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

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Repressed sensibility and vision is visceral and hard to hide.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No doubt that is my problem, Fred. My artistic sensibility is repressed. Otherwise I should no doubt have the artistic sensibility to appreciate this masterpiece:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13882943</p>

<p>I truly do hate to keep throwing that one back up, Fred, but the fact is that, if I compare your artistic sensibility and mine, I do not feel that bad about my own.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

"I'm trying, Simon. I'm really trying. I'm just not finding it."

 

 

That's no problem, not everyone has to get it. The last forty years in photography has probably been about the most

exciting time in any art form ever (well, maybe except the emergence of Expressionism etc.). So there is so much to

get to know, so many amazing ideas, movements, individual works, that there is so much to find. So go and look for

what does interest you. Maybe in a few years time you will come back to the likes of Serrano and suddenly 'get' it.

 

I'm not sure whether I would have 'got' Serrano ten years ago. Maybe I would, I don't know. But I certainly developed

enormously over that time, and understand a lot more than I understood then. And I don't think I was thick, or visually

illiterate. I've just learned a lot, seen a lot, thought lot, developed a lot (I think) since then.

 

Some people will always be the visual equivalent of tone deaf, but I really am sure that you're not - otherwise you

wouldn't appreciate Steiglitz et al.

 

I can appreciate the basic motivation behind this thread. if I understood right, it was an appreciation of Steiglitz,

Kasebier, Steichen etc. That is a good and positive motivation. From there move onwards, there's a lot of exciting

things to find out there. That sounds a bit patronising, for which I apologise, but the sentiment remains.

[johne37179]

<p>I think the technical progress has opened up creative possibilities that previously did not exist. Digital photography is a much expanded creative tool than film and chemistry was. I'm not sure the expansion of possibilities is progress as much as just expansion. Photography has the potential to be a much more graphic art today than it did 20-30 (or 50) years ago. </p>

[ryanjoseph]

<p>I think there has absolutely been progress in photography. Although those photographers were talented in their own right, entire genres of photography didn't exist when they were around. There was no sports, nature, or candid photography in the mid 19th to early 20th century. <br>

The past 10 years has seen massive leaps as film is replaced by superior digital technology, offering an unparalleled level control, low light sensitivity, and convenience. The question almost seems silly if we look at all the stuff that has changed in the past 20 years.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe in a few years time you will come back to the likes of Serrano and suddenly 'get' it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that I "get" it, Simon. I just don't like it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can appreciate the basic motivation behind this thread. if I understood right, it was an appreciation of Steiglitz, Kasebier, Steichen etc. That is a good and positive motivation. From there move onwards, there's a lot of exciting things to find out there</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, I really don't think that I am "stuck" in the era of Stieglitz,<em> et al.</em> This is my first ever thread dealing with photography from that era I like a lot of varied things. I just don't like what I have seen of Serrano's work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The question almost seems silly if we look at all the stuff that has changed in the past 20 years.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ryan, if we were speaking only of technological progress, then it would be silly indeed.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

"I just don't like what I have seen of Serrano's work."

 

Well OK, but then one would expect an informed discussion about it, the ins and outs of why you got it but didn't like

it. Maybe a very informed discussion about why you don't like it. I mentioned that I have not yet decided whether I

ultimately like Serrano or not, but I can talk until the cows come home about why it's done, my reaction to it, the

background to it and so on, and I can totally relate to Fred's reaction to it.

 

Just saying that Macbeth has murder in it and is therefore is disgusting and you don't like it, is not an adequate

reaction to Shakespeare, even if you were to tell us that you definitely 'get' it. As with Fred's analogy on Descartes. That is the sort of thing that would get you an Epsilon Minus in a literary criticism essay...

 

And while I find Macbeth powerful and masterful, I'm not really sure that I would say that I 'like' it either... But that's not the point. I suspect that if Shakespeare presented Macbeth to you, and you told him that you 'liked' it, or that it was 'very nice', or that it was 'disgusting', in all three cases, he might be a bit disappointed by your reaction! If hypothetically he weren't dead of course.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Well OK, but then one would expect an informed discussion about it, the ins and outs of why you got it but didn't like it. Maybe a very informed discussion about why you don't like it. I mentioned that I have not yet decided whether I ultimately like Serrano or not, but I can talk until the cows come home about why it's done, my reaction to it, the background to it and so on, and I can totally relate to Fred's reaction to it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I could spend the rest of the day on that, but I am not going to. There seem to be better candidates for such serious critical attention.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

I can sympathise with that, I don't have the time either. Too much work to do. But why raise Serrano if you're not wanting to discuss it, or demonstrate an understanding of it?

 

"Have you seen Hamlet? It's disgusting isn't it?" "Why do you find it disgusting, aren't you interested in the power of

the language, the tragedy, the themes raised by it?" "Someone kills his mother in it, I find that disgusting." "Maybe you

haven't read it closely, maybe you just don't 'get' it, perhaps read it again" "No, I totally get it, I just don't like it. I could

discuss why I don't like it until the cows come home, but I'm not prepared to".

 

 

"So why mention it in the first place?"

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I think that I understand it, Simon. His work has, as you say, shock value--but, as far as I can tell, only as a vehicle for getting publicity. </p>

<p>I originally asked "What is so great about Serrano?" or words to that effect.</p>

<p>So far no one has really answered that, in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

You raised Serrano for discussion, Fred took the trouble to do a detailed and insighful analysis of why he finds

Serrano interesting/powerful, why do you then decide to back out of the discussion? If you don't want to discuss

something, then don't raise it, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.

[simon_crofts]

"His work has, as you say, shock value--but, as far as I can tell, only as a vehicle for getting publicity."

 

And as I also mentioned, most great art has some kind of shock value - or at the very least, surprise. It's a hook to

get our attention. Or, as you might say, a vehicle for getting publicity. It's not a bad thing. A bit like Shakespeare using fratricide, incest,

and so on and so forth. Once an artist has our attention (publicity) then the question is, what they do with it? That is

the more interesting point.

 

You seem to think that Serrano does nothing once he has our attention. Fred, and people like me, thinks he does a

lot.

[simon_crofts]

Maybe it would be more fruitful to pick out contemporary photographers that you find powerful and important, rather

than picking out one that doesn't appeal to you?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Simon, Shakespeare didn't have to urinate in my face to get my attention.</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>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred took the trouble to do a detailed and insightful analysis of why he finds Serrano interesting/powerful. . . .</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, are you talking about this one?</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>It's hilarious, Simon, sort of like a satire on art criticism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Accidental post deleted

[simon_crofts]

You find murder, bloodshed, incest less objectionable than looking at urine? Well, that's a personal choice, but it's an interesting one, and perhaps on that level alone the Serrano has been effective - it's brought to the surface a bizarre prejudice.

 

But you still haven't managed to go beyond your disgust at urine in the discussion that you started. You seem to be saying that Serrano can't be good because he shows wee wee in his photo?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You find murder, bloodshed, incest less objectionable than looking at urine? Well, that's a personal choice, but it's an interesting one, and perhaps on that level alone the Serrano has been effective - it's brought to the surface a bizarre prejudice.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, you're having a conversation with yourself at this point. I never said any of the above. You did.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

"It's hilarious, Simon, sort of like a satire on art criticism."

 

Actually no, I think it's interesting and insightful. It may sound pretentious, talking about urine in this way, but Fred is

trying to articulate some of the emotions and associations that he has from the photo. And he's doing a pretty good job.

 

I honestly think that finding it hilarious is a purely schoolboy, immature reaction on your part. You haven't yet managed

to articulate why you react positively to what you like, or why you react negatively to what you don't like, which I think

is an inadequacy. But mocking someone who actually understands something, is the jealous kneejerk reaction of the

school bully.

 

I guess this thread isn't going to go anywhere useful or positive.

[simon_crofts]

I'm going to be patronising again, sorry about that. But I honestly think Landrum, that you need to (a) open your mind

and (b) try getting more visual education - by which I mean reading, visiting exhibitions, trying to understand rather

than dismissing what you don't understand, finding out about all the various movers and shakers in contemporary

photography. Or of course, don't bother, but then don't start threads about it on photography forums...

 

I'm sure I should do the same with philosophy, which no doubt you know infinitely more than I do about. But then, I

don't dare to start threads about how everything after Karl Marx is shit on philosophy forums...

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>No, Simon. It is not bullying to say that I found Fred's commentary on Serrano's most famous photo to be hilarious. I really did and do find it funny. When I first read it, I actually burst out laughing. That is simply an accurate recounting of my reaction.</p>

<p>The fact is that I simply do not find the photo anywhere near as worthy as either you or Fred do, and I have explained far above why that was the case. I see no point in my addressing Serrano further. I have been as direct and forthcoming as I know how to be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I never said any of the above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find this quite disingenuous given your inability to distinguish between art criticism and a government:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So were the Third Reich and the Final Solution</p>

 

</blockquote>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>What Simon said, Jeff, was the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You find murder, bloodshed, incest less objectionable than looking at urine? Well, that's a personal choice, but it's an interesting one, and perhaps on that level alone the Serrano has been effective - it's brought to the surface a bizarre prejudice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not say that I found murder, bloodshed, and incest less objectionable. There is nothing whatsoever disingenuous about my reminding Simon that those were his words, not mine. Shakespeare's works contain murder and other forms of objectionable behavior, but the human drama and dialogue associated with such themes is in no way comparable in my mind to what Serrano has offered.</p>

<p>I find a comparison between Serrano and Shakespeare to be quite ludicrous.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Lannie, you seem to find a lot of things hilarious or ludicrous, but that means little except lack of maturity, and lack of

thinking or understanding.

 

If you don't understand something, it would be more productive to try to do so, than laugh it off. But no one can force

you to do so, you have to want to yourself.

[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. --Simon</p>

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

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I stand by what I said, whether it is about art, art criticism, government, or anything else: the mere fact that any action, practice, work, or any other entity is "powerful and original" in a given instance is not a sufficient condition for me to give it a positive valuation. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>