Alec Soth & work, no work

[jtk]

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/23/magazine/rockford.html</p>

<p>IMO this is where Soth's photo attitude delivers the goods: A coherent essay, no drama, no pretty, no pathos, no photographer ego. He (and the Times) respects the people, who speak for themselves if you have audio. Explore the site and you'll see him at work (no surprise). Check the lighting.</p>

 

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I think here unfortunately we're seeing the ego of the photographer on full display. These hapless people have been used as specimens for yet another gallery show. I don't like the staged look of the art photograph for this kind of photojournalism. These are going to be for sale at Gagosian for thousands of dollars for collectors.</p>

[philipward]

Blake it"s better than dry statistics.Puts a face and voice to it.Yes it will sell newspapers and soapflakes but how else do you get the message out at a human level?.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>A photographer's ego is always on full display, especially in the case with as good a portraitist as Soth. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Explore the site and you'll see him at work (no surprise). </em><br /> I could not find that aspect. Beyond a single production shot of him making a portrait in a Target store: Hasselblad H series camera, apparently tethered to a computer, camera mounted on a tripod. Some portraits look lit with lights he brought in, some appear to just use the available ambient light. The poses are formal and dignified and all of the portraits rather are rigorously framed and the compositions thoughtfully staged to relate the sitter with their environment.</p>

</blockquote>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Something went haywire with these portraits. They're so hermetic. It seems the subjects are resisting being photographed, resisting revealing themselves as individuals. They're posed and orchestrated to look the same. I see evidence of Soth giving direction, and it shows in awkward faces and poses, of people ill-at-ease. Many people are looking off to one side with the same frozen look. This is not the same as making a typological series of buildings and displaying them in a grid. I also see evidence of the style and look that he himself and many others employ for art gallery portraits, but here there is such a disconnect between the photographer and the subjects. It's so glaring in the photographs.</p>

[alberta_pizzolato]

<p>My first reaction to looking at this page was wanted posters. I felt completely disinclined to click on even one of them. I would have much preferred a single image with some type of expression on the individual's face who was making eye contact with the lens. Then I might have clicked, read and listened. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Who cares what a viewer "wants?" Must feeding expectations be a top photographer's job? I think the point was to challenge, not to please. I doubt Soth shoots weddings.</p>

<p>And who cares what another photographer-viewer, of all people, wants...since photographer wants are typically so hackneyed ! (see "wants" specified above, and ratings systems)</p>

<p>Most photographers want pathos, prettiness, drama, a certain kind of lighting. Would pretty pictures serve the editorial purpose? I think Soth was selected for a very important essay by the most important possible publication because he was known to elude standardized photographer "wants."</p>

<p>It appears to me that Soth intentionally selected moments in which each subject was distracted, in a world of her/his own. He avoided asking them to be someone else (ie pose).</p>

<p>Why should they "reveal themselves?" The article isn't about them. They are near-anonymous, common American workers, reflecting briefly on their work-lives. These aren't portraits of individuals. Their brief ruminations convey the same thing. Lesser photographers would "want" their favorite tear-jerking music in the background :-)</p>

<p>Ellis Vener's idea about ego works as well for me as my own, which is that Soth didn't impose a photographer's ego on the images (no posing, pretty, drama, pathos etc). And yes, the one photo of Soth at work told the story, along with the images themselves. No need for lighting diagrams.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Yes, wanted posters is a good description. I feel a certain resistance, mistrust, of people suspicious of the role they've been put into as they pose for the photographer. By the ego of the photographer, and I only use the term because John proposed these as revealing "no photographer ego," I mean that there seems to be an agenda, an imposed interpretation, of which the subjects not only don't seem to be aware of or understand, but feel suspicious about.<br /><br />It seems that Soth had decided to portray these people as somehow heroic and dignified, but with a sense of wounded pride and quiet resignation and despair, and that by having most of them look to one side or with downcast eyes, this is an invitation for us to freely observe them, that they are allowing us to see their vulnerability. But is seems imposed from outside, choreographed. I wonder what the subjects would think of these images being printed life-size and hung on the walls of one of Larry Gagosian's galleries, the most luxurious and expensive in the world. </p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I am now less mystified by John's pronouncements, after participating in another thread. One recurring idea which I see here that was the central theme of the other thread, is that if a picture is beautiful or pretty, according to his taste, then it is not a serious or challenging picture, while pictures that eschew the sort of virtuosity that sometimes photographers like to display, are considered by him good pictures.<br /><br />But John I think you're failing to see that Alec Soth is working in an accepted "deadpan" style, a style that is considered "beautiful," to hew to your terminology, that is seen as virtuoso in its own right, in the art world and the museum. It's the style that brings the highest prices at auctions. It's now conventional, not challenging as you think. It is at the point of saturation. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ellis Vener's idea about ego works as well for me as my own, which is that Soth didn't impose a photographer's ego on the images (no posing, pretty, drama, pathos etc)</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If that is how you interpret what I wrote, you are badly misreading me, Blake. I think a good subtitle for all of these portraits and most of Soth's work is: "See how we are." </p>

[jtk]

<p>Ellis, I'm missing your point. I said Soth didn't impose his ego, you seem to have said that he did (or that his ego is involved). <br>

Being somewhat zen-inclined, I don't find a difference between those views: I think his discipline deliberately distanced ego from the images (and yes, did all those good things you mentioned)...so OK, maybe that's ego at work. Makes no difference. <br>

How am I "badly misreading you?" Do you think Soth's work is "ego on display"? I think you meant it when you titled it "See how we are." </p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Just for clarification, Ellis was quoting John above.<br /><br />It's clear that Alec Soth has consciously adopted, and of course reconfigured to his purposes, the neutral aesthetic common to so much of art photography today (the deadpan style). He's also heir to the traditions of nineteenth-century portraiture, which he's used to great effect before.<br /><br />He's also a celebrated artist photographer, with one of the shrewdest and most influential dealers/gallerists in the art world.<br /><br />It's okay conceptually with me to approach this project with that kind of background. To impose the common art world aesthetic that you've perfected. But sometimes pictures just don't work. There's a kind of disconnect between the intention and photo. Maybe these were done quickly. Or the situations were forced. I felt a rapport between him and his subjects in his Mississippi pictures, something genuine. Here I feel very ambivalent. Like I'm seeing the work of someone working by rote. Maybe they'll grow on me. I don't know...</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>There's a lot of "pronouncements" made in this thread, not just John. But so what. Maybe Soth wanted them to look "hermetic" assuming you mean "closed off". I like the set. These are people that are closed out by economic circumstances beyond their control, why shouldn't they be uncomfortable. Even though this series is showing individuals, maybe it's not really about individuals at all, Maybe the dehumanization of individuals is symbolic about the impersonal humaneness manner in which 10's of thousands have been put out of work due to the faceless greed of people not even residents of the place the photos were about? Just throwing out ideas. </p>

 

[Brad_]

I'm also in the camp that likes them. A lot. An brilliant set that reveals and releases. Fortunately, every so

often a photographer takes a step to eschew old and comfortable notions of conventional portraiture

and instead start with clear vision and freshness. These speak so well to the theme.

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I call them pronouncements because John's statements appear to me to be sham arguments. He writes things like:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who cares what a viewer "wants?" Must feeding expectations be a top photographer's job? I think the point was to challenge, not to please. I doubt Soth shoots weddings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's like setting up a straw man to be defeated, but I can't find where anyone has suggested that hypothesis. I also don't understand the use of quotation marks for so many words. By the way, I'm not attacking John personally (the <em>ad hominem</em> argument), which was made in the other thread, which is designed often to make people defensive.<br /><br />For example, I think, and I may be mistaken, that people are responding with sympathy for the people depicted, their honesty, which I fully share. But the photography I think reveals the opposite of what John posited, i.e., the lack of "ego" (which I put in quotation marks because it's not a word that would occur to me to describe photographic and artistic intention).<br /><br />Taking John's sentence, quoted above, I would argue that Soth is precisely pandering to his viewers (collectors and gallerists and art critics and other artists for example) and "feeding expectations," in John's words. The photographs are in a style that has been widely adopted by artist photographers, as well as by Soth. It hews to a well established path, which works wonderfully in many cases. In this instance, though, it seems to me that the subjects in the photographs have been shoehorned into this mold, to conform to the neutral aesthetic that Soth does so well, that is so remunerative for him in the rarefied market for prints that he inhabits.<br /><br />For example, why are so many people in the photographs depicted with downward glances to the side of the camera? Were they directed to not smile and look down and to the side. Why were they photographed with such a high resolution camera on a tripod -- was it to make spectacularly detailed large prints that could then fetch large sums at Gagosian? Alec Soth is of course not an ingenue. I'm just a bit ambivalent when photographs are constructed for the art market.<br /><br />I liked listening to their stories.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Blake, I understand why you're mystified, and why you're so obsessively diminishing his work. </p>

<p>fwiw I don't know or care about prices in auctions. They aren't relevant to anything of importance.</p>

 

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>I've always been a big fan of his work. I went to see him when he spoke with Elliot Erwitt on stage and it was a great experience. I really like him and his photographs, and have been a fairly assiduous collector of his books. Anyway, I don't even mind that he's moving in more conceptual directions lately. It's okay. I'm just criticizing this series of portraits, not diminishing his work. I don't like that he's moving away from the 8x10 and I think it shows here. I'm paraphrasing, but indeed the world through a 300 mm lens looks different. These are sincere criticisms, from someone who isn't a photographer, so someone doesn't say, oh you're jealous because he's been canonized to such an extent. But it doesn't automatically exempt him from criticism. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Soth's work for NYTimes is photojournalism. It illustrates the dozens of interviews it accompanies. Dozens of subjects were approached, interviewed, recorded, and photographed by a TEAM, working on a three day NY Times ASSIGNMENT. Any "art" was secondary, was primarily that of the editor IMO.</p>

<p>The article only peripherally involves Soth. The interviews are at least as important to it, and the body of the article is far more important than both. </p>

<p>Any Hooterville wedding snapper could have made the happy snaps or conventional "art" Blake and others "want." </p>

<p>Instead, a NY Times editor selected a photographer who wouldn't impose Hooterville's "wants" on the assignment: NY Times doesn't exist to please Hootervillians.</p>

<p>Times readers (key word "readers") famously dig into long essays and complex reports, and they discuss them with each other. They don't need to be lured into articles with easily-appreciated images. They know that if NY Times publishes it, it's important enough to read, pictures or no pictures.</p>

<p> </p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>John, I'm beginning to understand how you respond to criticisms of your ideas, which is to set-up straw men that you then shoot down. You attribute ideas and beliefs to other people that they haven't expressed and then criticize your own formulation as if it was attributable to someone else.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>There's a lot of "pronouncements" made in this thread, not just John.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>true enough. Let's pick up on some of them:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A coherent essay, no drama, no pretty, no pathos, no photographer ego. He (and the Times) respects the people</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is the point of the whole series. I think Barry put it best when he said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even though this series is showing individuals, maybe it's not really about individuals at all, Maybe the dehumanization of individuals is symbolic...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As for ego, genereally speaking imposing ones ego as John put it (and he's right in this case as far as I'm concerned), or giving evidence of a inflated ego is hardly relevant if there's substance behind it. Regardless of how one looks at this particular series I think it's fair to say that Soth's work overall is all substance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These aren't portraits of individuals.</p>

I think the point was to challenge, not to please</blockquote>

<p>exactly</p>

<p>As for like/dislike that is hardly important I think. To be honest looking at these I can't say I do like them that much looking at them individually but I definitely do admire the concept behind it and how he worked it out.<br /> Simply put, it works.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>So it seems that people are responding positively to Soth's new approach of serialization and images constructed to hew to a conceptualized artistic intention? I always loved the connections that he made with people, the trust that he gained from them. I was really disheartened to see this new direction of depersonalization and sterile images, especially for editorial photography. He's always approached portraiture as a collaboration, and although not all his subjects were aware of his status as an important art photographer and this wasn't essentially relevant in many instances, I find the implications for social responsibility and honest reporting in this series troubling.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>My impression for example is that far from the Times and the editors respecting the people photographed, is that they exploited them. They're sort of used as interchangeable props. I mean, when you go to tell someone's story, do you think of serialization, uniformity, concocted plastic art-world affectlessness, staged tableaux. You could as well have hired actors. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Editorial and photo-journalism have been merged with the more conceptual / art approach for some time now. In Magnum this new approach perhaps became most visible when Martin Parr joined the group ( of which HCB said that he was from another planet ), followed by photographers /photo-journalists like Alec Soth, who also photograph from out of a conceptual narrative besides photographing a supposed objective narrative that's already there.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I mean, when you go to tell someone's story, do you think of serialization, uniformity, concocted

plastic art-world affectlessness, staged tableaux.

 

No. I don't. Nor does that characterization even come to mind viewing this series. That's your view.

Perhaps you would have been happier with a more dramatic, upbeat and heroic Karshian style to help tell the

story?