New York/East Coast bias in photography considered to be art

I have grown accustomed to the fact that top landscape and nature photographers, particularly those

who photograph relatively pristine landscapes, are not recognized or respected by the East Coast

dominated "big A" Art world. This is despite the fact that many of them have arguably had a greater

impact on society and the art of photography than the "fine art" photographers who tend to be

exhibited in museums of modern art. As hard as it may be to believe, I would argue that the ultimate

reason for Ansel Adams' acceptance in the "Art" world is because he made a deliberate effort to

schmooze influential curators. This strikes me as a pathetic paradigm, that holds the art in lower regard

than the connections of the artist. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

"Pristine landscape" photographs are not popular in the art world today because they have been done to death. Thousands of photographers do these types of photos and they are (artistically) boring. Ansel Adams and other earlier pioneers of photography are considered artists because they were the first to do such things and came close to inventing the genre. A large part of what makes art is originality and it is very difficult to make this type of photo original (not impossible, but difficult). If a painter today painted, say, cubist paintings he would simply be copying other more famous artist (most notably, picasso).

Pray tell, who is it that determines for the rest of us what is artistically relevant and

interesting? While I recognize that there is a great deal of cliché landscape and nature

photography being made today, it is my impression that it is all essentially written off as a

genre without being honestly evaluated for artistic merit. I think there is aa great deal of

orthodoxy in curatorial and critical circles that has predetermined, without sound reason,

that photographs of pristine nature can't be art, regardless of their content and execution.

Curators are too concerned with outdoing each other with "edgy" exhibits that ironically

end up conforming to a sort of curatorial conservativism, whereas they rarely recognize

the work of top artists working on genre that they have deemed too traditional or

vernacular to merit attention.

 

I just watched an interview of Taryn Simon, a 32 year old New York photographer who has

been embraced by the fine art establishment and the PBS/NPR/BBC media (of which I am a

fan by the way). She is a fine photographer with something perfectly valid to contribute

and I wish her the best, but it is also clear that she, like other photographers who seek the

favor of the "Art" world, goes out of her way to come up with projects that are designed to

appeal to the particular preferences of that community (which among other things, tends

to regard social commentary as meritorious, while commentary on the unique qualities of

nature is considered either naïve or cliché). This makes her work seem rather contrived to

me, despite the fact that I also find it well executed and visually interesting. Compare that

to the work of photographers like Galen Rowell, David Muench, and Jack Dykinga, who

create original and magnificent compositions of rarified moments in nature because the

subject matter is important to them and compells them arrtistically. The latter group

seems much more artistically honest to me. They have also individually made their own

visual and stylistic discoveries and statements that are as fresh as anything in New York

galleries if only people take the time to look at their bodies of work and really see. I think

one issue is the volume of work they create and the way it is marketed. The second it is

published in a calendar or a coffee-table book that isn't affiliated with a museum exhibit,

it suddenly becomes too mainstream for the art cognocenti.

 

By the way, this is a subject that I have been trying to get my head around for some time,

and I don't claim to have all the answers. Mostly, I have a lot of musings, and I'd like to

hear yours.

Beautiful, perfectly executed landscapes of pristine areas are a joy to look at and a subject

matter near and dear to my heart, but as far as them covering new ground, I have the

same feeling about them as I do an 'American Idol' winner, that is even the most

celebrated are copying someone else's style and material. They still look nice and have

their place but there is nothing profound in how they depict their subject. Perhaps

curators are trying to showcase talent that is at the very least trying to seek new ways to

express itself and break new ground, in my experience even if it fails it stimulates me

more than seeing competent execution of a familiar style. If you were a record company

would you rather sign a great Beatles cover band or the next act that could create their

own genre? The impact on music and on your reputation for discovering them is

potentially so great you might take the chance, I think this is how art evolves. I look at the

excellent landscapes and bird shots and nudes on Photo.net all the time and puzzle over

their perfect originality ratings which in truth are a mockery. Similarly I look at even my

own admittedly less accomplished work, even the best of it and say 'so what", the world is

full of 'formula plot movies', clone stamp spy novels, musical bands copying their hero's

style and the wealth of it is shockingly mediocre.......landscape photography is subject to

the same paradigm, easy to be popular but will have a hard time being considered as

anything other than another pretty picture.

I don't think the established "Art World" has a bias, per se, against landscapes

photographers, but as Jay alluded to, they tend to seek out new concepts over the tried

and true. They also favor artwork that makes strong statements, and preferably has

unique points of view.

 

As much as I love and admire Galen's landscapes and find them visually stunning and

unique, for a collection of his work to be exhibited at a major modern art museum like the

Whitney, I think it would require coming up with a central and compelling theme to the

collection that would be exhibited.

 

As an example, a compelling collection of Galen's work centered on Tibet could become an

exhibit that could interest the East Coast art world. Or a collection centered on

mountaineers and their struggles, challenges, and rewards of scaling the world's highest

mountains could be the basis of another exhibit.

 

In regard to Jack Dykinga's work, a collection worthy of an art exhibit could be built

around his photographs of endangered Sonoran Desert plant life.

 

I think the key is to come up with an exhibit that the East Coast "Art Establishment" would

find BOTH artistically and intellectually compelling AND also unique. A collection of

exquisite and unique landscape photographs by themselves (with no central unifying

theme) wouldn't be enough.

 

BTW, I do not think the acceptance Ansel Adams in the East Coast art world was because

he made a deliberate effort to schmooze influential curators, but more likely because very

early in his career Adams gained a very important and influential supporter of his work,

Alfred Stieglitz, who helped promote Ansel's work to the East Coast art establishment.

A lot of them aren't so much shmoozing as just travelling in the same circles and have similar tastes.

"What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?"

 

I don't believe that "this phenomenon" actually exists.

 

There's no conspiracy to exclude the genre of landscape from the art galleries of the

world, it's just that work like Galen Rowell's isn't strong enough to make the jump from

the pages of a calendar to the walls of MoMA. There's no shame in being a solid

photographer producing work that graces the pages of NatGeo, but, equally, there's no

compelling reason for that work to be given the status of art. If there was such a downer

on landscape photography it would be difficult to explain the current success of figures

like Richard Misrach, Robert Polidori, and Alec Soth (who all, to a greater or lesser extent,

work with the land).

Perhaps it's more valuable to examine how the <i>audience</i> for the work comes by their taste? Do the curators <i>create</i> the audience's desire to see (and hopefully buy!) work of a certain stripe, or are they responding to the market as they see it?

<br><br>

As a resident of the East Coast, and a guy with a wife who is a fine art printmaker who sometimes prefers creating "traditional" representative fare over the sort of commentary-pieces that seems to flood shows and dealers, I do sympathize with Justin's musings. I agree that many venues skew towards the pretentious, the shocking, the politically aligned, and I do see the irony in it. I'm reminded of the sort of "Goth" phase that many young creative people go through, where they insist (as they adopt a deliberately provocative look meant to get under the skin of their parents, and in doing so, are joining a team of untold thousands that look exactly the same) that they are non-conformists/non-traditionalists. At some point, capital-A Art that relies on the same provocative sensibilities to get gallery wall time is just doing the same thing, and it too will evetually feel just as cliched as (for some) a perfectly executed landscape.

<br><br>

As a guy who's looking to produce material surrounding things that happen out in the field (literally, in fields!), I can really appreciate the hard work that goes into a challenging landscape work. I think that stepping out your front door into the street and concocting something provocative with a homeless person on your block is the height of laziness, rather than artistic vigor, and indeed, some curators fall for it. Alas! OK, done ranting.

Justin, I just looked at the photos on your website. They're far from being "pristine" landscape photos, at least here on Earth. They're overly Photoshoped images that look like the covers of science fiction magazines from a generation or two ago.

Not sure that I agree witht hepremise of the question. I would say that serious galleries and collectors DO collect landscape artists and respect their vision. Michael Kenna, John Sexton, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee all have their work in major art collections around the country (I am sure I have left out dozens of others). I do think, however, that because this work is in a tradition that dates back so far, and has been addressed by so many of the medium's masters, the bar is a bit higher for recognition -- once you have examined the work of Adams, Weston, Strand, etc., you have by definition raised the bar very high indeed. The contemporary artists I have listed above, IMHO, have made it over the bar....and of course it is possible for others to do so as well.

I found the last two comments by Matt and Al an interesting dichotomy of opinions.

 

"I think that stepping out your front door into the street and concocting something provocative with a homeless person on your block is the height of laziness, rather than artistic vigor, and indeed, some curators fall for it. Alas!"

 

"They're overly Photoshoped images that look like the covers of science fiction magazines from a generation or two ago."

 

In-ter-es-tink! :)

In reading the above answers, a thought came to mind: who is the real beneficiary of the creation of art -- the artist or the viewer? Commercial considerations aside, we've discussed in depth the benefits to the artist in terms of self-fulfillment and all the other reasons we make our photographs.

 

If we're fortunate enough to be able to follow in the footsteps of the great landscape photographers and render our own versions of The Great Places, and if that gives us great personal satisfaction, should we care what any group of elitists happen to think is currently in vogue? In reality, Adams, Weston, White and the other greats wouldn't have a chance in a typical camera club contest against a cute snapshot of a puppy in a boot. If the Eastern establishment has a bias against Western landscapes, it would seem much the same. If you want or need to succeed in that arena, you have to play by their rules or stay our of the game

 

Sure, it's nice to get good gallery space and receive recognition for our efforts, but that's really about increasing the prospects of financial reward, isn't it? If an amateur follows his own course, creates his art with honesty and devotion and simply lets it find its own level, isn't that enough?

There is also the fact that with (your example of) Taryn Simon, she has a very clear message. Her art is not just pretty, but has a lot of underlying meaning and almost a philosophy behind it (at least a world-view). While the other photographers that you mentioned dont ('nature is pretty' doesnt really count).

I'd like to see Matt justify that statement. What curators have given shows of new work of the homeless on someone's block?

"If an amateur follows his own course, creates his art with honesty and devotion and simply lets it find its own level, isn't that enough?"

 

To a point as that's my current dilemma and why I've had to put the camera down; introspection as to "The why of photography."

 

Like my efforts, don't like my efforts, viewer's choice but what's a photographer/artist to do, after forty-five years of doing it for love and not money or fame? At a certain point it seems that one "has to" enter the game of competition/money/notoriety (renewed purpose/intensity) or the candle burns out and the act becomes just another picture; who cares.

"Pray tell, who is it that determines for the rest of us what is artistically relevant and

interesting? "

 

No one does. Only you determine what is artistically relevant for yourself. And you

certainly don't speak for anyone else.

 

On the other hand the major critics and curators from around the world probably see a lot

more work than you imagine they do; if you are able and willing to step outside of

your own prejudices for a moment or two they can and can lead you to seeing what a

photograph can be, to your seeing in new ways. Might you disagree with them sometimes?

I

hope so. Do they sometimes make silly choices? Of course: see the hype surrounding

Sherry Levine and Richard Prince for example.

 

In fact you are just flat out wrong in your initial post. Michael Kenna, John Sexton, Robert

Adams, Stephen Shore, Marilyn Bridges, Robert Glenn Ketchum, and many others who

work primarily with the landscape as their primary subject are well respected and have

thriving careers in the art world. AOn the other hand, try to ape what Ansel Adams did

sixty years ago is more than a little dishonest. But taking what Ansel did, and what others

have built off of that foundation, even if they are reacting against it, as a jumping off point

for your own work is both desirable ,

honest , and honorable.

 

There is plenty of room in photography to appreciate the dozens of main paths in

photography.

Why not call it a school of esthetic/market rather than bias?

<i>To a point as that's my current dilemma and why I've had to put the camera down; introspection as to "The why of photography." </i><p>

Perhaps it is time to paint and sculpt. But the subtext to your frequent posts about your musing seems to be "why is my work not speaking to anyone?" The declarations that one SHOULD not care seem to affirm the fact that you do care - a lot!<p>

So stop SHOULDing on yourself. Find the community of peers who share your vision. The world is smaller than ever now.

Interesting thoughts everyone. Some have mentioned landscape photographers who are in

fact recognized in the fine art world. However, with the exception of John Sexton and Paula

Chamlee, most of the photographers mentioned (Kenna, Misrach, Shore, Robert Adams,

Glenn Ketchum, etc.) have tended to make their mark photographing landscapes which

have been modified visibly in one way or another by human activity, whether it is through

deforestation, development, landscaping, etc. In other words, they represent the sort of

social commentary work that I've mentioned above, which can of course be very valuable

and perfectly valid in its own right (and I particularly love the aesthetics of Kenna's work).

Also, while Sexton is a remarkably good landscape photographer and printer, what is it

about his work that goes beyond rehashing what's already been done (a la Adams, Weston,

et al) and makes it artistically relevant?

I think of Sexton's work as being a little more intimate, and a touch more formal, than Adams....I certainly don't think of him as a rehash...

...And, Pico makes a good point when he asks, "Why not call it a school of esthetic/market

rather than bias?" The school of esthetic/market in the Western U.S. is very different, and

seems to be much more open to the idea that photography appreciating the unique

esthetic qualities of wild nature remains a valid genre with something meaningful to

contribute artistically, and socially for that matter.

BTW, not entirely sure that this is an east/west thing at all. Look at Paul Caponigro's work -- much of which is set in Connecticut or Maine, and which fits very precisely into fine art landscape. There is a whole school of New England photography which he was a part of.....(Fred Picker et. al.......) Also, Paula Chamlee and her husband are long-time residents of Bucks County, Pa......

"Also, while Sexton is a remarkably good landscape photographer and printer, what is it about his work that goes beyond rehashing what's already been done (a la Adams, Weston, et al) and makes it artistically relevant?"

 

I don't know if it does go beyond other then to "maybe" expand upon the idea; if indeed it does expand as in; "Where's the color?" "Where's the contemporary edginess of it all?" Nothing wrong with f/64 but to me, that was then and this is now.

 

http://www.anseladams.com/content/contemp_photographers/johnsexton_intro.html

 

http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=44

 

If you will, make note of the subject matter of the color photographers at the gallery.

 

http://205.178.161.74/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=14

 

It seems the intent of this genre is to sharpen one's skills to the level of a hypodermic needle but image the same subject matter, over and over and over and over and over and over..... ad nauseum.

 

This is not necessarily a bad thing but where's the growth; lack of rehashing as it becomes another blurry (all blurring together) portfolio of highly skilled efforts of many pretty pictures with nothing to stir things up, in-between.

Not sure of your point, Thomas. Are all of Sexton's images merely rehashes of Adams? I think not. They have a very different feel, in my view. Indeed, I am not sure I have ever seen an image by Sexton in the vein of "ain't nature grand" -- the sort of Adams images that Weston used to laugh at (affectionately, of course....)

The "Art World" is business. Everybody in it has to make a living or move on. I don't understand why people take exception to it and complain about it. "Art" is what you think you can sell, what you think will earn a commission, what you think will toggle eyeball and bring in paying foot traffic.

 

Landscape photography is designed *not* to be "edgy". Landscape photographers clone out anything edgy to the point unreality, or they photograph protected things (waiting for the contrails to dissipate) that's why there are a billion photographs of Delicate Arch, even though no one has brought anything to the subject since Josef Muensch photographed it.

 

Decades ago I took a Cultural Geography course. The instructor had a mnemonic for it: forms on land made by man. We and our works are part of the landscape -- except in the fantasies of Landscape photographers, who these days prefer the "pristine wilderness", something that doesn't exist, just parks.

 

I try not to encourage them.