Alec Soth & work, no work

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Not bad for a week's work...</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Yes, it's true, and I don't have any real reservations about that merging. I know that Martin Parr was vehemently opposed for inclusion by one member of Magnum especially. He has just an amazing ability to transcend and to work seamlessly it seems in so many areas of the photography world. And for Soth, I can only really say good things about his work, but this specific set of photographs for the NYT Magazine, they seem just so wrong on many levels. They seem rushed and done by rote. It seems that anyone could have stood in for the portraits, even a mannequin. If you care about people's stories, why serialize them into non-entities? How can twenty people have the same affectless expression? Why choreograph them all to seem withdrawn and hermetic in the same way? It doesn't seem to work either as photojournalism or conceptualized art.<br /><br />And although I don't attribute any conscious cunning on the part of Soth, who seems always so sanguine and down to earth about his position in the art world, isn't there a bit of irony in sending one of the highest paid art photographers, represented by the single most glamorous influential gallery in the art world, with the editors of one of the most powerful newspapers, to photograph the "American Worker." I think there is particularly if the photographs are destined for MOMA and collectors. They almost seem to have been produced on spec for that purpose. That's why I would feel exploited had I been one of the people photographed -- how aware were they of the conception of the whole project and their role in participating in it? Maybe there was a down on his or her luck photographer willing to work for the Times to do this story.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course it's my view. That's why I wrote it myself. I didn't attribute it to you did I? I'm not trying to change your mind, or I don't see that to be the purpose of expressing one's interpretation in a forum. The choice you offer in response though is a false choice that you came up with on your own. I didn't say anything to suggest that I wanted anything "dramatic" or "upbeat" or "heroic" as a counterpoint to Soth's approach. If you attribute ideas to other people so that they're easily defeated, you're setting up a sham argument to further your point at someone else's expense.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>The photography here seems to be beside the point... but the stories they tell--flat as some of them are--round out the picture of a town in crisis. One quote which I'll paraphrase: <em>Whenever anyone gives directions in Rockford, they always use landmarks that used to be here...</em> That's pretty telling and gave me of a sense of the place and the people than any of the photographs could have.</p>

<p>But the pictures? Sort of dull...and the voices? Just as dull and flat.</p>

<p>I have to ask, John... what is it you find so challenging here?</p>

<p>One man's opinion to another...</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Yes, of course it's my view. That's why I wrote it myself. I didn't attribute it to you did I? I'm not trying to

change your mind, or I don't see that to be the purpose of expressing one's interpretation in a forum. The choice

you offer in response though is a false choice that you came up with on your own. I didn't say anything to suggest

that I wanted anything "dramatic" or "upbeat" or "heroic" as a counterpoint to Soth's approach. If you attribute

ideas to other people so that they're easily defeated, you're setting up a sham argument to further your point at

someone else's expense.

 

Puhleeeze... Not sure of the point of your ramble, as I attributed nothing to you or others. I was merely trying to

fish out of you how you thought the series of portraits should be handled, in the form of a question. And offered

Karsh as a well-known style, known to everyone. Hardly set up to be a false choice. Rather than argue with

people about their motivations, why not stick your neck out and suggest how you would approach it.

 

I guess I could play your game and say, "I didn't attribute it to you did I?" Or, of course the choice is my own, I

wrote it...

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>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</em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just for the record, The Bechers, Blossfeld, and Avedon have all done this kind of serialization, AKA typology, portrait photography - especially if you include the idea of portraits to include non human subjects. It seems that early on it was discovered that this is the kind of thing that photography as an art form is well suited too.</p>

<p>But to me, Soth's work seems most clearly connected to August Sanders' portraits of Germans in the nineteen twenties and thirties, his monumental "Man of the Twentieth Century" project.</p>

<p>Refer to http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1786&page=1 and http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/03/august-sander.html</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Brad, that's not very nice asking me how <em>I</em> would photograph the assignment.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>Yes, it's true, Soth has really been brilliant in his interpretation and reformulation of Sander's work and the tradition of nineteenth-century photography. I knew that Soth also has done some small serialization projects of architecture, displaying them in the ubiquitous grids. I just hadn't seen him follow in the footsteps of the typological aspect of the Bechers and their Dusseldorf School in portraiture. I know he uses the Becher's deadpan aesthetic, and is also clearly influenced by Eggleston and Stephen Shore. I always found the connection he has to the people he photographs, the way they seem disarmed by him, such an integral part of his attraction. That's why I was dismayed when I saw the serialized approach to these portraits on the cover of the NYT Magazine.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I agree Blake, I'm a fan of Alec Soth (and my wife bought me one of his books for my b'day present at my request), but most of this particular series doesn't do it for me. I've nothing against the style of portraiture at all, but find these a little too self-conscious. They just don't quite work, mostly. Though some of them are really good eg. brand manager on the bottom row. And newspaper reporter in the same row. Director, Health Clinic in the top row is nice. Machine operator second row too. But the good ones get a bit lost in the others.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Blake, just realize that your use of art aesthetic post-modern terms such as serialization is just your spin and interpretation. If this was suppose to be that, why would there then be individual narration by each subject about their situation? Doesn't make sense to me.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>On closer inspection, if you look closely, quite a few of the photographs in the grid are in fact different from the photographs that accompany the audio. Possibly a number of important choices were made for Soth by the editors, and the exigencies of the project. Simon, some of the photographs, viewed individually, do indeed have a lot of good in them. Soth's photographic vision re-emerges and I see clear echoes and links to his other work. It's tempered somewhat by the use of the smaller digital camera, another exigency of working on deadline for publication. The 8x10 and 300 mm lens arrange space differently. I think a photo editor probably arranged the grid, and sequenced and edited the photos there in a presentation that really does a disservice to the photos, selecting alternate takes for uniformity and graphic effect at the expense of integrity of vision. It's like seeing a crack in the facade. How important sequencing and selection of images and their presentation is. Soth has dedicated his career to making incredibly well conceived books, and it's interesting how a heavy handed editor can present even the best work in a way that really diminishes it. It really is an entire creative process, from taking the photograph to its final form and sequencing in a book, and here it seems the editorial hand has put some cogs in the wheel.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Mention of August Sander was important: The opening photo in the superb essay that Soth illustrated (apart from the cover) was for me immediately evocative of Sanders' baker...the only photo poster I've ever paid for (but much more evocative of Irving Penn's work).</p>

<p>This thread has seemingly abandoned the earlier disrespect for Soth's NY Times work, turning to criticism of the work of the magazine's editor.</p>

<p>So ... this seems a good time to again remember that the NY Times is not a mere photo book and that Soth is not a mere art photographer,<strong> is not merely "dedicated...to making incredibly well conceived books." </strong>That Soth has made plenty of money from the art crowd does not mean his photographic values are as narrow and repetitive as theirs?<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong> </strong><strong> </strong></p>

<p>I'm not surprised that some here have only now given the work "closer inspection." Someone earlier commented that she blew off the work entirely because it wasn't her cup of tea, which is of course her measure. I wonder if many here actually read the article or heard the audio, both of which are integral with Soth's work.?</p>

<p> Too many big words, big ideas. Takes too much work. Nah!</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm not surprised that some here have only now given the work "closer inspection.""</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You seem to be assuming that others haven't looked 'properly' at the work, just because they don't happen to share your perception of it. I think you'd do better to approach looking at the work with more humility, and acknowledge that others may have a different appreciation of the work, which might also be valid, and try to learn something from it. It's one of the interesting things about photography, that there isn't one correct point of view on it, it is a two-way process with the viewer.</p>

<p>I also find this kind of sweeping generalisation:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That Soth has made plenty of money from the art crowd does not mean his photographic values are as narrow and repetitive as theirs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>off-putting. The 'art crowd' is a huge group of people, and no doubt will include people with narrow and repetitive points of view, but will also include many talented, interesting and inspiring indivduals. Alec Soth, for better or for worse, is himself very much part of the 'art crowd'. Without the 'art crowd' the chances are that you would never even have heard of either Alec Soth or August Sanders. So I find this sweeping dismissal of other people's points of view somewhat blinkered.</p>

<p>The fact that you liked the work is interesting. It might be better to expound further on your own views of the work rather than dissing others. Tell us more about why you liked it?</p>

<p>The audio and interviews - yes, fine. But for me, if I don't find the visual material interesting in the first place, or even positively dislike it, then there is little incentive for me to perservere and listen to the audio. And in my view, that is a kind of failure of the work somewhere along the line.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>On the magnum site, if you go to page 3 ( after typing "alec soth"), you can see more portraits from that project/essay but which aren't in the article. <br>

<a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOXX4XXII&CT=Search&DT=Image">http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOXX4XXII&CT=Search&DT=Image</a></p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>@John, often wrong, never in doubt.</p>

[jtk]

<p>1) I posted this OT because Soth's contribution to his NY Times assignment was interesting. I am not responsible for the failure of others to read the piece, as several have admitted outright. I didn't infer that, they said it.</p>

<p>2) Soth's work isn't as important as the writing and may not be more important than the audio. It's a whole, not an individual's exhibition.</p>

<p>3) That some "street photographers" think they are engaged in "art" and try to impose that belief on others explains some of the grumbling on this thread. Is Soth's casually posed, artificially lit, indoor photography "street?" Someone here went so far as to assert that Avedon was a street photographer! Doesn't that suggest the category is meaningless to that person?</p>

<p>4) As a personal discipline I try to avoid saying I "like" photographs that seem important because I'm not wired to want good feelings from them ("like"="good feeling"). Thanks to Minor White-related thought, I want something sustained: residual curiosity, perhaps outright doubt, maybe even active dislike, following viewing. I'm not much interested in photos of sunsets, but I "like" sunsets.</p>

<p>5) People with ideas of their own express them. People who don't tend to attack people who do...as above. Soth's work is interesting and important, I don't need to "like" or "dislike" it.</p>

<p>6) If you develop ideas of your own you may often be "wrong" in the minds of nobodies. If you don't you can never be "wrong" because you won't even exist as an individual.</p>

[jtk]

<p>...incidentally, and tellingly, someone claimed I said something about "properly." That's a direct falsehood.</p>

<p>Three people here directly stated that they didn't even click on the images, per the design of the piece. </p>

<p>Then they expounded elaborately about something they admitted not seeing. </p>

<p>Then, much later, one of them got around to doing what the page made so easy (clicking)...then admitted a few small revelations that they would have had if they'd bothered to look.</p>

<p>When someone states that s/he avoids even looking, but vends extensive "opinion" on the basis of uninformed snap judgments, that's their right. I don't bother with photos of kittykats, homeless, or sunsets either.</p>

[simon_crofts]

If you by your own argument you don't exist, then there's little point in those of us who do actually exist using up our

valuable time responding. Especially as you don't put forward any insight into Soth's work beyond not "liking" it

because it's not a sunset. Wow.

 

I hadn't registered the fact that this thread is in the street/documentary section of the forum, which I'd vowed not to

come back to. John's self-important b/s reminded me why I hated it, so I'm ducking out.

[jtk]

<p>Simon, it shouldn't be necessary for me to spoon feed you with more "insight". If you read anything I wrote you would see how I relate/respond to Soth's work on this journalistic project. </p>

<p>You're evidently a fine photographer. I'm envious of your skill. If that's really your work, how does your understanding of photography relate to Soth's project? </p>

<p>Why not respond to the work rather than being upset about what I think?</p>

<p>You claim you didn't know where you were (!) ...that should not have prevented you from investing a few moments with the OT, the various responses, and Soth's project...since you obviously were desperate to post something.</p>

<p>What have you accomplished by ignoring Soth's project, abusing me personally, expressing "hate" for this Forum, and fleeing? </p>

<p> </p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>What have you accomplished by ignoring Soth's project</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What seems strange to me is that because others have a different reaction to yours, that you think that they must be somehow ignoring the work.</p>

<p>I tried to make it clear that I enjoy Soth's work and have followed it for a while (since his Mississippi project), I have his book, have read it, followed his blog. I looked very closely at the work linked to on this thread, looked at each image carefully and individually, listened to most of the accompanying audio, and also studied the various alternative images on the Magnum site and compared those to the ones that had been selected. I don't think that that is ignoring it.</p>

<p>I already mentioned that I think that some of these portraits are really good. I already pointed to which ones I especially liked. Others I found weak, or off-putting eg. too self-conscious - in a way that didn't work. It's like that even with my favourite photographers, sometimes they do things that I'm not completely into. Even some pieces of music by my favourite composers don't appeal to me. Most of Shostakovitch's work is brilliant, but I don't enjoy his "Tea for Two".</p>

<p>Blake's comment about sequencing/editing was I think spot on. Soth's editing and presentation of his thoughts around the image has always been fascinating. But on the Magnum site he's offering two or different versions of each portrait, sometimes with tiny differences (eyes looking at camera, eyes turned away) which can look on the face of it indecisive, not committing to a decision on which is THE version. He seems to be leaving alternatives, presumably to allow editorial decisions about editing and sequencing etc. to be made by someone else. Maybe that's why for me the selection doesn't do it for me here. I think it didn't help that some of the weakest ones were near the beginning, and some of the best ones tucked away in the last row or two. It would help to have one or two at the beginning that send your mind in the right direction.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>expressing "hate" for this Forum, and fleeing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are loads of places around that internet that I've made a mental note not to return to. Indeed not even on the internet, there are bars, restaurants, maybe even whole cities that I didn't like and made a note not to go back to. Am I fleeing from all of them? If so, then so be it, but life's too short to keep everyone happy.</p>

<p>Posting was a mistake. What have I accomplised from it? Nothing, just some wasted time. I wouldn't have wasted more time on this post, but had to put right the accusation that I had ignored Soth.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>John, I should add, your enthusiasm for the work is great to hear, I don't want to detract from that in any way. My intention wasn't to take away from that. I was reacting to what seemed to me to be the dismissal of others' reactions.</p>

<p>That's why I posted (I just came across the thread looking down the "Recent Posts" section and the reference to Soth caught my eye), not to argue with your reaction to the work, just to say that I could see why (I thought) Blake was reacting differently.</p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>John sounds like a bully driving people away from this forum that have good stuff to contribute.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Let's just move on, we were probably both ruder than we should have been. The nature of internet forums. John was presumably driven by being passionate about the pictures, which is a good thing.</p>

<p>Let's think about something else, or Alec Soth, or something.</p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>It's not rude to defend yourself against a mischaracterization of what you said and personal attacks. When every other sentence is some kind of passive aggressive comment, it ruins every chance of having a substantive conversation. Just read what he said to you. Even the comment about your photographs is backhanded. Give me a break. If you should feel bad about anything it's having been goaded to defend yourself, but you certainly weren't rude. </p>