Interesting article about architectural photography

[PapaTango]

Sure, and hopefully neither is used as a defense against criticism. "Fine art" and "non-representational" may be a license to stray from the origins of an image, but it doesn't mean a viewer must accept the vision as interesting, well done, or even remotely artistic or creative.

 

A problem I find is that in all too many 'artistic' venues, works must be loaded with an assortment of meanings and rubbish. An image or work must address or comment on some gender issue, social angst, re-interpretation of post-post-modern, etcetera and rubbish ad infinitum. An image or work is rarely allowed to stand on its own and succeed or fail by sheer virtue of the approbation of the ordinary viewer. Rather, much seems to emerge from the ability of the artist to ejaculate meta-philosophical mindspunk. Add the claptrap that exists within any school of architectural thought--and forget about it.

 

Could be that. Often it just looks to me like playing around with filters and slider bars willy-nilly in the search for art and the service of kitsch, or worse.

 

As you know, one does not even need to fark with any of that--there are a plethora of packaged macro actions that will render the result with little to no effort. This is why I am not allowed by my significant other to drink before or during gallery showings that contain a bunch of HDR images. Similar to the BW genre in which a single element of the photo remains or is given color. Good stuff if used tastefully--awful dreck when plastered over everything.

 

That's not my criticism of Tenenbaum's work, which I simply find thoughtful but sterile.

 

Austere is likely a better definition. The impact is there, the lines are dramatic--and it works well in an extremely overpriced walkup in Midtown or Alphabet City...

Edited June 25, 2018 by PapaTango

[paul ron]

very nice but im not a fan of heavy photo manipulation.

[Norma Desmond]

A problem I find is that in all too many 'artistic' venues, works must be loaded with an assortment of meanings and rubbish.

I've found this, and it can be bizarre, in a minority of cases, but it's too often exaggerated and blown out of proportion for cynical reasons.

 

Art has always, and still does, have the right to be philosophical and politically relevant and more. Many feel that by its nature art is those things, whether obvious or not. On the other hand, the insistence on art's "relevance" can become arrogant and boorish, such as Cartier Bresson was when he said with a complete lack of self awareness:

“The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks!”

First, he fails to recognize that not every photographer and artist follows the same mission statement and the contemplation of beauty in Adams (whether successful or not) as well as the profound lovingness and intimacy portrayed in most of Weston's work are not qualities to be underestimated. Furthermore, their work with landscapes and the environment, coupled with Adams's activism around National Parks and the environmentalism he's associated with, probably did more in the service of social cause than did Bresson's work.

 

In short, I don't think social, political, and sexual underpinnings of some art on the one hand and contemplative art for beauty's sake on the other need to be mutually exclusive. Also, the resistance to art which addresses social and political matters can be as misguided and bereft of sophistication as the insistence on political relevance and the overdoing of it. And, an insistence on allowing a work to stand on its own or only succeeding by the approbation of the ordinary viewer can be just as myopic as other demands made of art. It seems the case that much art throughout history, and a lot of the better art, was well beyond the approbation of the ordinary viewer. Art's role has often been to push the viewer. It's often resulted in disapproval in its time. It's often changed rather than satisfied existing tastes. And it's often been part of a call to action . . . or not.

[Bill C]

I have a bit of a different take on this--as a photographer and as one that holds a masters degree in architectural history. First, though, this was not an article. It was if anything a short thought-statement piece--bereft of any deep development or content. It attempts to masquerade as something else, but it appears to me as a just a sort of high-brow click bait... o_O

 

The author is honest in declaring the focus of the photography as 'fine art.' This should make clear in everyone's mind that it is not about recordation of the built environment ala HABS/HAER. Under this rubric, the photographer is free to 're-imagine' whatever they like about a scene

 

Papa, I think you've made an astute observation of the situation and article.

 

One thing that I would add is that the author indicates that she does not want to elaborate on the so-called 3 features, but instead wants to talk about another "element" which she has recently been exploring - the inclusion of a "human element" in the photo. And this is the main gist of the article. I think perhaps some are missing this, as I don't see it being mentioned in this thread.

 

As I said before, I'm not a fan of her sort of photography, in particular the creation of image elements that were not real - they were not actually "imaged" onto the focal plane by the lens. But she is speaking of her own experience, which in my view is always valid. (I may have a problem when people try to make nutty interpretations of their experience, but not the actual experience.) At any rate, she seems to be exploring how this fits into the fine art field, while at the same time promoting her business - selling images and giving occasional workshops. I just say more power to her.

[Sanford]

You might want to check out Ansel Adams' photos of Japanese Internment Camps.

[Norma Desmond]

You might want to check out Ansel Adams' photos of Japanese Internment Camps.

I have. Bresson seems to have been referring to what Adams is more typically known for and I was speaking to what Bresson was talking about. One might also argue the lack of social relevance even of Adams's Internment Camp photos as they've somewhat justifiably been criticized for portraying a sterilized version of what the camps were, done at the behest of a good friend of his who was in charge of the Manzanar camp in question. Not unlike the sterilizing Tenenbaum does, as it happens, only hopefully without the detrimental political ramifications Adams's work may have.

[Sanford]

Hey, the man was an artist! He couldn't help himself.

[Norma Desmond]

Hey, the man was an artist! He couldn't help himself.

You're probably being tongue in cheek, but I'll still note that art is probably at its worst when it's used as an excuse.

[Bill C]

On the other hand, the insistence on art's "relevance" can become arrogant and boorish, such as Cartier Bresson was when he said with a complete lack of self awareness:

 

“The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks!”

 

First, he fails to recognize that not every photographer and artist follows the same mission statement...

 

Fred, I don't know when that quote was made. But did you know that Cartier-Bresson spent several years as a Nazi prisoner-of-war, doing forced labor? (I think this was about the same time frame as when Adams was photographing the US' Japanese interment camps; not sure, though.)

 

This sort of thing can certainly shape one's outlook on things. Although I suspect his quote was before that time.

[Norma Desmond]

This sort of thing can certainly shape one's outlook on things. Although I suspect his quote was before that time.

It certainly can.

 

The personal experience behind and context within which such a thing is said is relevant and thanks for adding to it. At the same time, maligning others who don't live up to one's own standards and, as importantly, not fully understanding the human import of the contributions of both Adams and Weston, ought to be addressed as well. Having horrible experiences can be taken into account in understanding why someone may say what they do, but it doesn't make that someone's words and ideas themselves beyond criticism or critical analysis.

 

In any case, my point was not meant to specifically discuss Bresson but to point to a real-world case where it seemed there was a demand for political edge to art which, in response to PapaTango, I saw as the counterpart to too strong a suggestion that art not be message driven or political.

 

Maybe best to leave Bresson, Adams, and Weston to another discussion and at the same time stop demanding specific political things to be or not be part of art and let each artist decide what's relevant to them, what they're personally motivated by, and understand that they will be appreciated or criticized based on many factors, including the content of their message or lack thereof as well as the sensibility, creativity, and craft shown in conveying that message, if there is one.

[michaellinder]

Hey, the man was an artist! He couldn't help himself.

 

Sanford, although sarcastic, your statement speaks to the occurrence, possibly on a frequent basis, of lots of crap that its producers try to justify by calling it "art."

[michaelmowery]

I think you are overlooking the key word "Fine Art". This is not Architectural photography but rather Fine Art Architectural photography.