travis1 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 hmmm, I am very poor at photography history. Most of the photo books I get to read in my local stores are photographers from the 50s, 60s.70s...We have very little contemporary photog publication here. Most of the current photog works I get to see are from the web introduced by some of you people. In your opinion, however subjective, which era of photography interests you most? And so, do you think this form of "art" has got better over time or the same or worse? Just share your views. Thx. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 <i>In your opinion, however subjective, which era of photography interests you most?</i><p> The next one. I like the uncertainty.<p><i> And so, do you think this form of "art" has got better over time or the same or worse?</i> <p> "Different" would be a better word. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 Yes Jeff, "different" should be the word to use. SO how different have things changed? DO you see any ""breakthroughs" in what photogs do that has intrigued you? I'd like to know some of these photographers if any. From the web or books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_macdonald Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 The era which interests me most is the 40's-50's. I don't think its has gotten any better in 50 years. I mean I can't ever see there being another photo book which has moved me as much as "The Americans" has. I think it all boils down that photogs are afraid to take chances (I know I am, im a wimp) and that no one is really interested in photograpy as an art anymore, all of the posers are watching reality tv, and idiotic romantic comedies starring Hugh Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Photography has lost its role as a documentary medium because of video. The role that photography played fifty years ago has been almost completely replaced by video images. Most people's images of Iraq are from television. Fifty years ago, there would be newsreels in the theater, but most imagery of events was in magazines. As a result, photography has been separated from its need to define "reality," whatever that may be, in the same way that painting was when photography came along. This is why we have the post-modern and so much experimentation with digital imaging. The latter is very important - people here in the techno-weenie world seem to think that digital stuff is happening because it's "easy" when it's really happening because photography has lost much of its traditional impact. Most people's interaction with photography has nothing to do with documentary or depiction but with advertising, even in the editorial context. Images that promote rather than depict are the standard. High technical quality is everywhere. As a result, photography is pushing into other areas, even beyond where the "post-modern" movement was going. Take a look at US publications like Blind Spot or sometimes Aperture if you want to see some of this change. Or a book like Kiss in the Dark: Contemporary Japanese Photography (this was published in Japan only.) Try ZoneZero on the web - they have an interesting mix of fairly traditional work with some very new and adventurous photography. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_alexander1 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Digital, video, photo-illustration, PhotoShop manipulation, glitz and of course the ever popular bottom line have greatly changed photography since I began my career 40 years ago. Then we only poised newspaper shot, burned/dodged/airbrushed, and shot assignments created by the editors. Telling the world what happens through photography has changed. Equipment, 4x5's replaced by 35mm slr replaced by digital, the post modern by the post-post modern....art not communication, illustration not documentation and instant live coverage. Yet want to see good(in general) documentary photography get eight photojournalism a nice 4 times a year English publication showing very good examples of the world of photojournlism. What will the next 50 years hold for pictorial story telling? Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_perkins2 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 The 90s were pretty cool. People were no longer impressed by Martin Parr type work, but took his criticism of photography very much to heart. That criticism is about photography being too interested in "dignity" and "truth" and "the other". If you work with studio lights, can you be said to no longer be a documenary photographer? If you don't photograph "subjects" but "friends", how does that change your work? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/2WBFGHN9BHZYV/202-6777358-4558269 Some of this list is very old school, but the way it's put together is very good. And in the 50s no one was really doing good stories on drugs or subcultures or sex. The taboos have gone now. Also, colour emulsions are so much better, you can do things now which were technically impossible before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I was looking at some W. Eugene Smith and Robert Capa photographs on the Magnum website yesterday. Regardless of fashion or technical issues, I have rarely seen photography of such quality. I certainly don't believe the quality of this type of photography has improved. Changed yes, improved, no. Of course I am thinking about docdumentary photography.<p> Commercial or advertising-type photography has doubtless progessed tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I don't see much improvement and not much different, at least in the photography that interests me. Beginning with color photography (other than a very few masters such as Haas and Eggleston), through television, video and digital, I pretty much could care less. Many times I think people will look back on a lot of the current trends in photography like we do now on the 1960's flower child/psychedelic art. Campy in its bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I am inspired by photography from the beginnings Daguerre and Fox Talbot to the present day, with a few individuals in particular from the 30s-60s, Capa, Eugene Smith, Tim Page, Weegee, David Bailey, but also originators like Frank Meadow Sutcliffe and Julia Margaret Cameron. I am starting work on my own little photographers list and links for my website. Here is a primary source I will be springboarding from. Masters of Photography: A Thematic History � text by Daniela Mrázková, translated by Simon Pellar, first published USA 1987 by Exeter Books, ISBN 0-671-08459-8, printed in Prague, Czechoslovakia. 260 pages. Some of the names in this book which offers a two page spread per photographer with three or four photographs and a brief biographical article. I go back to it every now and then and then sometimes look for further information on the web about one of the photographers. This includes a fair number of eastern European and Russian photographers. One sad note about some of these people is how their best work took place during WW II. Many focussing on the effect on civilians. Perhaps not the finest printing quality, but a rich source of information. Some of the names: BEGINNINGS Joseph Nicéphore Niepce, Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre, William Henry Fox Talbot; EARLY Nadar, Roger Fenton, Eadweard Muybridge, Julia Margaret Cameron, Alphonse Mucha, Oscar Gustave Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson, Peter Henry Emerson; AS ART FORM Robert Demachy, Frantisek Drtikol, Alfred Stieglitz, Drahomir Josef Ruzicka, Edward Steichen, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Josef Sudek; PHOTOGRAPHY AS WITNESS Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, Maxim Petrovich Dmitriev, Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Eugene Atget, Jacob August Riis, Lewis Wickes Hines, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, August Sander; PHOTOGRAPHY NEW VISION Karl Blossfeldt, Man Ray, Albert Renger-Patzsch, László Moholy-Nagy, El Lisitzki, Alexander Rodchenko, Jaromir Funke, Jaroslav Rössler, Karel Teige, Jindrich Styrsky, CAPTURING THE MOMENT Erich Salomon, Martin Munkácsi, Felix H. Man, Wolfgang Weber, Umbo, Alfred Eisenstaedt, André Kertész, Brassaï, Bill Brandt, PROPAGANDA Irene Blüh, Walter Ballhause, Arkadi Shaikert, Max Alpert, Boris Ignatovich, Georgi Zelma, Moisei Nappelbaum, Abram Shterenberg, John Heartfield, John Heartfield; HUMANIST PHOTOGRAPHY Robert Capa, Dmitri Baltermants, Boris Kudoyarov, Werner Bischof, David Seymour (Chim), Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Eugene Smith, Elliott Erwitt, Bruce Davidson, Donald McCullin, Kishor Parekh, Tim Page, Abbas, Susan Meisalas; PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIFESTYLE Weegee, Robert Frank, Lisette Model, Diane Arbus, Antanas Sutkus, Mikola Gnisyuk, Patrick Ward, Martine Franck, Karsh, Cecil Beaton, Sam Haskins, David Bailey. As for "better", my two cents worth, technical advances have made it easier and faster to take photographs....but the best work comes from the person working to see and take the photograph. Some of the 19th century work is remarkable to look at. I have had the good luck to see exhibits of Cameron, Walker Evans and Atget. It is a different experience to see these in the "flesh" compared to seeing them in books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I can't comment on the world at large, but I've seen my own photography go to the dogs over the last ten years. And every time I buy something new to improve matters it actually seems to get a little bit worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art waldschmidt Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I don't think the era matters that much, Travis. I'm always drawn to individuals whose work reflects an honesty and passionate inner vision. Such artists pursue their own goals regardless of critics, the "spirit of the times", or the dictates of academia. Certainly photography has "improved" technologically, but technology has very little to do with the quality of artistic vision. There's a lot of empty, inane imagery around these days because the originators have nothing to say, celebrate, or explore - shrill, desperate bids for instant recognition should not be embraced out of misplaced charity, nor should they be accepted as a substitute for something genuine or real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I found that the 'sixties were the most, I don't know, exciting(?) period for me with people like Ian Berry, Tom McCullin, John French and, yes, David Bailey all producing startling, mostly monochrome images. Since then, I think that photographers have tended to become too 'safe' and I see little that impresses me as much as that stuff did. I think I need to go out and shoot some grainy Tri-X and soup it in hot D-76.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Photography has the unique ability to quickly reflect the world as it exists at a particular moment in time. Here I'm speaking more about culltural modes than capturing some seminal event. I'm with Jeff in believing it's just "different" today than it was and will be different tomorrow. What has changed enormously and allows for images we've never seen before is technology. As far as eras go, I'm interested in sellected images from the mid 20th century to contemporary cutting edge work. Again agreeing with Jeff, check out Blind Spot. Also, try to find "Contact Sheet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 <i> There's a lot of empty, inane imagery around these days because the originators have nothing to say, celebrate, or explore </i><p> There's always been dull, mundane, pretentious photography. There's more today because the cost of gear and supplies has dropped, interest in photography has grown, there has been rising acceptance of photography as an art form, and because photographic imagery has taken over in our culture. But there's plenty to say, celbrate and explore if you bother to look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_kennedy2 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I was 13 years old when our family got its first TV in 1949 (10 inch B&W). Prior to that, LIFE magazine showed it all, and I thought it was wonderful. And of course, National Geographic, but I thought the pictures were better in LIFE. If there is any publication out there that is comparable to pre-TV LIFE, I would like to know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_blumenkranz Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Improving? What does that mean? Certainly the potential technical quality of photography has improved--it is easier to achieve the results you want in an image becuase of advances in film technology as well as in digital technology. The photographic avant guarde seems to be reverting to older, more arcane, processes; in many cases they out do the old masters as there is better control available today that in past years (again technology). As to better subject matter, thats in the eye of the beholder. No, I do not think photography has improved, it has only eveloved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 <i>There's a lot of empty, inane imagery around these days because the originators have nothing to say, celebrate, or explore - shrill, desperate bids for instant recognition should not be embraced out of misplaced charity, nor should they be accepted as a substitute for something genuine or real. </i><p> Examples? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs2 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I was about to say photography had gone down hill but then remembered all the great photo coverage of the Iraq war in the New York Times in the last few months. The photographers may never have the fame of some of the Life or FSA photographers but they are very good. Some of the TV news coverage is also good but the credits zip by so fast we will never know their names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Photography is not 'art'. Best photography is behind us by about 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_barker Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Of course photography has improved in the last 50 years, Travis. That's when most of us started adding our excellent images to the vast store of photographs. ;-) I haven't read all of the previous responses yet, but I'm sure there are already enough that discuss improvements in materials and differences in artistic vision. Most of the latter, I think, are tied to variations in contemporary culture, shifts in philosophy, and raw trendiness. The trends tend to recycle every 20-30 years, as people forget how bad some of the techniques looked before. In many respects, I think we are more superficial, more "of-the-moment" now than in times past, even though we are more technically sophisticated. So, while improvements in materials and technology allow more people to take technically-better photographs, I'm not sure the average artistic vision could be called improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 <<DO you see photography "improving" in the last 50 years?>> Mine had improved a lot in the past 35 years. Before that I was too young to use a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I think the problem is, we are following the rule thing, consciously, or unconsciously. Thirds, sharp. blah blah blah. Anything a bit different is hexed. We tend to be a rather formal lot. If you look at a peace of Art, non-photographic, rules do not exist. However, photography is full of them. Sort of a clash going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno_menilli Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Travis I don't think photography has improved, but just taken advantage of technical progress and evolved. Regards Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 >> If you look at a peace of Art, non-photographic, rules do not exist. Totally untrue. There have always been rules of proportion in painting, sculpture and architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now