What is post-modern photography

[beeman458]

<i>So how does this apply to photography I hear you ask?</i><p>

 

The part that some have trouble getting a grip on, Postmodern art has absolutely nothing to do with Postmodern photographic art. That point is the first thing people need to get a grip on if you're gonna understand what Postmodern photographic art is.<p>

[g1]

ps Frank Lloyd Wright is an architect so perhaps not directly relevant to photography, but some of the philosophical issues discussed were addressed very well by him. <p>

Here's some lighter stuff - some very amusing and thought provoking quotes by him - <a href="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1469/flwquote.html">Frank Lloyd Wright Quotes</a>

[g1]

Thomas, Post Modern Art and Post Modern Photographic Art, are not <i>completely</i> unrelated. For example the freedom and explorative nature embracing personal expression/emotion/individualism can be employed by both art and photography. So too can the ornate decorative style, or minimilist 'clean lines and space' style be applied in an aesthetic sense.

[beeman458]

I'm only learning about it, so I'll let other's words speak for me, for they say it very eloquently.<p>

 

Marion Lambert wrote in her essay; "On Revenge, Art, Artists, and Collecting"<p>

 

<i>"Artists are outsiders by choice and by definition, and they break into territories and transgress boundaries. They are controversial by definition, because they challenge the established norms and values. Personally, I oppose the tendency of our society to sweep under the carpet vital and actual questions regarding sexuality, identity, feminism and the alienation of human beings in an industrialized world. Contemporary artists, like naughty children, point to what we do not wish to see. And, for me, the intrinsic value of contemporary art lies there."</i><p>

[beeman458]

G. You're correct in that they're not completely different from each other but if you're gonna understand the think of photographic postmodern art, you'll have to detach from any definition that you know of in regard to Postmodern art as the understanding of the definition of Postmodern art will cloud your understanding of Postmodern photography. That's why many are having so much trouble wrapping their think around it.<p>

[Landrum Kelly]

Kantor, Rorty is an excellent example of someone warped by the postmodern tradition. In addition, you say that nobody in the "Anglo-American" school understands PM. And who would you have in mind? Me?

 

Please don't try to categorize me unless you've read my own books, and please don't assume that I don't understand PM in a variety of its variants. The epistemological quandary is primary. Everything else is derivative of its problems in that area.

 

Above all, don't offer a critique before you've read your philosophical adversary--that's very bad form. Don't expect to be taken too seriously on either the aesthetic or ethical side of PM if you take shots like that.

 

You have yet to offer a coherent argument. Sorry to say that, but look at what you've written--assertions without argumentation. That's anti-philosophy. That's post-modernism. You qualify. Condolences.

[d_poinsett]

Brian, the broad range of positions I've described characterizing postmodernism are not 'mine'. I have no real interest in defending them or changing anyone's mind about them. I'm only passing along what I know about it. I currently believe the information to be accurate.

[nick_wilson2]

Post modernist photography:

 

1. Beauty is the enemy. Classicism is the enemy.

 

3. Nothing is original and appropriation is the goal.

 

3. Prints never to be framed. Preferably viewed whilst wearing a black skivvy. Visual literacy very optional.

 

4. Badly made prints where the lack of craft is painful is made out to be a virtue.

 

5. Prints themselves out in favour of installations.

 

6. 'Artist's statement' obligatory. Extra points for each use of the transient keywords du jour, eg interrogate.

 

7. Irony and knowingness essential. 'Meaning' is everything, even when trivial. A poor photo of a pile of rubbish in an alley IS a load of rubbish. This is a post modernist position.

 

8. In photography, as in music and life, the post modernist excuse is the saviour of the artist without vision and skill.

 

9. Saviour is not an acceptable term, except on an artist's statement.

[beeman458]

Postmodern photography isn't about feminism.<p>

 

Marion Lambert wrote in her essay: "On Revenge, Art, Artists, and Collecting;<p>

 

<i>"Contemporary art, and particularly today, is the expression of the preoccupations, sufferings and political convicitions of others. It is about meaning and content, not about representing reality.<p>

 

The use of photography in contemporary art is the result of two converging components: its familiarity to us as a visual language because of the world of images we live in, and its past use to document.<p>

 

Most contemporary artists use the medium of photography because it is a language of our time. As Cindy Sherman says: "I love my camera -- is is like a paintbrush."</i><p>

 

 

Photography was the medium which feminists use to explore second wave feminists issues with, beginning in the 70's. So you can all relax on this idea of Postmodern photographic art being a feminist photographic art, as Postmodern photographic art isn't about feminism per se but the issues feminism raises. Men can as easily use the medium to explore male related social issues as well and still be considered Postmodern photographic artists:)<p>

 

Postmodernist use the documentary capabilities to record and explore issues not to lay claim to a cultural or social genre.<p>

[beeman458]

in his essay: "Marks of Indifference: Aspects of Photography in, or as, Conceptual Art.":<p>

 

<i>"The art-concept of photojournalism began to force photography into what appears to be a modernist dialectic. By divesting itself of the encumbrances and advantages inherited from older art forms; reportage, or the spontaneous, fleeting aspect of the photographic image, pushes toward a discovery of qualities apparently intrinsic to the medium, qualities that must necessarily distinguish the medium from others, and through the self-examination of which it can emerge as a modernist art on a plane with others."</i><p>

 

Jeff refers to contemporary photographic art as <i>"post-Pictorialist" or "(one might say its "post-Stieglitzian" phase)"</i>, which he states, <i>"...began around 1920,..."</i><p>.

[john_powers1]

<P>Postmodernity is the Others roll of the dice, it is who we play

to keep the game of life going. The postmodern is the music our genes play as

fundamentalist, positioned and occupying forces war. The postmodern is the call to

battle.<BR>

<BR>

Postmodernity is dedicated to survival and not revival.<BR>

<BR>

JP<BR>

<BR>

Reference: The Vital Illusion by Jean Baudrillard<BR>

Words/Images by Fredrick Sommer<BR>

Postmodernity Goes to War by Philip Hammond online at <BR>

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA554.htm</P>

[beeman458]

Again, one will never understand Postmodern photographic art if they try to apply the anti-Modernist Postmodernist message to Postmodern photographic art. Why? Understanding Postmodern think does absolutely nothing to explain Postmodern photography, although Postmodern photography clearly has Postmodern elements in it.

 

It's like trying to compare a horse and a giraffe if you will. They both have a head, long neck, eyes, mouth, pointy ears, ect., give live birth, eat grass, have hooves, legs, a tail and can run really fast as they are both plains animals that are hunted by big cats. So the act of describing a giraffe and a horse to a blind man could essentially be the act of describing the same animal and yet, there clearly are differences.

[jkantor]

Dr. Kelly - send me a review copy of one of your books - or a link to one of your articles concering postmoderism/poststructuralism. I'll be glad to read and comment on it.

 

But Rorty is a pure relativist - not a poststructuralist, despite what he might think. Late modernism = relativism; postmodernism = contingency - big differance (with an accent on that e). I don't disagree with his conclusions - but he has offered no meaningful justification for them. Poststructuralism doesn't say turn your back on metaphysical concepts; deconstruct them. And the answers he provides fundamentally come down to politics - not philosophy.

 

Along the same lines, the Spiked article is pretty interesting for the range it covers. However, I think most of the anti-war rhetoric, including from the postmodern camp, is extremely simplistic. They are really just attempting to justify their political views - not really examining the issue from a postmodern standpoint. (Being a poststructuralist doesn't necessarily mean you are a liberal pacifist.)

[Landrum Kelly]

John, let me first of all try to relate this to post-modern photography, about which I am definitely no expert. (I am an ethicist--and a maverick.) I see post-modern photography as often being prone to nihilistic tendencies and generally ungrounded in any strong metaphysical foundations--but that is the postmodern condition, isn't it? (And that's about as far as I can get with using "postmodern" in an actual sentence.) Nor does photography have to be grounded in metaphysics, thank goodness, nor is it clear that it could ever be. I don't think metaphysics when I take or view a picure. Post-modern criticism of art and photography is another thing entirely, however, since criticism does not speak for itself in a way that I think that a photograph should--and art criticism (like literary criticism) is where the gobbledygook tends to begin, and where I wish that a statement of first principles would begin--but most people in the postmodern tradition don't want to speak of first principles or any assumptions that are too firm, in my opinion. That to me is the postmodern condition, and that is why I see it as anti-philosophy, at least the kind of philosophy that I am interested in doing.

 

Why the instant move to metaphysics for me? I have been greatly disturbed by the general tendency these days to try to ignore metaphysical questions, as if they were going to be resolved by being ignored. Of course this was already obvious in logical positivism. You seem to see it differently where postmodernism is concerned, and you could be right for specific authors. Perhaps you can give me some names to read, since I confess to not being particularly well-read on art criticism--a bit better on literary criticism, and best of all in mainstream philosphy (any school). Let me make it clear, however, that I am not trying to pass myself off as any kind of philosophical heavyweight. I simply like formal argumentation, especially as it relates to social and ethical issues, in or out of art. When I shift to aesthetics, I shift gears completely--no banal "total absence of thought," but certainly not the verbal focus of philosophy.

 

I don't understand your reference to a "Spiked" article, John. Please explain.

 

My own work is pacifistic as well, even anarchistic, for what that's worth. My books are available by ILL or at Amazon, and I have no extra copies, sad to say, but I can send you a text file via e-mail if you want. You won't like my work, if you're like most people, but I'll be happy to share it with you. I can also send it via WORD to preserve formatting, but that will take more than one mailing. The 1994 book is not the book I would write today, but it is the only coherent book I have available since 1978.

 

Yes, Rorty is a relativist, and, to me, so is the general trend of post-modern philosophy, which also tends to repudiate metaphysics--but I speak of trends, since there is no absolutely single defining essence of postmodernism. The anti-metaphysical stance and aversion to formal argumentation from first principles are as close as I can get to a defining essence. I don't submit to journals. Never have. Probably never will, but I do read and review for them at times. I'm too far out of the mainstream to want to play that game, and Spanish/Spanish-American literature has been my emphasis for the last seven years. Right now I'm trying to write some fiction of my own as a vehicle for expressing some exchanges of ideas in a context that does not drive people to drink. Too early to tell about this new direction. . . .

 

In any case, yes, Rorty is to me very postmodern, but with a pragmatic twist--but postmodernism can afflict any school, and I hate to sound so negative. I really do hate to sound negative, but to me there is a strong nihilist strain in much postmodern work, but I really do LOVE Derrida's playful tone, and I enjoy reading Jameson's critiques of capitalism.

 

The irony of all this is that I am now (as opposed to 1994) quite post-modern in many respects, but let's not be too troubled by paradox. . . . Paradox and contradiction are not, after all, the same, although there is a link: in a true paradox, a statement is false if it is true, and true if it false. (That is why I speak of "Zeno's quandary" rather than "Zeno's paradox"--but a definition can be anything you want as long you define your terms--a real problem in this thread, the one that frustrated Brian.)

 

I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree on some things but that is the norm, and in philosophy that is where one ends every conversation that is worth anything. Agreement comes later, upon reflection. I almost do insist that someone offer me a premiss. Give me a specific premiss to discuss, and I'll always respond, because that takes us directly to argumentation, which is the heart and soul of philosophy for me. Speaking of schools tires me, but only because of the over-generalization that tends to take place.

 

By the way, I get the same revulsion for speaking of schools when reading literary criticism. It's certainly nothing personal, and nothing about this thread. It's just about me and how I tend to operate: give me a postulate, premiss, or argument, and I can and will talk to anyone, regardless of how they label themselves. Talk to me of schools and I will snooze on you--no offense intended.

 

I'm glad that we agree that Rorty is a relativist. Even Rorty (or should I say especially Rorty?) tries to slip off that one. That issue is what led me to Eagleton in 1999, but Eagleton doesn't go down the same path that I do. Almost nobody does, but Eagleton is no simpleton, in my book.

 

Since this overlong thread will likely be deleted, e-mail me at landrumkelly@yahoo.com for a text version of the 1994 book, if you're interested. It's nothing special. Philosophy is about conversation, and these fora do not really allow that on this kind of topic. Technical issues, yes, but on this sort of thing it is hard to get something off the ground in the space that moderators are likely to allocate, and I would rather be zapped than edited.

[d_poinsett]

As I understand it, among postmodernism's many faces is a premise that formal logical analysis yields a point of view that is unique to the process and incomplete. Further, the incompleteness is likely hidden. I can see why this premise would be particularly appealing to artists engaged in a creative process that may require a different set of skills, a process that might even be arrested by logic.

 

Perhaps our more learned participants (Kantor, Kelly, others) would comment on the degree to which they considered this premise an element of postmodern ideology and its validity from various philosopical points of view. (I realize this could be a thesis topic, I'm just looking for an overview. Thanks.)

[wdavidprice]

A suggestion from another direction...my interest in postmodernism is not from the perspective of photography but from the perspective of the history of ideas.

Based on several of the comments made in this discussion I believe some value and direction could be gained by the participants if they would take a look at the actual people who postulate postmodernism and who identify themselves as postmodernists; namely the teachers and the writers in our great universities.

Think about this; before the late 80's a large proportion of the professors of history, philosophy, and the other social sciences in our universities were Marxists. After the fall of the Soviet Union and after the abandonment of socialism by China and India these people had to scramble for something to teach and write about.

I suggest that if you track these people down by name you will find that those who now teach and write about postmodernism are those, or the students of those, who used to be Marxists.

PS...congratulations to the participants in this discussion who are subscribers. I urge those who are not to take the plunge.

[jkantor]

Much of the work of Poststructuralism was laid in the '60s, only filtering to the US in the '70s, first through French language departments, then through Women's Studies, and then through English Critical Theory.

 

And you can be both a Marxist and a Republican (like me). Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Politics is what you do with the results of that critique. (I was the lone conservative voice in my department.)

[Landrum Kelly]

John Kantor is right, of course, in saying that postmodernism does not require one to be leftist or rightist, but my own exposure to postmodern thought has been by those on the left, for what that's worth, Dave. I also like Poinsett's point that one tendency of postmodernism in analyzing the creative process is to see pretty much everything as in-process and incomplete. I repeat that I am an ethicist/social and political theorist, however, and not worthy of commenting very much about the literature on aesthetics. Generalizations and labels continue to bother me, however. Where, for example, does one want to place Sartre? Some very inmportant thinkers have been notoriously hard to categorize. We are again back to definitions, and defining postmodernism in (or out of) photography has been notoriously unsatisfying.

[sam_richardson]

Is anybody going to talk about postmodern photography? Or is that done with now? I see alot of interesting ideas being written but very little about post modern photography.

[Landrum Kelly]

Write something, Sam, but please be aware that you can't define postmodern photography unless you can first define postmodern or postmodernism. We're still grappling with that one. Better yet, give us a tutorial on postmodern photography. I for one would certainly appreciate it. I would advise that considering any kind of, say, political comments as tangential is to miss the whole point, as Eagleton's book on the _Ideology of the Aesthetic_ clearly shows. Just because one doesn't see the relevance of the above kind of commentary for the stated question doesn't mean that it isn't there.

[wdavidprice]

Subject: Response to What is post-modern photography

 

IMHO there is no such thing as post-modern photography. Better put, post-modernism is a concept that does not properly apply to photography. Photography, especially BW photography, is a vital art form. It moves people. It makes people weep, laugh, retch, mourn and stand in awe. Post modernism, on the other hand, is a death process. It is the death of collectivism in all of its forms...facism, nazism, communisim and socialism. Collectivism, the top-down view of life, is in the process of giving up the attention of thinking people all over the world. The exuberent spirit of the bottom-up, brash, and lively individualism and humanism of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is being re-born in a new and global celebration of human freedom. I suspect that most of the really great photographs and photographers of the next century will come from India, China and Russia, rather than from the USA and Western Europe.

[beeman458]

Lannie wrote<p>

 

<i>...but please be aware that you can't define postmodern photography unless you can first define postmodern or postmodernism.</i><p>

 

Everything that I've read, tells me that Postmodern photography has nothing directly to do with Postmodern think.<p>

 

Postmodern photographic think is nothing more then the next step in photographic think or a spur if you will, to Pictorial photographic efforts that arose out of the Modernistic journalism era.<p>

 

As long as one keeps trying to define Postmodern photographic think by artistic Postmodernism, they'll never get it.<p>

 

In simple terms, it's the effort to inject thought into photography and the act of uspurping photographic journalism and imbuing the journalistic process with content as opposed to being a simple recording of events as they unfold to say that one had been present at the happening. Postmodern photographic efforts had less to do with dissatisfaction with Modernism then it had to do with getting something more into the image than; "And here's a pretty picture of Yosemite's Half Dome, which I caught on my way up to Tioga Pass after they cleared the snow away in late June." Or; "Here's a picture of some protesters on the street blocking up traffic because they're unhappy with things the way they are."<p>

 

What's confusing people is that Pictorial photography and Postmodern photography are both coexisting in the same time frame and space. Pictorialism didn't die, it's just that museums have made Postmodern photographic efforts the desirable one over Pictorialism.<p>

 

As long as one keeps their think in the wonderful world of Pictorialism, they'll never be about to understand or accept what's in front of them. And if one can neither understand or accept, for whatever reasons, then it's never going make sense because one's preconceived notions, of what they're expecting, are going to keep getting in their way.<p>

 

The key that opened my eyes was understanding this need within the Postmodern photographic camp, to deconstruct and to make the sacred (anything of importance) profane. There's a need in some, photographically speaking, to communicate ideas. The act of communicating these cerebral ideas, which deal with a wide range of social issues, is what Postmodern photographic think is all about.<p>

 

A simpler fashion of a comment is; these folks are a bunch of photographic protesters using the various photographic processes to get their message out:)<p>

[jkantor]

The "problem" with defining any postmodern form is that they approach the subject from many directions: from forms which mimic traditional ones, but which at the same time frustrate traditional critique (like, I'd say, the Hands/Face pictures), or which call into question the location of meaning (Cindy Sherman's work), to praxis which plays with the act of photography itself and questions the concepts of authorial intent (as I'd argue Warhol does, among other things).

 

It's like trying to describe a 4-dimensional object in 3-dimensoins: you can only approxiimate it from a limited perspective at one time.

 

The easiest thing to do is to take something that modernism takes as obvious (such as the work/frame boundary or authorial intent) and do something to problematize it.

[jkantor]

And here's a great intro to the question of postmodernism:

 

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/pomo.html

 

(Though you have to realize that Jameson fundamentally does not understand PM and ultimately subsumes it under Marxism.)

[thomas_sullivan]

so, postmodern is anti everything then. I think that is generally called anarchy. And postmodern follows the same fallacy...you can't just be against something, you have to be "for" something. And being "for against" doesn't cut it. When you tear down all that is before you have to have something ready upon which to build the future on...but then if you take postmodern to it's ultimate conclusion, it is also anti-future.

 

Although, I tend to agree that a lot of the things going on in the world over the past 1/2 century is wrong, and needs to be changed, it is not going to end up for the benefit of mankind if all one does is tear down.

 

And Brian is somewhat correct in his analysis of pomo.......that it is elitist to the art community that produces.......I cant even say they create it, because they themselves admit, even promote, not coming up with anything new, just anti whatever came before it........anyhow, the art community that produces it, is not portraying the society as it exists in the world, it is portraying their hopes of what society will be. The way I see it is, that art in the past always portrayed society as it was, and the people could understand it, because they could see simalarities in their everyday living. Now, post modern comes along and says we are producing art that is anti to everything that came before. But, society is not actually doing that. It's pomo's "wish" that they do it, so they think that if they play the "emporer has no clothes" routine, everyone will believe it, because who should know better what art is than the artists, and then society will follow after their wishes.................ha! good luck, the people of the world, intrinsincly, intuitively, are smarter than that.

 

Dont get me wrong, I think some of the pomo art is great, love looking at it...........but the concept that is trying to be pushed along with it is dead wrong. Originality IS what matters. Individuals ARE what matters, and any concept or philosophy that says different than that, I highly suspect as ill concieved.

 

In my opinion.....