modern vs postmodern photography

I am doing a paper on the difference between modern and postmodern

photographers. I have found reams of info relating to these

movements in some areas of fine art, but I guess I would like some

ideas on things to analyse in a photgraph to compare one from the

other.

I think I'd start with the tendencies of post modern photography to be self conscious (also self referential) and tangential or arbitrary.

 

Notable example of the first: Jo Spence's self documentation of her cancer.

 

Good examples of the second are everywhere ... especially in work which disrupts proscenium conventions on framing.

 

Felix

"Notable example of the first: Jo Spence's self documentation of her cancer."

 

As an aside, I met Jo Spence several times during the late 'sixties when I worked for the local newspaper in Hampstead, where she had her studio. She was a very no-nonsense lady who did marvellous portraits, especially of children.

Felix,

 

Huh?

If you haven't done the below already.

 

First thing you need to do is seperate out, Postmodern Art (dissatisfaction with the modern world/Dada) from Postmodern Photographic Art (deconstruction/desensitization/Serrano of societal values and life's ironies/Garry Winnogrand) as the two worlds of art have nothing to do with each other, hence a huge part of the confusion in understanding the differences of the two genres.

 

Use your web search engine to check out the key word "Modernism" and "Art Movements."

 

Who do you consider a "Modern" photographer and who might you consider a "Postmodern" photographer among what one might call "The Notables."

 

You'll want to check out the very pivotal John Szarkowski and how he almost singlehandedly influence the whole of Postmodern Photographic Art. Another individual worth seeking out the writings of would be Jeff Wall, a most lucid Canadian writer that has a very strong grasp on contemporary photographic history and has a wonderful ability to communicate this history. Take the time to read what Clement Greenberg has to say (web search) on the matter in regard to Postmodern Art.

 

Before the analysis can be done, the understanding phase needs to be explored. Hope the above gives you some ideas and-a good luck! :)

Seems to me that the best contemporary photographic art has elements of both

modernism

and post-modernism. Andreas Gursky, for example.

thanks everyone for responding, It's definately a good start. I am focusing my attention on the modernist photographer Paul Strand, who took the famous picture 'white picked fence'.And I will be focusing on the photographer Cindy Sherman for the Post mod side. I know you all know Cindy's work. I am finding it quite hard to define these movements in the Photography world but have no probs understanding it in the art and design sense. But your right Thomas when you say they don't really have anything to do with each other, this is the dichotamy.

What can I point out in a cindy sherman pic that is notably Postmodern? Is it her questioning of identity, her female stereotypes, maybe you could even say she used 'appropriation'(to use an official PM term) in her images with the way you could say that her images are not original, but copies and parodies of different ideas that already exsist ie. the famous movie stills.

I would be very interested to hear your opinions as I know you are mostly an educated group.

 

Speaking of Strand, how would we say he is a modern photographer. Is it because he advanced past and rejected the pictorialist movement in photography? (Pictorialism in photography is as romanticism is to art. Usually it is not a realistic representation of what is being photographed, it is a romantic version. The way they use the lighting, the composition, generally they use the same rules as in paintings.) And went on with what the modernists would call straight photography.

For eg. (look at 'white picked fence')before straight phography the composition would be diff, the fence would be very small and the building in the background would be the focus point. But he has made the fence the focal point. He has made something banal and taken for granted and said 'this is important'.

 

What do you guys think?<div></div>

In response to Thomas' post, I am sort of confused as to how you can say that those two genres have nothing to do with each other. (postmodern art and postmodern photographic art). I think that one of the major characteristics of postmodernism (photographic or not) is the blurring of the lines that define each medium. ex. Sandy Skoglund, the Starn Bros., etc. I think that Dada and dissatisfaction with modernism absolutely has something to do with Serrano's work.

"What can I point out in a cindy sherman pic that is notably Postmodern?"

 

What Cindy did was turn the camera on herself as opposed to turning the camera on others. She became the subject matter (not a self-portrait), contrived or not, wasn't the point, it was the turning the camera around that was different.

One more thing to give you food for thought. Here is some info that I do have on each of the movements in Photography sense.

Modernism: rejection of romanticised anything, quets for truth (tangible) in all things (hense the success of science in the modern period). These are some of the photographic trends of that time. New objectivity, new realism, new visiion, formalism, futurism, constructivism, straight photography and surrealism, coupled with a belief and optimism in change mixed with the possibilities of the new ' machine age'. As you can see they went thru alot of ism's. If you be bothered to look up what they all mean! But you can sense a real excitement. They were breaking away from the constraints that society put on photograpers, that photography is only a medium to document, only avail to upper class and only successful in art if they had the same rules in the picture as in a painting.

 

The diff in composition sometimes they used diff angles, birds eye view, undershots, disruption of vertical format; In subject matter: praising industrial objects of the machine age, using repition, the familiar made strange.

They were also interested in the aesthetic of the eveyday, and the evryday experience of people.

 

PM photography use, apprpriation and borrowing, social/political comment, and humour - parody, irony and playfulness. In gerenal it is also usingeclecticism(combining genres and styles from remote source), banality, bad taste, recontexualisation (placing images into new contexts), intertexuality (ref to art and cultural texts rather than realit), reflexivity (self reference) and deconstruction (exposing self-contradiction or the arbitrary or the constructed origin of 'truth')

 

So that is alot to take in, I know. But my problem is relating all of this back to certain photgraphers and their work. I guess I would really like a discussion about it.. X

 

Heres a picture for you harvey one of my fav jo spence<div></div>

"In response to Thomas' post, I am sort of confused as to how you can say that those two genres have nothing to do with each other. (postmodern art and postmodern photographic art)."<p>

 

Postmodern art, the Dadaists, was a result of rejecting man's claim to be able to control their environment, in a sense creating a utopian, controlled world. The Dadaists revolted because of their dissatisfaction with this philosophy.<p>

 

<i><a href="http://www.peak.org/~dadaist/English/Graphics/index.html">Dada or Dadaism</a> [French, from dada, child's word for a horse] Nihilistic movement in the arts that flourished chiefly in France, Switzerland, and Germany from about 1916 to about 1920 [and later -ed.] and that was based on the principles of deliberate irrationality, anarchy, and cynicism and the rejection of laws of beauty and social organization.</i><p>

 

As this followed the Modernist movement, hence Postmodern Art.<p>

 

In the case of Postmodern Photographic art, although it came to be during the Postmodern Art time frame, it's a subset, that has nothing to do with other forms of art as photography is considered the ugly stepchild of the art world and has it's own separate history, separate from Postmodern Art.<p>

 

While the Dadaists were doing their thing, <a href="http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/stieglit.htm">Stieglitz</a> was furiously doing his thing; impressionism, (Photo-Secession, Photo-Secession Gallery "291" and Camera Work) which was based upon Modernism. Two art worlds were separate in both genres and development and came from two distinctly different crucibles.<p>

 

Photography freed contemporary art, of the turn of the century, from the real and allowed painterly art to explore the Surrealists (Breton, Dali, Picasso) and expressionism and Postmodern Art was born with the Dadaist's revolt, but photography continued in it's modernistic roots, separate and untouched by this Dadaist dissatisfaction.<p>

 

Photography continued in this Modernistic path and then changed away from impressionism (Modernism) with <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/steichen/steichen_milk_bottles.html">Milk Bottles</a> and moved back to photography's roots; what it was best suited for, the real or more of a journalistic recording mode, <a href="http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/brady_photographs/brady_photographs.html">(Brady)</a> to record the real or that which was there as opposed to the content driven emotional or Surreal nature of Postmodern Art. This continued up through the grand masters of the real, Ansel Adams, with the intellectual twists and turns of Minor White, Imogen Cunningham and Edward Weston. <p>

 

I won't sketch out the full history of photography from "Milk Bottles" to the present but for the most part, up through the 50's/60's it was, in simple terms, a format which recorded that which was there as opposed to a revolt or a reflection of dissatisfaction with Modernist philosophy as was the case with Postmodern Art.<p>

 

Photography morphed along the way and took on a new way of showing this journalistic feel as it forked from Ansel and company with images by Evans, WeeGee, Frank, Lisett Model, with Szwarkowski and the ring master and then the philosophical change with, Diane Arbus, Eggleston (hurl) and Cindy Sherman as well as a host of other notables but there wasn't a complete philosophical throwing out of the baby with the bath water. It was just a different way of showing (in simplest of terms) that "I was here." as the intent (philosophy, asthetic, purposed) of the artist slowly changed into a more content driven photographic effort which developed seperately from Postmodern Art.<p>

 

Hope the above history snapshot lends some clarity to my comment as you can see their histories, although developing parallel to each other, developed seperately of each other, with distinctly different purposes and achieved the Post at different times and points. The only common thread they truly shared is that they both came from the same seed, Modernism.<p>

thomas is this something you studied or are you researching this as we go? It's funny you know, how many people have no idea about these movements and just don't get it. Warrented they are very ambiguous and hard to define.

 

But then I am amazed as to how many people really are informed on the topic and I love the hearing diff angles. It's one of those topics that leaves much for debate.

"thomas is this something you studied..."

 

Long story. The executive version: it's something I studied through personal reading efforts because I needed to know.

 

I've found there's little to debate as it's all there in book and on the web for one to rediscover. Hope my historical snapshot was sufficent to give you some clarity as to your question.

 

My apologies for the grammar errors as I do try to edit them all out but inadvertently leave a few behind which can and do confuse.

 

Example: "...with Szwarkowski and the ring master..." I ment "as" not "and." D'oh!

thomas, I'm sure you could pick my grammer to pieces. Did you read the comparitive notes i left re mod vs. pmod?

What do you think? Does go in line for you have studied or even believe?

 

What do you guys think of Paul strand and his influence. Can I get comments on attributes he possessed re modernist photography. What do you think of his work?

 

You can see an example of his work above. Here is another<div></div>

"What do you think?"<p>

 

That you're still working on clarity:) It really isn't so blurry but your enthusiasm is fabulous:)<p>

 

Here's a wonderful site.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/">A History of Photography</a><p>

 

A couple of wonderful additional sources.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com">Masters of Photography</a><p>

 

<a href="http://witcombe.sbc.edu/modernism/roots.html">Modernism</a><p>

 

It's a discovery process of defining terms and artists.<p>

Thomas, Thank you for taking the time to produce a well thought out response. I do understand a bit more of what you are saying, about how they developed differently.

Q: What's the difference between Modernism and Postmodernism?

A: With Modernism you say "my SIX year old can do that".

With Postmodernism you say "my TWENTY SIX year old can do that!"

 

Ba-dum-dum...!

Kahra - does it not seem to you a wee bit premature to choose these two

specific artists/images before even formulating a hypothesis? Might there

be better images to compare to prove a given point? It seems that you

might want to bring some of the major hitters using in postmodern critique

into the fray (derrida, etc). Or a discussion of linguistics (structuralist or post

structuralist) - I'm not being facetious here - and not making fashionable de

rigeur suggestions - simply suggesting that you really look into the meat of

the postmodern and see what that's all about.

 

What I would concentrate on if I were you:

Explore the way that the subject/aesthetic is a referent to the

expressive/aestheticproperties of the medium vs. the CULTURAL properties

(i.e. social meaning) of the medium.

 

macht's gut.

Johnathon, I totally agree with you however, I have been very ill for the last few weeks with a bad strain of flu, therefore I have not been able to read thru extensive amounts of work, and I just so happen to know alot about these particular artists. I made the decision to research these guys first and then I got sick. The long and the short is that I have reams of info on these 2 knowing they belong to these particular movements and I have run out of time because of the delay of my illness. It's due in a week, and while I have many ideas as to why these guys photgraphy is mod or pmod, I thought It would be interesting to ask some opinions outside my own head.

 

I very much agree with you though and I wouldn't normally be so unprepared. In retrospect I know of several artists who would be more suited, and I'm frustrated that this has happened, however everythings cool now and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

 

But thanks for your feed back. X

 

I have to say to everyone that I am enjoying this convo regardless of my paper. These two periods intrigue me.

kahra...you might take a look at Robert Rauschenberg and Robert Heineken, two Bobs who have blurred the lines between modern/post-modern art (both in painting/collage and photography).

 

And Thomas, thanks too for the write-up on art movements in photography. Excellent work.

 

S

There are some good books on this subject. One I'm reading now traces the history of photography criticism through the transition from modernism to the post-modern. It's Joel Eisinger, Trace and Transformation: American Criticism of Photography in the Modern Period. He will tell you about both Strand and Sherman. You might also want to have a look at Liz Wells, Photography: A Critical Introduction; Charlotte Cotton: The Photograph as Contemporary Art; and Andy Grundberg & Kathleen McCarthy Gauss, Photography and Art: Interactions since 1946. They ought to get you started.

"And Thomas, thanks too for the write-up on art movements in photography. Excellent work."

 

Gee. Thanks! :)

Thanks Steve and John, I'm sniffing out the trail as we speak. They sound like good books

espec 'Trace and Transformation: American Criticism of Photography in the Modern Period.'

 

I appreciate your input. xx

Oh and thankyou Thomas, you have been great, and enthusiastic. Look forward to talking to

you on other topics when I get over this mountain. xx

Kahra - not to worry - don't be silly . I wasn't coming down on you. Just

saying that it might have been a good idea to start with a hypothesis - and

then choose photos to work from. One can get stuck in a bit of a corner

sometimes when choosing one's examples first.