When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary. . .?

<p>When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary challenging the prevailing order, and when is she/he merely a bourgeois collaborationist upholding the prevailing order?</p>

<p>Perhaps photography like all art is always revolutionary, since it does not confine itself to speaking "through channels" of bureaucratic officialdom. It "goes" and speaks where it will and cannot be confined.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Bourgeois collaborationist', how quaint, I don't believe I have heard or read that phrase in nearly 50 years. We must frequent different circles, and I no longer have any contact with academia.<br>

When art becomes didactic is it still art?<br>

Does using art as a tool diminish it?<br>

There is life, and there is art which offers respite, and there is propaganda. Propaganda can be "artful" and effective, but always remains linked to the regime e.g. Triumph of Will.<br>

Can cause driven art survive except as a quaint relics, e.g. state sponsored art of the vanished 1,000 Year Reich or the former Soviet Union?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h1 >When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary. . .?</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>When he has a good publicist and/or agent.</p>

<p>Currently what I see as revolutionary is the public citizen spectator cellphone captures of police shooting African Americans during arrests over minor infractions.</p>

<p>In the future are we going to see these displayed in a cultural center or museum gallery as meaningful and revolutionary photography? It seems to be making a difference on how police are being trained, hopefully.</p>

<p><em>Can cause driven art survive except as a quaint relics, e.g. state sponsored art of the vanished 1,000 Year Reich or the former Soviet Union?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Well, Joe Rosenthal. Norman Rockwell. Ansel Adams, I guess. I could go on.</p>

<p>Apparently we are enjoying censorship. It is o.k. to post one side of an issue, but not a response. Not the first time, just indications of the death of discourse.</p>

<p>This had happen and does happen under strict regimes. Artists figure out how to code what they try to say....and even censors can't figure out. Hmmm, that's an art all by itself.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Changing the perceptions of people may be revolutionary but often just evolutionary. The CBC did an excellent series on wartime propaganda a decade ago. Both sides of WW2 provided images including art that served the purpose. De Goya's images of violence in revolutionary Spain of his time served a revolutionary cause, as did Picasso's "Guernica" for the socialists fighting Germany and the dictator Franco. </p>

<p>It's not 'order' that stirs the passions of photographers and would be the essential core around which any 'revolution' will revolute. Order is boring. Rather, what is the heart of photography is 'reality.'</p>

<p>Notice how much and how often and how urgently we argue about that word 'reality' here in these forums. 'Order,' not so much (not at all ... ).</p>

<p>An odd seeming quote from Edwin Denby, talking about dance: "There is something unprofessional about carrying reality around with you in public that goes straight to my heart." Unprofessional, as in not personal, heart-felt. For such unprofessional persons, '<em>what</em> is reality' doesn't even want to be defined; it's the word for that which one treasures, or rather it defines itself as that which is treasured -- for one side of our eternal, passionate argument.</p>

<p>For the other 'side' of the 'reality argument, a quote from Hollis Frampton: "It is obvious that historic time, though quite well suited to the needs of matter, is a terrain too sparse to afford the mind any lasting amusement or sustenance."</p>

<p>An odd personal, for myself, evidence or sign of ... what exactly, I'm not sure of ... is that I find that I look at 'failed' or 'bad' photographs longer than I look at 'good' ones. I think I like those stray insertions of the uncontrolled 'real' into, what has or is becoming, a boring, too-familiar 'good.' (Which will mean that I'll just have to start calling the bad good and the good bad. Revolving, revoluting.)</p>

<p>From John Gossage: "But failures aren't fakes. Failures follow you down the road, and can't be disavowed by saying 'you know I didn't really mean it.' "</p>

Given photography's symbiotic relationship with technology, I'd suggest that photographers that use revolutionary

technology (of the time) were revolutionaries

<p>When art critics say they are...usually years after their "revolutionary" work. Personally, I think we ought to decide for ourselves what/who is revolutionary... </p>

<p>I would say that the work of photographic art itself is revolutionary, apart from its content, in this one sense: unless it is totally and deliberately destroyed by those in "authority," it can be seen/heard/etc. by anyone (and conceivably everyone), and (as I said in the original posting) it speaks outside bureaucratic "channels of communication." It is not, cannot be classified, either secret, top secret, etc. It is, that is, inherently and intrinsically public.</p>

<p>In other words, regardless of what it has to say, the object of visual art cannot be "shut up." It speaks up, and it speaks out, and it speaks to everyone, as if everyone were sitting and speaking around the headless round table, rather than coming down as an edict through the bureaucratic power pyramid as "official truth." (HINT: Who sits at the head of a round table?)</p>

<p>Such unbridled commentary, that is, is in some sense revolutionary just by virtue of being almost impossible to control.</p>

<p>As for content, that, alas, may be quite reactionary, the very antithesis of revolutionary.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Of course, if all of the knights were sitting around the round table with King Arthur, and even if there is (by definition and thus logical necessity) no head to the round table, everyone would still know which one is king--the one who controls the purse strings, even if not the swords.</p>

<p>I meant to say, Whoever controls the purse strings controls what is seen as and officially revered as and exhibited as "art."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I wonder if the person who gave us "Elvis on Velvet" conceived of himself/herself as a revolutionary, bringing "art" to the masses, not to mention to the hollows of Appalachia.</p>

<p>I could ask the same question about the creator of the<em><a href="https://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/3375/p3375_p_v8_aa.jpg"> poster of Raquel Welch</a></em> bursting forth from her animal skins, or the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Farrah+Fawcett+poster&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8"><em>poster of Farrah Fawcett</em></a> that graced so many dorms rooms forty years ago.</p>

<p>Revolutionaries. . .</p>

<p>I wonder if pornographers conceive of themselves as progressives or revolutionaries, liberating the rest of us from our puritanical chains.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>With all that, Lannie, I think you need to define what constitutes revolutionary. From your POV its weight of importance must always need to be compared to the size of the monster whether real or imagined.</p>

<p>You can go round and round debating about what is revolutionary with every increase in size of any force that appears to suppress free thought. Revolution requires change toward the betterment of society. Most of the time with photography it's much ado about nothing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if pornographers conceive of themselves as progressives or revolutionaries, liberating the rest of us from our puritanical chains.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope you're being sarcastic here, Lannie, because there's nothing revolutionary in anything pornographers do, at least if you agree with Tim's statement about what being "revolutionary" implies:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Revolution requires change toward the betterment of society.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pornography debases those who participate in it and use it, which is hardly conducive to the betterment of society or ourselves.</p>

<p>For the record, I do not endorse the making or use of pornography, Mark. On the other hand, people disagree vehemently as to what pornography is. Some persons still view all artistic nude paintings, sculpture, and photography as pornographic. That is not my position.</p>

<p>Was I being sarcastic above? No. I strongly suspect that some purveyors of the very worst pornography probably do perceive the rest of us as sticks in the mud, badly in need of liberation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you need to define what constitutes revolutionary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I would prefer that contributors bring their own definitions to the table. I leave questions open-ended in order to maximize participation. My own view? Well, not to be imperial nor to try to set the agenda for those who respond, I tend to think of that which is revolutionary as involving sweeping social change, whether fast or slow. Others tend to use the term only if the change is rapid, and a few insist on interpreting the term "revolutionary" only for violent and sudden large-scale social and political change. I personally think of the term as having a number of possible meanings, and I have just given my own meaning for purposes of this thread.</p>

<p>I am not at all certain that all revolutionary social change is for the betterment of society, but it helps me to know that that is how you are defining the term.</p>

<p>To my way of thinking, revolutions do always involve some sort of challenge to the status quo, but not all necessarily imply a challenge to the ruling elites. Political revolutions do imply a challenge to the ruling elites, but I am not talking politics here, except in the broadest possible sense that everything can be considered "political"--according to some people. I understand that point of view, but I do not find it particularly helpful.</p>

<p>I am not trying to slip off of your question, as I have been accused of doing from time to time. I simply think that people who post in response would do well to define their own usages of the term. As the original poster, I would prefer not to narrow the possible responses. That is, I truly prefer to keep definitions open and broad as long as possible, lest the threads be interpreted narrowly by others. I say that as the original poster. I may at some point see the necessity to narrow down the definition in order to make a specific point.</p>

<p>Artistic revolutions? Well, if anyone can address that broad topic on a photography forum such as this one, that would be most welcome. I do not mean to suggest that all photography is art, but I didn't want to get drawn into the issue of what is art and what is not. If someone else wants to get into that, well, that is that their choice.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When is the artist/photographer <strong>A</strong> revolutionary?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would have to narrow it down to actions and their results demonstrated in their work or in their approach to their work, as an example Picasso's cubist period, a very revolutionary way of interpreting reality in a painting.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>With photography right off the top of my head as an example would be William Eggleston's use of color film's vibrant colors and implementing a new dye transfer print method of shots depicting mundane objects and scenes as a way of flying in the face of B&W fine art photography purists.</p>

<p>Did any of their actions bring change or improve society? Maybe the society of artists and photographers. To be revolutionary one has to provide a benefit and/or move something forward to be deemed a revolutionary because we all don't want to go backward to the bad old days.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To be revolutionary one has to provide a benefit and/or move something' forward to be deemed a revolutionary because we all don't want to go backward to the bad old days.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On this definition, Lenin and Mao and Castro were all great revolutionaries. From a Marxist perspective they were all improvements--and maybe they were in part. I am just not so sure that the connotation of "revolutionary" need always be positive. Capitalists might also refer to them as "revolutionaries" without thereby endorsing the changes they brought about as being beneficial.</p>

<p>That is, those who despised the changes brought about by the three men I just mentioned might still describe them as "revolutionaries."</p>

<p>I will concede that those who call themselves "revolutionaries" do indeed see themselves as bettering society (or whatever social grouping or pursuit they affected). Others, however, might keep the label "revolutionary" without intending to convey any endorsement of their cause or movement. </p>

<p>Was Picasso a revolutionary? Absolutely. Do all persons who call him or cubism "revolutionary" mean thereby to endorse them? No. I am reminded me of that line from<em> Full Metal Jacket: </em>"You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece." I happen to like many currents of what is called "modern art." Does everyone? I just do not see the term "revolutionary" as necessarily implying anything laudatory, praiseworthy.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, I prefer to use the term "revolutionary" as implying a sweeping or radical change without thereby feeling the need to judge whether such changes were necessarily for the better. I do not think that common usage requires that the term be laudatory.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Here are some dictionary definitions, Tim. None of them seems to <strong><em>require</em></strong> a positive judgment:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolutionary">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>I am not a reactionary. I just cannot say that common usage supports your effort to make the term "revolutionary" in and of itself into a laudatory term. Some people are still lamenting the "Industrial Revolution," but they would still have to admit that the changes brought by it were sweeping and "revolutionary." Many are still in reaction against the "computer/digital revolution," but they might still call it a "revolution."</p>

<p>A newspaper headline might say in 1973 that "Revolutionaries captured the capital of Chile yesterday and deposed the Marxist president Salvador Allende." (I would personally call Pinochet and his CIA-backed movement "reactionary," but common usage is what it is.) I just do not see common usage as attaching a laudatory connotation to the term "revolutionary" by any necessity. Many do tend to use the term "revolution" as implying "progress." Others just use it to suggest radical or widespread change, whether for good or bad, progressive or regressive.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just cannot say that common usage supports your effort to make the term "revolutionary" in and of itself into a laudatory term.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(I would personally call Pinochet and his CIA-backed movement "reactionary," but common usage is what it is.) I just do not see common usage as attaching a laudatory connotation to the term "revolutionary" by any necessity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I don't see you offering any answers to your own topic..."When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary".<br>

<br />So when do you consider a creative a revolutionary, Lannie?</p>

<p>Don't need a definition of the term by common usage or any other definer. I didn't see the point of that first quote nor did I see how it relates to this topic. Please state your opinion as it relates to photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, I think you need to define what constitutes revolutionary. <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 09, 2016; 05:38 p.m.</p>

<p>Don't need a definition of the term by common usage or any other definer. <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 11, 2016; 04:35 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, which is it, Tim? Do we need a definition of "revolutionary" or don't we. I was simply trying to convey by my link to an online dictionary that I think that the popular, commonsense definition suffices.</p>

<p>I had previously offered my own definition:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I tend to think of that which is revolutionary as involving sweeping social change, whether fast or slow. <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 09, 2016; 11:49 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You then responded,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To be revolutionary one has to provide a benefit and/or move something forward to be deemed a revolutionary because we all don't want to go backward to the bad old days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagreed, saying that I saw no need for "revolution" or "revolutionary" to have a positive connotation, and I offered the link to the dictionary definition to support my view; that is, ordinary definitions will suffice, and ordinary definitions do not necessarily imply that "revolution/revolutionary" is a laudatory term implying anything necessarily positive.</p>

<p>You are challenging the need now to offer a definition? I am not sure what you want. In any case, you are tired of the great debate over definition(s), as am I, and so you have moved back to the original question: "When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary?"</p>

<p>Well, to be quite honest, Tim, I really do not know. That is why I asked the question. I have toyed with the idea that perhaps there is something intrinsic to art that tends to make it revolutionary, in that it tends to speak outside channels of "command and control." That is, it is hard to "shut up"--short of flat out destroying it.</p>

<p>I can see why that would not be satisfying to you as a complete answer. It is not satisfying to me, either. I don't have a complete answer. In fact, not all photos or artistic artifacts have revolutionary content simply because they can speak to anyone and do not require "permission to speak." I acknowledged that fact, too.</p>

<p>So, where are we? We are back to the original question, since talking about "artifacts" as "inherently revolutionary" didn't carry us very far.</p>

<p>So it is that my original question still stands. I have tried to offer an answer--one that does not (I presume) satisfy you, and I can't say that it satisfies me.</p>

<p>I hear Sandy's challenge in my ear as to whether art can still be art if it is didactic:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When art becomes didactic is it still art?<br /> Does using art as a tool diminish it?<br /> <br /> There is life, and there is art which offers respite, and there is propaganda. Propaganda can be "artful" and effective, but always remains linked to the regime e.g. Triumph of Will.<br /> <br /> Can cause driven art survive except as a quaint relics, e.g. state sponsored art of the vanished 1,000 Year Reich or the former Soviet Union?</p>

<p>--Sandy Vongries</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess at this point we need to refine the question before we can give much of an answer, but I don't quite know what to do with my own question. Maybe someone else can either refine the question and offer an answer to their own refined question, or maybe someone else can answer the original question as posted in the title of the thread.</p>

<p>I any case, I am coming up empty on this one. I am truly sorry. I wish that I could answer the question, but, apart from valid references to Picasso and Eggleston,<em> et al.</em> as being revolutionary, I don't know quite what to say. I have a class coming up in little while that runs from eight a.m. until noon and so I will have to pass the baton on this one--for at least a while.</p>

<p>Perhaps we can agree that art is revolutionary <strong><em>as art </em></strong>if it breaks new ground in technique or style. But what about content? Dorothea Lange's pictures of the Great Depression? Now we are beyond technique and style and into the realm of content--social content at that, but surely a cut (or two or three) above the "socialist workers art" of the old Soviet Union.</p>

<p>I have to leave the question open for now. I'm empty, at least for the moment.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Through Soviet Jewish Eyes" by David Shneer presents an interesting perspective.ACCORDING TO HIM in revolutionary Russia many Jews turned to photography since it was hard for them to be credentialed as artists and thus have freedom of travel. Photography was not considered art yet by the Tsarist government and it afforded them the chance the escape their provincial surroundings. The elite at that time wanted photo portraits and this is where almost all photography was done. Come the revolution there was not calling for this but the New Soviet government found a lot of value in photos to "educate and inspire the people" Now these photographers became messengers for the revolution and virtually invented and pioneered street, documentary and journalistic photography. Of course one could not expect to be totally objective in our sense of the word. Some historians from Soviet Russia have said that he is a little too simplistic but there is a lot of truth there.</p>

<p>I have not read all the posts but as far as being didactic or revolutionary I will bring up Socialist Realism. It is revolutionary in that it was a new form. It was considered revolutionary by some as an extension of the revolution even though it was sanctioned by an established government (so is it revolutionary in this sense) and it is quite didactic. But it is still considered art by most. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Socialist Realism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Donald. Of course, that is the label I was looking for when I referred to "socialist workers art." I knew that wasn't quite it, but I didn't bother to look it up.</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=socialist+realism&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2qL6sgOzNAhWKFx4KHdomCyIQsAQINA&biw=911&bih=511"><em>Here</em></a></strong> is a link to a Google search for "Socialist Realism," which turned up more varied results than I expected.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>