what makes a postmodern photographer?

i am doing a paper on postmodern artists, and after some thought have decided to

base it on a photographer, and his/her work.

 

the difficulty i am having is in writing a successful 'critique' of someone, in

order to give me a good balanced view with which to write a decent essay. do you

think i will probably find this, that most work of one photographer will

generally be classed as either postmodern, or not?

 

I have looked in some depth at the work of:

 

Paul Strand,

Edward Weston,

Dorothea Lange,

Helen Chadwick,

Cindy Sherman,

Jo Spence.

 

I have focused mostly upon the last 3, particularly Sherman and Spence.

 

Would anyone be able to help me with valid points of these photographers' work,

which demonstrate postmodern and non postmodern values?

 

Thank you in advance, much appreciated!

"what makes a postmodern photographer?"

 

Ornamental but architecturally deconstructed clothing and head gear.

 

butto a serious answer:

 

Those are six very different photographers and together don't make up a bucket that can hold the water you are trying to carry.

 

For purposes of comparing modernistto post modernist photographers

 

Maybe Paul Outerbridge and Cindy Sherman (or Robert Mapplethorpe) make a valid pair.

 

Maybe Edward Weston and Stephen Shore make a valid pairing.

 

Maybe Dorthea Lange and Susan Meiselas (or Mary Ellen Mark) make a decent pairing.

Maria: "postmodern"

 

I don't think the term has useful aesthetic, philosophic, or historic meaning. I think it's used to distract us from appreciating images.

 

Your professor evidently wouldn't agree.

 

What do you think it means?

<p>I don't think the first three can be easily classified unambiguously as postmodern; so you're right to concentrate on the others who all clearly fit.</p>

<p>Beyond that, it really depends on what definition you take for

"postmodernism" - it's not a well defined term, its meaning shifting from context to context.</p>

<p>My own reasons for assigning it to Chadwick, Sherman and Spence derive primarily from their treatment of the photographic image as a text for interpretation, their breaking of the narrative screen convention between that text and its reader/viewer (especially in the case of Spence), their explicit reference to and exploitation of intertextuality (particularly Chadwick), their knowing self reference (Spence and Sherman most clearly).</p>

Felix, as I vaguely misunderstand , one should evaluate Sherman's work as something other than mere "image" because of that "knowing self reference."

 

Straight question:

 

How is that different from a photograph with a subtle caption hinting at something not immediately evident in the image?

John,

 

Becasue it requires you to know what she is referring to and to take your experience of the photogrpah (or building, or play, or ballet , or what ever) apart in the context of what you know (from education, from life) and then reassembling both the meaning of the photograph and of what you brought to the photograph rather than have Sherman explaining it all for you.

 

One of her (Sherman's ) point is that she can't hint at something that she has no acess to: the viewer's thoughts. It makes explicitthe audience's role in the evanescent nature of art.

 

Depending the viewer, their state of mind when they are doing it, and how well the photogrpaher does this, it's either a very sophisticated strategy, an amusing game, or a bit of a cop out o nthe photographer's part. Sometimes I think it is all three at the same time.

 

I personally find Sherman's work to be rather strident, but maybe my sensibilities are too delicate having been raised on a strict diet of Erwitt, Winogrand, Avedon, Penn, Maisel, Cartier-Bresson, and Mapplethorpe -- but I do understand what she is doing: sometimes people need to have their bells rung with a sledge hammer.

Ellis, thanks.

 

However I doubt anyone has ever gotten "what she is referring to" without its explanation in the New York Times :-)

 

My own take is that she's another William Wegman, and that's not a negative valuation. They're both fun.

Here at the end of the Modern Age, postmodern has yet to work itself out. I'm hoping for the best, but not betting on it.

"However I doubt anyone has ever gotten "what she is referring to" without its explanation in the New York Times "

 

I haven't found that reading the NYT or anything else is necessary is necessary. She's generally commenting on the roles females have traditionally occupied in Western European culture and how they have been depicted in other art forms. Mostly her work is about the conflicts between culturally imposed and individual identity and the cracks in the surface that appear in the conflict between exterior vs. interior identity. I assume she chooses t ouse photography as her medium of expression because photography as an art is only concerned with the appearance of the surface of the subject( can you think of another medium that so purely visual? Even calligraphy -ink on paper -- has its tactile qualities) . There lots of other things happening in a photograph -color; tone; line; composition; the depiction of light; and what Jay Maisel calls "the gesture" that the entire contents of a photograph makes -- but all are rendered in a flat two dimensional plane and that is all we have a as a thing to behold and ponder.

 

I also think Ms. Sherman likes photography as a medium because of its built in suspension-of-disbelief factor: In a painting or a sculpture, the first thing you notice is that it is a painting or a sculpture. With most photographs that are well done the thing most of us notice first is what is depicted in it.

 

As an artist stuffed into the "post modernism" pigeon hole , my guess is that Cindy Sherman on some level also likes playing with those cultural ideas of what a photograph is, what one should look like, and how an individual sees and perceives when looking at a photograph.

I guess I haven't much use for this awkward term. Literally, and without the

baggage of a photography college education, I would say that the present is

modern (or contemporary) and that a "postmodern" photographer is therefore

one who has yet to be born.

 

In other words, a better term for whatever is meant should be developed.

Start with the definition (assuming there is one!), then find a suitable term.

Arthur,

 

I pretty much agree with you but art historians and museum curators need terms like these. Modernism and Post-Modernism are art movements with specific criteria.

Ellis, thanks. While it isn't the first time I've encountered them in art texts or art

and photography exhibitions, I just don't like the terms at all. Impressionism,

Fauvism, Surrealism and a few others mean something. However, it's

probably time I looked up the definitions of these lame ducks.

Ellis, I find it hard to believe you didn't reverse-engineer your analysis of Sherman :-)

 

I suspect you were not a tabula rasa... you applied that read or heard somewhere to what you were seeing.

 

Am I wrong? Did you just parachute in front of her prints without reading anything at all?

 

I've had the impression that you read more than just about anybody about photographic ideas...

"Did you just parachute in front of her prints without reading anything at all?"

 

it was sort of apparent the first few times I saw some of her work either during FotoFest or at the Museum of Fine Arts Houston that she was goofing with those themes. But I confess that later I read a couple of brief synopsises (synopsi?) of her work in a couple of books.

 

The thing is that while I get what she is doing, but she's one of those people who isn't so much a great photographer - she's not pushignthe envelope of what a photograph can be (like Maisel, Erwitt, Cartier-Bresson, Adams (both Robert and Ansel, Mapplethorpe, Penn, Avedon, etc. --as she is an artist just using photography as one aspect of her art.

Yes, we understand her in the same way.

 

It's interesting that you find Mapplethorpe was a great photographer, and that Sherman is mentioned in the same context. I think they're clinkers, though very good at what they do/did. Perhaps there's a new "Topic" in there somewhere. In a nutshell, she seems more involved in intellectual exercise and he seemed more involved in decor. I suppose Avedon's fashion work could be seen in those ways too, in some cases, but I find his life's work transcendent.

Have a look at her website, in the appropriately small sub-site or link denoted

as "art". I agree she is a clinker, perhaps simply an icon of some 2nd rate

form of popularised art, but certainly no artist of consequence (not

comparable to Mapplethorpe or Avedon -to mention only American artists).

 

This is not art with a capital A. Hopefully postmodern art goes higher than this

in creativity.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but she is definitely an artist of importance, more importantly her work is influentential, and hence of consequence -- But I don't think even she considers herself a formally or technically great photographer.

 

And I would cal lher work far from "popularized art" ( i nthe way that Warhol, Lichenstein, Art Wolfe, or Thomas Kincaid is. I think the opposite might be true.

 

And finally that's not her website. As far as I know she doesn't have one. The one you found appears to have been set up by a fan of her work.

It's just too bad that Ms. Galvin has not rejoined the conversation. To find out if your ideas or thinking is original or good, you have to let 'em out of their bone chapel so they wrestle with other ideas.

 

Or were you just trying to get us to do your homework for you?

Ellis, can one set up a website for (or claiming to be) another person?

Sounds like a possible attack on the charter of rights, or on copyright at least.

Try cindysherman.com or google her name - I think that is the website that I

looked at - and let me know please if that is a bona fide site or not. That is

where I saw her work, which may be only a part of it. If she is influencing a lot

of persons she is doing better than most of us, what?

 

Another student is seeking info on a reasonably priced MF camera for specific

work. Again, no reply yet to those who have taken the trouble to respond.

Maybe too early?

http://cindysherman.com/disclaimer.shtml<P>

 

<I>This website is privately owned and maintained and in no way affiliated with Cindy

Sherman and/or her representatives, nor is it implied to be or should be interpreted as

such. Her representatives cannot be reached through this site and we cannot forward

messages to them. This website is an unofficial tribute/fan site and has been created

solely for entertainment purposes. Use of copyrighted images and information is covered

under the fair use section of the Copyright Law. This website is not responsible for any

content, off this site, to which it links. This website and its contents do not constitute

official information. Although the information is believed to be accurate when presented,

this site is under constant revision, and no warranty of any kind (including accuracy,

completeness, reliability, or otherwise) is made or implied. The website registrant will not

be responsible for any damages of any nature resulting from use of or reliance upon the

information provided herein.

 

 

</I>

Warhol certainly was "popularized," sought popularity, but he'd faced tremendous hostility before those soup cans. Wouldn't be surprised if that had to do with his creation of his own insulated subculture.

 

"Important" critics (hot-aired big names, of the type who rattle on about "postmodernity") claimed he was part of an anti-art conspiracy. But I became aware of him earlier, while still in high school, from the Harvard University course catalog he illustrated with his Xeroxed photos (being a hick, I went to an ag school).

<I>Warhol certainly was "popularized," sought popularity, but he'd faced

tremendous hostility before those soup cans. Wouldn't be surprised if that had

to do with his creation of his own insulated subculture. </I><P> He still faces hostility of course, everyone is different, who does work that looks different does.

John--

 

I'm curious about your use of the term "decor" with respect to Mapplethorpe. I believe

you've used it in other instances regarding Mapplethorpe as well.

 

From an online dictionary entry on "decor"

 

1. style or mode of decoration, as of a room, building, or the like: modern office décor;

a bedroom having a Spanish décor.

2. decoration in general; ornamentation: beads, baubles, and other décor.

 

I don't want to come off as a defender of Mapplethorpe. I think there is a side to his work

that can be viewed as simplistic and superficial. I'm not sure he availed himself of more

than one or two notes. Regardless, there is a blatancy, a pushing of certain boundaries, an

exposure of mainstream to some fairly non-mainstream images. Why decor? Like or

dislike, great art or trash, it is more in-your-face than "ornamentation. I tend to think of

decor as fairly benign and "benign" is not a word I'd link to Mapplethorpe. Motel art is one

thing and you may assess such stuff and the works of Mapplethorpe equally in terms of

their appeal to you or their furtherance of "art" in the grander scheme of art history, but

surely there is still a distinction to be drawn between the two. No?

"He still faces hostility of course, everyone is different, who does work that

looks different does."

 

The objective of making something look different seems to lead in some

cases to work that is applauded simply for being different but not necessarily

for having any redeeeming artistic value. Of course, many will jump on that

wagon and continue to extoll the work. "The emperor's new clothes?"

 

Is postmodern art simply a new venue for "different" art? What else defines

postmodern art enough to qualify it as a bonafide movement, a powerful new

force in the art world?

Arthur,

 

You're flailing at straws now. Warhol's and Sherman's work has lasting and redeeming artistic value; that work is like big boulders ina stream pushing the stream one way and then another. You might not care for Sherman's work and I might not care for it, but I like and respect it more than the work of people who try their best to copy Ansel Adams or others who were revolutionary in their time. There is a lot of "emperor's new clothes" crap out there but time sorts it out.