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

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, upon thinking about what you have said, I am reminded of what building a primitive dam does to a river: it forces the river to cut a new channel. A limitation imposed <em>here</em> provokes a new outlet <em>there.</em></p>

<p><strong>CAUTION: NUDITY, LOTS OF IT (YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.)</strong> http://www.womenstreakers.com/various/var.html#ark</p>

<p>New futures are forged, cut, or built as old orders are enforced or reinforced. Sometimes the new channels, currents, and edifices are good, worthy, and enduring, sometimes not, but we cannot contain the belly laugh when the old order has been so strongly challenged or even superseded that it can only throw up its hands in horror--or grope indecently or impotently at the offender of the prevailing order. Even the most conservative prig cannot help but laugh out loud if the challenge is outrageous--or creative--enough, spontaneous or not.</p>

<p>What <em>were</em> these women thinking? Was this "progress" or not? One thing is certain: without photography (and small, mobile cameras), this particular new "art form" would not have taken off like a wildfire--or burned itself out so quickly. The lasting impact on society is debatable.</p>

<p><strong>I OFFER THE LINK ABOVE WITH RESERVATIONS</strong>, but it fell into my lap last night due to no effort of my own, and so I will pass it on.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is <strong>AN EVEN BETTER ONE</strong>, one that minutes ago also dropped into my lap. This one addresses the issue of what new technologies have done by way of creating "new [a]esthetics." I think that we could call this one an example of "the esthetics of nightfall," thanks to the developments of time lapse photography:</p>

<p>http://dakotalapse.com/?p=448</p>

<p>Could Stieglitz have foreseen this kind of photography? Did anyone foresee the internet at the dawn of electronic communications in the nineteenth century?</p>

<p>(A friend sent me the above link just minutes ago. Things happen fast around here.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I was just informed that the link immediately above came from a thread started by Michael Chang on the "Off-Topic" forum. There is more as to how this was done at this link and at the link above.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00ZL1i</p>

<p>My own questions stand, as stated at the end of my last post just above.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course. Really, enormous progress. Perhaps even a revolution. Or several.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>This question is <em>not</em> about gear or technology.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, the above words were at the end of my first post. Of course there have been revolutions in technology, but has there been revolution apart from that? The point of the discussion about how new technologies has created new genres does not mean that the discussion has shifted to those new technologies.</p>

<p>In your own genre of wedding photography, for example, the applicable question is whether or not there have been significant changes. If there have, have these changes been independent of changes in technology, or derivative of such technological changes? Have there been changes, that is, in what I will call, for lack of a better phrase, "artistic vision," or even "artistic realization"?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>LANDSCAPE AND NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY</strong></p>

<p>When I saw the link below sent via e-mail from new@pentaxforum.com, it was not clear how to apply this technological comparison to this thread. On the one hand I did not intend for the thread to be about gear, as noted at the outset and just above in my response to Simon Crofts.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Fred G. and I were discussing only yesterday afternoon the extent to which new technologies do open new creative possibilities. Faster digital cameras have affected sports and photo-journalism, for example. The sheer size of sensors has not come up here, but I suppose that it is worthy of being addressed, if only as a footnote to the thread as a whole:</p>

<p>http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-645d-review-nikon-d3x/introduction.html</p>

<p>This comparison of the Pentax 645D and the Nikon D3X would seem to be primarily of interest to landscape and nature photographers, but again the mobility of full-frame DSLRs comes to mind. At what size sensor (with correspondingly heavier lenses) does the advantage of higher resolution affect the creative possibilities sufficiently that one gives up on the mobility of "35mm" technology? I have to leave that question to practitioners in the fields of landscape and nature photography in general. I am not qualified to address that issue, but it does seem that the technological issue is more difficult to ignore in fields such as nature or wildlife photography than in most other areas of photography.</p>

<p>I will not address the substance of the comparison offered on the above link (Nikon D3X v. Pentax 645D), for fear of having this thread veer off too much into issues of resolution, depth of field, and other aspects of technology pure and simple.</p>

<p>Since others might see more implications in terms of creative possibilities, however, I have included the link above--and I shall leave it at that. The relative advantages and disadvantages of medium format digital can be, and is being being, addressed better elsewhere.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Landrum, I didn't mention gear or technology, I'm not sure why you thought I had?

 

I didn't manage to read the 21 pages of responses, so I imagine anything I could say has probably been covered, but

the question struck me as a little bit like asking "Has there been any progress in physics since Newton's day?" The

answer being so mindbogglingly "Yes", that I thought that there must be something else behind the question. Probably

if I had the chance to read the 21 pages would find out what!

 

But I thought it worth saying "Yes" anyway, just in case that was being lost of along the line, and because I can't let a question like that pass without saying "Yes".

 

As to why, I think answering would be a huge task, and I can only descend into a list of a few of the various

movements, changes, and big names who took photography in new directions. The likes of Nan Goldin/Clark, Bernd and Hilla Becher,

Parr, Szarkowski's New Topographics - Eggleston, Shore et al., Frank's the Americans (emergrnce of new ways of

seeing/editing/associating photographs), Decisive Moment, the emergence of the whole documentary art photography movement, the establishment of photography as an art form to to challenge (and overcome) painting

away from pictorialism (which of course Steiglitz, Steichen etc. had an important role in), the use of multimedia - the

mergence of video with stills and sound so there is no real division between the two and exploring the boundaries,

(Pippilotti Rist (sp?), Tim Hetherington) etc., exploration of hard social issues and war photography, the emergence of

more conceptual photography, the whole fashion photography industry, and the broder between that and art (Guy

Bourdin) on the one hand, and commericalisation and propaganda on the other, the whole cinematic revolution, it's

effect on photography and vice versa, the revolution in the role that photography plays in people's everyday lives. The

power of advertising photogrphy, and the way that it effects our everyday lives, our own self perception, and the way

that it affect how we look at images. Which in turn affects the photorgaphy we take. The democratisation of

photography. And so on, and so on and so forth...

 

It's no coincidence that photography actually on the whole LOOKS very different from Stieglitz' day.

 

Some of the above is made possible by new technology (as Stieglitz himself was exploring the possibilities of a new technology), but it's the progress made as a result of the new possibilities that is interesting.

 

Of course, some of the roots of all this were around in Stieglitz's day, and that was probably the beginning of the roots

of modern photography, the first shoots in the revolution that was coming. War aftermath photography existed in the form of Matthew Brady and Roger Fenton etc. I'm not trying to undermine Steichen et al's importance, and it's not to say that intereting things weren't happening in his day and before it, and that everything that is done now has never been done before. Far from it. And modern quantum physics owes a lot to Newton.

 

So many revolutions, so many brilliant photographers and photographs, so many changes in society, either caused by

photography, or vice versa. So I find the answer to the question

difficult except by simply saying "Yes, of course". But the more interesting point is I think: why do you think it might

not?

 

Just the thought of the potential scope of this discussion makes me a little dizzy, so I wasn't wanting to reignite it, I'm just trying to explain as briefly as possible my "Yes"!

 

As for wedding photography - yes, that too has totally changed, both in look, in function, in the expectations of the client, and (IMHO) in creativity. And we haven't even touched on the emergence of PR(opaganda), advertising, the reltionship between photographer and the State, the relationship to history etc.

[luis_g]

<p>Geez, Lannie....women <em>streakers </em>in this discussion? I'm not a prude, but there's a somewhat...er... monotonal aspect to your postings.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>So many revolutions, so many brilliant photographers and photographs, so many changes in society, either caused by photography, or vice versa. So I find the answer to the question difficult except by simply saying "Yes, of course". But the more interesting point is I think: why do you think it might not?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, for some reason, when I casually linked one evening from Steichen to others from that era (including Stieglitz, my personal favorite), it suddenly hit me with great force just what wonderful esthetic currents were already alive in photography before 1900--as even more were shortly thereafter. In spite of all the developments, it occurred to me at that moment that, in spite of new technologies and new opportunities, there is still some sense in which we have not done any "better" than these early photographic pioneers.</p>

<p>I put "better" in scare quotes deliberately, since value judgments have made some persons uneasy on this thread. Photography has continued to "develop" and "evolve" and has had such enormous impact on so many facets of society and daily existence that I certainly would not want to constrain it or in any way to limit it to the epoch of Stieglitz <em>et al.</em> I have even worked very hard over the last few of my own postings to show how photography has opened up new doors and made new things possible that were scarcely conceivable before the advent of photography. I could say the same or even more about developments that have come with electronic technology of all sorts. The combination of improvements in photographic technology with improvements in electronics and communication of all sorts has truly transformed the modern world--and much of that transformation occurred during the twentieth century, in which I am still firmly grounded. That is, even with everything that is still being developed, most of it seems still more like a footnote to the century that in some ways was like no other. <em>Everything</em> seemed to change on a massive scale, and photography and communications were at the center of it all.</p>

<p>So, I guess that, if you are looking for a motive behind the question, it lies no further than a sudden realization that, to be quite trite, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." So, I suppose that my own motives and suppositions for starting the thread were pretty simplistic and even simple-minded. Fortunately, there were many others who had much more to say--and said it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Everything</em> seemed to change on a massive scale, and photography and communications were at the center of it all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, I guess that I really should have thrown "transportation" into that sentence. As for "photography and communications," I suppose that photography really should, at its core, be seen as a subset of communications as much as being simply a means of imaging or artistic expression.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a currently ongoing thread ("Were the greats really great?") that touches upon some of the issues addressed here.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ZLsC</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Geez, Lannie....women <em>streakers </em>in this discussion? I'm not a prude,"</p>

<p>Ha, you have been having a sneaky look, Luis. Tut,tut. I read the disclaimer and closed my eyes;)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Allen, you miss the point. It's not about the content of the site per se, but what it has to do with the discussion.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Two ideas came to me about the same time, Luis. Together they impelled me to pass along the link. One was that limitations can create new forms of self-expression (a theme running through my head after reading Fred's post not too long before I posted that one, although Fred's comment was really about new forms of artistic expression, not about social protest or rebellion).</p>

<p>My only substantive comment right to the point of the thread was perhaps this one:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One thing is certain: without photography (and small, mobile cameras), this particular new "art form" would not have taken off like a wildfire--or burned itself out so quickly.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think in retrospect that it was the combination of photography and mass communication that together worked to help invent the fad--which is all that I see it as being.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am still perplexed as to why artists/photographers sometimes become their own worst critics. I am not sure that the process of self-evaluation is always entirely rational, although such self-criticism does at least impel those same artists to start in new directions. Here are a few names of those who later repudiated their earlier work to at least some degree:</p>

<p>Alfred Stieglitz</p>

<p>Edward Weston</p>

<p>Pablo Picasso</p>

<p>Henri Cartier-Bresson</p>

<p>I have to say that I am also sometimes troubled by critics' use of the phrase "his/her mature work," as if to slip in a negative value judgment of the earlier work that might or might not be warranted. In the same way that some are troubled by the use of the term "progress" across epochs, I am troubled by the same or similar words used to compare works across the lifetime of a given artist or photographer--not because I am troubled by the value judgment, rather by the presumption that the artist is his or her own best critic. (That they are their own <em>worst</em> critics--in an entirely different sense--is beyond doubt.)</p>

<p>That there is growth and development is undeniable. That creative persons feel the need to explore new avenues I also understand. I would challenge any easy assumption (or conclusion, for that matter) that the later work was better.</p>

<p>Even in philosophy proper, David Hume clearly thought that his <em>An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals</em> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_the_Principles_of_Morals ) was much better than his earlier <em>A Treatise of Human Nature</em> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature ). Many disagree with Hume's own self-assessment.</p>

<p>The point is not to side-track the debate onto Hume, but simply to point out that in all fields of endeavor, we do not always have to agree with the artist/writer/photographer/musician that his or her later work was better. (Paul Simon's repudiation of his own earlier songs comes to mind as well.)</p>

<p>I am left wondering to what extent creative people are necessarily the best judges of the lasting value of their own works, from different stages in their lives.</p>

<p>Stieglitz in particular comes to mind in the context of the present thread:</p>

<h1>Was there really progress in Stieglitz's own photography?</h1>

<p>I am sure that some would disagree with the language of "progress" once again, but it is clear that Stieglitz himself was quite critical of his earlier work--regardless of the evaluative words that he used. That he wanted photography to do something besides emulate painting was clear enough. That his later work was truly "better" is debatable.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Maturation is not a value judgment. It's part of a life cycle. As children grow up, they rely less on their parents and become free enough to make determinations for themselves. What Stieglitz did was similar. </p>

<p>The romantic beauty of the early Stieglitz is warm, fuzzy, and comfortable. His later photographs are less so. Many viewers want ease, they want to be entertained, they want an escape from their hard day at work, they don't want challenges. Also, value and taste are often based on expectations and limitations . . . not the limitations of artists, but the limitations of viewers.</p>

<p>Speaking of discomfort, and even outrage, we've concentrated on Stieglitz and haven't even come to Arbus, the blending of her vision and style with her subject matter . . . which eventually leads to Nan Goldin. Yes, the gauzy beauty gives way. </p>

<p>You keep coming back to value. That is of your own making. It's not real.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Stieglitz found it difficult to believe that he had mindlessly joined the flock as a Pictorialist (as did many others). Modernism vehemently repudiated that which preceded it, so it is hardly surprising that the artists Lannie mentions did too. Of course, had they lived long enough, they would have eventually realized that they had simply left Pictorialism and joined another flock (which was also strongly paralelling painting). Again, shifts in consciousness. <br></p><p>An historically significant photographer I knew, when nearing his passing, decided to "shape" his legacy by burning thousands of prints and producing a Master Set. I said nothing, other than to beg for a few prints instead of them being consumed by the fire, but he wouldn't budge. Controlling history (no one exists in a vacuum) is futile. </p><p>Shaping, revising, or reconfiguring the past is silly. We are what we are. Our later work is best understood in the context of earlier work and out influences.</p><p><br></p><p> When I interview artists I always chuckle internally when they very consciously avoid naming influences as if it was something weak, to be avoided. Everything matters, even early work. </p><p><br></p><p>I suppose it would be worse to repudiate one's later work. No restful peace there.<br></p><p><br></p>

[luis_g]

<p>Stieglitz found it difficult to believe that he had mindlessly joined the flock as a Pictorialist (as did many others). Modernism vehemently repudiated that which preceded it, so it is hardly surprising that the artists Lannie mentions did too. Of course, had they lived long enough, they would have eventually realized that they had simply left Pictorialism and joined another flock (which was also strongly paralelling painting). Again, shifts in consciousness. <br></p><p>An historically significant photographer I knew, when nearing his passing, decided to "shape" his legacy by burning thousands of prints and producing a Master Set. I said nothing, other than to beg for a few prints instead of them being consumed by the fire, but he wouldn't budge. Controlling history (no one exists in a vacuum) is futile. </p><p>Shaping, revising, or reconfiguring the past is silly. We are what we are. Our later work is best understood in the context of earlier work and out influences.</p><p><br></p><p> When I interview artists I always chuckle internally when they very consciously avoid naming influences as if it was something weak, to be avoided. Everything matters, even early work. </p><p><br></p><p>I suppose it would be worse to repudiate one's later work. No restful peace there.<br></p><p><br></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, from my limited readings I don't get the sense that the flock to Pictorialism in photography is so comparable to the flock to Modernism. Yes, consciousness of the time may have led many to Modernism simultaneously, and they may well have fed off each other in the process, but I don't have the sense that Modernism was an inherited vision like Pictorialism. From reading about Stieglitz, I always felt his rejection was less about having joined a flock and more about having inherited a vision, particularly one that didn't demonstrate the unique qualities of his chosen medium. Now it's true that artists of other mediums were now going to embrace Modernism, but both back then and now Modernism in photography did and does seem more uniquely photographic than Pictorialism.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Maturation is not a value judgment. It's part of a life cycle.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I will grant that one to you, Fred, but you as a very good writer know the ways that words can be used as weapons against other persons or their work. I am quite sure that I have seen allusions to "mature work" that were actually being used to disparage earlier work. I cannot cite any at the moment, but I do not think that I read the deprecating tone into the comments. It was there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You keep coming back to value. That is of your own making. It's not real</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is your moral psychology and your metapyhysical and epistemological assumption. It is not mine--but we have been around and around on that one before.</p>

<p>In any case, even if it is mine, it is not something that I am going to renounce or repudiate because I cannot measure it. I do not deny that it is a subjective judgment, which is not to concede that it is not real. We make value judgments all the time. In spite of the dangers of value imperialism, I would not want to retreat into some kind of nihilism which despises all assessments of value. I am not accusing you of such, but sometimes you seem very close to value relativism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the double posting.</p>

</blockquote>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Cartier-Bresson comes to mind as one who walked away from photography in general, if I am not mistaken. His actions bespoke his own assessment of value or lack thereof, I think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I'm not denying value. I make value judgments all the time.</p>

<p>I'm questioning your consistent emphasis on it regarding photography. What's better? What's good? Who's better than whom? Why? Was the earlier so-and-so better than the later so-and-so?</p>

<p>I don't read Plato and Wittgenstein and get bogged down in who was better. If I did, I'd miss a lot of what each has to say. It's for the most part irrelevant to me who's the "better" philosopher. And it's for the most part irrelevant to me whether the earlier Stieglitz was more valuable than the later Stieglitz. It's important for me to know what he rejected about his earlier work and why he did so. His or my placing a value on either just doesn't seem to add anything to that.</p>

<p>For me, it's a matter of priorities and context. In art, I get more out of acceptance than valuation. I try to be, at least on some levels, as open to things I don't like as to things I do. Since I consider much of art personal expression, when I see a personal expression genuinely achieved, I don't try to pit that against another personal expression. In politics, I respond differently. I think Democrats are better than Republicans and I don't hesitate to make that assessment. I see no reason whatsoever to give them equal weight. Picasso and Van Gogh, or the earlier and later Stieglitz, are much less about their value and more about their expressions. When I look at them relative to each other, it's usually more about influence and dialogue than it is about better and worse.</p>

<p>I don't think it's nihilistic to view art differently from other things, with less concern for "which is better." As a matter of fact, I think it may well undermine art to be continually looking for hierarchies and categorizations.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>This is why I reject the tendency to talk in hyperbole and superlatives about art. When someone declares a photo to be perfect or a photo to be a work of genius, that's simply an excuse not to be substantive, not to feel something more than "greatness." Just like it often leads us astray as photographers to long for or seek to make a great photo, rather than longing to express ourselves or to understand or empathize with our subjects, etc., it also leads us astray as viewers to see "greatness" rather than the actual expression being conveyed or subject being depicted. The language of value can be an avoidance of the reality of what's in front of us. Descriptions and understanding which emphasize value to often don't address meaning and feeling. It's often much easier to say something is great, perfect, or a work of genius than to express how it makes one feel and, even harder, why it does so.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Luis, from my limited readings I don't get the sense that the flock to Pictorialism in photography is so comparable to the flock to Modernism. Yes, consciousness of the time may have led many to Modernism simultaneously, and they may well have fed off each other in the process, but I don't have the sense that Modernism was an inherited vision like Pictorialism."<br>

<br><br>

I did not address it, but you're right: Modernism was a pulling away from, a reaction to Pictorialism, which was an adoption or approximation of the dominant existing aesthetic & ambient stylistics of the day (and in all fairness, there was a little diverging from painting in some aspects that did have to do with photography's unique qualities). However, a careful look at the painting and photography during Modernism will reveal many parallels. In Modernism, while photography was emerging in its own identity, and some painting was diverging in its own direction(s), there are parallel trends.<br>

They were different flocks, but flocks nevertheless, in the sense that it was a near-universal reaction to Pictorialism. Not as many (outside the Fine Art world) jumped on the Pomo bandwagon/flock because it was a lot harder to understand. Most lay people are aesthetically 50-100 years behind the prevailing present.<br>

<br><br>

<br></p>