New York/East Coast bias in photography considered to be art

[don_e]

We prefer something else.<div></div>

[beeman458]

:D

 

Thank-you! :D

 

:D

[don_e]

Been working on Saturday's photos and here's what I'm satisfied with. I don't think it a false representation of the light, but it is not painful to view either 8-)<div></div>

[iliafarniev]

Great shots don't miss no nothing. Gentlemen.

[bruce levy]

If I had to chose between being a good photographer or being a good photographer who was also awake enough to learn to "play the game" I would certainly choose the latter. Seems to be a more rounded person who sees what bind spots exist in the "business" part of art and endeavors to fill them with usable knowledge.. Its a development of another part of the art world. Sort of "value added" skill.

[boris c umanso]

"Someone said that Galen Rowell's work isn't strong enough to make the leap from the

pages of the Geographic to the walls of MoMA. I think it more or less meaningless for an

individual to make a statement like "his work isn't strong enough""

 

That someone was me. I don't think it's remotely controversial or insulting to suggest that

Rowell's work isn't "art". Rowell, like Steve McCurry, was a crowd pleaser rather than

someone pushing the boundaries of photography. The very reason he's popular with

amateur photographers is that his work is like their work - if only they had a little more

graphic sense and a lot more application. There are a few photographers who've worked

for Natgeo who're more ambitious, and whose work could legitimately be considered "art"

- maybe Alex webb - but they're few and far between. Rowell was a successful

photographer who did what he did well, but it's more fitted to gracing a jigsaw puzzle

than a gallery wall.

[twmeyer]

<i>Compare that (Taryn Simon)to the work of photographers like Galen Rowell, David Muench, and Jack Dykinga..."</i> <p>How can you be so shallow? Apples? Oranges? Hello? It's obvious you didn't hear a word the woman said, either. All of these people choose subjects that interest <i>them</i>. Galen, Taryn, Jack and Sexton... all of them. WTF is wrong with that? They photograph what interests them... get it? And if you don't like it, SO WHAT? At least she's not just imitating Elliott Porter... which is what seems to interest you.<p>And I don't think Ansel Adams photographed the freakin Space Shuttle, so back off John. He's head and shoulders above any wonk that's weighed in here on <i>this</i> absurd topic. sheesh.<p>And Boris, thank's for tipping me off. Now I know what to expect from you... t

[boris c umanso]

"And Boris, thank's for tipping me off. Now I know what to expect from you... t"

 

?

[justinblack]

"Rowell, like Steve McCurry, was a crowd pleaser rather than someone pushing the

boundaries of photography."

 

You will find that a body of work like Galen's did not exist before he came along. He

absolutely pushed the boundaries of photography, and took us to places (physically and

visually) that very few could ever even venture much less routinely come back with

beautifully made photographs of a sort that had never been seen before. He spent his

career continuously growing as an artist, and he created and mastered the genre of color

adventure photography in the world's high and wild places as much as Ansel Adams and

his ilk mastered the genre of formal black and white landscape. Perhaps Galen shouldn't

have been as generous with his insights as he was. If he had kept to himself everything he

knew about photographic seeing, human visual cognition, the physics of natural optical

phenomena, the role played by physical fitness and self-propelled mobility in the

landscape, etc., etc., no one could confuse his work with that of any of the many followers

who came after and had the benefit of the easy road he paved for them. But Galen was too

generous to keep it all to himself, and so honest that he openly shared every aspect of his

approach and technique. To many, his work stands out prominently in a visual society that

his generosity helped to crowd.

 

This raises another issue. The fact that work is appreciated by "the crowd" does not by

definition mean that it does not rise to the level of fine art, despite what some seem to

think. There exists, for instance, the relatively small bunch of self-appointed cognocenti

who think that Cindy Sherman is a genius (to me she simply seems like a narcissistic

sensationalist who takes advantage of the American tendency to prudishness - that

certainly would have been a groundbreaking approach in 1692), and the masses who enjoy

the works of Van Gogh, O'Keefe, Ansel Adams, and Galen Rowell because they find the

work inspiring, interesting, narrative, or deeply beautiful. Popularity on its own does not

cause a work to be great art, but the fact that many people like a piece of art or body of

work does not preclude it from being great art either. Whether or not Galen's work is

venerated in the long term remains to be seen, but I see no reason that it must not be.

[boris c umanso]

Justin, this comes across as nothing but a pr puff for the company that you appear to work

with. I'd encourage people to take a look at Rowell's archive:

 

http://mlstock.com/gallery_front.shtml

 

Mainstream travelogue of a type that's been around for decades. Nothing that "pushed the

boundaries of photography", and nothing that's even in the same ballpark as "art".

 

"Whether or not Galen's work is venerated in the long term remains to be seen, but I see

no reason that it must not be"

 

It'll be acknowledged as the solid, mainstream work, that it is. You do Rowell a disservice

by attempting to pass off his work as something that it simply isn't - art. Why not stop

raging against the effete east coast aesthetes and get on with the task of keeping his work

alive in the areas it was always destined for?

[beeman458]

"...and nothing that's even in the same ballpark as "art"."

 

There's only art which one likes and art one doesn't like; it's pretty black-n-white.

 

The word art, in of itself, is an aggrandized term of no defined meaning. In order for one to say what isn't art, one must, in the same breath, say what art is. Sans a accepted definition, "anything" of a skilled or purposeful nature, is art.

[don_e]

Justin, who among the nature photographers of our day have as the reason for an exposure making a fine art print?

 

Above you mention several photographers who are "recognized in the fine art world"...how many of them produce fine art prints? How many of them produce b&w prints? Among the famous nature photographers who are not so "recognized", how many of them have a body of work that can be called "fine art prints"?

 

Consider "fine art" to be a style or a genre itself, rather than a level of critical acceptance. In order to produce a fine art print, the photographer must have that intention. If they don't, no matter how good they are technically, no matter the unique subject, the difficulty in obtaining the exposure, no matter its beauty or rarity, if the photographer doesn't intend a fine art print, it is not fine art.

 

The nature photographers who understand this spend at least part of their time with a large format film camera or full frame digital shooting for the fine art print.

[jason_carreira]

You had me until you started talking about large format cameras or full frame digital... That has no bearing on fine art. It's the intention, not the methods or materials. There's probably as many fine-art photographers using disposable cameras or Holgas or other toy cameras as there are using large format. Probably more.

[don_e]

Jason, landscape photographers prefer LF or full frame digital. I was not speaking of all fine art photography.

[don_e]

...and I am certain some prefer MF or even SF, to avoid the counter examples.

[david_senesac]

Yes I agree Justin, same old same old. Photography has a long history of being ignored by the mainstream art world. And photographers of all sorts here in the West have a long history of being relatively ignored by those to the East. To rise to some level of recognition, a western photographer almost always needs to set that foundation out here first in the West. Ansel spent much of his life struggling with little notice until he ventured east and began publishing photography books. Quite a number of others that have much in the publishing world to their public credit never rose much past that. Probably much of that is to be expected due to the vast distances and resulting cultural insulation. It really isn't a bias against we Westerners but rather against nature and landscape photographers wherever. And of course in the art world there has always been countless unknown artists of all media types fighting to find a path towards public awareness and recognition with galleries and museums often in the middle of that battle zone. Black and white prints took many years to gain some credibility which occurred in part because it became a financial plus to some galleries that displayed such prints.

 

Color photographic prints as art have long been rejected in part by the art world due to deficient longevity of media and relatively flawed processes between film and print. Although that may no longer be true, the rest of the mainstream artworld is not likely aware of that or interested that it has. So what! From the perspective of art museum curators and gallery directors, just because something is aesthetically worthy of art doesn't mean they ought to be interested in displaying such to the public. Thus they will continue to choose what they show and keep a finger up in the breeze to sense the current media their small community chooses to offer the public.

 

Another thing working against photography is the usual discussion as to whether or not it is art? Just what is photography? Some genres of photography are certainly art worthy but others like news photography and most of what is nature or landscape photography of the natural world is in a gray area. Personally I would prefer not to include what we do as art because art people immediately start holding photography to usual art critique standards that really ought not apply. To the mainstream art folks, landscapes or nature subjects are labeled "done to death" or "cliche" or "socially boring" regardless of whether an image can be rendered in fresh ways. With nature, the vast variables of weather and light make for myriad possibilities. And so what that technology has vastly improved the processes that now deliver compellingly beautiful prints. But to the usual urban art mind, little of that matters. Given their shallow usual experience to anything beyond the urban world it all looks the same to them. To those who regular enjoy experiencing natural places on our planet Earth, to those who enjoy images of the natural world, the subtleties of natural are apparent so it does matter. Thus a cultural disconnect that is likely to continue unless they ever notice a financial benefit of embracing what we offer.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

[peter_lawrence]

Boris,<br>

<br>

You do the readers of photo.net a disservice by misdirecting them to Galen Rowell's

STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY archives, instead to the archives of Galen Rowell's FINE ART PRINTS,

which is the more relevant archives for this discussion.<br>

<br>

Since googling for "Galen Rowel fine art prints" (or any similar phrase) brings up the

CORRECT URL for his FINE ART PRINT archives at the VERY TOP of the search results, it

seems that you went to great trouble to misdirect the readers of photo.net to the wrong

archives.<br>

<br>

Do you have an axe to grind with the late Galen Rowell or Justin Black? To me it appears

that you do.<br>

<br>

BTW, those who are interested in viewing the fine art photography of Galen Rowell (and

not his stock photos) can go the correct URL: <a href="http://www.mountainlight.com/

gallery.html">http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.html</a><br>

<br>

[nels]

Boris, for my own understanding, could you please give an example or two of some current photographers that are "pushing the boundaries of photography", with an explanation of what boundaries are being pushed.

 

Thanks.

[jason_carreira]

Peter,

 

I looked at the gallery you linked. Yawn. Sunsets, zooms on animals, etc.. These are what you think is pushing the boundaries of photography and art? These are what make you think deep thoughts and ponder life, art, etc?

 

Doesn't do anything for me. It's all so much stock photography.

[boris c umanso]

"Since googling for "Galen Rowel fine art prints" (or any similar phrase) brings up the

CORRECT URL for his FINE ART PRINT archives at the VERY TOP of the search results, it

seems that you went to great trouble to misdirect the readers of photo.net to the wrong

archives"

 

But I'd only google "rowell + art" if I considered his work to be art. I don't. Anyway, thanks

for the link to you provided - it strengthens my assertion that his work is nothing but

travelogue.

 

"Do you have an axe to grind with the late Galen Rowell or Justin Black? To me it appears

that you do."

 

Why does it appear so to you? This is a discussion forum. By definition people are going to

offer conflicting views. Justin even began the thread by asking: "What are your

thoughts...?". I, along with others, offered my views.

 

"Boris, for my own understanding, could you please give an example or two of some

current photographers that are "pushing the boundaries of photography", with an

explanation of what boundaries are being pushed."

 

Nels, I'll give you some links to work that I think is pushing forward (or at least not

retreating backwards), but I'm not giving you a written justification for them. The images

will either connect with you or not, and it's unlikely anything I say will alter your

perceptions.

 

http://www.yossimilogallery.com/artists/lise_sarf/

 

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/boris_mikhailov.htm

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/magazine/issue7/graham.htm

 

http://www.alecsoth.com/

 

The last is to satisfy those who yearn for the days of sheet film, insanely large tripods, and

tortuous technique. Ask me the same question tomorrow and I'd give you links to entirely

different photographers....

[justinblack]

O.k. Boris. Here are my reactions to the photographers you listed, all of whom I

approached with an open mind.

 

- Yossi Milo: THIS hasn't been done before?... to death even? Yes, it meets the art student

standards for what art photography is supposed to look like, but it really isn't anything

new and interesting. This style has been conventional at least since the 1980s.

 

- Boris Mikhailov: Exploitative and further victimization of the subjects. There are better

ways to make insightful and enlightening commentary on the social victims of the

continuing changes in the former Soviet Union. Oh, yes, it's edgy and shocking and

therefore meets a stereotypical art world standard, but that does not give it merit. If

people in the west were better informed as to what has gone on in the FSU over the last

decade and a half, this wouldn't even be interesting. It would simply be run of the mill

photojournalism if he didn't ask the subjects to disrobe, and because he does, I feel it is

disrespectful of people who need help, not voyeurism for art's sake.

 

Paul Graham: His "Blinded Man" is aesthtically interesting, but the others are classic

examples of mundane images that are put out there as art. Graham is well

established in the U.K. art scene, so he can get away with this. An unknown photographer

presenting these images would be disregarded. There are only three images shown on the

Tate site, which is a shame, as I can't believe that it fairly represents the exhibition. At

least I hope they don't, because if they are representative, Graham's work doesn't

represent "a powerful meditation on race in contemporary America." I think this project is

strong in original concept and pedestrian in execution, but he got a curator and a critic to

consider it worthwhile.

 

Alec Soth: This is a body of work that displays a gift for photographic seeing with a point

of view! It isn't contrived, it doesn't rely on shock value, it makes me think... beautiful

work! I'll readily call this art worthy of recognition.

 

Now, here's another one for you, Boris: name four landscape photographers who tend to

photograph apparently wild nature (as opposed to lands that bear obvious human

presence and impact) who are pushing the boundaries of photography. I'm sure you can

do it.

[boris c umanso]

"Here are my reactions...Yossi Milo: THIS hasn't been done before?"

 

As you haven't looked closely enough to clock the fact that Yossi Milo is the name of the

gallery rather than the photographer - Lise Sarfati - I'm tempted to ignore your response,

but...Sarfati's work is anything but derivative, she's one of the few photographers working

today whose images are instantly recognisable. Before writing her off i'd suggest you make

the effort to look at her work from Russia - you can find it on the Magnum site.

 

"Boris Mikhailov: Exploitative and further victimization of the subjects. There are better

ways to make insightful and enlightening commentary on the social victims of the

continuing changes in the former Soviet Union. Oh, yes, it's edgy and shocking and

therefore meets a stereotypical art world standard, but that does not give it merit."

 

So what are these "better ways"? I think it achieves it's purpose.

 

"If people in the west were better informed as to what has gone on in the FSU over the last

decade and a half, this wouldn't even be interesting. It would simply be run of the mill

photojournalism if he didn't ask the subjects to disrobe, and because he does, I feel it is

disrespectful of people who need help, not voyeurism for art's sake."

 

But people in the west aren't better informed are they? I think this work, along with

Delahaye's Wintereisse and Sarfati's Acta Est go a long way to helping people understand

(or at least notice) the tragedy of modern Russia. You can read all the words that have ever

been written in the last 15 years about the degradation of life for many ordinary Russians

and not glean as much understanding as you'd get from a single Mikhailov image. Whether

or not it's "disrespectful" doesn't impact upon whether it's powerful or not. And

"voyeurism" has been everpresent throughout the history of photography (and art in

general).

 

"Paul Graham...is well established in the U.K. art scene, so he can get away with this. An

unknown photographer presenting these images would be disregarded."

 

He's well established internationally, but he wasn't born that way. He's earned that regard

over a period of more than twenty years, and, outside of the "art scene", he was even the

recipient of the Eugene Smith Award in the late 80s.

 

"Alec Soth: This is a body of work that displays a gift for photographic seeing with a point

of view! It isn't contrived, it doesn't rely on shock value, it makes me think... beautiful

work! I'll readily call this art worthy of recognition."

 

I'm pleased you like it.

 

"Boris: name four landscape photographers who tend to photograph apparently wild

nature (as opposed to lands that bear obvious human presence and impact) who are

pushing the boundaries of photography. I'm sure you can do it."

 

I'd have no difficulty naming four people who photograph landscapes who I'd consider to

be credible artists. The only issue is that most interesting photographers are, one way or

another, commenting on the human condition whether or not their images depict people

or their traces.

[nels]

Boris, with the exception of Alec Soth's work, I have not seen others' works in print format, so it would perhaps be unfair to comment on the works you linked based on simply seeing it in tiny JPG format over the web. But my initial reaction is, none of this appears to be ground-breaking or boundary-pushing work.

<p>

Personal impressions aside, in what ways does the art world consider these works to be pushing the boundaries of <i>photography</i>? Besides some individual good to excellent images (mostly from Soth), I detect cheap sensationalism, shock value, kitsch, banality, and many other similar elements commonplace in a B grade hollywood movie where watching the first few minutes of it gives away the remainder of the plot and the ending, and nothing ever surprises you there after. Even the jokes are predictable, and rarely funny. Seeing a handful of images of the photographers you linked was enough to make the rest of their work appear utterly predictable - and I did take the trouble to review their works on other sites as well. But none of it appears to take <i>photography</i> to a new level. I am curious and mystified. Perhaps you have other examples.

[justinblack]

They can of course be commenting on the human condition. I think that even

photographers who believe that they are only depicting nature are, in fact, commenting on

the human condition. So, I am very interested to know which photographers you would

choose. The only rule is that they have to photograph natural subjects that tend not to

depict apparent human impact.

[boris c umanso]

"none of this appears to be ground-breaking or boundary-pushing work"

 

Well, I did qualify this by describing the work as "at least not retreating backwards".

Having said that, I think each of the photographers I linked to is moving forward. The

movement might be small, but it's there. Photography isn't a medium that lends itself to

great leaps forward.

 

"I detect cheap sensationalism, shock value, kitsch, banality, and many other similar

elements commonplace in a B grade hollywood movie where watching the first few

minutes of it gives away the remainder of the plot and the ending, and nothing ever

surprises you there after."

 

There's nothing inherent in any of the values that you describe that cancels out the validity

of their use. I understand the reference to "sensationalism" and "shock" with regard to

Mikhailov, and the reference to "banality" with regard to Graham, but I don't see any of

your referenced attributes in the work of Lise Sarfati. Do you really see no merit in her

work? And the lack of surprise? Is surprise the key to art for you?

 

"Even the jokes are predictable, and rarely funny"

 

I'm not aware of the jokes. Maybe you can point them out to me.

 

"Seeing a handful of images of the photographers you linked was enough to make the rest

of their work appear utterly predictable - and I did take the trouble to review their works

on other sites as well"

 

OK, point me in the direction of work that you think is credible? That merits the art tag.

 

"I am curious and mystified. Perhaps you have other examples."

 

I have many other examples, but I doubt that they'd satisfy your curiousity and demystify

things for you.

 

"I am very interested to know which photographers you would choose. The only rule is that

they have to photograph natural subjects that tend not to depict apparent human impact"

 

Your rules are way too restrictive for me. Why the need to restrict things to the

"untouched"? Do you really look at a Sophie Ristelhueber or Richard Misrach image and

think: "Nice, but shame about the human impact"?