When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary. . .?

Landrum Kelly · July 12, 2016

Don't think about revolution, think revolutionary. Don't think about photography, think photographically.

</blockquote>

Now, that is very enigmatic, Phil.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · July 12, 2016

What do artists/photographers do when their current technology (camera or paint & canvas) for communicating revolutionary content becomes diluted in importance and is no longer able to grab eyeballs due to advances and distractions from social media networks and tons of content to sift through (who has time to visit a museum or read a book) by a society that finds cat photos and videos more interesting.

</blockquote>

Tim, I wonder if the photo I linked to, how it's been recognized and shared, could answer part of your question. The cream still seems to rise to the top, even with all the dilutions and drawbacks you mention.

My answer to your question about what photographers do in the face of modern technology and social networking, in part, is to suggest they show something significant and find some means of putting it in the public eye. In this case, being a photographers for Reuters probably helped, and why not? But, being a photographer for Reuters is not enough. He also had to be at the right place at the right time and know how to photographic the right place and the right time for maximum impact.

Norma Desmond · July 12, 2016

I don't think most important photographers have a specific intention to be revolutionary, controversial, or even good, though some might. They do what's in front of them.

Lannie, you asked me in a recent POTW how I could say that I didn't think the photographer, even though it was a posed photo, necessarily intended any meaning by the photo. What I said was that the meaning emerged.

You mentioned <a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00aZMw">MY OWN POTW OF IAN</a>. What I was considering and thinking about when I took that photo was getting him into a position where the shadow would read well, untucking his shirt so there was more flow, the way the red of his shirt felt in relation to other strong colors surrounding him, how to expose considering the contrast between strong sunlight and his dark shadow, and staying in tune with him enough as he was trying out various positions and arm gestures to spontaneously capture an expressive micro-moment that spoke to me as it occurred. He's a dancer and we were also having a lot of fun collaborating on ideas and poses for the photos.

I can't think of any meaning in my head at the time, to be honest. Still, it's a meaningful photo, IMO. The meaning, though, emerged after the fact.

What went into that photo and goes into any significant photo is experience and emotion, brought together. So, sure, there is already some embedded meaning because I have a body of work already behind me and certain loose intentions of what I want my body of work to say, which I have considered. But, as Phil recognizes, it's about what I choose or am able to SHOW, what I do when I'm shooting, and not about intending greatness or revolution or controversy.

I believe photos (figuratively) speak when a photographer has something to say. But it's a different kind of saying than what one does when speaking. Having something to say and having specific intentions of precisely what to say are two different things. Saying it is more gestural than intending or thinking about it.

Norma Desmond · July 12, 2016

Not that a complex idea like "revolutionary" isn't worthy. It is. But it can also cloud things with bigness when looking and the descriptive nature of the photos themselves are also quite telling. These umbrella categories such as "revolutionary" can start being a theoretical distraction from the smaller picture, the photo, which is often the more important one, IMO.

Landrum Kelly · July 12, 2016

You mentioned <a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00aZMw" rel="nofollow">MY OWN POTW OF IAN</a>. What I was considering and thinking about when I took that photo was getting him into a position where the shadow would read well, untucking his shirt so there was more flow, the way the red of his shirt felt in relation to other strong colors surrounding him, how to expose considering the contrast between strong sunlight and his dark shadow, and staying in tune with him enough as he was trying out various positions and arm gestures to spontaneously capture an expressive micro-moment that spoke to me as it occurred. He's a dancer and we were also having a lot of fun collaborating on ideas and poses for the photos.

I can't think of any meaning in my head at the time, to be honest. Still, it's a meaningful photo, IMO. The meaning, though, emerged after the fact.

</blockquote>

I've got it, Fred. Good point. I have never really thought about "meaning" very much when shooting, since my kind of shooting is often "reflexive," in the sense of being more of a spontaneous reaction to something that I like--for whatever reason.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · July 12, 2016

These umbrella categories such as "revolutionary" can start being a theoretical distraction from the smaller picture, the photo, which is often the more important one, IMO.

</blockquote>

I agree, Fred. I am sitting here wondering why I thought that the question I posted to this thread would be a particularly fruitful way to proceed. Such questions certainly do not trouble me when shooting.

It is certain that I am not "theorizing" when I am walking around snapping photos!

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · July 12, 2016

Right, but I think these forum conversations don't have to be so much about theorizing either. There are practical ways to talk about photos and about feelings about photos. The question you asked is dealt with more fruitfully for myself when I approach it less theoretically. That's what I tried to do in my first post here, where I specifically addressed what I thought was revolutionary about various photographers. That got me beyond just the revolutionary aspect of their work, and forced me to look carefully and describe what I saw throughout their bodies of work, which helps my seeing as well as my understanding of revolutions.

Landrum Kelly · July 12, 2016

That's what I tried to do in my first post here, where I specifically addressed what I thought was revolutionary about various photographers. That got me beyond just the revolutionary aspect of their work, and forced me to look carefully and describe what I saw throughout their bodies of work, which helps my seeing as well as my understanding of revolutions.

</blockquote>

Well, this is where your strengths are more obvious, Fred.

I bring the speculative theorizing because that is about all I have to offer at this point.

Julie brings her lit crit stuff and other quotes from her very extensive readings.

The surprising thing is that some of these threads (not just the ones I start) hold together at all. There clearly are no rules, and people are often playing different "language games" in the same thread.

--Lannie

Julie H · July 13, 2016

Revolutionary art is always theory driven, before, during and after its creation.

Artist/photographers (as the stated target of this thread) such as Moholy-Nagy, the Bechers, Stieglitz with his 'Equivalents' -- all very much theory driven at all stages.

Even less-art and more-revolutionary figures like Muybridge, Marey, and Kepes were theory driven.

Julie H · July 13, 2016

"All art is or can be said to be conceptual."

</blockquote>

I don't think so. To quote Chuck Close: "Once you know what art looks like it’s not hard to make some of it."

Landrum Kelly · July 13, 2016

Revolutionary art is always theory driven, before, during and after its creation.

</blockquote>

It is interesting that you should say that, Julie, and it reminds me of something that one of my professors in grad school used to say way back in the 70s, specifically, that raw empiricism never inspired great theory. He said it a different way most of the time, but one time he simply said that empiricism was inherently "conservative." That was a strong claim, and it unnerved me at the time. Three decades later, I finally saw it for myself. How did I see it? I have no idea. (I frankly do not remember, if I ever knew.)

I have spoken of the need to have theory grounded in the empirical data, even though I am in fact a rationalist. George Berkeley was widely acclaimed as an empiricist, but he would say things such as, "If God were to wink [fall asleep], the universe would disappear," or words to that effect, implying that the physical world existed only in the mind of God. How he got from empirical data to God remains elusive to me, but I am sure that he thought that he could justify such a leap--and I suspect that he was correct. Try telling that to a disciple of either Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein or A.J. Ayer (of Language, Truth and Logic fame).

THEN try to show the relevance of all that "theory babble" to photography and photographers--and watch the sparks fly! (Or else watch faces either go blank or heads start to nod.) But "theory babble" is not necessarily nonsense just because not everybody is following the thread of the conversation--or cares where it goes or is thought to go.

So theory, being based overwhelmingly in reason, is going to give us the flights of imagination to make outrageous claims--claims that just might turn out to be true. Einstein's "outrageous" claims come again immediately to mind. They just happened to be verified later by the empirical data. I would argue that they also started from empirical data, but this is fertile ground for someone who really is not afraid to delve into the deeply confusing terrain of epistemology. Every time I try that here, someone closes the thread sooner or later--not because I mention such schools of epistemology, but because persons come to loggerheads on derivative conclusions and wind up shouting at each other, or whatever.

I console myself that Aristotle, an empiricist, broke philosophy wide open by breaking with his master Plato, but then wound up giving us gibberish in his Politics--such as with his condemnation of homosexuality, along with two of his other major horrors: (1) "If women join men in the field, who will take care of the house?" and (2) "Some are born to rule and some are born to be ruled," justifying slavery and authoritarian orders of all kinds. Then there was Hume, another empiricist, who gave Kant and company the old heave-ho--but then what? What of substance did Hume ever wind up saying about anything?

Every time someone tries to draw a fence around what is relevant to photography (or anything else), there is going to be a reaction. I for one do not believe that one can escape Grand Theory: it will chase one down and bite one on the tail if one tries.

Try explaining that to persons who do not use the very nice shorthand afforded by all of these technical terms!

The last time we got into those kinds of issues on these forums was over the idea of the "mystical" in photography. I said that I saw mystical things in photographs, and Fred challenged me with a de facto "Show me!" Well, of course, I could not--and did not try, because I had been down that road before with other people. So, two days ago, I finally did stumble onto a specific photo (not a nude) that spoke mystically to me, and I showed it to a Photo.net member who also lives in Salisbury, NC, where I do. She said, "I don't see it," which is exactly what I knew that she was going to say. <a href="/photo/17885500&size=md">HERE</a> is the photo in question. (She liked the picture, she said. She just didn't see or feel anything mystical in it. Okay.)

So, that is my way of saying that, once one makes certain claims that are in some sense related to theory (in this case theoretical questions about the status of claims as to whether or not the "mystical" or something else can inhere in the photograph or only in the viewer), someone else is likely to disagree--and sometimes the disagreement seems to be a terminal condition (at which point the thread is closed).

I consider such theoretical speculation to be of the greatest practical significance, but others will say, "Show us the photo." Okay, I will show you the photo, but I cannot show you what I see in the photo, much less explain why I see what I see in the photo. Perhaps it has to do with my history, my hormones, my orientation, whatever. I have no idea what it is, but then I listen to people say what gives them that special "something" in painting, sculpture, literature, music, or photography, and I shake my head and walk away.

So, is there an objective basis for such differences or is it all purely subjective? Above all, CAN THEORY ENLIGHTEN US AS TO THE REASONS FOR SUCH PROFOUND DISAGREEMENT?

Now, back to "revolution":

Can theory explain to us why this or that idea or image or sound struck such a resonant chord and resulted in this or that "movement," whether in politics, art, or one of Rachmaninoff's symphonies? Why do I hear something absolutely divine in Rachmaninoff's Second Symphony, especially in the Fourth Movement? How do I communicate that to someone who does not "feel" it? Well, typically I do not. I did manage to communicate to my then twelve-year-old daughter that Richard Marx's first two chart-toppers had the same chord sequence, but she did not see that. Later she came back and said, "They both do have the same chord sequence, don't they?" I nodded my head, and she wandered away, disenchanted. Next thing I knew, she had latched onto Guns and Roses. Why? Did I say something that disemboweled Richard Marx--or that disenchanted my daughter? I wish that I could always find such magic buttons to push.

Always there is that "Why?" question, and the answer(s) to that "Why?" question continue(s) to elude us, whether in theories of aesthetics or in theories of political revolution. Is it not such a great leap from "Why do people like what they like?" to "Why did the first successful Marxist revolution occur in Russia rather than in the industrialized West?" Try explaining a link such as that to someone who despises theory. (Dare I try to offer a possible explanation or connection here? NO.) I can only say, "This or that person is moved (in whatever sense) by this or that idea, symphony, painting or photo, etc." I would like to do better, but my present lack of theoretical understanding makes that impossible.

Tess once said to me that the song "Love Goes Where My Rosemary Goes" (or whatever the title is) evoked a mystical sense in her. I agreed. I tried that song on someone else, and they did not "feel" it. I also mentioned (in turn) the song "Penny Lane" by the Beatles to Tess as another example of a song that sounded somehow "mystical" to me. She also "felt" it, but others that I have "tried" that on give me a blank look.

Now, there is theory and there is theory, and I have to say in concession to Fred or whoever (and I dare not try to speak for Fred on this, since we often do speak past each other, or else we disagree on this or that fundamental assumption or on something else) that I really do not know how it is that one APPLIES such theoretical insights to making photos (or writing music, for that matter), but I do believe that there is a link between theory and practice. I hope that someday we can show it for photography, but I typically despair of doing so.

Every time I go into this dicey realm, I fear that the thread will wind up being shut down, as people begin more and more to miscommunicate, leading to all kinds of ensuing frustrations.

I console myself with the fact that I have seen conference panels explode into oblivion because Ph.D.s could not find some common ground for rarefied discourse, and so the problem is not unique to Photo.net. Far from it. (The last time I saw it at a professional conference was in San Antonio or New Orleans in 1994 at a meeting of the Southwest Social Science Association. Sometimes chess players lose it, with one grandmaster winding up peeing on the chessboard rather than simply resigning.)

Reason sometimes fails. For some reason, we come back to try again and again, wary but curious and ever hopeful.

Revolution?

What is revolutionary MOVES people, in whatever realm.

Why?

I do not know. If I knew, then I would take moving PHOTOGRAPHS, and perhaps start my own photographic MOVEMENT.

Alas, I am just not that good. A photographic revolutionary I will never be. Nuts.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · July 13, 2016

I will now offer a tentative answer to my original question:

"When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary?"

When his or her work MOVES people. . .

Theory and a very long apparently digressive post (the preceding one) got me to that conclusion.

Is there anything new there that we did not already know? Have I offered an example of <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm">Kant's "synthetic a priori"?</a>

I sincerely doubt it.

--Lannie

donald_miller5 · July 13, 2016

I think Fred''s earlier summation of revolutionary is the best so far on this thread. Everyone he mentioned was revolutionary. They do not necessarily have to be spectacular, impress everybody or profound etc. Fred, I will have to use you like a lamp post both for support and illumination. All the examples you gave have a common element but it was not that common element alone that makes them revolutionary but their own elements along with that element.which I think speaks to the plasticity of how to define revolutionary that I reffered. I think of Imogene Cunningham (she is great for a lot of discussions) again. Her photo was definitely revolutionary and propelled her to fame. Then she abandons one style to become a part of the f64 movement and then does industrial photogary. Each are revolutionary. some more spectacular profound or ground breaking. Then ther are those who are not recognized as such until decades later.

Landrum Kelly · July 13, 2016

Don, as I understand it, what Fred is saying is that photographic revolutionaries give us new ways of looking and seeing. There is more to be said--and Fred can and likely will say it--but surely Fred is emphasizing looking and seeing. That seems appropriate, since we are talking about photography.

I find that helpful, too, for what that is worth.

--Lannie

donald_miller5 · July 13, 2016

That goes without saying. But that covers a lot of ground and the dynamics and what and how this is done and the temporal context are infinite. I can show you many examples that fit that description that otherwise have nothing else in common. Then again I am not going to go into too much depth in paraphrasing because I do not want to misinterpret or . I leave it to Fred.

Norma Desmond · July 13, 2016

Don, as I understand it, what Fred is saying is that photographic revolutionaries give us new ways of looking and seeing.

</blockquote>

No! New doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, though it can. Change is probably a better word. The photo of the woman at the protest is nothing new, but it has the potential to change perceptions, change minds, and change behavior. Even she, herself, wasn't doing anything new. Many have gone before her. She was standing up. That's revolutionary but nothing new.

I was not proposing or even dealing with what revolutionary is. I was offering examples of photographers I considered revolutionary and why. In order to do that, I was looking at and describing photographic bodies of work, briefly and, of course, incompletely. The looking and seeing part was more about us than about the revolutionaries. It's kind of a given that both revolutionary photographers and non-revolutionary photographers look and see and there's nothing terribly profound or insightful about that. I was encouraging us to look at revolutionary photographers and describe what's revolutionary about them. That would be revolutionary for these threads, as opposed to theorizing non-photographically, which has become the more conventional approach in these threads.

Norma Desmond · July 13, 2016

That would be revolutionary for these threads, as opposed to theorizing non-photographically, which has become the more conventional approach in these threads. —My own comment

</blockquote>

I should mention my appreciation to Donald for his specific example and discussion of Cunningham, Julie for her subtle distinction between photographer/artists like Moholy-Nagy, the Bechers, Stieglitz and the "less-art and more-revolutionary" figures like Muybridge, Marey, and Kepes, and Phil for his example of Pillsbury and the use of the language of photography itself.

To Phil's point, artists who have effectively used their mediums as mediums in order to comment on their mediums have often had something to say.

Which brings me back to something I tried to emphasize, which is a photographer HAVING SOMETHING TO SAY, though perhaps non-specifically and non-literally.

aplumpton · July 13, 2016

As usual, and no doubt to the chagrin of some, I read (and admittedly too briefly) these last pages of comment on when is the artist a revolutionary and will no doubt understand but a fragment of this lengthy and in large part philosophical discussion (why I wonder is it not in the forum Philosophy of photography, unless thse are casual conversations of people interested in philosophy or politics?). The noun "revolutionary" (a definition important to situate this question), is suggested by the OED as: "A person who advocates or engages in political revolution." Political revolution is a vast and often complex event of the human condition and not something that happens regularly, at least in the case of most industrial or post industrial societies where the citizen is relatively free and/or rich enough to indulge themselves in art and photography. Photography and art have of course been used to record or motivate revolution, but this occurs or has occurred among a very narrow slice of the overall practitioners of photography and art. For those who apply their art to innovative perceptions and communication, or who deal with non political changes changes (perhaps defined as evolution) I think we need a better word or term than "revolutionary", and its dramatic political revolution context. Being a simple maker of photographs, and engaged mainly at that, I would appreciate a question along the lines of "when is the artist or photographer an innovator or arbiter of change in regard to subject matter or artistic approach." I guess I feel happier behind the camera and with a project in mind than at my computer writing about it or the work of notable others, notwithstanding the recognised value of these shared opinions and discussions of the art. Shedding the cloak of politics for that of innovation instead of the word "revolutionary" allows one to consider artists like Van Gogh, various artists who conceived cubism, Jean-Loup Sieff and Bill Brandt and their original application of ultrawide angle optics, Adams and his emphasis on darkroom photography (negative and print development) to further create the image, Burtynsky and his views of industry and its wastes, and many others who pushed the frontiers of photographic subjects, perceptions and approach.

Norma Desmond · July 13, 2016

For centuries, it's been fairly common usage to refer to the Copernican "revolution." While it likely had political ramifications, it was essentially a scientific and not a political type of revolution. So I think art, like science, is allowed revolutionaries that aren't necessarily limited to political change.

Some, of course, consider all art to be politics, which may in itself have been a revolutionary idea.

The dictionaries I've checked all seem to agree that radical change (without mention of politics) is a valid characteristic of revolution.

Arthur, you mention the OED. Definition 1.3 of the OED follows, and does not limit the idea of revolution to politics. Surely, in a discussion of photography, the idea of revolutionaries can be coherently applied. In this case, I think a literal case can easily be made for using "revolutionary." But even if not, certainly a metaphorical or analogous case can be made.

A dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people’s ideas about it:

</blockquote>

For me, innovation doesn't quite cut it. Revolution suggests to me more radical-ness. OED uses the word "dramatic." The characteristic of rift seems to apply to revolutions and not necessarily to innovation.

Landrum Kelly · July 13, 2016

Arthur, Arthur, the last thing I wanted to do was to make this thread about politics.

In addition to political revolutions, we also had the Industrial Revolution, and in photography itself most of us have been significantly affected by the "digital revolution" in imaging technology.

So. . . I don't know. Maybe I should have used a different word, but revolution is about change--and that is something that Fred reminded us of not far above. So, in one sense digital photography was "new" compared to capturing images on film, but in another sense it has above all changed what we can do with our images. For me the biggest single change has been that I can process my own images--I never had a wet darkroom.

So, I think that Fred is right to emphasize that what is revolutionary is about change more than it is about what is new. I would only ask whether, when we have change, do we not have something new in some sense? Even so, I think that the emphasis on change is important. I even wrote far above on July 9 at 11:49 p.m. the following:

I tend to think of that which is revolutionary as involving sweeping social change, whether fast or slow.

</blockquote>

So I would say that that which is revolutionary is not only about change, but about sweeping change. If only a few people are affected (by whatever it is that one wants to talk about), I would not use the word "revolutionary."

No matter how you slice it, however, there is no way around defining our terms with precision--even if some insist that that is or ought to be the province of professional philosophers, or that it should not be in this forum. In my opinion, speaking or writing with precision is or ought to be the province of everyone who wants to speak clearly and unambiguously--and who wants to be understood.

In any case, the scope of change has to be considered if we are to speak of something as "revolutionary."

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · July 13, 2016

Getting back to my rejection of "new" as a necessary characteristic for revolutionary photos, in scouring the dictionaries I was reminded that a revolution is also . . .

the time taken by a celestial body to make a complete round in its orbit

</blockquote>

. . . That's what allows certain "neo" movements to be so important. The effective and timely recycling of old ideas can be revolutionary not necessarily because of the ideas but because of their application and context. Art often travels in cycles, not always in linear paths. Things come around again.

donald_miller5 · July 13, 2016

What? I learn something new every day

Revolutionary: of pertaining to, characterized by,or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change.

: radically new or innovative; outside of established proceedure, principles, etc, "a revolutionary discovery"

Synonyms: unprecedented, novel, drastic, unorthodox.

Gee I did not realize just how "political" photographers were. I never realized that political was intrinsic or understood in these definitions. For the past year I have been posting in the wrong forums many times.

Landrum Kelly · July 13, 2016

Don, maybe you read "political" into what you just quoted. I do not see it there.

I am a political theorist, but "revolution" or "revolutionary" does not necessarily connote political change to me--any kind of change can suffice if it is sweeping or widespread. Indeed, for me change does not even have to be rapid to be revolutionary. There are slow revolutions, too.

A revolution is an over-turning, or as Fred just pointed out, a turning around or going around. "Revolution" does not even necessarily have to connote progress. Things "revolve." Do they necessarily thereby go anywhere?

Let us nonetheless be aware of the subtle nuances that persons bring to their own uses of the term "revolution" or "revolutionary." The word "revolutionary" does not mean just what the dictionary says that it means. It means whatever the speaker or writer wants it to be mean--and meaning depends on the purpose to which language is put.

Was there a "sexual revolution" in the Sixties and Seventies? I would say, "Only if you think that that generation invented sex."

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · July 13, 2016

Lannie, that was Donald's point. He also doesn't see "political" in what he quoted, which is a definition of "revolutionary." I believe Donald, like you and I, was questioning Arthur's proposal.

To be clear, I think photography that is political in nature is important and should be considered in any discussion of revolutionary photography. So there's certainly merit in Arthur's bringing up politics. One reason I included that link to the picture taken at the protests last week is because I think photography can effectively be used in political situations. I just don't think the term "revolutionary" necessarily has a political component.

donald_miller5 · July 13, 2016

Lannie , you have to recognize sarcasm

Sign In

When is the artist/photographer a revolutionary. . .?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

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