Photographers outside my comfort zone

I've been building a photography book collection over the past couple years and

have lately been buying books on photographers whose work, for me, is

problematic , e.g. Walker Evans and Paul Strand. My issue is that I would love

to discuss photographers outside my comfort zone and learn more about their

motives and aesthetic.

 

Are there any book clubs or blogs that address this?

Look at any book by Boris Mikhailov or Jan Saudek... those always test me.

 

Joel-Peter Witkin is another favorite who provokes me.

let's start here! Why are Strand and Evans problems for you?

That's pretty broad... For kicks, how about the Starns brothers?

many of us have photographers with whom we are not comfortable and I commend you for

wanting to expand your horizons. regards, cb ;-)

Jon, I think what you're doing is great. I have also been buying some photo books and magazines that test my pre-conceptions and my personal biases -- particularly with regards to contemporary 'conceptual' art/photography.

 

I have subscribed to Aperture Magazine, bought a variety of other similar mags, and picked up a book Stephen Shore's work. It has taught me a great deal and I have actually come to not only 'appreciate' but truly 'like' a variety of the work including Stephen Shore's.

Another vote for Joel Peter Witkin (he made one of my students go faint and slightly nauseous!). Also, have alook at Jan Saudek.

Walker Evans has a huge following, although the folks at the Farm Security Administration, were not very fond of his work. His pictures are not very spectacular, sort of bland if you ask me. As a photographer and an individual, he does make for some interesting reading.

I understand that Strand and Evans, in particular, were trying to take "direct" images that were a reaction to pictorialism. In the editorial forward to Strand's 1950 New England book, mention is made of how refreshing it was in 1927 to see straight-forward pictures of New England rocks and trees.

 

I don't see the "art" in many of their rural and urban landscape pictures. Perhaps they would consider that fact a success. Perhaps our expanded horizons in the past 80 years have made the unusual trivial - the mundane photograph of remote vistas is so commonplace now that it is not interesting. Digital pictures and the web make it even more so.

Great topic. Have you read "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men"? It is very difficult to understand

work from the past, even as recent as Strand and Evans but that book would help, in regards

to Evans anyway. The world was a different place and it is impossible for us to fully

understand it. Documentation and "street" photography were still being done with large

format cameras to a large extent. Try to remove preconceptions and study the work, don't

just look at it. You may find you will never be comfortable with it but you may learn to

appreciate it.

I can understand that Strand and Evans would not be to everyone's taste, but I don't think that it's so difficult to see what their strengths are. Evans documented the American landscape beautifully. His compositions are often imaginative without being forced. You can see a lot of what the United States was like in the 1930s in his work. Strand's photos are, in my opinion, some of the most beautiful ever produced. Apart from his masterful printing, many of his compositions strike me as perfect - I can't imaging moving the camera one inch in any direction to improve it. He once said that the key to good photographs was having respect for what was in front of the camera, and this shows in all his work, from portraits to small scale natural scenes to photos of industrial and mechanical items. Both of them used the inherent strength of photography: its ability to record precise detail and tone at a particular moment. At a time when many photographers were trying to make photographs look like paintings, they were part of a movement to make original photographs rather than bad imitations of painting. I think that their work still sets a high standard for photography.

Go read some more--for starters. Have a look at Geoff Dyer's "The Ongoing Moment."

I agree with Paul- Sometimes I have a tough time seeing the value in work by, say, William

Henry Jackson , Darius Kinsey or others of that time. But the more I open up to the time they

DID their work, and some of the conditions they worked in and under, the more I can

appreciate them. Sort of like your grandparents appreciating the convenience of a remote

control, when it's all you've ever known. Lift your glass to these guys now and then-they

helped pave the way for YOUR work.

Thanks for the responses. Dialog on the topic is what I was hoping for. I think it's important to note that being outside your "comfort zone" is not the same as saying something is artistically without value. It's not a competition. The more you question, the more you understand.

 

Kevin, your point about the quality of the prints is well taken. Unfortunately, if we don't have access to the actual prints and the reproductions are not up to 2008 standards, it's impossible to judge that aspect of the work. Strands's "Time in New England" was probably considered top quality printing by 1950 standards, but many of the photos look terrible (print quality) today. That's why dialog is so helpful.

Jon,

 

a great question and the perfect photographic pursuit. finding what we like, what we love, what we don't understand, and what we dislike to the core! this is photography. and this is why photography is such a lovely undertaking .. as long as we remember it it ultimately subjective. like our choices in music and lovers!

 

I am not a great photographer, but I have studied photography and know what attracts me and what I come away from as feeling derivative or .. dogmatic. in the sense that others before me, in a religious fervor, vociferously detail the stellar qualities of an image or the oeuvre of a specific photographer. all the while ... I scratch my head, look deep into the image, and come away with ... nothing. perfectly normal and acceptable by my standards!

 

I love the works of Keith Carter. I 'get' what he is doing. others do not. our own Ellis Vener, here, champions the works of Robert Adams, so I went to Powell's Photography bookstore in downtown Portland (Oregon) and looked through everything they had by Robert Adams. I didn't 'get' it. in fact, I didn't come close to getting anything from his prosaic images of housing tracts. am I missing something? yes, conceptually I might understand where he was heading. photographically I found it lacking anything other than the mundane. could I craft a justification and metrics to better enjoy the images more, in the hopes of joining the throngs of admirers? of course .. but it didn't, and still doesn't resonate with my sensibilities. I don't have to 'buy' the books to understand this. I would concentrate on identifying and purchasing photography books, that when you open them and dive into the imagery ... you are left out of breath. like a punch to the chest. I think .. this is when you discover something about yourself and the photography of others.

 

I love Strand's work far more than the work of Evans. for me, it was Keith Carter and Alexey Titarenko, that kept me looking and knowing that I wanted more in my personal photography. so many great photographs and photographers. you truly need to be honest with yourself, and personally, try and dismiss others telling you what great photography is.

 

photography .. in all its aspects, is a very personal pursuit.

 

all the best ...

 

daniel

Jon, the quality of the reproductions in books like "Time In New England" was pretty poor compared to recent publications. I've been lucky enough to see a Strand exhibit and some other prints of both Strand and Evans. The catalog that was done for a Strand exhibit around 1990 was beautifully produced. It was just called "Paul Strand." It was published by Aperture to go along with an exhibit at the National Gallery of Art (I saw the exhibit in Chicago), and the reproductions were done by Richard Benson. I don't know if it's still in print, but it's well worth looking for if you like Strand.