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

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I do not believe that a photo can be called "great" unless it is at the very least "memorable."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Greatness is a distraction from doing what's in front of you.</p>

<p>I'd suggest that many (most?) of the greats were not concerned with what was great.</p>

<p>The greats are compelled by a personal vision to do what they do.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I do think that there are still great photographers, and some are no doubt here on Photo.net. Some might be those who frequent the forums and write more than they post photos, but, when I have seen their work upon occasion (such as on the "No Words" forum), I have been very impressed with the quality of their work. It is true that photography has become a very democratic medium and primarily (for most persons) a means of self-expression. This does not mean that some truly great works are not being produced.</em><br>

I must confess - for the reasons stated in my earlier post, I don't really believe in "greatness" and I certainly couldn't tell you what the nature of greatness is! There are certainly photographers today who are as technically skilful and artistically sensitive as any that you might like to call "great", but today's guys have nothing like the position in society and the media world that the greats had - no matter how good you are, artistically or technically, as a stills photographer, it is exceedingly unlikely to bring you fame, fortune or a place on a pedestal. And there is in fact no reason why it should, or any reason why fame, fortune or a place on a pedestal should matter to you at all. One thing that brings a wry smile to my face is that my most famous pictures are those I made of David Bowie when I was 19 (and he was nothing like as famous as he became later). If you Google me, you will see that it is primarily these pictures that come up. In PR handouts for exhibitions for exhibitions including these pictures, I have been called "great", "legendary", etc. Am I? No! Are these pictures great? I think they're good, but "great" is meaningless. The only thing I can say for sure is that Bowie is the most famous person I have photographed (there have been others) and that this is why these pictures have appeared as widely as they have. I have to live with the fact that no other images of mine (some of which I consider to be artistically much more interesting) will ever attract the same level of attention or be hailed as "great" in the same way.<br>

Fortunately I have realized over the years that I don't need this kind of attention and am indeed probably better off without it. Exposure to the music world has taught me that there is a complete disconnect between fame, fortune, artistic quality and happiness - you can be really good but never get anywhere, you can be musically completely incompetent and sell records by the ton, you can have hit records and never see any money, and indeed you can have hits, get the fame and fortune, be hailed as great and still be so miserable that you OD on drugs. Greatness is certainly a nebulous concept!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The greats are compelled by a personal vision to do what they do.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Would you also say, Fred, that a "great photo" reflects a personal vision manifested in the photo? Or can it be a random capture that just happens to be very compelling to the viewer, regardless of what it meant to the photographer?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I must confess - for the reasons stated in my earlier post, I don't really believe in "greatness" and I certainly couldn't tell you what the nature of greatness is! There are certainly photographers today who are as technically skilful and artistically sensitive as any that you might like to call "great", but today's guys have nothing like the position in society and the media world that the greats had - no matter how good you are, artistically or technically, as a stills photographer, it is exceedingly unlikely to bring you fame, fortune or a place on a pedestal. And there is in fact no reason why it should, or any reason why fame, fortune or a place on a pedestal should matter to you at all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am not equating greatness with fame, David, or even with general social esteem to any degree. I did not really intend for this to become a discussion of "greatness" when I posed the original question, but I do think that some photos are more worthy than others. I also think that the work of some photographers is more worthy than that of others.</p>

<p>When I mentioned "progress" at the outset I was thinking solely in terms of the value of the photo, suggesting that some photos were more valuable than others--and I am<strong> <em>not</em></strong> talking price when I speak of value.</p>

<p>Comparing great photographers across the ages was not meant, that is, to devolve into a discussion of who has been deemed important in the eyes of the public. Well, in whose eyes, then? Are we back to subjectivism pure and simple again? It seems to keep raising its head, all the way back to the old canard, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Yes, that is true, but surely there is more to be said, and stopping there leaves us stuck in the morass of subjectivism.</p>

<p>It is not difficult to see why some topics make persons want to flee from the forums. Still, the question persists: <strong>have we come very far, if anywhere, from the photographers whom most of us would deem "great" who were shooting over a hundred years ago?</strong> Definitional clarity is indeed a virtue, but it is amazing how often it can become a cover for avoiding substantive questions. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Without being boringly repetitive, I would answer your question "Have we come very far?" by saying "Yes we have!" but would at the same time contend that the nature of society, and the nature of greatness, have changed so much that comparisons are impossible. To shift the context for a moment - do you think any 20th century US president is regarded now, or will be regarded by history, in the same way as Abraham Lincoln? There have certainly been well-liked presidents, such FDR for sure, perhaps Ronald Reagan for (as it turned out) defeating communism - and of course there was JFK, who fulfilled the first requirement of myth-making by dying young. Notwithstanding this, I believe the whole way the media works, and the attitude of today's public to the famous, mitigates completely against the myth of greatness - and a myth is what it is - somewhere between Marshall McLuhan and Andy Warhol!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It is not difficult to see why some topics make persons want to flee from the forums. Still, the question persists:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It persists for you.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it is amazing how often it can become a cover for avoiding substantive questions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but I see no substantive question on the table.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you also say, Fred, that a "great photo" reflects a personal vision manifested in the photo? Or can it be a random capture that just happens to be very compelling to the viewer, regardless of what it meant to the photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not very different from the question you asked about what makes the nude art. A search for such definitions is, in fact, the avoidance.</p>

<p>Now, please, before you retreat to the ad hominem defense, remember that you just accused this forum in general of avoiding your idea of substantive questions. I'm throwing it back at you and telling you to start ASKING substantive, rather than classificatory, questions.</p>

<p>Greatness and your statements here smack of hero-worship and self-deprecation. "I can never be . . ." is an excuse not to do better.</p>

<p>Listen to these questions/statements and how you've asked them. These kinds of questions set us up for failure or provide excuses to ourselves for not doing better work. They get us way outside ourselves. They distance us from what we are each doing:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do they learn along the way to having the capacity to be humbled in the face of genius?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Some comparisons are admittedly a bit vacuous, and it is true that I do not live in the world that Stieglitz, <em>et al.</em> inhabited--which is precisely my point. They were <em>superior</em> to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I submit that this kind of self-effacing is what's vacuous. It is designed to keep oneself down. It's got little to do with true humility and much more to do with fear or at least RESIGNATION, probably one of the worst enemies a photographer or artist can have.</p>

<p>I'm always amazed at hearing "great" artist's influences and who they learned from and loved. Often, they are relative unknowns. That says something important, I think.</p>

<p>Greatness is a moniker created by audiences, not by doers. The history of photography is about influence, dialogue, vision. It's not about who or what was superior.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I'm going to do a 'Professor Joad' here and say, "It all depends on what you mean by progress." One could similarly ask, "Has there been any progress in Western music?" We are, after all, still using the same thirteen tones and half-tones of the even-tempered scale that Bach devised some 300 years ago. Much was made of David Hockney's 'joiner's when he first created them and I can see the merits of his argument but then I wonder if anyone has achieved the purity of vision of such as P H Emmerson. In painting, the great leap forward came with the representation of perspective after Brunelleschi in the late 15th century but then nothing revolutionary happened until the Impressionists, or perhaps even the Cubists. Beyond technical developments, there seems little change; subject matter remains much as it always was. We still capture images by focussing them on a sensitive medium and then printing the result out as a two-dimensional print; there seems little scope for the truly radical.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>I will be the first to admit, however, that "progress" can be a very loaded word, and it makes me gun-shy, too."</p>

<p>Good. I would prefer 'development'. Progress implies an upward-onward thing that doesn't work for me. In my own work, I can see some things that that are improving and others that aren't -- simultaneously. Plus most risk-taking ends up bombing (though win or lose all are valuable lessons if I'm listening to my work), but I would not consider that a decline. It's the going price of creativity.</p>

<p><strong>Lannie - </strong>"Note: The "parallel-world" phrase you use is interesting. There is the land of great photographers, and there is the parallel world of Photo.net, with all of its amateurs and wannabees. Some comparisons are admittedly a bit vacuous, and it is true that I do not live in the world that Stieglitz, <em>et al.</em> inhabited--which is precisely my point. They were <em>superior</em> to me."</p>

<p>Waaaait....I did not say <em>anything </em>positive or negative about PN members' work. Nor was it implied. What I meant, and it was explicitly stated, was the <em>PN numerical ratings system, </em>used as an analog to your superior/inferior binary ratings. The truth of numbers is often starkly simple, but without its human significance it is empty. </p>

<p>What would it matter if someone was or wasn't s-p-r---r to you? What difference would it make in your work? We all are where we are, on our own trajectory and path, and if we're doing our best, that's what we're able to do today. And that extends to personal progress as well. Just work as smart and hard as you can. Learn from others, but be yourself. The rest will take care of itself.<br>

_______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>Would you also say, Fred, that a "great photo" reflects a personal vision manifested in the photo? Or can it be a random capture that just happens to be very compelling to the viewer, regardless of what it meant to the photographer?"</p>

<p>Flukes happen, but not often. A duffer might take quite a photograph through his ineptitude and inattention, but....to the observant eye, two things will be obvious: First, it will have little or nothing to do with its author. Second, it will be a one-hit wonder. Look for more in the body of work, and you'll come up empty, or if the guy is extraordinarily lucky and there are a handful of others, they will be disconnected, looking like a haphazard conglomerate, not an integrated oeuvre.<br>

_______________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I submit that this kind of self-effacing is what's vacuous. It is designed to keep oneself down. It's got little to do with true humility and much more to do with fear or at least RESIGNATION, probably one of the worst enemies a photographer or artist can have."</p>

<p>I agree. The best case scenario would be that it's a waste of time. It justifies personal ineptitude and stasis, and a poor excuse for throwing one's hands up in self-defeat and letting the daring and risk-taking evaporate.<br>

_______________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>have we come very far, if anywhere, from the photographers whom most of us would deem "great" who were shooting over a hundred years ago?</strong> Definitional clarity is indeed a virtue, but it is amazing how often it can become a cover for avoiding substantive questions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the "we" refers to photography in general, I personally have no problem of seeing change from photography some, one hundred years ago and now and I don't think many have any problems seeing it. <br>

I mentioned above the change of the moral codex that certainly seems to have had an influence on what is being shot and what is being shown. Surely also photojournalism has happened between "then" (hundred years ago) and now as has also a long series of creative new ways of doing photography.<br>

Whether they represent anything one can designate like "progression" or "regression" is of fairly low interest in my eyes. What is important is that these changes over he years are creative in relationship to what came before and intimately linked to the current time of its production. </p>

<p>I'm little worried about the existence of greatness in photography. It will survive whether it is spoken about as "great" or not. Call it something else if you wish. </p>

<p>Lannie please explain how "Definitional clarity" can become : "a cover for avoiding substantive questions". Sounds somewhat complicated as a strategy for speaking about something else.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What would be the substance in a question if it contains words of which we're unsure how to interpret them? Air.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>have we come very far, if anywhere, from the photographers whom most of us would deem "great" who were shooting over a hundred years ago </em><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Yes we have. We can now (and have been able to for some time) record people and events as they occur, without artificiality and posing (or obvious blurring), in any condition from sunlight through shade to candle light. That's a quite significant advance and while it has been facilitated by technological advances nevertheless the decision to take advantage of this is an artistic decision. To me those posed, stiff looking portraits are worthless and almost comical in their artificiality.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>When I talked about dialogue as being important to the history of photography, I should also have specified historical context.</p>

<p>Dialogue among photographers takes place across various eras and styles. To pin the moniker of artificial and posed on early portrait photographers is simplifying things just a little too much, IMO. It can certainly be a matter of taste, but a good understanding of art or photographic history should also go beyond taste.</p>

<p>One could say Bach and Mozart are way too rigid for following the strictures of fugue and sonata form, especially if they wanted to superficially compare them to jazz musicians of today. Or one could appreciate the bigger picture, which is to take into account the time and place, the stylings and personality of the times, the evolution of instruments and musicology or photography of the times. One can choose to see Mozart's relationship to what he inherited and that he worked within whatever strictures the times dictated (and every era necessarily dictates certain terms, for artists, politicians, and philosophers, as well as everyone else) and how he did that.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of people who hiss and laugh at some of the so-called anachronisms in many older, classic, wonderful movies. They giggle at the old telephones, some of the character stereotypes, they hiss when Bogart says something that we now consider offensive to Gloria Grahame, they think 50s potboilers are too melodramatic. Well, duh. The point is, they ARE melodramatic. Are the movies anachronistic or are the audiences acting anachronistically?</p>

<p>And what in the world is this thing with artificiality? Look carefully. You might see something significant if you can get past the prejudices and dare to go deeper than the surface. It's not the photographers' shortcomings we're often talking about here. It's the viewers'.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>What would be the substance in a question if it contains words of which we're unsure how to interpret them? Air.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, philosophers can always legitimately fall back on the ultimate trump card in a philosophical argument: "Define your terms." I certainly would not want to be thought to be saying that we should not define our terms. Linguistic and conceptual quandaries can, however, quickly become morasses, especially when non-technical words like "great" or "greatness" are concerned. I simply don't see the point of arguing over what is likely to remain a vague and amorphous concept--and one used casually and carelessly to begin with (by me at least).</p>

<p>The same is true for "progress" to a point, althiough perhaps Luis is correct in saying that we might do better to use the word "development." I really do not know, but, as usual, the problems with word choice are not always evident when one is phrasing the original question. I do the best that I can.</p>

<p>As for my stasis or resignation as a photographer, I cannot afford to worry about that too much, if such it turns out to be. If I had the same attitude toward my work in social and pollitical theory, by comparison, then I would be very worried indeed. I still like to think that my philosophical <em>magnum opus </em>is ahead of me, although I thought that the last two were going to be that. The world had a different opinion.</p>

<p>There is no false modesty in saying that my photographic work is inferior to that of Stieglitz, Fred. It is a realistic personal assessment of what I have produced so far in my photography. Do I hope to get better? Sure I do, but do I have the time and will to invest in that project compared to other things in which I actually do have some demonstrable skill--as well as some sense of a "calling"? I would love to be able to devote myself to photography fulll-time, but reality keeps intervening and pulling me back in the direction of political philosophy. I hope that I still can get better even in my avocation of photography, but I am not so arrogant as to think that I shall ever be numbered among the "greats," on anybodys' definition. It is well to know one's limitations. I am pretty sure that I can do better than I have done so far.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm little worried about the existence of greatness in photography. It will survive whether it is spoken about as "great" or not. Call it something else if you wish.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Anders, I am open to the use of other words. I do believe that there are "great" photographers, just as I think that there are great musical composers and playwrights. What alternative word would you suggest?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie please explain how "Definitional clarity" can become : "a cover for avoiding substantive questions". Sounds somewhat complicated as a strategy for speaking about something else.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Anders, I think that on web-based forums, rational discussions can degenerate into sniping and petty bickering pretty quickly. Sometimes we also do lose sight of the forest when we start pruning the trees. That said, I would not want to be thought to be cavalier about word choioce. As I rush to slip a comment in here and there between classes or meetings, however, I know that I am going to commit some gaffes. I already have. </p>

<p>How would I rephrase the question in this thread? I'm not sure. How would you?</p>

<p>I would love to hear more discussion about the photos themselves. Stieglitz's shot of the snowstorm on Fifth Avenue would almost certainly be done differently if done with modern technology. There is a case where we cannot avoid the technical side. I wonder what he would have done differently, if anything, if he had had modern cameras. I confess that I do not know, but I suspect that he would have done something differently.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I hope I didn't suggest it was false modesty. I said I perceived it as resignation, not false modesty. I was questioning your concern with comparing yourself to the greats and what it gets you. I understand your answer in terms of the difference between how you view philosophy and how you view photography, in terms of your own abilities and caring and emphasis, and I appreciate that.</p>

<p>But do please consider how unhelpful this concern with superiority can be. I love listening to interviews with my favorite guitarists when they talk about their influences and often come up with names I've never heard of. It tells me they're concerned with who moves them in the direction they are inclined or inclined to explore, not with who the world has determined is the best or better. They seem to have a more personal relationship with history and others in their field than an assessment of superiority would allow for.</p>

<p>I agree that it's important to know one's limitations, or at least be able to make the most of them (in which case they can be transcended as limitations). There's a difference between recognizing and working with one's limitations and feeling inferior, IMO.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Maybe we would do better if we focused on specific sub-genres rather than conitnued to speak about "progress" (or "development") in such global terms. Then again, maybe not--just a thought.</p>

<p>Frankly, I was leery of posting the question as I did, but I could not at the time seem to come up with anything better. I am certainly open to rephrasing the question or using different words.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>[P]lease consider how unhelpful this concern with superiority can be. I love listening to interviews with my favorite guitarists when they talk about their influences and often come up with names I've never heard of. It tells me they're concerned with who moves them in the direction they are inclined or inclined to explore, not with who the world has determined is the best or better. They seem to have a more personal relationship with history and others in their field than an assessment of superiority would allow for.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah! Now I think I understand, Fred. I wasn't sure where you were coming from. I do think that even I could speak meaningfully about who has influenced me photographically, even if few people would care very much, if at all. You are right, though: the dialog would be more valuable for both me and the person with whom I was speaking if I could relate it back to personal growth and development. Perhaps that is what Luis was getting at as well. I am not sure.</p>

<p>You guys always do a better job with locating or situating the discussion in the present than I do--even if we are talking about photographers who did their work far in the past.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie, my last post sure sounded unfriendly; it is mainly because I am disappointed you left the opening you created yourself on how appreciation of a style of works is fashion or a can be a fashion statement, and how the fashion-thinking can cause over-appreciation of the current. I replied to that query seriously, because I feel it is a question that contains a considerable depth. It ended there, and then the discussion sways to searching for what 'greatness' in a photo would be.... again looking for value statements, for which several warned earlier that it would not really work. So, yes, I tried to give a signal and not with the nicest of tones.<br>

Fred, in my view, brought back the element of judging works as works of their time in his Sep 08, 2011; 02:12 p.m posting. Luis change of wording from 'progress' to 'development' points at the same. I find that a more interesting subject, and from your much earlier post I thought you wanted to develop the discussion towards that.</p>

<p>So, I'd urge to leave the valuation bits behind. <br />The question whether one sees changes over time inherently as an improvement (as many people do, 'progress') or whether you see it as disconnected series of events, or as a sequence with no specific goal - it represents a much larger philosophical question on whether time passes to culminate in the best moment ever, or in utter destruction, or the clock just ticks at random. Are we in an upwards or downward spiral? <br />If we see events as causal (ref.: recent discussion on deterministic views), then were does the sequence of events lead to?<br>

How does this work for you, and how does that reflect on how you see and appreciate art? Are artists standing on the shoulders of the ones before them and looking further, or is art individualistic enough by nature to not have such a continuous development? <br />Does it change how you regard your personal development?<br>

Well, this is more my take on the question that hides behind what you brought up.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Lannie about "Great"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What alternative word would you suggest?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't. I'm totally at ease with using the term "great" for artist and photographers that in my eyes so clearly play another ball game than so many other mortals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How would I rephrase the question in this thread? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I wouldn't. I'm find your opening text totally clear and provocative: What is progress in photography ? So let's talk about it and not so many other things. I came with my suggestion and which I'm ready to argue for if there is an interest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to hear more discussion about the photos themselves. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree , that is exactly where these discussions sometimes become interesting and where we might prevent the continuous repetition of already made ping-pongs between a handful of good friends (which for me is the main excuse for leaving the forum to it's own destiny).<br>

Again, I already made a link to one of Käsebier's early shots which I tried to suggest might be a good basis for discussing at least one aspect of "progress" in photography. There are surely others and maybe even better example.<br>

You propose the Stieglitz <a href="http://visualresourcefulness.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/luk_244.jpg">Fifth Avenue </a>shot. Why don't you think it could be shot today ? (apart from the obvious fact that fifth avenue has changed somewhat since then).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Are artists standing on the shoulders of the ones before them and looking further, or is art individualistic enough by nature to not have such a continuous development?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, good question. And, yes, I now see that you had already brought up the question of context, which seemed unfortunately to get lost in the shuffle.</p>

<p>My answer to your question is "both." I am conscious of my own photographic desires, longings, and need to express myself. At the same time, I can't and don't want to forget all that I know and have been exposed to, which includes a lot of photos, films, and art, as well as art history. I can't exactly separate where my own expression begins and the expressions which have influenced me and which I am often responding to end. I'm not sure I want to or need to separate those things. It feels like a holism to me.</p>

<p>I also think it comes into play for me as a viewer, for other viewers, and for the art world culture and the way art is viewed historically. Artists are taken as individuals, understood within their own oevre, their individual goals and works, their own milieu, and also within a greater context in terms of their place in history. Artists consistently reference and pay homage to previous artists. This is a significant part of the evolution of art and of its definition. Though we can discuss these things somewhat separately, they are intertwined and I think we do well to again approach it holistically.</p>

<p>I tend to see the "I" as also a "we." This doesn't mean losing or denying individuality by any means. If anything, it's a way of asserting it within a world (a world of other people). But no individual "I" should be afraid of either the past or the future, and every individual recognizes the significant relationships he has both to the world and to other people. And most significant artists have an effect on the future, which future artists often thank them for, in their work.</p>

<p>Art can be both monologue and dialogue, both personal and universal, it can be past, present, and future, and it can be all those things simultaneously.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>So, I'd urge to leave the valuation bits behind.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, isn't art criticism about making value judgments? In any case, I have taken the general reaction to be a resounding "No!" to the question as asked. I don't really know quite else how to ask it. Do persons believe in photographic progress or not? There has been something quite visceral in the repudiation of the language, which I take to imply (maybe) that people are really saying that they are not willing to say that there has been "progress." Yet, yet, there has been development. . . . Okay, I get that point, but, why such a visceral repudiation of the question as asked?</p>

<p>Maybe I still just don't get it, after all.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Anders, I am not saying that Stieglitz could not do the Fifth Avenue shot the same today--but <em>would </em>he? I guess that I am wondering whether he tried to make it so grainy, or whether that was the only way that he could get the shot back then? I really don't know enough to be able to answer such a simple question.</p>

<p>I'll leave it at that and let someone else educate me on this one, as so often happens, anyway.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie, quoting you:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What lies behind my question is a general aversion to the view that the new or the fashionable is necessarily better. That is about as far as I could go in explaining my own "bias." I get rather tired of hearing insinuations in my own field of study (political philosophy, not photography) that new thinking is necessarily better. I like to think of the progress of ideas in political philosophy, for example, but I have grave doubts as to how much that is viewed as progress really is progress. There really are new insights, but there are many more old views which are (to my mind) simply being rehashed in new intellectual jargon, in my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm working from that remark. So, fairly sure you get it, since to my idea I do nothing but following up on what you are suggesting there. Yes, that is about value statements, but within a context; it's questioning them on how valid that value is (the same grave doubts as you express). I think Fred's last post contains a lot that's valuable to read, think about and discuss, which may put those doubts to rest or worsen them.<br />However, if I'm all mistaken that this was part of what you wanted to discuss, and you rather discuss something else instead - no problem.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>There has been something quite visceral in the repudiation of the language, which I take to imply (maybe) that people are really saying that they are not willing to say that there has been "progress.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, as you might have noticed, I'm not part of that "visceral repudiation" and have come with two suggestions of understanding of progress in photography, one taken from examples of moral change, which for some would be understood as progress, and another by linking the concept of progress to a continuing adherence to the creative dimension of art and photography (no reproducing and copying of already made creative expressions).<br>

Lannie, you can chose not to take such suggestions seriously, but at least they have the quality of taking your question seriously and try to answer it.</p>

<p>To follow up Wouter's question</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are artists standing on the shoulders of the ones before them and looking further, or is art individualistic enough by nature to not have such a continuous development?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think from what I now from art and artist that surely they work within a frame of reference that includes fellow artist and inspiring masters before them. That does not however create a "continuous development" because artistic creation goes beyond and sometimes in opposition to what has been done earlier by others. </p>