Gueorgui Pinkhassov

I'm working on an essay for my photography course, comparing the work

of both a �Western� and a �Non-Western� photographer. The two I've

chosen are street photographers Martin Parr and Gueorgui Pinkhassov.

 

Research wise, Martin Parr doesn't seem to be a problem. There's

plenty of information and opinions on the Web and in readily available

books.

 

Gueorgui Pinkhassov, on the other hand seem to have passed most people

by. I've found plenty of examples of his photographs but only limited

detail on the man himself.

 

What I have found...

Born in Russia 1952;

Studied at VGIK 1969 to 1971;

In the army of two years;

Work at Mosfilm 1973 � 1978, working with Andrei Tarkovsky. First as

Camera Crew then as a photographer;

Moved to Paris 1985;

Joined Magnum 1988;

 

What I would like to know...

How has working on moving images influenced the way he approaches the

still image?;

Can the influences of Andrei Tarkovsky be seen in his work?;

How was he effected by the changes to the Russian political landscape?;

What is the origin of his approach, specifically his use of shadow and

the exclusion of faces.

 

Any other information on Pinkhasov or contrasts between his work and

Parr's would also be welcome.

 

Thanks.

What a shame you didn't pick Boris Mikhailov - a much more itneresting comparison with Parr (Pinkhassov can be rather dull and a little too "magnum").

 

Mikhailov is certainly one the the most interesting documentary photographers out there.

Crispin, that's a remarkably sniffy view of Pinkhassov, I'm curious

as to which of his work you find "dull". With regard to him being

"too magnum" I think you're plain wrong. When he released

Sightwalk it had a big influence on many of his colleagues at

Magnum because it actually moved away from their traditions.

Oh come on Boris, really.

 

he does colour well - but no better than (and sometimes not as well as and certainly not terribly different from) webb or marlow or steele-perkins or even gruyert for example.

Webb is much more dynamic and graphic - more of a virtuoso.

 

Parr, by comparison, is unique and Magnum already had him - being the one that caused quite the stir when he arived.

 

Mikahilov, like Parr is pretty unique and would imo make a much better subject for comparison.

Crispin, Pinkhassov has a radically different approach to Webb,

Marlow (I've no idea why you make this comparison),

Steele-Perkins, or Gruyaert. Sightwalk, along with Delahaye's

Wintereisse, had a real influence on a lot of working

photographers in and outside of Magnum - you can actually see

it's influence on Steele-Perkins more recent work.

 

I've no argument with your assessment of Mikhailov but I really

do think you're misunderstanding and underestimating

Pinkhassov. He, along with Lise Sarfati, has been a breath of

fresh air within the context of Magnum. Why don't you point me in

the direction of his "dull" work and clarify what makes him "too

magnum"?

Ah Delahaye - the artist formerly known as a photogojournalist - I can see how if you are fan of Delahaye and Wintereise you would like Pinkhassov. Perhaps you are something of a Russian post-romantic?

 

Unfortunately neither book as important or as influential as you would appear to think. Just not the same kind of influence as say Sugimotos "Architecture" or Graham's "Troubled Land" or Killip's "In Flagrante" or Shore's "Uncommon Places" and say Parr's early colour books - "Last Resort" and so on. For Magnum, something like The Shipping Forecast is probably more important, though it predates Power's initiation.

 

Pinkhassov is very much in the Magnum line of new colour 35mm photographers already mentioned, with Parr being the real new direction. I worked on a slot of Steel-Perkins colour work in the eighties and there is a very clear continuum between that and what I've seen of his current work - again, with Parr if anyone as a much clearer influence

 

Pinkhassov is really more a post-Soviet Dave Harvey - a little bit harsher at times, a little more lyrical at others, but with that same tendency towards romantic and sentiment - even when it may initially appear otherwise on the surface. In that sense Webb is often a lot stronger and clearer, ore graphic. Since the first days of real colour at magnum this style has always been a strand - in a way there is less variety among their colour photographers than in B&W - again, Parr usually being the stand-out, the aberration (what was it HCB called him - an abomination?). Safarti also fits quite clearly within that continuum.

My sense of Pinkhassov as contrasted with Allan is that their photographic emphasis is totally different. Yes they both love vivid color and use it creatively, but it seems to me that pinkhassov is more concerned about the formalistic values of the photograph and less the subject. It seems for him, the subject is more of a device used to display his artistic vision,technique and style. I find some of these are beautiful, for instance the photographs he did in Tokyo, some times it doesn't work as well ie, the photographs recently on the Magnum website on Venice or the set of fashion photos, where he seems to be forcing an assignment to cover an event into his shooting style.

 

Allan on the other hand really seems to love and immerse himself in and with the subject he's shooting and though sometimes the coloristic techniques of the two individuals end up in similar places, I think their points of view and sensibilities are entirely different.

 

Needless to say, I like them both very much.

Barry, I think your analysis of Pinkhassov's work is on the money, though you are more kind to him than I would be. It seems to me that he wants to portray everything everywhere as the same big colorful, plastic store window. I wish I could see some of his earlier journalistic work, as he is obviously a talented photographer.<br>    Someone will have to explain Boris Mikhailov to me. Anyone who stages S&M scenes with Nazi paraphenalia is not on my short list for the Photography Hall of Fame. I can see how that would get into a gallery, but hanging on the wall in someone's home? And, how does all that mesh with Martin Parr?

I call <a href="http://www.notodo.com/phedigital/html/phe99/en_textos99/pinobra01.html">Pinkhassov</a> the John Ashbery of photography. Like the poetry of the latter, his work is erudite, sophisticated, lyrical, and often endlessly discursive - accompanied always by shards of meaning (and unmeaning), finding redemption in the everyday, irretrievably alone but never by himself. But that's not the only thing I call him.<p>

 

Among photographers I know, living and dead, <a href="http://www.photointl.com.tw/english/P059/GP_jpeg.htm">Pinkhassov's stuff</a> is the least freighted with a political agenda or social critique (something else he has in common with Ashbery). This stands in contrast of course with the work of many notable others, whether it be, to name three, Steve McCurry's vapid vision and witless pandering, Sabastiao Salgado's running stigmata, or Martin Parr's relentless compulsion to make the obvious obvious. (Though I do appreciate much of the latter's work, the point wears a bit thin.)<p>

 

In my view <a href="http://www.galerie213.com/dossier/pink.htm">Pinkhassov's approach</a> to photography is that of the true filmmaker: deeply personal and particularly cinematic. He brings a wide sweep to the small format. His pictures are for me like frames from an immense film, one which comes from a singular, intense vision of the world about us and the world within. Perhaps one of his closest aesthetic contemporaries is Fellini. But whereas much of the fun of Fellini lies in the surreality and absurdity of the real, Pinkhassov has much more in common with another grand auteur, <a href="http://www.hal-pc.org/~questers/TARKOVSKY.html"> Tarkovsky</a>, from whom he obviously took much. Here is a quote from Tarkovsky that sounds like a prescription for a book like Pinkhassov's <u>Sightwalk</u>.<p>

 

"The image is tied to the concrete and the material, yet reaches out along mysterious paths to regions beyond the spirit..."<p>

 

Maybe it's this spiritual element that runs, on light feet, throughout the work, that gets construed somehow, above, as sentimentality. But in my view there is nothing of sentimentality in it. On the contrary there is the persistent awareness of the electric radiance to be found everywhere in common sights; or, rather, behind the lighted eyes of the aware photographer with the quick reflexes.<p>

 

Remaining true to this vision and portraying it must be a challenge. And I can see how it could be taken as <i>formalist</i> - especially in its failures. But I don't think a preoccupation with aesthetic formalism is what it's all about with Pinkhassov. He is "married to the aesthetic" only in the broadest sense - the one in which, ultimately, we all find ourselves.

I'm really not sure what that site I linked to Tarkovsky's name is all about. I only read beyond the film part after posting. In any event, the site makes some valid points about film.

CD, thanks for that link to Pinkhassov's work. They are certainly more interesting than the Time/Magnum shots which I looked at earlier. While I would have to agree that his work in not "freighted with a political agenda or social critique" I see that more as an accurate description rather than as a mark of artistic validity. My guess is that fifty years from now his style will be routinely bashed in the same way that is now popular in regard to the documentary photographers of the '30s and '40s.

Crispin, there's nothing "post" about it, I'm a full-on romantic.

Leaving that aside, I've no idea why you're expending so much

energy trying to disprove the theory that Pinkhassov is the most

important photographer of the last 20 years - neither I or anyone

else suggested that he was. I simply remarked that you were

being overly dismissive of his work and ignoring his very real

influence over the last five or so years in the world of reportage.

 

For what it's worth I think both Paul Graham and Chris Killip

(along with Graham Smith) are a great deal more significant

than either Pinkhassov or Parr. I admire Parr's marketing

prowess but I don't think he ever fulfilled the potential shown by

his early color work - sadly I think his primary legacy was in

spawning a dreary procession of British imitators; I'm thinking of

people like Paul Reas and Mark Power (do you really think he's

influential?) who had neither the talent or wit to convincingly carry

things further. If I had to suggest one British photographer who

really deserves our attention then it would be Richard

Billingham, Ray's a Laugh is right up there with the early work of

either Frank or Klein.

 

Finally, your sarcastic reference to Delahaye and Wintereisse

makes you sound so stereotypically British and uptight. Unstiffen

your upper lip and give romanticism a chance.........

CD, though I don't neccesarily buy your perjorative value judgements of Salgado and other's work, I do agree that Pinkhassov doesn't have a political or social agenda to it or at least not an obvious one. Regarding his style and my statement about his stylistic formalisim I do agree that is not all that his work shows. I see a real lyricisim in his best work and a playfulness and joy in exploration of how simple reality can be shown and viewed when captured on a camera through a lens. I have been looking at some of the ways he does things, I know myself, I often like to have things blurred and some things in on a photograph and I think it is a fresh vision,But to ascribe philosophical and spirtual value to the exercize, may be more a projection of your spiritual and intellectual response to his work than it is about his actual intentions or process. I will say that some of his best pictures have a very zen and spiritual sense of harmony that transcends subject matter, but I would say that about a lot of photographers pictures as well as other artists.

Did I forget to say that I really do like some of his photographs a lot??<div></div>

I came across this commentary on Pinkhassov which feels pretty close to the mark:

 

"Pinkhassov's images come across as restrained and analytical. He takes risks, albeit measured, and is frequently pushing the envelope in terms of form. He has heavy Modernist leanings, but of a post-apocalyptic nature.

 

Look at the universe he has created in the wunderkammern of his cameras. The colors are intelligent, and often disaffected emotionally.. There seem to be hints of Cubism and many near-abstractions in is work. Human interactions are rare, and almost always related to the perfunctory and typical ones related to consumerism. People often look alone and isolated in the crowd, lost, not in thought, just lost. Many have their identities truncated by framing, others by light and shadow. There's a touch of sanitized Blade Runner in his cities, a hint of Constructivism, and these are counterpointed by the dissolving effect of reflections.

 

His is a stark, dystopic vision, where people are caught in a trap of their own making. It is a failed Modernism, one without hope, reduced to a commercial/intellectual exercise....a simulation of its former self. In a very odd way, the work reminds me more than a little of Robert Adams, but in a far more analytical, less passionate/detached, less humanist vein."

One thing I'd add about Parr that has always helped make more sense of his work is that he is basically a bit of an anorak. I'ts not something peopel, especially on the US side of the pond, understand or grasp. It's probably why the response across here to some of his work is often slight offence.

 

Instead of a trainspotter collecting train types and numbers or a manic birder collecting often obscure and boring species, he collects people. And makes no bones about it:

 

"Of course I am biased, of course I am voyeuristic, of course I exploit, but I believe this applies to all photographers and I am only unusual insofar as most photographers always deny these things, whereas I am happy to acknowledge that we are all voyeuristic and exploitative. How can you not be?�

<i>to ascribe philosophical and spirtual value to the exercize, may be more a projection of your spiritual and intellectual response to his work than it is about his actual intentions or process.</i><p>

 

Well, it <i>is</i> my spiritual and intellectual response - not a projection of it. I can only interpret the work - not see inside the head of the worker (of whom I know particularly little).<p>

 

I should add that I don't use the word spiritual in the vulgar sense of "religious" - but rather in the broader, decidedly non-religious sense having to do with the <i>human</i> spirit.<p>

 

(And yes, I got the message the first time, Barry, that you admire his work. The only part of your statement I took any issue with at all was the characterization of Pinkhassov's work as formalist - though, as I said, seeing it that way is certainly understandable.)<p>

 

The commentary Kevin quotes is certainly interesting. Its author is less restrained than I feel is warranted. For one thing, the first paragraph merely states, in the effort, apparently, to state something, the obvious. ("Pinkhassov's images come across as restrained and analytical. He takes risks, albeit measured, and is frequently pushing the envelope in terms of form.") (I'll bet the author defines "white" by describing it as "white" - then feels he has clarified something.)<p>

 

The statement, "He has heavy Modernist leanings, but of a post-apocalyptic nature," tells us what exactly? That he has Modernist leanings - you'd have to be blind altogether not to see that, so saying it neither risks nor contributes much. While qualifying it with, "but of a post-apocalyptic nature," doesn't take us much further, as we don't know really what apocalypse it refers to. Has there been one? Maybe. But we can't be sure. And, anyway, I don't see, necessarily, apocalypse or post-apocalypse in Pinkhassov's images. I can squint my eyes and project that onto the work (which is what I feel the commentator has done) - but I'm not sure it's fair to the work to attribute to it that intention.<p>

 

The rest of the commentary, it seems to me, continues in the same vein - stating the obvious and taking a wild-ass guess at the rest. And while I may share some of its author's impressions (the Blade Runner reference, for example), I feel it's more fair to the work (and more intellectually honest) to discuss the work on its own terms - terms which surely include "light" and "play" as much as - or more than - "dark" and "dystopian" (two words - and especially the latter - laden with a value judgement I don't see present in the work). Pinkhassov is showing us the world - his world - as it is, not passing judgement on it (unless visually stimulating and fascinating are value judgements). The interesting thing about the work, for me, is precisely that it foregoes such judgement.<p>

 

One thing I don't feel any restraint about is calling the work seminal. It's pretty clear that he's had, already, a huge influence on a good number of photographers (as Boris said earlier). That doesn't mean it isn't uneven. I see him struggling, as most of us do, in his work to keep it fresh, and trying new things. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes not. Often it succeeds only after I've grown into it. Occassionally it falls flat but on the whole I find more of substance in Pinkhassov - and learn more from it - than any other photographer I can think of. And I can think of a few.

"One thing I don't feel any restraint about is calling the work seminal. It's pretty clear that he's had, already, a huge influence on a good number of photographers (as Boris said earlier)."

 

Wow Doug - you sure have it bad don't you :-)

 

He's good, at times very good. He's interesting and oft time a little different - but seminal he's not. Eggleston is seminal, Atget is seminal, but Pinkhassov just isn't in that same league - in 30 years time I'm pretty sure we will be able to look back and while there may be a little blip on the screen, it just won't be the same kind of influence. He's not THAT different, he's not doing anything THAT new or orginal or unique.

A seminal analysis, Mark. But I'll stand by mine.

"Well, it is my spiritual and intellectual response - not a projection of it. I can only interpret the work - not see inside the head of the worker (of whom I know particularly little)."

 

CB, that's fine, except when you say his work has this or that quality, which are ones that you have ascribed to them,its simple projection. Its not bad, just want to be clear its your response and not neccessarily his intent(Pinkhassov).

 

And in fact I do see this which I believe you were so elequantly referring to, and that is by the way he obscures parts of the photos,in fact often most of the photo, alludes to a spiritual concept that there is more unseen than seen in the world and for me that would be a profound statement,if that is what he is intending. That's one way I can interpret his work. I also find in his exploration of the ways of doing this "playful"..my interpretation. Messing with the focus, playing with the shadows, I could be dead wrong, he could be deadly serious about his work, but I find it essentially "light" in a lifting sort of way, as opposed to ponderous and considered. I agree he has a very good eye and seems to "find" what he is looking for often in the world.

 

As far as someone thinking his work was "post-apolyctic" or like the world of "Blade Runner", I'd like to see more of an explanation as to how it strikes you that way. I'm not sure I see it. For one, I find his stuff way too colorful for that though maybe there is something of a de-humanization in his photos of some of the subjects, in other words the humanistic qualities of a subjects personality, don't seem always to be of essence to the structure of his latest works, (edging towards formalisim.oops) but I have seen some black and white portraits of his that were wonderful depictions of a person etching every feature and line that reflects the life lived in the face. They were on the Magnum site, I recommend them if you havn't seen them,there was just a couple

 

Anyways sorry for the running carry-on. But I thank Martin and the others who have commented here for bringing on this thread because I personally find his work very interesting in a lot of ways.

"I could be dead wrong, he could be deadly serious about his

work, but I find it essentially "light".........."

 

I think you're certainly wrong in imagining that he's anything but

utterly serious about his work. Images as strong as

Pinkhassov's just don't come without without intense application

and thought. They might be of everyday life and colorful, even

playful at times, but I think they're anything but lightweight. Don't

let the subject matter lull you in to believing that there is a lack of

seriousness (you also might want to have a look at his portrayal

of the abortive 1991 Moscow coup). This cuts in both directions,

people often attach an utterly bogus gravitas to trivial pictures of

serious subjects - the ludicrous Steve McCurry and his "Afghan

girl" pantomime is a good illustration of this.

Boris, I draw a distinction between serious and "deadly" serious. Lightness doesn't connote flippancy or triviality,or lack of intentsity, focus, drive and purpose in ones work, and please, I am in no way saying he's a lightweight, in fact I consider him a "heavyweight" in today's photography. I'm just saying that I find a joyfulness in his explorations. Maybe he grits his teeth, pulls his hair and anguishes over his search for his images and in their production, I don't have a clue. I'm just referring to a quality I see in his work.

 

People have referred to Mozart's music as having a "lightness" whereas the same may say Beethoven's in places is "ponderous" or "heavy". Neither of them would be considered less than a genius, nor uncaring about their work.

 

Sorry, language is just often imprecise.

There are two elements of Pinkhassov's work that stand out for me.

 

Firstly, his way of using shadow as a structural element of an image, this is not an approach I've seen used greatly in still images. Which other photographers work in this way and who is likely to have influenced Pinkhassov's methods?

 

I find the �Blade Runner� reference interesting, as I've noticed similar use of shadow in a number of Ridley Scott Films but rarely in still images.

 

The second element of Pinkhassov's work that interests me, is the purposeful concealment of the main subject's face. I've seen this used by many, namely Robert Frank, Edward Western and also Martin Parr ; But I'm not sure the motive is the same for each photographer. Is there more to this than giving anonymity to the subject?

 

The Taiwanese magazine 'Photographers International' included an article by Pinkhassov but I've been unable to get a back copy before the dead line of my essay. Did anyone happen to see the issue, I'd be interested in knowing what the man has to say about his own work.

"Firstly, his way of using shadow as a structural element of an image, this is

not an approach I've seen used greatly in still images. Which other

photographers work in this way and who is likely to have influenced

Pinkhassov's methods?"

 

Some more than others - Allard, Webb, Callahan, Wenders, Towell, Koudelka, Killip

 

"The second element of Pinkhassov's work that interests me, is the purposeful

concealment of the main subject's face. I've seen this used by many, namely

Robert Frank, Edward Western and also Martin Parr ; But I'm not sure the motive

is the same for each photographer."

 

Others who also do this (as above - to a greater or lesser degree) Webb, Killip, Towell...

<p>A late post but still.. Pinkhassov's work is obviously too subtle for some people here, an inability to see nothing more than pretty colour is the limitation of the viewer not the artist. Most profound yet non-human drama focused work in all it's forms is often passed by, by those who think they have a refined appreciation of art. The reality with this kind of work of which Pinkhassov's is included, is that it doesn't rely on human convention to frame or provide context to the content, he simply lets the image use it's own un-inhibited language. Or in layman's terms, he doesn't communicate in human.</p>