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

dhbebb · September 12, 2011

David Bebbington - "Most pros would agree: A good picture is one that fulfills its intended purpose. This is the ONLY valid judgement criterion." If there's one criterion, and it's internal to the maker, then there's little to talk about. Sorry but you have fundamentally misunderstood this. If the intended purpose is the photographer’s own satisfaction, as may be the case with amateurs, then this is the only criterion, but it is still possible to criticize an image. However, the basis needs to be a dialog with the author: What are you trying to say here? I feel you are trying to say XYZ – is this true? Have you considered techniques A, B or C? I hope you can appreciate the difference between this approach, which as far as I am concerned is key to any teaching activity in the arts, and the usual level of criticism dished out in the manner I described in an earlier post.

With professionals, no matter whether producing art or commercial images, the aim is communication. The vital criterion then becomes: How well has communication taken place? Once again, nothing else matters – an effective image for a given communication need could be anything from a razor sharp LF image to a pastel smudge done with a Lomo or anything in between. Criticism is possible in all cases, as long as it helps the author to say what he/she wants to say better and does not merely serve the egotism of the critic.

luis_g · September 12, 2011

David Bebbington - "Most pros would agree: A good picture is one that fulfills its intended purpose. This is the ONLY valid judgement criterion."

Luis G- "If there's one criterion, and it's internal to the maker, then there's little to talk about."

I don't believe I've misunderstood anything, David. Your statement was clear and plain. All possibility of of independent criticism would be enslaved to the artist's own assessment of whether s/he thinks the picture fulfilled its intended purpose. All critics would ultimately have to take the artists' word for whether the work measures up to the intention or not, regardless of what they think, beacause, as you state, it is the "...ONLY valid judgment criterion". You leave no other possibilities.

Intention often tends to be invisible or at least ambiguous so, this hurdle seems insurmountable. There would be no real dialogue, because the balance of power would always be total and on one side. It also seems a bit naive to think that all artists have an "intended purpose" before they begin a work. This may be true for many, but not for all.

Your pitch for the supremacy of the artist is admirable, but in need of more visible means of suport. I would also like to ask what would valid criticism be if the artist is dead? Let's say it is someone like Vivian Meier, discovered posthumously, left no Day Books, or associates who have an inkling of her intended purpose. By your criterion, the work is untouchable.

I would agree with you in the notion that what the artists have to say matters, but even there lies a large spectrum from the transparent, clearly articulated to the nebulous or disingenuous.

Uhooru · September 12, 2011

I am not sure that I would try to make analogies of this sort from the natural sciences to other areas. Some analogies there are, but they are very limited.

</blockquote>

I think the point is, that "Art" in terms of formal art like science and other areas somewhat has a connection and stands on the shoulders of what happened before, even if the new is in reaction too, or undermining that which it is attempting to replace and even when current practitioners are in ignorance of what occurred before. Those professionals that make a living writing about Art have a sense of the connections between what was and is, even if they create the connections themselves. Like wise, culture (in which photography does function) is also somewhat cumulative or at least the explanations of it are:)

Quantum and relativistic effects can be significant, and, if one has to deal with such effects, Newtonian physics is not going to be all that useful.

</blockquote>

Except that if it weren't initially for Newton, or what Newton discovered and formulated, scientist may not be discussing Quantum at all.

dhbebb · September 12, 2011

“A good picture is one that fulfils its intended purpose.” Luis, let me try to explain this another way. IF someone takes pictures for their own pleasure, and IF they are satisfied with the results, then that is all that matters. This does not exclude the possibility that this person may come to feel their pictures could be better and ask someone they regard as knowledgeable for advice. Under these circumstances, a process of constructive criticism can take place. On the other hand (evidenced by countless incidents at camera clubs), if a third party attempts to force their opinions on the photographer unasked and motivated not by a desire (and ability) to help but by pure egotism, the result is likely to be negative and the “criticism” valueless. Of course third parties can exercise their right to free speech and say what they want – but I would like to be sure that they are not smothering someone’s enthusiasm in the process.

You say “Intention often tends to be invisible…” – my background is a little different, professionals NEVER take a picture without a clearly formulated intention.

You ask “What would valid criticism be if the artist is dead?” In a word, [probably] pointless, because the dead photographer can’t hear you! I wouldn’t say this work is untouchable but it is literally immutable – nothing you can say can change it. You can say you like it or not – millions of people do every day when confronted with the works of dead artists – but I would say your efforts would be better directed to understanding the work in context.

Let me give you just one brief example – a few years ago, I found a ledger book in a junkshop which turned out to be a scrapbook kept by a clergyman in Eastern England documenting his attempts to teach himself wet-plate photography around 1860. He had gone around the place he lived snapping at everything just the way that anybody does with a new camera, but in doing so he had failed to understand the medium and had gotten many interior shots in particular which were underexposed and out of focus. You can just imagine what the reaction would have been if I had taken one of these images out of context and given it to the average camera club blowhard for “criticism”.

As examples of photographic art, the pictures were very poor, but they had considerable value in other respects, and indeed I ended up selling the album to a national museum – apart from anything else, it was full of albumen prints which needed more conservation than I could give them. I would have considered “criticism” in the normal sense valid only if through time travel or other means I could have met with this photographer and given him some tips on better technique (which, from his writings, he would clearly have welcomed).

scott_norville · September 13, 2011

David, I agree with the first part:

IF someone takes pictures for their own pleasure, and IF they are satisfied with the results, then that is all that matters.

</blockquote>

To me, that is the art part.

As someone who practices professionally in a field (medicine) that is a melding (at least in our own minds) of Western science and art, as well as practicing as an amateur (in the classic sense, doing it for love of the art, not as a dilettante) in a field of visual arts, I would advance the idea that "art" is primarily the internal dialogue within the artist, it builds on experience and can evolve with time and different exposures; you can call that progress if you like, but it remains within the individual and not the field as a whole. Discussion, exposure, and criticism can of course affect this, but are not the primary informers. The trite definition is that science is knowledge that can be taught, but art come from within, informed by experience and can only be learned. Can't teach mojo.

professionals NEVER take a picture without a clearly formulated intention

</blockquote>

I could take that a couple of ways. One could say that to be a professional you must have such a highly honed sense of your craft that you are aware of every action and expected consequence you perform with a camera. I would also counter that the intended intention might not match a later finding... repurposing, "yeah, I meant for it to look that way."

(And do we define a professional as one who subscribes to and practices a set of ideals specific to the profession, or just as one who gets paid for what he does?)

As a field, we take pictures, we enjoy them or hate them, we show them to others or keep them in a drawer, we make money or spend money, we use equipment that we love or hate, and we spend even more time thinking or talking about it all. In which direction is progress supposed to go?

luis_g · September 13, 2011

"What is the purpose of writing music? One is, of course, not dealing with purposes but dealing with sounds. Or the answer must take the form of a paradox: a purposeful purposeless or a purposeless play. This play, however, is an affirmation of life--not an attempt to bring order out of chaos nor to suggest improvements in creation, but simply a way of waking up to the very life we’re living, which is so excellent once one gets one’s mind and one’s desires out of its way and lets it act of its own accord."

John Cage

Thanks for the explanations. I am beginning to see that you and I are talking about different things. You're talking about real-time helpful technical advice to others.

Norma Desmond · September 13, 2011

I would advance the idea that "art" is primarily the internal dialogue within the artist

</blockquote>

That's part of it. The other part is that "art" is often social and public.

Art can communicate. Art can motivate. Art can organize. Art can be political and cultural. Art is often a kind of dialogue among artists, even throughout generations. Art can be an homage. New art is influenced by existing art. Art has a history which can depend upon and also transcend the individual. Art is often produced in groups rather than internally. Art sometimes comes into existence DESPITE the individual, who may not intend it to be or even consider it art. Audiences and critics can have a say. Art is usually more than an idea, therefore more than an internal dialogue. Art is most often crafted into something we call art.

dhbebb · September 13, 2011

Thanks for the explanations. I am beginning to see that you and I are talking about different things. You're talking about real-time helpful technical advice to others.

Yup! The trouble is, for many people (not any photo.netters of course!) the process of "criticism" means "Think of the worst thing you could say about an artwork and say it!" or else in the case of some professional critics "Seize on the aspects of an artwork that will allow me maximum scope to parade my superior knowledge and let rip!" I think, for all my 62 years and the fact that I am turning into a grumpy old man, I manage to avoid doing this - every now and again I get young photographers contacting me through the internet asking me for advice, and they seem to be reasonably receptive to my replies - which are always written after asking myself very self-critically if I have anything worthwhile to say. and always on the basis of "How can I help this photographer to say what THEY repeat THEY want to say better?"

AJHingel · September 13, 2011

" "art" is often social and public" etc

</blockquote>

Well said and further elaborated, Fred.

Hat's off !

luis_g · September 13, 2011

David Bebbigton - "Yup! The trouble is, for many people (not any photo.netters of course!) the process of "criticism" means "Think of the worst thing you could say about an artwork and say it!" or else in the case of some professional critics "Seize on the aspects of an artwork that will allow me maximum scope to parade my superior knowledge and let rip!"

That wasn't it at all, David. I thought nothing about "....the worst thing you can say..." nor do I think that art criticism is a simple vehicle for egomaniacs. And while I'm at it, I also do not think that fulfilling an intended purpose is the only, or ONLY valid criterion in the sense you are talking about.

____________________________________________________________

Anders +1. Well said in a beautifully clear and succint manner.

dhbebb · September 13, 2011

That wasn't it at all, David. I thought nothing about "....the worst thing you can say..." nor do I think that art criticism is a simple vehicle for egomaniacs. And while I'm at it, I also do not think that fulfilling an intended purpose is the only, or ONLY valid criterion in the sense you are talking about.

I most definitely did not mean you. Luis. On the other hand, criticism of the kind I described does unfortunately happen all too often!

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

Wouter:

You asked me several days ago about possible points of congruence between photography and physics. Well, they are strange birds to compare, and yet the question does intrigue me. Alas, letting the question percolate in my subconscious for some days does not yield very much that is useful, I fear.

I would say that if we cut right to the essence of what is beautiful in photography (and forget issues of craft and technology for a moment), we finally find ourselves up against metaphysical questions, ultimate questions that do not yield to Cartesian logic. Physics, in comparison with metaphysics, does seem to yield to Cartesian logic ("If we postulate that the speed of light is constant. . ." --AE)--but only up to a point. The ultimate nature of space-time remains elusive and probably always will. Ultimate questions are what metaphysics is about, and so physics qua this-worldy inquiry is a very different beast from metaphysics. This is not to say that I cannot apply Cartesian logic to metaphysical questions about matter-energy and space-time, but in the end I am going to find that Cartesian logic fails me in the same way that it fails me about the seemingly unanswerable ultimate (metaphysical) questions of both ethics and esthetics.

So, what is the most fundamental point of similarity between physics, on the one hand, and esthetics and ethics, on the other? The most fundamental similarity seems to be deep mystery. We cannot fruitfully compare the artistic vision of Stieglitz to that of today's artists/photographers because we would have to answer metaphysical (ultimate) questions in order to do that, and, since we cannot answer the metaphysical questions, we throw up our hands in despair.

All of the value-laden questions of both esthetics and ethics ultimately do not seem to yield to Cartesian (or any other kind of) logic. Purely empirical questions (if such exist as a category) do seem to yield to such logic and to the scientific method in general. Ethics and esthetics do not, or so it seems. I am back to my intuitions and the eternal mysteries which do not yield either to reason or observation.

That's the best that I can do this Tuesday morning.

Fred, et al., please feel free to jump in and get me out of today's fly bottle. I am truly stuck this time. I am beginning to think that the condition is terminal.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

Double-post again after a gateway time-out. Sorry.

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

I think that light is mystical and mysterious as to its ultimate status as either particle or wave, or whatever it really is--but where light really gets interesting is in how it reflects off the wall in the late afternoon or off the wet streets after a shower.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Steichen_flatiron.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpywx6OjZR1qzdzano1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1315788083&Signature=rG692RhiSegp%2BH%2FXCGDNKFe1WhU%3D

WHY is it so beautiful? Now, if I could answer that question, perhaps I could rationally approach the question of this thread--but, alas, beauty is beauty, and so who am I to say that Steichen or Stieglitz (or whoever) saw or captured anything any better or worse than someone out taking photographs today?

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

<h1>Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.</h1>

</blockquote>

"Reflections" indeed.

"It's about light [a concept from physics]."

Is it really? Tell me, then, why is the light sometimes so beautiful, other times not quite so beautiful?

Is it any more or less beautiful today than it was for Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen?

Thesis: If the photo captures the essence of the beauty that one sees, then it is a success, regardless of how others may evaluate it, regardless of the epoch or the state of the craft of photography.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 13, 2011

the essence of the beauty

</blockquote>

A kind of hollow, romanticized and superficial articulation of the process and the result. Based on what I see in the works of people like Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen, they were real, they addressed their subjects, addressed their process, their photos, and found and created magic by getting to work.

Light is captured in many different ways. It can be beautiful, harsh, searing, ugly, it can reveal harsh truths, romantic moments, cracks in armor, armor itself. It can be used graphically, subtlely, blatantly, impressionistically, expressionistically, noirishly. It was WAY more than beautiful for Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen. It was photographic.

Stieglitz:

“Wherever there is light, one can photograph.”

“In photography there is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality.”

“The arts equally have distinct departments, and unless photography has its own possibilities of expression, separate from those of the other arts, it is merely a process, not an art.”

What I get, especially from the last statement, is that photos are photos. That sounds obvious, but it is not always so. I've talked about some sort of internal harmony (which can include discord). Stieglitz is suggesting that photography has its own raison d'être. Great photographers are in touch with a photograph's uniqueness as a force in itself even as it has been accepted as art. They create and develop new raisons d'être. Some level of success is reached when a photograph answers the question: Why is this a photograph? Success is not limited to this.

Stieglitz again: "It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow. Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a photograph."

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

A kind of hollow, romanticized and superficial articulation of the process.

</blockquote>

Who is talking process here, Fred? I am talking about (e)valuation.

--Lannie

AJHingel · September 13, 2011

Lannie, I'm not going to contribute to getting you out of the fly bottle. You climbed into it, so for you to climb out - and don't ask why ? It is indeed a metaphysical question.

We cannot fruitfully compare the artistic vision of Stieglitz to that of today's artists/photographers because we would have to answer metaphysical

</blockquote>

Lannie, how did you end up believing that the only approach to comparing the vision of Stieglitz (he had several) to that, or those, of today's photographers, is to answer unformulated metaphysical questions as if that was a totally out of our reach. Metaphysics concerns, among other philosophical questions, include also the "theory of knowledge". This is why I earlier quoted what Braque said about "progress":

The progress in art is not to extend its limits, but to know them better

</blockquote>

Stieglitz made street shots like his <a href="http://www.all-art.org/photography/fotography/stieglitz_snapshot_paris1911.jpg">snap shots</a> from Paris or his Fifth Avenue shots or his landscape shots from Lake George, as well as his shots of Georgia O'Keefe that all could be seen as communicating with reality as seen in painting of his time (we are at the period of (post)impressionism) extending the "limits" of how reality looked when photographed. His numerous shots of <a href="http://juliaritson.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/roma-clouds-2.jpg">clouds</a>, his "sky stories" or his "sky songs", as he called them, that he shot throughout his life, tried explicitly to go beyond the experienced reality and are spiritually (beyond religion) inspired photographical subjects. This is creativity. It's art.

Try to compare these to what "today's" photographers shoots when "extending the limits". Many of today's photographers take up similar challenges, but they do it in communication with not only what photographers before them have achieved, like Stieglitz, but also and maybe even mainly in communication with today's limits of art, as Braque formulated it, which surely are different from those of the time of Stieglitz. As mentioned earlier, today's use allegories in photography tells for example a passionate story about the limits of photographical reality and the seen and directly experienced reality.

This was written before seeing Fred's latest contribution above: the "essence of beauty" is indeed a subject that keep haunting us and worthwhile of an in-depth discussion. I'm not far from agreeing on what Fred write, but I might come back on this.

Norma Desmond · September 13, 2011

Lannie, while you were writing, I included the word "result" as well.

If you prefer, I'm happy to change the statement to:

"A kind of hollow, romanticized and superficial articulation of how photos are evaluated."

luis_g · September 13, 2011

Lannie - "Is it really? Tell me, then, why is the light sometimes so beautiful, other times not quite so beautiful?"

It depends on who's looking, of those who can see, and what they're looking for. Some find golden hour light the thing, others overcast, some noon. A very few work in an eclectic way. It, like all the other things inside the frame, have to somehow interact as a whole.

It's not an entirely rational thing, the why. Many things are involved, so many that it deserves its own thread. Maybe two or three just to define Beauty... :-)

On the subject of Physics, there are more historical connections than you think, and mathematical connections as well. Check this out:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128285.900-quantum-minds.html

Landrum Kelly · September 13, 2011

Great conversation, guys, but I gotta go to work!

--Lannie

AJHingel · September 13, 2011

Fred ,you have what in French is call "de la verve" when discussing the issues on the table in this thread. Surely, our the three photographers that Lannie started by mentioning, Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen, were all three "getting to work", as you write and the result was mostly "magic". Those are examples of "great" photographers, the existence of which some have had difficulties of admitting.

You are also right that much of this magic was "light" but I'm sure you would agree that many other factor come into play in their magic, such a choice of subjects, framing, composition, you name it. When "beauty" to the fore in their photos, it is the kind of beauty that open up to new limits, if I may again use the term of Braque.

What is special in photography, its "raison d'être, as you write, is maybe to be found in the way photos are perceived by the viewers, very differently from others arts. In painting, the viewer expects and accepts that it is all invented by the painter. In theatre you can announce that you are Cesar, and you are indeed Cesar.

In photography, the immediate reaction of viewers is that it represent "straight" reality as seen by their own eyes. The photographer will use this false consciousness of the viewer and transcend not only the known reality, but also the limits of photography as previously known.

I'm less clear than you in your previous writing, Fred, I don't have the same "verve" available, but I think the subject is important. Not least in a discussion on "progress" in photography.

luis_g · September 13, 2011

I continue to be interested in the individual's trajectory/path/development in his own work.

Do you think your own development is linear or cyclical? Do you believe you are improving continuously, getting better in some respects, receding in others, or getting worse? Or do you improve every time a new box from B&H arrives on your doorstep or take a trip? Do you think you are a pioneer/innovator, explorer, or more of a farmer? Please, go beyond the yes/no answers.

scott_norville · September 13, 2011

Thanks, Luis, nice synopsis. I can see the idea of individual progress much more clearly; hopefully we can all see improvement in "vision" as well as technique and craft. When I look back at work I did in high school I see the kernel of composition was there from the beginning, and to a great degree has matured and developed rather than become something different: more helical than cyclical or linear...

Technique and craft has clearly progressed--I learned how to control DOF, use different films/papers/chemicals to fit the image better, someday I might really learn how to use strobes... Moving to MF and then LF with the slower, more deliberate process helps; every trip to the desert reveals new light, every session in the darkroom expresses it.

I feel like I have always had a "vision", the ability to see more in a scene than most, and learned to interpret some level of that to others through my pictures. My progress has been mostly in being able to more easily and smoothly interpret--the taking and printing; but this cycles back around to being able to see more, knowing that I can interpret more than I could before. (Conversely, I also now skip pictures I might have spent rolls of film on before, knowing they are not worth the work.) This would seem to have aspects of both exploring and farming...

Back to progress in the (nontechnical) field of photography as a whole, it's all perspective:

as a medium for the expression of individual artistic yearnings: maybe some, not a lot; tortured souls don't accept progress and happy artists don't need it.

as an artistic field and venue: quite a lot, we're pretty well acceptable as artists these days.

Landrum Kelly · September 14, 2011

Lannie, how did you end up believing that the only approach to comparing the vision of Stieglitz (he had several) to that, or those, of today's photographers, is to answer unformulated metaphysical questions as if that was a totally out of our reach. Metaphysics concerns, among other philosophical questions, include also the "theory of knowledge" (Emphasis supplied.)

</blockquote>

Well, Anders, I certainly do not believe that at all! There are many ways of comparing vision across epochs--which is what I think Fred proceeded to show. I am simply saying that, once one reaches the level of the deepest conceivable understanding of the esthetics of anything, I strongly suspect that one is up against the same kind of metaphysical and epistemological impasses that always stop us in our tracks--not to say that we cannot speculate to our hearts' content, simply that we cannot ever give final and decisive answers to metaphysical questions (and, derivatively, epistemological questions).

The metaphysical question of the existence of God comes to mind. Logical positivists might say that discussions of such metaphysical entities or constructs are meaningless, but the question of the existence of God keeps popping up, even if it is out of intellectual fashion in a post-modern epoch (and I am not at all sure that such questions are meaningless simply because we cannot answer them with finality--much less that we are obligated to remain silent about them, as Wittgenstein said).

In this case, however, we are back, as Luis points out, to the Ultimate Meaning of Beauty. Holy Cow!

Anybody want to tackle that one at this late date in this thread?! I can recognize the issue of the ultimate source of beauty as having deep metaphysical implications, but I cannot begin to give an answer that satisfies even myself. Metaphysical theories are cheap and plentiful, but not, for that reason, necessarily meaningless, in my opinion. They certainly are frustrating, though, since we can never know which views are correct. They are beyond being falsifiable, and thus beyond the scientific method. One may offer rational arguments about such things, but does one want to insist that one's arguments constitute "knowledge"?

Metaphysics is about ultimate questions, but it always directs us back to epistemology and the limits of our ways of knowing.

--Lannie

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in