Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sentence above should read "What's less relevant" Not "irelevant".</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, you miss the point" Luis, it was just a bit of leg pulling on my part. It was supposed to put a smile on your face.</p>

<p>"Has there really been progress in photography"</p>

<p>Yes, as a species we are always progressive in whatever. Photography has become more open to everyone and their are many who are expanding the boundaries. On this forum with Fred doing his aged naked man Documentary.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lannie, I was just having lunch with an artist, who sked me if I knew what the meaning of the word "Beauty" was in the Greek. He said its roots meant "according to one's hour". I thought of you. I haven't checked on it, but like it. Rather ephemeral and/or prone to morphing.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Luis. That is wonderful. I can see a certain emphasis on "immediacy" also in Fred's linking such evaluative terms to the here and now, to the image or subject that confronts one in the moment, etc. I seem at times by contrast to be trying to link value judgments to eternal absolutist anchors. We all want to freeze the moment and to hold onto things that last, but, alas, life doesn't seem to want to cooperate.</p>

<p>This has actually been a fascinating discussion, even if we all sometimes seem to be butting heads.</p>

<p>While we are on the subject of the ephemeral, please let me offer yet another tangent: there seems to be nothing quite as ephemeral as "good light," unless it is that special expression on the subject's face that is there for an instant and is then gone.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred's linking such evaluative terms to the here and now</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See, we all put words in others' mouths, which is good. It shows what we understand and what we don't. We'd have a hard time communicating if we didn't occasionally try to restate what we thought someone else was saying, precisely so that we can refine our understandings of each other. I said nothing about evaluative terms being something about the here and now. </p>

<p>Here's my point, taken mostly from one of my above posts:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What's less relevant, less informative, less telling, and less insightful is this kind of relative valuation: Riefenstahl is better or worse a photographer than so-and-so. Which is a much different issue from talking about whether Riefenstahl's <em>values</em> or the values expressed in her photographs are better or worse than someone else's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I have said is that I don't waste too much time worrying about what photographs are great and which photos are better than others. That doesn't mean I don't think Values are important or relevant or that Value is somehow always relative. It means I don't think RANKINGS are as important as Values. And I don't have a clue what the here and now has to do with it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And I would find it really helpful if you'd actually address Serrano, who you brought up.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Serrano, what was so great about your photography?!"</p>

<p>Fred, I am increasingly having trouble taking you seriously. I am sure that the feeling is mutual.</p>

<p>Let us define the "here and now" as the "Eternal Present." Then we will not have to make comparisons across epochs.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, the feeling is not mutual. I respect you enough to take what you say seriously. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother talking to you. </p>

<p>It's not about making comparisons across epochs or not. It's about ranking photographs (even within the same era) AND/OR different epochs as better and worse. I've been talking about comparisons within one person's body of work as well. A comparison doesn't require a "better than" or a "worse than." A comparison can be "I love the way Pictorialist photos tried to emulate painting in a quest for idealized visions of beauty" and "I love the way Modernism then moved photography into being more in tune with specifically photographic concerns and also started to show a more realist view."</p>

<p>The Serrano bit was cute . . . and vacuous.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Fred. I enjoy our exchanges, too, or else I would not engage in them</p>

<p>What's wrong with occasionally saying "I like this better than that"? It doesn't have to be a terminal condition! As for "great," sometimes I use it as we typically use it in conversation, that is, unintentionally hyperbolic.</p>

<p>As for Serrano, I don't care what Jesse Helms or some other fruitcake thinks or thought about Serrano. It was an honest question. I really don't know his work. I am sure that he did some good things, but he seems (prima facie) to have chosen topics that would simply gain himself some notoriety.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I really don't know his work. I am sure that he did some good things, but he seems (prima facie) to have chosen topics that would simply gain himself some notoriety.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not get to know the work first and then make judgments about the work and his motives? </p>

<p>Is there something wrong with seeking notoriety? Do you think Warhol didn't seek notoriety? Does that affect his vision as an artist? Duchamp? Man Ray? Many, many of the artists we know travelled in the right circles or promoted themselves precisely to be seen.</p>

<p>A case would have to be made, by someone other than a fruitcake, for Serrano's work having little or no artistic vision and amounting mostly to the seeking of notoriety. It would be interesting to hear such a substantive case. Knowing how you feel about projections about others' motives, I'm surprised at the comments your making about them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Here's what I take away from <em><a href="http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Piss-Christ-1987.jpg">Piss Christ.</a></em></p>

<p>I usually look at a photograph before noticing its title. I see a glowing cross submerged in liquid, glistening bubbles that give some life and dynamism to the surroundings. There's a warmth, both in the colors and in the cross being so bathed. The lighting is awesome, almost like the shining sun. It seems religious. Actually, no. Better than that, it seems spiritual. The lighting seems to take us to just above Jesus's head. It's elevating. The blur feels appropriate, transcendent. The angle of the cross seems to add depth (as the closer side of the cross is coming more into focus, coming toward us, the right hand of Jesus much more in focus than the left, which seems to merge with the cross). The cross seems to have a halo around it.</p>

<p>Then I look at the title. So now I know it's urine and that adds a whole dimension. So <em>knowing</em> what the actual subject is affects my relationship to the photographed subject. And this knowledge strikes me in several ways, two of which are in tension with each other, which makes it, for me, thought-provoking. Piss is part of life, natural, and does have a beautiful and warm glow. It is deeply personal, yet something we can all universally relate to. It is of the body. So to see the crucifix portrayed like this is, in many ways, a deeply personal and movingly intimate image. At the same time, we can't avoid the fact that piss is a waste product and often used to denigrate things, especially when we "piss on" something.</p>

<p>There's enough ambiguity here to generate plenty of controversy. Is he being sacrilegious? Is he being spiritual while putting down religion? Is he just being controversial? Is he being suggestive, that all of this stuff applies, the beauty, the warmth, the intimacy, and the sacrilege? All, some, or none of this? Or is he being visual and simply telling us what we're looking at? Is he showing the crucifix as a symbol he believes in and cherishes or is he commenting on its use, even its commercialization? We see crucifixes everywhere. They are utilized as cheaply and readily as plastic Davids and Elvises on velvet. Maybe Serrano is going over the top as a statement about the kitschification of the cross. Maybe not.</p>

<p>Our relationship to many of our own bodily functions and our relationship to the symbol of the cross and to Jesus himself are multi-faceted, curious, and often have opposing emotional pulls on us. What a visually compelling and emotionally provocative way to photograph a crucifix!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[One further thought]: The picturing of a crucifix in piss could be harmonious in that the crucifix elevates this bodily fluid, helping to find its visual beauty and human significance while the piss envelops the cross in a hug of humanity with spirituality. And the crucifix in piss could be discordant in that piss can be seen as a rejection of the cross and what it symbolizes and could even be seen as a desecration. Perhaps it's some of each. A lot of art lies in the connections and tensions between harmony and discord, spirituality and physicality, the ideal and the real.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"according to one's hour"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a fascinating way to look at beauty. I see much potential in it.</p>

<p>My hesitation would be that the Greeks (it runs through Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) believed in final causes, that everything has a purpose, a teleology. And so this notion of beauty, as other notions of it, is wrapped up with the Ideal or Form of anything from a chair to beauty itself. Through knowledge (more importantly, Wisdom), we discover what that purpose is. A child acting as an adult would not be beautiful in this sense of "according to one's hour." In this way, it goes along with Plato's repressiveness: keeping things and people in their places.</p>

<p>The flip side of this story comes from the Existentialists, who said that man gives things their various purposes and man's own purpose is not a given, but rather self-determined (free).</p>

<p>The ramifications for art of beauty being "according to one's hour" makes beauty, IMO, more about discovery (a purpose that already exists) whereas the Existential approach would be more about creating purpose or just creating. There is room for both approaches, I think, as well as combinations of the two.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>What I found is that "according to one's hour" (by virtue of which a ripe fruit would be beautiful and not an unripe fruit) is post-Classical Greek, Koine Greek, and more used in the vernacular as opposed to literarily. The Classical Greek word for beauty is <em>kallos</em>. The Koine Greek word for beauty is <em>horaios</em>, derived from <em>hora</em> (hour).</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Fred, thanks for looking into the Beauty/Greek thing. My friend will be tickled to hear about this.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Why not get to know the work first and then make judgments about the work and his motives?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I asked a question, Fred. I did not make a judgment. Your rationalizations do not constitute an answer to my question. The only value judgment that I have is that I find it revolting, but that was not originally a judgment, simply a visceral reaction. It has something to do with bodily fluids, waste products. One doesn't have to go into deep Freudian analysis to figure out why most people would not find that the fluid enhances the beauty. Once one knows that that was what it was shot in, then that is what one is going to see every time one looks at it--the fluid. Now, if that is what one wants to convey--something revolting or negative--then that is certainly one's right. My judgment, upon reflection, reflects my original visceral reaction: "Eeuuw! Yuk!" In other words, the fluid becomes the message. It's a close-up shot of urine--urine right in one's face, too close. He tells us so in the title. Could the image not speak for itself?</p>

<p>One does not have to be Jesse Helms or some right-wing religious fanatic to find the shot less than edifying. I would defend Serrano's right to make such pictures. I am not thereby going to glorify the result. It still seems like a cheap way to get publicity to me, and, unless I see something of his that resonates with me personally, I am not going to start singing Serrano's praises--or start rationalizing why the work is truly worthy.</p>

<p>Self promotion by any means necessary? That's not my cup of, uh, tea, either.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see a glowing cross submerged in liquid, glistening bubbles that give some life and dynamism to the surroundings. There's a warmth, both in the colors and in the cross being so bathed. The lighting is awesome, almost like the shining sun. It seems religious. Actually, no. Better than that, it seems spiritual. The lighting seems to take us to just above Jesus's head. It's elevating.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Freddy! Come off it.</p>

<p>I am sorry, Fred, but when I reread this I simply laugh out loud. It's nothing personal. That's just my reaction.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><br />when I reread this I simply laugh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not surprised, and I don't take it personally. It's got to do with your sensibility as a viewer and not with me, Serrano, or the photograph.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Eeuuw! Yuk!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kindergarten.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>As with any art form that progresses or develops, viewers usually grow up as well.</p>

[simon_crofts]

Of course the Serrano work is intended to shock and disgust. And it's also beautiful. And has many potential layers of

meaning, on both an emotional and an intellectual level. I'm still not sure that I actually like it, but I have to admit that

it's powerful and original.

 

Lannie seems to have a schoolboy reaction of disgust and shock. Which is just a partial reaction to the image, but he

doesn't, or doesn't want to, see beyond that. Which is fine, you don't have to appreciate, or like, or understand

particular works of art if you don't want to. But you seem to see the provocation/shock/disgust as a basis for criticising

the work, which seems odd. Many, mmaybe even most, great works of art are intended to shock or outrage or disgust

in some way. Mozart used shock or surprise tactics in his music all the time. it doesn't make it bad music.

Shakespeare described horrible and bloody murder all the time, have a look at Macbeth. Are the witches not

disgusting?

 

Which is more horrible, multiple murder of children shown in that play, or a bowl of urine in a glass bottle?

Urine is just a bodily fluid. It may provoke disgust as a bourgeious reaction, but if you're dying of thirst in the desert,

you'll probably be desperately grateful of the chance to drink some.

 

I really don't know whether Serrano's work is religious, or anti-religious, but it could be taken either way, and that's

part of its power. It also has something of Gilbert and George - where you see these amazingly beautiful mosaics of

the wall, admire them then approach read the caption and discover that you have been admiring semen, or shit, or

whatever. My guess is that Lannie isn't going to enjoy that art, but there are an awful lot of people that find it provoking

in a good way, original, beautiful, and fun.

 

Of course, we can all go back to taking endless sickly pictures of pretty landscapes like the pictorialists, but personally I find urine more engaging!

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Perhaps your propensity to extol the glories of Serrano's work demonstrates the culmination of your own progress and development:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see a glowing cross submerged in liquid, glistening bubbles that give some life and dynamism to the surroundings. There's a warmth, both in the colors and in the cross being so bathed. The lighting is awesome, almost like the shining sun. It seems religious. Actually, no. Better than that, it seems spiritual. The lighting seems to take us to just above Jesus's head. It's elevating.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This all began as a question as to what he has done that is so great--0kay, "worthy," or whatever adjective you want to use. I simply do not see anything of value here:</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ</a></p>

<p>That is why I asked if he has done anything of value. Here is the sort of thing that I have found:</p>

<p>http://www.art-forum.org/z_Serrano/gallery.htm</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Mozart used shock or surprise tactics in his music all the time.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, I respect your point of view, but I see no possible meaningful comparison between Mozart and Serrano.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still not sure that I actually like it, but I have to admit that it's powerful and original.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So were the Third Reich and the Final Solution, Simon. I require more in order to give a positive valuation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

But if you don't want to see more, you won't.

 

Lots of people find Mozart boring and see no point in it. That may be, because they don't want to listen.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I'm trying, Simon. I'm really trying. I'm just not finding it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Imagine a student telling a teacher he was trying and then proceeding to say that all Descartes did was to denigrate the church, that he was a heretic and was simply seeking notoriety by suggesting that man was at the core of things. Imagine he could not tell you anything about what Descartes actually said. He could only focus on Descartes's heresy but couldn't recreate one of his arguments, couldn't address the finer points of his thought, couldn't put Descartes's work into perspective and talk about its place in history. It's well and good for that <em>child</em> to say he's trying. But most adults, and especially his teachers, would see through that. It sounds good to him to say that he's trying. The adults in the room can hear prejudice and pre-judgment. The teacher would hear the lack of openness and the inability of the student to even recount what the student had read, without the judgments overwhelming his first-order understanding of the work. Repressed sensibility and vision is visceral and hard to hide.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I see these two works, for example, and I see no particular problem with making a comparative value judgment favoring one over the other:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Clarence_White_Family_in_Maine_Gertrude_K%C3%A4sebier_1913.jpg</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ</a></p>

<p>I am capable of liking a lot of different things. I am capable of tolerating a lot of different things. That does not mean that I have to give a positive evaluation of everything that comes along in the name of "art."</p>

<p>That which claims to be "art" is, in my opinion, crying out for evaluation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>