains to be seen. But I suspect the cultural homogenization that is occurring from global media gives us a more vertical set of cultural differences.<br /><br /> As a man in my early 60's, the world I grew up in, and the realities of my existence, are radically different from those of my children. That can easily be seen in our wedding photos. MY wedding album from 40 years ago is full of staged, almost ritualistic photos. OUR wedding photographer, a man, maintained a studio and had a heavy capital investment in that studio and medium format photo equipment. His wife acted as an assistant.<br /><br /> My Daughter's wedding album from about 8 years ago, is full of casual photos that are in more of a photo-journalistic style. It is significant that the photographer, a woman, worked as a newspaper photographer and showed up with 2 DSLRs and a bounce capable flash and one portable light stand with slave flash. She had no assistant, and when she needed a 2nd pair of hands, she asked someone from the crowd to help out. The guests were not uncomfortable doing this since the principles that she was using were not foreign to them.<br /> My grandchildren's world is even more foreign to me, and as foreign to my kids as theirs is to mine.</p>

<p><strong>Julie H - "</strong>You mean escape the obstructions and misunderstandings of cultural biases and prejudices? Yes, I think photography does this quite naturally. Isn't it wonderful? Something for the other arts to aspire to."</p>

<p>Do you mean your own cultural biases? How does photography launder that out?</p>

<p>What's does acultural photography look like? Any URLs? </p>

<p>I'm not saying culture is by itself a dominating factor, but it's there. Culture and language can define the way we see things, our perceptions of color, people, mores, lifestyles, time/space and more. There are a lot of factors involved in how an individual sees the world at a given moment. Plus some people are passively processed by their culture, and others resist and deliberately cultivate themselves. Or, as in many cases today, they're multicultural in a myriad of proportions.</p>

<p>And, no, this is not to say that acknowledging one's culture renders them an instant bumpkin or provincial.</p>

<p>To the OP's original question, I'm not sure we can hide our own cultural influences, though every artist struggles with this if and when the happy moment arises when they go from regional to national, and suddenly, they try to deny/wash their culture off.</p>

<p>I very much agree with Arthur above. Those that have made the effort of digging down in the vast literature on cultural diversity would know that we are not witnessing a decrease of cultural diversities in the world. On the contrary; cultural specificities are being enhanced and increasing, maybe especially because of globalization. That we all consume "global" products and use global tools (together with various degrees of national, regional, local and home-made products) does not make cultural diversities disappear. To a large degree such global products are provoking an even greater need for putting to the fore the specificities of individual cultures. <br /> This has an obvious effect on creative expressions,including photography. I admit , however, it is not easy to put the finger on what makes Chinese arts different from, say, Russian, although the cultural differences are there for all to see it.</p>

<p>I think one of the reasons why it has become common to denounce the existence of cultural differences in arts is the world arts marked. There are surely Chines artist that aim at the global marked, and often with great success. Their work can to a certain degree be in line with what occidental artist present. Compare <em><a href="http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=Jean+Michel+Basquiat&um=1&hl=fr&biw=1177&bih=649&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&tbnid=blIbSxCIAIxkHM:&imgrefurl=http://pianopratique.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/jean-michel-basquiat-ou-le-succes-about-success-as-an-artist/&docid=mQuHf-Z3Q226bM&imgurl=http://pianopratique.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/myfav.jpg&w=1276&h=1500&ei=aXjvTpejBsGXOoqIhbEI&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=614&vpy=209&dur=668&hovh=243&hovw=207&tx=104&ty=108&sig=102951308226470576817&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=143&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0">Jean Michel Basquiat </a></em>(he world's best selling artist) with <em><a href="http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=fanzhi+zeng&um=1&hl=fr&sa=X&biw=1177&bih=649&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&tbnid=dqbaCDkAbZH5PM:&imgrefurl=http://basmoca.com/gallery/36&docid=q1ioLVm8jB_X1M&imgurl=http://basmoca.com/data/CF007386.jpg&w=1256&h=1507&ei=KXjvTuCRPIbsOcf_7aYI&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=514&vpy=291&dur=219&hovh=246&hovw=205&tx=114&ty=140&sig=102951308226470576817&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=118&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0">Fanzhi Zeng </a></em>(number two !): The first born in Brooklyn, but with Haitian and Puerto Rican family background, and the second, born in Wuhan, China and presently working in Beijing. Their work is surely of great difference, but cultural differences would be difficult to detect (I'm sure great specialist would contradict me here).</p>

<p>My own work in photography and other fields is for me clearly rooted in my North European cultural framework and marked by the religious, philosophical and historical context. It is not a "box" I'm imprisoned in, but the resources that find their expression, or not, in what I'm trying to do, also in photography, <a href="../photo/14831596">like this!</a> I do not act within these roots, as a box, but with reference to the roots. To understand me as photographer, would be to understand my roots - with all appropriate modesty (modesty is part of my roots, by the way, for those that wonder!).</p>

<p>I notice of course the often repeated rejection of cultural diversities in photography, by our American friends. I have come to the conclusion that it is part of the American exceptionalism. A blind spot !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ay, Anders, we hit the send button at the same time (eww). I agree with most of what you had to say. People say the web is homogenizing, but I disagree. It has created a huge numbers of new subcultures. TV specially in the pre-cable days, with a few channels and 100% corporatized content was far more homogenizing.</p>

<p>You lost me when you got to the last insulting sentence. In my opinion, it's such a stereotyping generalization. I'm around a lot of American artists and in my universe, what you say is simply not true. I'm not saying exceptionalism does not exist, but that you go overboard with it.</p>

<p>Anders - I'm not sure our perceived rejection of cultural diversity in photography (or anything else) is a blind spot so much as it is a valid and real part of our cultural experience. Americans, of every race and culture, quickly grow towards having more in common with each other than with their source cultures. We aren't really a 'melting pot' so much as we are a 'Stew pot'. All the distinct flavors of the original ingredients are there, but they have also surrendered a part of their flavor to create a new whole. <br /> <br /> We are very much aware that our experience in the world has, so far, been unique; and in spite of the differences in our source cultures, we experience the world in much the same way, and are reasonably certain the world experiences us in much the same way.<br /><br /> This coupled with the increasing number of cultural links the rest of the world is experiencing has convinced many Americans (and others) that the 'stew pot' is spilling over into the rest of the world. And, in photography, I see little differences in the output of, say, an urban photographer in London, and Chicago. Much as there is little cultural difference in Hip-Hop music from place to place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I notice of course the often repeated rejection of cultural diversities in photography, by our American friends. I have come to the conclusion that it is part of the American exceptionalism. A blind spot !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here we go again. Oh the tedium of it all.</p>

<p>__________________________________________</p>

<p>Like Anders, my own photography is very rooted in my culture. I was having an interesting conversation this weekend with a photographer I recently met. He's also gay and had just participated in a show at a college in NY of gay artists. He was talking about just what Luis is talking about. While he acknowledges that "gay" is part of his own identity, it's coming to mean a lot different things, especially to younger gay people who don't necessarily need from gay culture what older gay men needed. These younger folks, from my many discussions with them, are more inclined not to label themselves and not to want to identify themselves by their sexuality, which seems a little more open and a little less restricted than many of those of my own generation. They acknowledge that that's got to do a lot with the progress that my generation made toward gay liberation, rights, and understanding. So, in wanting to reach a broad audience, this young fellow is conscious of the gay cultural aspects of his work but also conscious of marketing himself to a wider market. Interestingly, instead of grumbling about the marketing aspects of art, he is excited by them, as he feels he can integrate the marketing and the art in such a way as to make it exciting for him and his audience. He's been pretty successful so far. He's not trying to deny who he is, he's trying to integrate who he is with a world of differently-oriented folks.</p>

<p>Personally, I probably feel I'm speaking to a gay audience in a different way than he is, and a somewhat different gay audience. At the same time, I hope my work speaks to others. I'm telling my story for whoever wants to listen.</p>

<p>Like most others here (which is why I can't imagine how Anders comes to the conclusions he does about Americans), I find all kinds of differences in cultural approaches to photography. Perhaps Anders should address Julie and Glen, not "Americans."</p>

<p>Julie says, "Photographs happen before . . ." Before what? Before you're born, inherit traits, accumulate massive cultural influences and ways of seeing?</p>

<p>______________________________</p>

<p>By the way, I'm also sorry Anders ended his post with the misguided, narrow-minded, stereotyping view of Americans he did. Because up to that point, I agreed with him as well. If he knew something about America and Americans, he'd know that probably most artists of note don't buy into the base and equally misguided notion of American exceptionalism.</p>

<p>No Fred we don't again go down that road and I don't think I'm going overboard, as Luis tells.<br>

Concretely, I referred to the various few writings above that seem to go in that "blind spot"direction. That "cultural diversity" is used as concept and subject of research by scholars also in the US, now a-days, is a fact, although a few years ago "race" was used by Americans where others would refer to "cultures". <br>

I fully accept that any "characteristic" of cultural specificities (fundamentally different from the, in my eyes, misused word of "stereotyping") does not do justice to any individual or groups of people. It is not made for it. It is therefore not convincing that artist known by any of you, do not act within such characteristics and might even contradict them.<br>

Cultural specificities are, when they are good and relevant, "ideal types" (Max Weber - google it !) and characterize certain cultures more than others. The rapid rejection of a concept like "cultural diversity" that so often pop up in these forums, could illustrate such a characteristics of Americans more than, say Swedes.<br>

To take up the films of Ingmar Bergman, which I have mentioned in earlier discussions, you see in most of his films Swedes and Swedish culture in an "ideal type" presentation. I could mention scores of Swedes that don't conform to that description, and yet his films tell more about Swedes, than they themsleves would like to admit.</p>

<p>If this line of thinking distracts from the main subject of the thread - forget about it!</p>

<p>Fred said, "Before what? Before you're born, inherit traits, accumulate massive cultural influences and ways of seeing?"</p>

<p>Yes, actually. Your being born probably had very little effect on what's in front of your camera. I will give you the need to be able to flex your index finger.</p>

<p>Anders, it's hard to forget about it when you consistently put down individual Americans, as you have here, by associating their ideas with some of the worst traits that some Americans show (in this case Exceptionalism). That's got nothing to do with recognizing a cultural trait. That's got to do with guilt by association, a kind of McCarthyism that's hateful and deplorable.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that American culture can't be described and wouldn't show up in photographs. I'm agreeing with you on that. I'm saying that associating the viewpoint Julie or Glen is expressing with American Exceptionalism, rather than addressing it as a well thought-out and valid way of thinking, a way different to both yours and mine, is wrong-headed and intellectually lazy. Take issue with what they say, and make your arguments for doing so. Don't characterize it in order to associate it with a negative American trait that some Americans are guilty of. In this thread, your use of it is merely a red herring, a non-starter. It has nothing to do with what Julie and Glen are saying, which I happen to disagree with.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your being born probably had very little effect on what's in front of your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's in front of my camera is different from what the photograph is. A bit of Winogrand goes a long way here! It's not so much what's in front of my camera that informs the photograph. It's my visualizing what's in front of my camera and creating a picture out of that. The visualizing part, the way of seeing and showing, the stylistics and viewpoints that go into making a picture, is very much influenced by genetics and culture. A picture can be much, much more that "what's in front of the camera."</p>

<p>Besides, unless I do extensive traveling, which is certainly possible, where I was born will be very determinative of what's in front of my camera.</p>

<p>Glen</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Americans, of every race and culture, quickly grow towards having more in common with each other than with their source cultures. We aren't really a 'melting pot' so much as we are a 'Stew pot'.<br>

All the distinct flavors of the original ingredients are there, but they have also surrendered a part of their flavor to create a new whole. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are right, Glen, that the "stew pot" is a "new whole", what is then the characteristics of that "whole" within the context of "cultural diversities" in the world? And what are the characteristics of this "new whole" when it comes to photography.<br>

Obviously, the rest of the world has not been subject to the same integration process. Where we differ is therefor your belief (together with "many Americans and others", as you write) that "the 'stew pot' is spilling over into the rest of the world". It is not. </p>

<p>Anders,<br>

Being European as well, my view on Americans is not all that glorifying frequently, but I cannot follow what you're trying to say there. If we'd regards "Americans" as one, we should do the same with Europeans. Except, we don't. We seem to accept that Italians aren't Finnish. Or Portuguese Polish. If one thing is important (to me) in discussion cultural diversity, differences and expression, it's knowing that the generic image you receive is tainted. Unless you have real direct experience of a thing, your opinion stays a bit of hear-say. Look at all the debates throughout Europe on Islamic culture and integration of immigrants. It's sadly misinformed, and the media spread the misinformation gladly. So, the image we get of the US in European media is as wildly wrong as some of the stereotypes that exist of ourselves. Just for the record, despite being Dutch, I do not wear wooden shoes.<br>

____<br>

Julie, I probably then did not misunderstand your original post. I can add little to Fred's last. The photos I make aren't predetermined accidents happening in front of my lens, with me as lucky buttonpusher. I try to bring in a little more than that, and so do you in your photos.</p>

<p>I do not see US culture as monolithic or homogeneous. Plus no matter what the European point of departure for the ancestors, the strength of that connection is considerably diluted after a few generations. Nor is culture monolithic or homogeneous within the individual. Everybody belongs to many subcultures as well.</p>

<p>Wouter, who said anything about luck or accidents? You think luck or accidents will put a "buttonpusher" in exactly the right place at exactly the only 1/250th of a second of your entire life -- of any being's entire life in the history of the cosmos -- where what's out there will set you on fire as it never has before and never will again? The odds of that happening by accident or luck are less than zero.</p>

"Where we differ is therefor your belief (together with "many Americans and others", as you write) that "the 'stew pot' is spilling over into the rest of the world". It is not."

 

No, it is not, mainly because the guise of "cultural diversity", as in Europe, masks a demographic inevitability which can only be addressed by immigration and enculturalization.

 

Good luck.

<p>Wouter, I see little comparison between the diversity of European national cultures and American culture. Anyone just the slightest informed about the US (and I don't refer to the general media, but to US research, literature, visits, good friends and specialized journals, not to mention the internet) would be able to detect great differences between American history of integration (just look at the role of schools education with or without all the differences between states) and other world regions and nations. I'm sure your too, Wouter. Alll nation building efforts include integration through school education and many other national forces available. It is the case of the US just like it is the case, since their respective revolutions, of China, Russia, France or Italy, to take a few historical examples. But it is right, as it has been mentioned above, that the case of the US is special by the scope of the efforts and its results.<br>

It is common, when you are a foreigner to be accused of anything between not being sufficiently informed and being totally ignorant, when pronouncing oneself on a country and its customs. Sometimes, it is justified for sure. But don't forget that it is often difficult for residents of a place to recognize what makes the place specific compared to other places. You are somehow emerged in the place and "don't see the forest for trees". Foreigners have often that more distant eye that detects specificities - so better listen to them before rejecting them (ref Chateaubriand on America). And don't forget; to compare the US to other places, you actually have to know these "other places".<br>

Don, I have no clue on what "enculturalizations" hides - but it does not sound pleasant. Cultural diversity is a force and not an obstacle - just like biological diversity, if I dare.<br>

Let's not forget that the subject of this thread, as I understand it, is not the US, but the diversity of cultures throughout the world and their effect on photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's not forget that the subject of this thread, as I understand it, is not the US</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, let's not. Which is why it was ludicrous of you to use this thread as yet another in the endless stream of launching pads for your lectures on "America" and its ills (or blind spots). You distracted us to begin with, continue to distract us in this last post of yours, and now remind us the rest of us not to distract from the thread. How elegant!</p>

<p>Julie, exactly - so if it's not luck, then it has got to be me, as photographer, who pulls that photo together? In which case, the cultural influences are there before the photo happens, while the photo happens and they end up in the photo. Those influence are integral part of me, and I am prodct of them. I really fail to see what is your (earlier?) point.<br>

_____<br>

Anders, you focus on the differences only. It shows a similar blind spot for Europe. But agreed, it's a completely useless distraction on an otherwise very interesting OP.<br>

_____<br>

Now all this does expose the generic risk there may be in discussing cultural influences. We're all raised and educated within a culture, with a certain pride for its achievements. Outgrowing that isn't easy, as it could well feel like leaving home. I for sure know I did not, nor do I know whether I'd actually want to.<br>

While slightly contradictory, we want to be free, original minds. Accepting that we're heavily influenced by our culture, by how we were educated, by how we were raised - it's hard to swallow as it puts part of your individuality back into the collective. And those grey masses... well, they're grey....</p>

<p>But I just don't react the same to seeing a half-moon on top of a tower as I do to a cross in that same spot. I'm not all that religious, but it's simple and clear symbolism that has been part of my life from day one. Acting like I can escape that notion, deny it or leave it out of my thoughts - nice theoretical thoughts, but hardly realistic.<br>

Cultural influences aren't obstacles we need to overcome. They're enablers, a framework, context, borders to cross or to guard. They're part of an identity, and give that identity to our work.</p>