rebeca Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 THOEORY: IS IT ART? <p> I have to take 6 pics that all deal with theoritical issues. please help... <p> what is post-modernism? <p> thank you!!rebeca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per_volquartz1 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Look at the works of Edward Weston, Man Ray, Hockney for starters... <p> Also look at artists like Feitelsohn, Lichtenstein and Rauschenberg...from their work you may make a comparative analysis with photography.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_jordan3 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Hi Rebecca. The post-modernism movement is based on the unfortunate belief that the most important purpose of art is to deal with theoretical intellectual issues. So, following in the footsteps of the post-modernist painters, post-modernist photographers take un-creative badly-composed, crappy-looking photographs of mundane subjects, and print them with tricky edge effects and other gimmicks (such as enormous size and cutesy frames) to hide their pathetic lack of substance, and then stand around in their hip haircuts and black turtlenecks waxing eloquent about all the grand intellectual theoretical issues that their great works supposedly raise. <p> And, if you ever make the fatal mistake of admitting that you don't "get it", you're instantly relegated to the masses of lower beings who aren't smart enough to understand real "art." What a sad state of affairs! I've personally never seen a post-modernist photo that I'd hang on my wall if it were free. <p> What this movement misses is the tremendous capacity for art to carry an intuitive message that speaks to our spirit on a primal level which cannot be reduced to bland intellectual concepts. Just think of Bach's fugues, and think of how silly it would be to sit around and talk about the theoretical issues they raise. To anyone willing to show up with their soul, the meaning of Bach's fugues is obvious and profound, and no amount of intellectual discussion would ever convey their meaning to someone who didn't get it directly from the music. That's what all of great art was about for 4000 years or so, until the modernists showed up and turned art into a self-aggrandizing sales pitch based on intellectual intimidation. Happily, that movement finally seems to be coming to a close (for some wonderful articles on this, check out http://www.artrenewal.org/). <p> So my recommendation for your theoretical studies assignment would be to go out and take six richly beautiful photographs. This will take a lot of creativity, really hard work and dedication, perseverance through many false starts and failures along the way, and personal sacrifice and introspection--things the post-modernists know nothing about; they would prefer to frame a piece of feces and call it a "photograph" and discuss all the theoretical issues it raises. Then, print your photos with technical competence and virtuosity and write a short essay to the effect that the meaning in these photos is not contained in any accompanying words and theories, but rather it's right there in the photos, available to anyone willing to show up and sit through them. <p> regards, <p> ~chris jordan (Seattle) <p> www.chrisjordanphoto.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug2 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 to understand what post-modernism is first you need to really understand what modernism is, to put it simply (very simply) modernism is about purity, see the writtings of clement greenberg. Post modernism takes in modernist theory and adds history and an anything goes nothing is better than anything else attitude. Check out a book called post-modern currents, I can't remember the author off hand, also some good pomo info can be seen in arthur dantos' book on mark tansey called vision and revision, and lynn gumpert's book on christian boltanski, also look for a book called the rebirth of painting. Theory can be art if done correctly look at joeseph kutsuth work from the early 60's piecees like one and three chairs. If you have pictures that deal with theoritical issues they may or may not be pomo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_boulware Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Chris Jordan (Seattle) has hit the targer...dead center. Nice work Chris. Perhaps the original question, is a reflection on why most loarge format landscape photography is so damned boring! Landscape photographers would do well to study some of the work, and meaning, of the images of W.Eugene Smith, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, and others....and attempt to transfer some of that energy and meaning to their work....in landscape photography. Great photographs are MADE...not taken. Richard Boulware - Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donald_brewster Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Narrative and storytelling are a big part of postmodernism. This would fit in well with your assignment of six photographs. Read this short book: Jean-Fracois Lyotard, The PostModern Condition, University of Minnesota Press, 1979. Do a google search: Lyotard Post-Modernism. Take a quick look at: http://www.stevedenning.com/postmodern.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Oh no - not Pomophobia again... <p> I think the reason so much "rocks, lakes and trees" landscape photography is boring is because it has never moved beyond a certain pictorialist/classical/romantic outlook. Give me the visual challenge of Lynn Cohen or Gabriele Basillico or the Beckers any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_jordan3 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Tim, your comment is interesting-- it suggests that all there is out there is pomo and calendar landscapes. I think there's a lot inbetween. I wouldn't have considered the Bechers to be pomo artists, any more than Kenna, Misrach, or Andreas Gursky. Those are my favorite photographers, working in what I consider to be the aesthetic tradition of photography while doing work that is relevant and contemporary and personal. When I think of pomo I think of photographers like Cindy Sherman and Robert Heinecken (who never owned a camera), whose work is all about fiddling with the medium instead of producing images with depth and substance. Maybe I don't know enough about pomo though; I'd welcome your thoughts. <p> ~cj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_f._stein Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Do you start with an image or an idea? Much "graduate school photography" I can only describe as ideas in seach of an image. I still believe the best art of all kinds comes from being immersed in one's medium-light and shade, color, texture, shapes, division of space-if that is done honestly, elucidation and illumination will follow. If the former fits the post-modernist shoes, let them klop around in them. Thanks, Rebeca, for starting a great discussion. We all have artists we like. A good exercise might be sitting down and explaining why we DON'T like someone. But with the best photography, one needn't say a word-or explain it to others. Good job, Chris, in exposing the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_pietri5 Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Just a post script. I had an exhibition years ago. One peice was of a chunk of snow and ice, taken on a frozen salt marsh. My aunt, who I dearly love, but has absolutly no artistic perception, at least none that I could see, said that the photograph reminded her of a HUGE PIECE of lemon merangue pie! Now the form of the ice is triangular, the configuration of a piece of pie, and I LOVE LEMON MERANGUE PIE! (any correlation to Weston's peppers, did he enjoy stuffed peppers?) <p> The morals of the story, when contemplating modernism, the meaning of art, remember to have a good meal and good drink before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_dvorak Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 "I wouldn't have considered the Bechers to be pomo artists, any more than Kenna, Misrach, or Andreas Gursky." <p> I'm with you there, Chris, if you substitute Thomas Struth for Gursky. Gursky's digital manipulation is just so heavy-handed, deleting and adding major portions of the subject for the sake of emphasizing the idea he's trying to convey, that I think of him (like Cindy Sherman) as more of a pomo artist who chooses to use a camera than as a photographer recording a real-world reality in the pre-postmodernist sense of the term (ala Bechers, Kenna, etc.). <p> Interesting discussion! <p> ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 I guess it depends where you are coming from - my direction being more from architecture rather than the plastic arts and painting. In that sense I really see the Struthsky's, Basilico, Bechers etc (Possibly Misrach, but not Kenna - he's a Romantic) to be much more post "Learning from Las Vegas" than Corbusier. In architecture, pomo tends to have a slightly different meaning than in "art". <p> But then I also believe that photography has only a tenuous link to painting and drawing and is much more closely linked to poetry and possibly architecture (especially with it's combination of technical and aesthetic). <p> So it's probably more to do with perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domenico_foschi Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 people like Chris Jordan are a deterrent to the evolving of art . How can you be so sure that only your view of "how and in what direction photography should evolve" is the right one? <p> Why don't you put some of your bitterness and anger in your work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_a._smith1 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Relevant to critique of Post-Modernism: Quote from Sir Herbert read, eminent Art Historian; "Art is about feelings. If one has ideas to express, the proper medium is language." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_andrews Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 I'd have more truck with post-modernism if the title itself weren't an oxymoron that shows utter contempt for, or total ignorance of, language and semantics.<br>I think this is at the very heart of the controversy. Are these guys deliberately challenging the very fabric of convention, or just talentless twats who are so egotistical that they think they're the only ones on earth to have discovered that life is trivial/short/brutal/ironic/whatever? Who knows? The work itself usually does nothing to enlighten anyone.<br>Until the proponents of this movement become literate and articulate enough to express their ideas clearly, in purely visual terms, and without some art-theory self-appointed guru printing a thesis beside every work, then the whole movement deserves all the contempt that it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katharine_thayer1 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 The site Chris cited crashed my computer, but before it did, I saw enough to be sure that while I agree with some of his points, I'm sure not in agreement with him about what constitutes "good art." In fact, if it's narrative and storytelling that characterizes postmodern art, then the stuff at that site should fit perfectly, along with 19th century art photography that tried to replicate pre-Raphaelite painting. The main difference I see between any of the above and postmodern art is that the earlier work is marked by sentimentality and the more recent by irony, detachment and cynicism, which are the opposite side of the same coin and equally inimical to the creation of meaningful and lasting art, in my opinion. I wish I could remember where I read it and who said it, but in the last few days I've read a quote something to this effect: "Remember, postmodern art is the first postaudience art." <p> Also there was an interesting piece in the New Yorker a few weeks ago about the studio art department at Harvard, which suggested that art departments are starting to rethink their theory-laden programs and lean more toward studio programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_greenberg_motamedi Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Post-Modernist theory, although it originated as an architectural movement, was meant to be a criticism of the dominant 'paradigm' of Modernism. The way we think about photography and art is a product of Modernism, we look to the painting, photograph, what-ever as a piece of �truth� which is expressed by an individual. PoMo theory would suggest that there is much more expressed than an individual�s take on the world. <p> I wonder how much PoMo theories have changed the way we think about art and photography; do we still believe (or did photographers ever believe) that a photograph is 'the truth'? I am hardly a Post-Modernist, but I think that to simply reject PoMo theory or art is a mistake, there are some insights offered by PoMo theory--perhaps even by photographers and artists-- which, IMHO, are useful and quite reasonable. Roland Barthes� book (ok, he is actually a Post-Structuralist) <I> Mythologies </I> (1972) is a great place to begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 It took a little searching on my part to find out that "pomo" is short for "postmodernism." I was wondering what this had to do with a tribe of native Americans. <p> Coming from a poor white trash perspective (yes, my truck IS bigger than your Volvo), a lot of it looks like "the emperor is butt-nekked and there's a dog humping his leg." Most of the argument for it looks to me like a bunch of ad copy for crappy products. <p> From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, modernism: "3 : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression" <p> Now if we prefix "post-" to it, that would mean that the search for new forms of expression is over. Looks like they haven't found anything of value, and have wound up face down in the ditch. <p> The "rocks, lakes, trees" bunch are also post-modern, having skipped modernism altogether. While their product is derided because it graces calendars, it IS there BECAUSE it's worth looking at for a whole month at a time by a large mass of people. <p> Now then, Rebeca, as to what you might photograph: How about taking concepts such as truth, beauty, honesty, love, virtue, and integrity, and showing how they AREN'T found in postmodernism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_leonard Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 When 42nd Street was waiting to be turned into Giuliani's Disneyland, there was a cinema marquee displaying 'Art is either revolution or plagiarism'. Think about it. By the way, the Seattle photographer who posted this really funny message, might also be a little open to the suggestion that beautiful, decorative images have their own role, which need not be 'art'. Most photographers are not artists, in particular many LF ones, who pick other people's brains about 'good locations' to make the so-manieth shot of that rock or what have you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_gangi2 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 The problem I've always had was that po mo seemed (to me) as just a game to see who is more clever or more strange. I've seen some "stuff" that to me was just junk, and had several paragraphs of more "junk" that tried to explain how good or important the picture is... usually with lots of five dollar words and obscure references to other five dollar words. I got the feeling that the "artist" was just trying to convince us that he is smarter than we are. <YAWN> If a photo can't sell itself on its own merits without pages of "newspeak", then it's crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_leonard Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Respectfully, Steve, 'on its own merit' does not exist. It is always the viewer's choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_jordan3 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 the fallacious concept that "art is either revolution or plagarism" is the tragic core of the modern and post-modern movements. art students are taught today that to create "real" art, you have to completely redefine your medium with each piece. <p> In fact, art history teaches that every great work of art, music and literature has been influenced by what came before it. for example, many people consider Bach to be the greatest artist who has yet lived, but by current postmodern standards his pieces would have been scorned as highly derivative of those of Vivaldi and the whole Baroque movement that had been going on for quite some time before Bach. Bach didn't re-invent anything--he worked within the structure of his time and applied his genius in a way that raised the bar slightly on everything that had come before him. So with Shapespeare, who worked within the poetic structure of his time (iambic pentameter). Until postmodernism, that's all any artist aspired to. <p> That's not to say that great works of art are COPIES of preview works; the concept of copying (plagarism) is vastly different from working within a tradition and accepting--welcoming--influences by other artists. Otherwise, by rejecting all influences and craft as being "plagarism,", one is stuck trying to create a revolution, with no tools that are considered legitimate (because to use them would be copying others), no craft that is accepted as legitmate (for the same reason), and no aesthetic standards (for the same reason). The result of this is that the post-modern artist is forced into a state of primitivism. And hence, by no surprise, the product sucks. <p> David, your comments were wonderful-- I'll carry a couple of your nuggest around with me to pull out at just the right moment. <p> and, hey domenico, i'm most definitely NOT sure that my view is the right one; it's just my own opinion, which is always open to change based on well-considered discussion. how about you-- do you have any opinions or well-considered comments, or are you satisifed with random sniping at the opinions of others? your approach to date appears most un-european; i know you can do better. <p> now i think i'll go have a piece of lemon meringue pie while i don my asbestos jacket... <p> ~cj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_chinn Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 It is no wonder that the rise and influence of pomo in photography parallels that of television and now the internet. The public has less attention span and less time to interpret images. the way you get the attention is to produce shocking, in your face sensationalist images. Nothing is about substance and content anymore. Once you get past the facade of many of these images there is nothing there. They are souless attempts at attracting eyeballs and appealling to the lowest common denominator. <p> The popularity of these images as evidenced by their predominance in many galleries and due to the fact that most of the buying public s wants that same shock value on their walls to show others and pretend they have some knowledge about photography. <p> I have seen pomo work at galleries in Chicago and New York, and I don't remember any that I would want to return to ever see again, let alone hang on my wall to see everyday. <p> Most of the work is so pretentious it screams, "it's all about me!" And just in case you can't figure that out, there is always a essay or piece by the photographer that explains how bad his life sucks or how much of a victim he is etc. <p> Of course there may be a few good ones out there. But IMHO most of it is simply the work of people who are to lazy to learn another medium, to lazy to understand and appreciate the history and foundations of art, and especially to lazy to learn how to use a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Did someone wonder why I was amused at the propect of a POMOphobia discussion on here? well: <p> > If a photo can't sell itself on its own merits without pages > of "newspeak", then it's crap. <p> It was because of this kind of totally unconstructive knee-jerk response which comes up every time (funilly enough it nearly always includes the use of the word "crap" - as has been amply demonstrated in this thread). <p> Probably down to a phobia or fear of something unknown or incomprehensible to the individual. But, to dismiss work as "crap" just because you don't or can't get it - it's just laziness really. <p> I'm enjoying the constructive discussion, but if we just want to throw the term crap around - hey, lets look at some Adams stuff or maybe Kenna or whoever...! Wow, that's sure easy to do - end of discussion. you can't argue with that statement now, can you. <p> Okay - just kidding about the latter two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_jordan3 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 hey Rebeca, what are your thoughts/reactions so far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now