modern vs postmodern photography

[andrew robertson]

You might just have the Postmodernism Generator do the paper for you.

 

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern

 

The fellow who wrote the program actually got some of the (pseudo-random) output

published in an academic journal.

[jameslomax]

I disagree with elevating the work of Jo Spence into something "postmodern".

 

I can't stand her photos. "Look, me smeared with chocolate pretending to be a little girl!" etc etc.

 

From a psychological point of view you have to conclude its very indulgent, and IMO totally ridiculous, what she does with photography. Much of it appears to be a kind of self-therapy, and I'm not interested in seeing her work out her issues.

[Uhooru]

Thomas, I'm very interested in this topic as a path of discovery for me. But I'm thinking in your survey of photgraphic developement that you've chosen to look at a very narrow range of photographers. How can you not include Man Ray, Nagel, plus the street photographers after Evans particularly Guttman and Kline and on to Winograd, Arbus, Friedlander etc. and just focus on the "Apeture 64" gang, the photo seccession and all that. I think you missed a couple of important trains there. When Dadaism and proto surrealism were in coming into play, Man Ray was there doing his "Man o grams" and other non-representational art and surreal photography Look at Moly/Nagel, They were as far from Weston et al as Dali was from Courbet.

 

I was just curious as to whether you considered these other photographers as part of the evolution of photography into and the modern and through it to the post-modern.

[Uhooru]

I didn't mean to say you ignored the street photographers Thomas as it looks like by my word use, its just that non-representational work was being done in a significant way back quite a ways. I also can agree with you that the medium lends itself to the "I was there" quality because of its physical nature, which is essentially passive in a physics sense. The response of a material to being exposed to light makes photography tend to a recording activity. But here are quite a few people going back to the times before Adams that were looking past the recorded image.

[arthur_bruso]

The fast answer to the question, is that post moderism in photography has occured

because, artists are now using photography as a medium. In the 1970's -1980's, if you

took a photogeraphy course in any major college, you would learn technique, equipment

and some major names, but you were not encouraged to make "art." Most graduates. it

was assumed would become photojournalists or move into fashion and magazine work.

Mostly, you were expected to be able to produce a pristine, well balenced print - what I

called "the Ansel Adams school of photography." Ansel Adams' influence on the quality of

a print was widespread. If you were a student who used photography to communicate

ideas or in a non-photojournalistic way, you were asked in a condesending tone if you

were a painter. At the time, painting and photography were not to mix. "Real" photography

had to do with documentation. Street photography was the highest of the hierarchy -

Diane Arbus was goddess. Then came Ansel Adams and Weston. Even naming a

photograph had to do with place and time, not any visual idea behind the work. (Even now,

the first question I get from a viewer of my work is, "where is that taken?")

 

In the 90's these attitudes started to change as artists began to grope for a new way to

find meaning in art. The whole attitude of everything has been done before became the

impetus for rethinking imagery and what art coul be. All of the formalism and

deconsructionism of the past was discarded. Everything that was considered "bad" art

before became potentially "good" art now. In photography, how this was realized was by a

disregard for the tenets of the Ansel Adams photograph. Out of focus was cool. Banal was

cool. Scratched, dusty, spotted prints were more interesting than the pristine prints of the

past. There was experimentation with over and under exposure to change our perception

of the image and most importantly, a strong attempt was made to phtograph what had

been discribed as unphotographable. Photographs became less about the image and more

about the concept. Documentaion fell from favor. Street photography became old

fashioned. Post-modern photography embraced the artist and their ideas. A 360 degree

was made in attitude.

 

My work was formed from a painters background. I looked at photography as another

medium for my ideas. So as I approached photography from an artistic viewpoint, my

photographer friends scoffed. I wasn't interested in grand equipment or beautiful prints. I

din't use borders or toneing because I could, but because it made sense to the idea or

image. I often used an automatic snapshot camera, learning to exploit the way it saw.

much as a painter exploites the quality of paint. I began to collect antique cameras,

because their formats and limitations were more interesting to me than expensive

equipment and processing. Post-moderism is putting the concept before the medium,

thinking about the work and using what you need to make it happen.

[ridic_wilco]

I didn't get to read every post but...

 

A simple way to compare modernism and postmodernism ((in the realm of photography)) is...

 

Modernism is to metaphor as postmodernism is to metonymy.

 

Modernism is a paradigmatic approach to photography. Taking content and abstracting its form.

 

Postmodernism is a socially conceptive critique, if anything. To be postmodern in photography means you've created a metaphoric metonymy ideally for dispute. To be postmodern there must be a struggle between representation and meaning. Culturally, postmodernism varies dramatically as well. This is the reason why most definitions of art are so hard to retain anyways.

 

Well, that's my 2cents.

[zac_defra]

hey there i would really like to see the outcome of your essay !! im really interested in this topic :) :) post it uup!!!