What Is Post Modernism In Photography?

THOEORY: IS IT ART?

<p>

I have to take 6 pics that all deal with theoritical issues. please help...

<p>

what is post-modernism?

<p>

thank you!!

rebeca

Look at the works of Edward Weston, Man Ray, Hockney for starters...

<p>

Also look at artists like Feitelsohn, Lichtenstein and

Rauschenberg...from their work you may make a comparative analysis with

photography..

Hi Rebecca. The post-modernism movement is based on the unfortunate

belief that the most important purpose of art is to deal with

theoretical intellectual issues. So, following in the footsteps of the

post-modernist painters, post-modernist photographers take un-creative

badly-composed, crappy-looking photographs of mundane subjects, and

print them with tricky edge effects and other gimmicks (such as

enormous size and cutesy frames) to hide their pathetic lack of

substance, and then stand around in their hip haircuts and black

turtlenecks waxing eloquent about all the grand intellectual

theoretical issues that their great works supposedly raise.

<p>

And, if you ever make the fatal mistake of admitting that you don't

"get it", you're instantly relegated to the masses of lower beings who

aren't smart enough to understand real "art." What a sad state of

affairs! I've personally never seen a post-modernist photo that I'd

hang on my wall if it were free.

<p>

What this movement misses is the tremendous capacity for art to carry

an intuitive message that speaks to our spirit on a primal level which

cannot be reduced to bland intellectual concepts. Just think of Bach's

fugues, and think of how silly it would be to sit around and talk

about the theoretical issues they raise. To anyone willing to show up

with their soul, the meaning of Bach's fugues is obvious and profound,

and no amount of intellectual discussion would ever convey their

meaning to someone who didn't get it directly from the music. That's

what all of great art was about for 4000 years or so, until the

modernists showed up and turned art into a self-aggrandizing sales

pitch based on intellectual intimidation. Happily, that movement

finally seems to be coming to a close (for some wonderful articles on

this, check out http://www.artrenewal.org/).

<p>

So my recommendation for your theoretical studies assignment would be

to go out and take six richly beautiful photographs. This will take a

lot of creativity, really hard work and dedication, perseverance

through many false starts and failures along the way, and personal

sacrifice and introspection--things the post-modernists know nothing

about; they would prefer to frame a piece of feces and call it a

"photograph" and discuss all the theoretical issues it raises. Then,

print your photos with technical competence and virtuosity and write a

short essay to the effect that the meaning in these photos is not

contained in any accompanying words and theories, but rather it's

right there in the photos, available to anyone willing to show up and

sit through them.

<p>

regards,

<p>

~chris jordan (Seattle)

<p>

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

to understand what post-modernism is first you need to really

understand what modernism is, to put it simply (very simply)

modernism is about purity, see the writtings of clement greenberg.

Post modernism takes in modernist theory and adds history and an

anything goes nothing is better than anything else attitude. Check

out a book called post-modern currents, I can't remember the author

off hand, also some good pomo info can be seen in arthur dantos' book

on mark tansey called vision and revision, and lynn gumpert's book on

christian boltanski, also look for a book called the rebirth of

painting.

Theory can be art if done correctly look at joeseph kutsuth work from

the early 60's piecees like one and three chairs.

If you have pictures that deal with theoritical issues they may or may

not be pomo.

Chris Jordan (Seattle) has hit the targer...dead center. Nice work

Chris. Perhaps the original question, is a reflection on why most

loarge format landscape photography is so damned boring! Landscape

photographers would do well to study some of the work, and meaning,

of the images of W.Eugene Smith, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, and

others....and attempt to transfer some of that energy and meaning to

their work....in landscape photography. Great photographs are

MADE...not taken. Richard Boulware - Denver.

Narrative and storytelling are a big part of postmodernism. This

would fit in well with your assignment of six photographs. Read this

short book: Jean-Fracois Lyotard, The PostModern Condition,

University of Minnesota Press, 1979. Do a google search: Lyotard

Post-Modernism. Take a quick look at:

http://www.stevedenning.com/postmodern.html

Oh no - not Pomophobia again...

<p>

I think the reason so much "rocks, lakes and trees" landscape

photography is boring is because it has never moved beyond a certain

pictorialist/classical/romantic outlook. Give me the visual challenge

of Lynn Cohen or Gabriele Basillico or the Beckers any day.

Tim, your comment is interesting-- it suggests that all there is out

there is pomo and calendar landscapes. I think there's a lot

inbetween. I wouldn't have considered the Bechers to be pomo artists,

any more than Kenna, Misrach, or Andreas Gursky. Those are my

favorite photographers, working in what I consider to be the

aesthetic tradition of photography while doing work that is relevant

and contemporary and personal. When I think of pomo I think of

photographers like Cindy Sherman and Robert Heinecken (who never owned

a camera), whose work is all about fiddling with the medium instead of

producing images with depth and substance. Maybe I don't know enough

about pomo though; I'd welcome your thoughts.

<p>

~cj

Do you start with an image or an idea? Much "graduate school

photography" I can only describe as ideas in seach of an image. I

still believe the best art of all kinds comes from being immersed in

one's medium-light and shade, color, texture, shapes, division of

space-if that is done honestly, elucidation and illumination will

follow. If the former fits the post-modernist shoes, let them klop

around in them. Thanks, Rebeca, for starting a great discussion. We

all have artists we like. A good exercise might be sitting down and

explaining why we DON'T like someone. But with the best photography,

one needn't say a word-or explain it to others. Good job, Chris, in

exposing the opposite.

Just a post script. I had an exhibition years ago. One peice was of a

chunk of snow and ice, taken on a frozen salt marsh. My aunt, who I

dearly love, but has absolutly no artistic perception, at least none

that I could see, said that the photograph reminded her of a HUGE

PIECE of lemon merangue pie! Now the form of the ice is triangular,

the configuration of a piece of pie, and I LOVE LEMON MERANGUE PIE!

(any correlation to Weston's peppers, did he enjoy stuffed peppers?)

<p>

The morals of the story, when contemplating modernism, the meaning of

art, remember to have a good meal and good drink before hand.

"I wouldn't have considered the Bechers to be pomo artists, any more

than Kenna, Misrach, or Andreas Gursky."

<p>

I'm with you there, Chris, if you substitute Thomas Struth for Gursky.

Gursky's digital manipulation is just so heavy-handed, deleting and

adding major portions of the subject for the sake of emphasizing the

idea he's trying to convey, that I think of him (like Cindy Sherman)

as more of a pomo artist who chooses to use a camera than as a

photographer recording a real-world reality in the pre-postmodernist

sense of the term (ala Bechers, Kenna, etc.).

<p>

Interesting discussion!

<p>

...

I guess it depends where you are coming from - my direction being

more from architecture rather than the plastic arts and painting. In

that sense I really see the Struthsky's, Basilico, Bechers etc

(Possibly Misrach, but not Kenna - he's a Romantic) to be much more

post "Learning from Las Vegas" than Corbusier. In architecture, pomo

tends to have a slightly different meaning than in "art".

<p>

But then I also believe that photography has only a tenuous link to

painting and drawing and is much more closely linked to poetry and

possibly architecture (especially with it's combination of technical

and aesthetic).

<p>

So it's probably more to do with perspective

people like Chris Jordan are a deterrent to the evolving of art .

How can you be so sure that only your view of "how and in what

direction photography should evolve" is the right one?

<p>

Why don't you put some of your bitterness and anger in your

work?

Relevant to critique of Post-Modernism: Quote from Sir Herbert read,

eminent Art Historian; "Art is about feelings. If one has ideas to

express, the proper medium is language."

I'd have more truck with post-modernism if the title itself weren't an

oxymoron that shows utter contempt for, or total ignorance of,

language and semantics.<br>I think this is at the very heart of the

controversy. Are these guys deliberately challenging the very fabric

of convention, or just talentless twats who are so egotistical that

they think they're the only ones on earth to have discovered that life

is trivial/short/brutal/ironic/whatever? Who knows? The work itself

usually does nothing to enlighten anyone.<br>Until the proponents of

this movement become literate and articulate enough to express their

ideas clearly, in purely visual terms, and without some art-theory

self-appointed guru printing a thesis beside every work, then the

whole movement deserves all the contempt that it gets.

The site Chris cited crashed my computer, but before it did, I saw

enough to be sure that while I agree with some of his points, I'm sure

not in agreement with him about what constitutes "good art." In fact,

if it's narrative and storytelling that characterizes postmodern art,

then the stuff at that site should fit perfectly, along with 19th

century art photography that tried to replicate pre-Raphaelite

painting. The main difference I see between any of the above and

postmodern art is that the earlier work is marked by sentimentality

and the more recent by irony, detachment and cynicism, which are the

opposite side of the same coin and equally inimical to the creation of

meaningful and lasting art, in my opinion. I wish I could remember

where I read it and who said it, but in the last few days I've read a

quote something to this effect: "Remember, postmodern art is the first

postaudience art."

<p>

Also there was an interesting piece in the New Yorker a few weeks ago

about the studio art department at Harvard, which suggested that art

departments are starting to rethink their theory-laden programs and

lean more toward studio programs.

Post-Modernist theory, although it originated as an architectural movement,

was meant to be a criticism of the dominant 'paradigm' of Modernism. The

way we think about photography and art is a product of Modernism, we look to

the painting, photograph, what-ever as a piece of �truth� which is expressed by

an individual. PoMo theory would suggest that there is much more expressed

than an individual�s take on the world.

<p>

I wonder how much PoMo theories have changed the way we think about art

and photography; do we still believe (or did photographers ever believe) that

a photograph is 'the truth'?

I am hardly a Post-Modernist, but I think that to simply reject PoMo theory or

art is a mistake, there are some insights offered by PoMo theory--perhaps

even by photographers and artists-- which, IMHO, are useful and quite

reasonable. Roland Barthes� book (ok, he is actually a Post-Structuralist) <I>

Mythologies </I> (1972) is a great place to begin.

It took a little searching on my part to find out that "pomo" is

short for "postmodernism." I was wondering what this had to do with

a tribe of native Americans.

<p>

Coming from a poor white trash perspective (yes, my truck IS bigger

than your Volvo), a lot of it looks like "the emperor is butt-nekked

and there's a dog humping his leg." Most of the argument for it looks

to me like a bunch of ad copy for crappy products.

<p>

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, modernism: "3 : modern artistic

or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious

break with the past and a search for new forms of expression"

<p>

Now if we prefix "post-" to it, that would mean that the search for

new forms of expression is over. Looks like they haven't found

anything of value, and have wound up face down in the ditch.

<p>

The "rocks, lakes, trees" bunch are also post-modern, having skipped

modernism altogether. While their product is derided because it

graces calendars, it IS there BECAUSE it's worth looking at for a

whole month at a time by a large mass of people.

<p>

Now then, Rebeca, as to what you might photograph: How about taking

concepts such as truth, beauty, honesty, love, virtue, and integrity,

and showing how they AREN'T found in postmodernism?

When 42nd Street was waiting to be turned into Giuliani's Disneyland,

there was a cinema marquee displaying 'Art is either revolution or

plagiarism'. Think about it. By the way, the Seattle photographer who

posted this really funny message, might also be a little open to the

suggestion that beautiful, decorative images have their own role,

which need not be 'art'. Most photographers are not artists, in

particular many LF ones, who pick other people's brains about 'good

locations' to make the so-manieth shot of that rock or what have

you...

The problem I've always had was that po mo seemed (to me) as just a

game to see who is more clever or more strange. I've seen

some "stuff" that to me was just junk, and had several paragraphs of

more "junk" that tried to explain how good or important the picture

is... usually with lots of five dollar words and obscure references

to other five dollar words. I got the feeling that the "artist" was

just trying to convince us that he is smarter than we are. <YAWN>

If a photo can't sell itself on its own merits without pages

of "newspeak", then it's crap.

Respectfully, Steve, 'on its own merit' does not exist. It is always

the viewer's choice.

the fallacious concept that "art is either revolution or plagarism" is

the tragic core of the modern and post-modern movements. art students

are taught today that to create "real" art, you have to completely

redefine your medium with each piece.

<p>

In fact, art history teaches that every great work of art, music and

literature has been influenced by what came before it. for example,

many people consider Bach to be the greatest artist who has yet lived,

but by current postmodern standards his pieces would have been scorned

as highly derivative of those of Vivaldi and the whole Baroque

movement that had been going on for quite some time before Bach. Bach

didn't re-invent anything--he worked within the structure of his time

and applied his genius in a way that raised the bar slightly on

everything that had come before him. So with Shapespeare, who worked

within the poetic structure of his time (iambic pentameter). Until

postmodernism, that's all any artist aspired to.

<p>

That's not to say that great works of art are COPIES of preview works;

the concept of copying (plagarism) is vastly different from working

within a tradition and accepting--welcoming--influences by other

artists. Otherwise, by rejecting all influences and craft as being

"plagarism,", one is stuck trying to create a revolution, with no

tools that are considered legitimate (because to use them would be

copying others), no craft that is accepted as legitmate (for the same

reason), and no aesthetic standards (for the same reason). The result

of this is that the post-modern artist is forced into a state of

primitivism. And hence, by no surprise, the product sucks.

<p>

David, your comments were wonderful-- I'll carry a couple of your

nuggest around with me to pull out at just the right moment.

<p>

and, hey domenico, i'm most definitely NOT sure that my view is the

right one; it's just my own opinion, which is always open to change

based on well-considered discussion. how about you-- do you have any

opinions or well-considered comments, or are you satisifed with random

sniping at the opinions of others? your approach to date appears most

un-european; i know you can do better.

<p>

now i think i'll go have a piece of lemon meringue pie while i don my

asbestos jacket...

<p>

~cj

It is no wonder that the rise and influence of pomo in photography

parallels that of television and now the internet. The public has

less attention span and less time to interpret images. the way you

get the attention is to produce shocking, in your face sensationalist

images. Nothing is about substance and content anymore. Once you get

past the facade of many of these images there is nothing there. They

are souless attempts at attracting eyeballs and appealling to the

lowest common denominator.

<p>

The popularity of these images as evidenced by their predominance in

many galleries and due to the fact that most of the buying public s

wants that same shock value on their walls to show others and pretend

they have some knowledge about photography.

<p>

I have seen pomo work at galleries in Chicago and New York, and I

don't remember any that I would want to return to ever see again, let

alone hang on my wall to see everyday.

<p>

Most of the work is so pretentious it screams, "it's all about me!"

And just in case you can't figure that out, there is always a essay

or piece by the photographer that explains how bad his life sucks or

how much of a victim he is etc.

<p>

Of course there may be a few good ones out there. But IMHO most of

it is simply the work of people who are to lazy to learn another

medium, to lazy to understand and appreciate the history and

foundations of art, and especially to lazy to learn how to use a

camera.

Did someone wonder why I was amused at the propect of a POMOphobia

discussion on here? well:

<p>

> If a photo can't sell itself on its own merits without pages

> of "newspeak", then it's crap.

<p>

It was because of this kind of totally unconstructive knee-jerk

response which comes up every time (funilly enough it nearly always

includes the use of the word "crap" - as has been amply demonstrated

in this thread).

<p>

Probably down to a phobia or fear of something unknown or

incomprehensible to the individual. But, to dismiss work as "crap"

just because you don't or can't get it - it's just laziness really.

<p>

I'm enjoying the constructive discussion, but if we just want to

throw the term crap around - hey, lets look at some Adams stuff or

maybe Kenna or whoever...! Wow, that's sure easy to do - end of

discussion. you can't argue with that statement now, can you.

<p>

Okay - just kidding about the latter two.