cyanatic

Felix Grant said, "I've come back to the "I can't draw" thing. It seems to me that this simply pushes the question away without answering it. If you are a photographer because you can't draw, then Antonio's question becomes: why did you want to draw?"

 

For me, partly a flip answer, partly an "after the fact" realization. A more serious, and far lengthier response follows:

 

From a very young age (pre-adolescent), I have been driven to express myself (and my take on the world around me) creatively. For many years this drive took the form of writing. Short stories, poetry, and plays. Family members, teachers and friends pegged me as a future writer. I graduated college with a BA in Journalism that I never ended up utilizing in my work career. By the time I reached my late 30's, my writing efforts had yielded two minor staged readings of plays, and a work of short fiction published in an obscure literary magazine. My foray into playwriting sidetracked in a five-year stint as a stage actor that generated supplementary income (far more than my writing ever did), but not enough to quit my day job. It was really just a lark that paid...as I had no desire to pursue a career in acting.

 

In my 40's, a reacquaintance with playing blues harmonica (and the discovery that I had a fairly decent singing voice) resulted in seven or so years of fronting a local blues band. Again, this garnered more cash than fiction writing ever did. But it was just another creative byway that I had no serious intention of pursuing.

 

Someone once said something to the effect that the world is full of mediocre talent. I stumbled into paid gigs as an actor and blues musician, but I doubt that I could have made a livelihood from either one. Regardless, it had always been writing that I preferred as a vocation. But I lacked the obsessive drive that would have kept me at the keyboard.

 

Because I never demonstrated a natural gift for drawing, I never pursued it. But the manner in which I wanted to creatively express myself (which involved sharing my view of some aspect of the world) was similar in both painting/photography and short story writing. Even more so, come to think of it. The goal of most of my attempts at literary fiction was express a feeling in such a way that the reader (or at least some readers) would also feel it. Looking back, I realize now that I always loved looking at certain paintings and photographs and wanted to evoke similar sensations through my short fiction.

 

Three or four years ago I bought a digital point and shoot as I was tired of going the disposable camera route for family photographs. Some two years ago I found out about flickr and became enamored of some of the HDR photographs I saw. Although I eventually gave up HDR in favor of a "as close to out of the box as possible" approach, it led to photography becoming my primary, and most satisfactory, mode of creative expression. In a great many ways, it was like coming home. And my drive to photograph is, well, obsessive. It is not something I question, analyze, or seek out...it merely is.

 

Far from being "easier" than painting, I think photography is in many ways more difficult. If I had painting skills, I could, perhaps, create a scene that expressed a particular mood or feeling -- in precisely the way that I wanted to (yes, yes, yes, I know it's not that simple...but just go with me here...).

 

So...if anyone has borne with me this long...there you have a longer, more serious, and more personal response to the original question.

1.) It makes me feel more connected to the world and whatever is going on around me, wherever I may be at the time.

 

2.) It satisfies my creative urge.

 

3.) Because I can't draw for shit.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

John,

 

This may be a bit different than what you were talking about, but I have seen a number of interesting slide shows on YouTube. There is one woman who continues to

put together some interesting compilations of "famous" photographers to music.

 

Link to Doisneau below (you'll see quite a few others under her handle of "cybelophotography"):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYuK9E5cc6k

 

Inspired me to make one with my own photos and music:

 

 

I have also come across some street-shot slide shows on YouTube, though I can't seem to find them at the moment. I know how much you appreciate contemporary street photography. ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

<div></div>

<div></div>

Thanks for pointing us to the article, Ellis. A simple breath of fresh air, and a nice counterpoint to all of the "death of photography", digital/film, old/new, moral/amoral, navel gazing.

John -- A case could certainly be made for your take on the photo and the people involved with it. I think it stands on its' own, however, regardless of who took it or their opinions on forgiveness and innocence. Whether it is dismissed as a simple, linear photo that tells a sick joke is a matter of taste and opinion. It certainly has a certain power of impact. When it comes to exploitive photographs of children that are considered by some people to be "art", I'd be hard pressed to find a more disturbing example than Sally Mann's series of her pre-pubescent children.

Definitely a powerful image, Rick. Thanks for sharing it. Even without the title it tells a story, and on more than one level. If I had seen it prior to becoming a parent, it would have affected me, but having an 8-year-old daughter who loves animals and wants to treat them all as loving friends it hits me with even greater force.

 

Personally, I am drawn to images that tell a story...whether they be clear-cut and fairly obvious, or something more subtle and enigmatic. It is the reason that my viewing preferences lean toward street, documentary, and portrait photography. I think there are also treasures to be found in vernacular photography and I can get lost wandering through a site like squareamerica.com

 

Further, for me, it is also the human element that interests and engages me. A still-life, a landscape, or a wildlife photograph can also tell a story but I find that such images do not normally grab me as much.

This truly is the Philosophy forum.

 

"We stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley?s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.' "

 

Devin -- Your comments got me to thinking about film & digital as it relates to old & young. I know 3 different people in their early to mid-twenties who work exclusively with film...one of whom is quite militant and vocal about the superiority of film over digital. Whatever. That's a debate I want no part of. On the other hand, I'm 53 and only took a serious interest in photography some three years ago thanks to digital cameras. I "know" photography from a digital standpoint. My "darkroom" consists of a computer and, primarily, Adobe Lightroom. Although I was recently given a older film SLR, I haven't started fully utilizing it yet. Like most people my age, I took many shots with film cameras, but just your common vernacular shots of vacations, family events, etc. It was the ease of digital that launched me into the world of caring about composition, f stops, tones, subject matter, interesting light, etc. Stating the obvious, but digital has made the photography learning curve much less steep for those interested in applying themselves.

 

To me this relates particularly to Plagens closing comments: "The next great photographers?if there are to be any?will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality. And they'll have to do it in a brand-new way." I don't necessarily agree with his assumption that photography's main link is to reality, nor that someone must "do it in a brand-new way." More significant to me is that he touches upon the effect that the digital age (for lack of a better term) has had upon many creative endeavours. The learning curve, and the accessibility to an audience, has been eased for music and videos as well as photography. The price paid for ease and access is a glut of data and a shrinking audience that doesn't have time to wade through it all and sift the wheat from the chaff. The average man or woman's work is better (some might debate this), but there's also more of it, and fewer people interested in seeing it or able to find it even if they are interested.

 

In 1810, I might have earned a living as a poet, in 1951 I might have been a minor blues harmonica star, and in 1955 I might have been a contributor to "The Family of Man" exhibition. I could drive myself crazy worrying about which art form is "dead", or nearly impossible to distinguish oneself in. I enjoy, even love, photography. It makes me happy, it gives me satisfaction, it scratches a creative itch. I do not believe that video is a replacement for a still shot and will supplant it. And if it does, so be it. In 100 years or less people may study prior time periods via full immersion, 360 degree, smell-a-vision, taste-a-vision, feel-a-vision, holograms. And in 110 years or less, there will be an article entitled "Is Holography Dead?"

Hmmm...model release requirement for street photography? That does strike me as odd. Being extra cautious perhaps? I've never run across that either. Regardless, thanks for the heads up.

I find the comments/reactions to this article -- both here and on the Newsweek website -- far more entertaining than the article itself.

 

Whether one sees them reflected here, or on flickr, or on some other photography website, the same schools of thought emerge over and over again.

 

1.) The "Old Guys Suck and are Threatened by the New" School

 

"The author sounds like an old-fogey that doesn't want to accept where the world is going and the article seems full of misconceptions."

 

Yes, rabbit guts on a scanner bed, or totally fabricated people and landscapes are vastly superior to captures of Jewish giants or Parisian night life.

 

2.) The "They Manipulated in the Darkroom Back in the Day, So Everything I do in Photoshop is Justified" School

 

(For some reason, this school always seems especially fond of holding up Ansel Adams as an example. I'm surprised no one cited the famous "He once removed a cloud" incident.)

 

"Find the origin of the darkroom and with it you fill find the origin of photo manipulation. As previous comments have mentioned, Ansel Adams used a variety of manipulation techniques in the darkroom, including dodging and burning, both of which are tools whose namesakes still exist in a similar form in Adobe Photoshop."

 

3.) The "Photography Isn't Really Reality, Anyway" School

 

(One of my personal favorites...take the reasoning of this School to its logical extreme and you can just as easily point out that what human beings see with their own eyes is not fully "reality" either.)

 

"Photography has never been about the truth, never. Photography is for instance 2D, it has a frame. How does that represent reality? In no way it does. It just copies certain elements, and recreates them in a 2D frame."

 

4.) The "Digital Will Never Be As Good As Film" School

 

This school was conspicuous by its absence in the comments following the article. Perhaps I missed it?

 

5.) The "Photoshop Has Freed My Artistic Soul" School

 

"Over the years I have created images such as a Lake Erie shoreline enhanced by a Maui sunset."

 

I'm sure there's more, and many subsets of each, but they inevitably reveal themselves in discussions like this.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Oops. That will teach me to proofread more carefully before I post...never completed the sentence: "...comes within shouting distance of such a sensation, I would likely include it in my online gallery."

The simple answer is, yes, my online gallery reflects me. How much it reflects, and exactly what it reflects, are other matters altogether. In reading the various responses, it often seems that discussions like this one end up revolving around a definition of terms. In this case, whether or not one thinks their gallery (or absence of a gallery) reflects them depends on how they view (define) "reflection".

 

A.) "My gallery does not reflect me because 'reflection' = X, and my gallery/photographs do not meet the criteria for X."

 

B.) "My gallery reflects me because 'reflection' = Y, and my gallery/photographs meet the criteria for Y."

 

I subscribe to B. How could my gallery not be a reflection of me? As someone has already stated, a gallery, or absence of gallery, is a reflection of someone whether they think it is or not. Seems pretty elementary to me.

 

Time is also a valid consideration. Had I been a member of PN 16 months ago, my gallery would have been chock full of HDR photographs. In 6 or 12 months, my gallery may look very different from how it currently looks.

 

The photos I choose to put in my gallery are not intended to create a reflection of who I am. I did not go through a thought process of, "Well, if I put in this, this, and this, then anyone looking at the gallery will see me as being ________. " So, no, I'm not consciously trying to mold a viewer's impression of me or my photographs. I would probably be more selective, and cull out certain things if I was trying to do that.

 

I haven't really developed any cohesive "artistic statement". My photographic tastes (both in terms of what I like to look at, and what I like to photograph) run to that which has subtle, or not so subtle, juxtapositions; a hint of darkness (mood or theme as opposed to lighting, though that enters into as well); the slightly surreal in the everyday; as little manipulation and post-processing as possible. I find that that which is a bit odd, or perhaps that which is somewhat dark or lonely, to be joyful and liberating in a way. Hard to explain, exactly. What comes to mind for some reason, is Yasuhiro Ishimoto's photograph of the loose newspaper pages aloft on the wind outside the steps of the Chicago Art Institute. I find it odd, surreal, lonely yet connected, and it gives me a feeling of joy and exhiliration. I don't intentionally aim for such an effect with all my photographs, but if I manage to capture something that, for me, comes within shouting distance of such a sensation.

 

Hmm...I generated a lot of words for such a simple question.

Interesting article, thanks. I was only peripherally aware of Lee Miller and knew almost nothing about her life.

Well thank you, John. Both kind and motivating of you to say that.

 

It was interesting to read some of the comments that followed the article. One person spoke of some photojournalists he knew and how their work, regardless of subject matter, was always recognizable. I know some people who seem to confuse style with processing or subject matter. Or at least I think they have it confused. Doing nothing but landscapes or HDR processing, for example, is not a style to me. I believe style grows out of world view, temperament, and personal vision...whether one is conscious of it or not.

Ouch. On a personal level, it's very timely to come across this article. I recently had a photographer in LA comment upon my work, the upshot of which was: "no discernible style". He went on to explain how he meant that as a compliment. Regardless, I have to admit that it is largely true and certainly does not redound to my credit on the basis of Johnston's article.

 

Then again, although I am 53-years-old, I am very immature in terms of photographic technique, experience, and overall knowledge. Maturation, and hopefully "style", will come with time and honest effort. ("Honest effort" -- what a wide range of definitions that could unleash.) In the end, I find the article uplifting and inspiring.

 

As for "success", paying the bills, and all of that jazz -- I go by instinct. I enjoy, daresay "love", photography. I'm sure there are thousands of macro flower, and HDR sunset "specialists" on sites like flickr who can say the same thing. It does not diminish my love, nor stop me from studying the work of knowns, and unknowns, that I find appealing. And, speaking to John Kelly's comments on commercial photographers, I probably find as much inspiration on the ad pages of Vanity Fair as I do perusing the work of "serious" or "art" photographers. I probably sound like a 19-year-old, first year fine arts photography student, but if I should ever entirely lose my sense of joy and enthusiasm, why would I want to continue?

John -- Per the link below, the Weston quote is "Photography -- Not Pictorial" from Camera Craft, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 313-20, 1930

 

http://www.jnevins.com/westonreading.htm

 

I hope I have not given the impression that I have an axe to grind where Weston is concerned. (In retrospect, arguing against an aesthetic opinion which he may or may not have had is probably a foolish waste of time...although it can stimulate discussion.) My knowledge of him is derived from this book here, that critical anthology there, a website over there...etc. I'm looking to expand my library -- any suggested book(s) dealing specifically with Weston? You've piqued my interest. If I'm going to spout off about a dead man, perhaps I should know a bit more about him, eh? ;-)

 

I have wandered through the M.O.P. website, mouth agape, quite a few times. I need to take a look at that DVD. Cheers, Steve

"To "strongly disagree...with Weston" seems not quite timely :-) He's long gone."

 

John, I'm aware of Weston's demise. :-) To better explain - My "strong disagreement" pertains to some of the opinions he expressed in his lifetime. But they are opinions which I believe some photographers still hold with today. In the Weston quote below, he seems to value "the very quintessence of the thing itself" above the "mood of that thing" transformed by "transitory light effects".

Perhaps I assume too much in thinking that his comments would pertain to photos like the ones by Desme or Brassai that I've linked to below. But they lead me to believe that he would. Certainly, the emphasis upon the word "mood" strikes me as rejecting more than just added brushstrokes, canvas textured paper, or the soft blur of the pictorialists. Mood and transitory light (among other things) are primary elements in these two photographs. Whether either one is on a par with a Weston nude or pepper is a whole other matter.

 

http://www.teleplex.net/eromney/bromoil/chauvigny.jpg

 

http://pages.cthome.net/rwinkler/brassai_prostitute.jpg

 

Where the notion of "photograph as painting" troubles me is when it devolves into the "mundane fantasy images" and "deceitful scenics" you make mention of. To me, Brassai's "Prostitute" is an example of a photograph which evokes the kind of mood or atmosphere that I associate with certain types of paintings. Yet it does so utilizing that which was there at the time, as opposed to utilizing Photoshop or Photomatix trickery.

 

What's my point? Damned if I know. I lost track of it many sentences ago. Forgive me, it's late, and my thinking is getting muddled here.

 

The Weston quote:

 

"So the camera for me is best in close up, taking advantage of this lens power: recording with its one searching eye the very quintessence of the thing itself rather than a mood of that thing?for instance, the object transformed for the moment by charming, unusual, even theatrical, but always transitory light effects. Instead, the physical quality of things can be rendered with utmost exactness: stone is hard, bark is rough, flesh is alive, or they can be made harder, rougher, or more alive if desired. In a word, let us have photographic beauty!"

In "Criticizing Photography", Terry Barrett cites Solomon-Godeau's discussion

of the rationale behind the work of two feminist photographers in 1985.

 

"Feminist theory in 1985 is embodied in the work of two female photographers:

Silvia Kolbowski and Vikky Alexander. Both deal directly with images of women

in the fashion industry. Both appropriate fashion imagery in mass circulation

sources to subvert them."

 

Having never seen the work of either woman, I have no opinion on the

social or artistic significance of their efforts. (If anything, I would be

predisposed to be sympathetic toward any photographer who utilizes imagery to

effect positive change by calling attention to limiting stereotypes.) I am,

however, familiar with the work of other photographers, known and unknown, who

utilize the postmodernist technique of image appropriation for the purpose of

effecting change, or to criticize the modernist aesthetic. In reading about

these feminist efforts to subvert traditional fashion imagery, it struck me

that, on the whole, photographic efforts to effect cognitive, societal, or

aesthetic change on a large scale seem to have so far proven a failure.

 

Look, for example, at three different works of appropriation:

 

1.)Barbara Kruger http://www.habalukke.ch/zeitung/titel1/stupid.jpg

 

2.)Carrie Mae Weems

http://asuartmuseum.asu.edu/collectorschoice/weems.jpg

 

3.) Jim Stone

http://www.museumofnewmexico.org/mfa/ideaphotographic/images/thumbs/stone2.jpg

 

I do not know the original sources of the Kruger or Weems photographs,

but Stone's is a minor reworking of Paul Strand's ?A Blind Woman?. I may

appreciate and agree with the points being made by Kruger and Weems (Stone's

point is a bit ambiguous to me, unless it is intended as an ironic statement on

contemporary ?political correctness?), but outside the rarefied atmosphere of

art galleries and photographic academia, what impact has any of these, or any

similar, works had upon society at large? Although my argument is largely

anecdotal and subjective, I think it's safe to say that the audience most

likely to view any of these works is the one least likely to require changing.

Consumerism, corporate manipulation of values through advertising, sexism,

racism...none of these things have been recently slowed down, altered, or

exposed because of an appropriated (or original, for that matter) photograph

hanging in an art gallery, or held aloft at a political rally.

 

In the past, certainly, there were photographs which had a discernible

impact upon societal perceptions of war, poverty, and working conditions. The

images of Brady, Sullivan, Riis, Hine, Evans, Lange, et al, come to mind. But

in contemporary times, I can offer no example of a comparable photographic

impact (appropriated or original) upon social issues or perceptions. (I do not

include the flap over government art funding created by Mapplethorpe and

Serrano.) I'm not suggesting that such work is pointless or should not be

done, but, in a time when there is an overwhelming glut of imagery and

information of all types available, I do doubt the ability of such imagery to

have much of an impact.

 

Any thoughts on the ability of contemporary photography, appropriated

or otherwise, to have a societal impact?

Interesting take. About 2 years ago I might even have agreed with you, as it was the onset of digital cameras and my introduction to HDR ("What the heck is that!? How'd they do that!?") that reawakened my interest in photography.

 

I have since abandoned the use of HDR and have a personal preference for photographs (both my own and those of others) that are manipulated as little as possible. This is not a condemnation of HDR, merely a personal preference.

 

As to the growth of the "painterly" as being "as the human eye sees it" in photography...I'd argue that the work of, say, Edward Weston, is therefore "painterly". The range of dynamics seen in much HDR is no more representative of what the human eye sees than is the lack of same in an "out of the box" straight photograph.

 

Discussions like this are often difficult because everyone brings to it their own preconceived notions, prejudices, and definitions Although I cited Weston above, I strongly disagree with his contemptuous dismissal of certain photographs as "pseudo painting". There are many photographs I love to look at that lack the sharpness beloved of the Straight photography movement. If such photographs are to be defined as "painterly" then so be it. But I do not think their attempt is so much to emulate a painting as it is to be approached in a mode of appreciation that could loosely be termed expressionistic or impressionistic.

 

Just my .02, and some more mud for these waters.