The Most Important Photographer of the Late 20th Century(?)

[Marizu]

So are you saying that photography can't avoid being superficial? That would explain why many don't see it as art.

Not really, I'm just pointing out that the camera only literally records the surface of things.
Munch's, The Scream, by contrast, clearly depicts an internal turmoil.
Take a look at some Francis Bacon portraits for different emotively charged depictions.

Though he might not me my nomination, Martin has been enormously influential on social/street photography for decades. In your face with a ring flash and saturated colours made them instantly recognisable as "Parrs". Of course not so much any more because lots of people have duplicated the same style!

Whilst Parr's work doesn't resonate with me as strongly as others, the thing to consider is that the visual signature of saturated colours and ring flash is distinct from his artistic vision which seems to be related to the absurdities and contradictions in the everyday life of the groups that he is observing. People can duplicate the style but it will be difficult to duplicate his vision and observations. Again, viewing his images in series is helpful for seeing this context.

[John Hamlen]

But it's not just the lack-lustre colours that irk. It's also the composition. I get the feeling - sadly, I don't have enough experience to amount to knowledge - that the fine artists are laid back. They capture the whole scene and let the viewer find the narrative. Which is then open to misinterpretation.

I think I know who you're talking about and I disagree but let's not dwell on HCW. I suggest you get hold of a copy of "Yangtze - The Long River" by Nadav Kander (shortly to be reviewed on my blog ). Page after page of beautiful compositions with a narrative which is impossible to misinterpret. Or take a look at Alec Soth's work. Or Gregory Crewdson's. It may not be composition in the style you may be used to (Joe Cornish comes to mind) where there is a narrative running from the foreground through to the background but these images are no less carefully composed.

A blurry mix of shades and colours, representing nothing, does nothing for me. Show me nature, show me people, show me what people make, show me the world - but show it to me sharp, correctly exposed, properly printed, with the focus where it needs to be...

At the risk of repeating myself, check out images by Crewdson, Soth, Struth, Kander, et al. None of these, to my knowledge, has ever produced a 'blurry mix of shades and colours'. Crewdson, specifically, goes to great lengths to make sure absolutely everything is 'sharp, correctly exposed and properly printed'. Trust me, Crewdson's prints are astonishing and pin-sharp - even with nose-to-print viewing (no mean feat when the print is over a metre high).

Great recommendations for Neil. I think Crewdson in particular is worthy of nomination with the title of this topic. His work seems to have influenced so much art and advertising photography that has followed.

Regarding

A blurry mix of shades and colours, representing nothing, does nothing for me. Show me nature, show me people, show me what people make, show me the world - but show it to me sharp, correctly exposed, properly printed, with the focus where it needs to be...

It sounds like Neil isn't going to be buying much of Uta Barth's work then . Fair enough, and each to their own but, his recipe for a worthy seems to sadly discount the potential of photography to convey much, much more than a well composed facsimile of "reality". If the same rules were applied to painting, we'd be throwing Impressionism and every other school of painting (except Photorealism) along with the Jackson Pollock bath water. What a loss that would be!

[Neil Barnes]

It sounds like Neil isn't going to be buying much of Uta Barth's work then . Fair enough, and each to their own but, his recipe for a worthy seems to sadly discount the potential of photography to convey much, much more than a well composed facsimile of "reality". If the same rules were applied to painting, we'd be throwing Impressionism and every other school of painting (except Photorealism) along with the Jackson Pollock bath water. What a loss that would be!

Ah, there we differ, John.

While I will cheerfully admit that I'm very fond of a number of impressionist paintings I'm afraid I'm a chocolate box person. I hold that the job of an artist is to communicate, and if it requires me to spend a lifetime studying to try and work out what it is that he's trying to say, then that's his fault, not mine. He's not doing his job right.

Jackson Pollock is the classic example: what on earth is a heap of paint-drippings actually saying? To me, it's saying, look, I can get money from the credulous for infantile drivel - and good luck to him. But I'd never have one on my wall - gimme one and it's straight to the auction house. I do not like the childish scribbles of most of Miro's work, for example, nor most of Picasso. I don't consider chopping a cow in half and pickling it as art; nor am I particularly fond of Tracy Emin.

Put it this way; I'd far rather wander around the Prado than the Reina Sofia; the Tate than the Tate Modern. I recall a room in the Prado - I can't recall the artist, it left such an impression on me - which contained 'paintings' which were completely flat black. Each and every one of them. Apparently this is art. Well, it was in an art gallery, so I suppose it must have been.

Perhaps I lack the art gene?

Nonetheless, on the wall facing me as I type this, is a painting bought from the artist Mauro Tambeiro in 2003. It is neither photorealistic nor in anything resembling true colours. The perspective changes from above on the left of the image to horizontal on the right, seemlessly throughout the image. Go figure.

Neil

p.s. I'll repeat the comment I made earlier: most 'art' appreciation has nothing to do with the image and everything to do with the artist. Big-money collectors are collecting rarity, not art. Neither content nor context matters, just the fact that it's the only one.

[Charles Twist]

@Marizu:
I think that what makes the Munch and Bacon pictures emotive is the link between subject and context. The context is strongly graphic in nature rather than immediately representational. It imbues the picture with character. For me, one of the great strengths of the LF camera has to be the movements it commonly offers by default. By using them, you can link your grandma to her surrounds. For me, too much portraiture is about the person rather than the person-in-context (there are exceptions - I am fascinated by Newman's picture of Stravinsky). This is especially true for those folk who use wide apertures and Victorian cameras. I don't know if that's what you were using for your project. Beyond that, there is nothing to say that photographers can't go the Crewdson route (interesting photos - thanks joolsb for the suggestion) and stage a backdrop for the sitter. A bit like the old studio portraits with painted backdrops but updated. Then you can have all the fun in the world with out of focus effects, Petzval lenses, selective plane of focus, in silico post-processing, you name it.

@Neil Barnes:

I hold that the job of an artist is to communicate, and if it requires me to spend a lifetime studying to try and work out what it is that he's trying to say, then that's his fault, not mine. He's not doing his job right.

To communicate what? And how? If communication is merely the transfer of a visual impression, then your position is arguable. But bring in emotion like Marizu is talking about, and mere representation of reality goes out of the window.
Conveying just a representation is not easy since cultural baggage changes with place and time. You say you don't want to spend a lifetime's study, but you have effectively by taking a part in the world around you. It would take a long time to adapt to a different culture: that is quite normal and may even be necessary in order to understand more than European representational criteria ca 1850-1900. What happened in 1900 is that may artists across many fields took the rule book and tore it to shreds. Each group created their own mini-culture effectively. So yes modern art is diverse and to understand all the cultures will be painstaking. But that's not a failure on the part of the artist. The artist and you are from different backgrounds and speak different languages. Does any artist speak a universal language? I doubt it, so the onus is on the viewer to make the effort, I would argue.
Now add to that conveying an emotion or examinations of the very individual psychological worlds, and indeed the work-load becomes infinite. How would you go about conveing a feeling? How long would it take me to understand your view point and sympathise?
Regards,
Charles

[joolsb]

p.s. I'll repeat the comment I made earlier: most 'art' appreciation has nothing to do with the image and everything to do with the artist. Big-money collectors are collecting rarity, not art. Neither content nor context matters, just the fact that it's the only one.

You seem to be wandering a tad off-topic there, Neil. Conceptual art is a particular subset of modern art which is somewhat controversial, where collectors, galleries and artists are all locked together in a highly profitable business that owes nothing to the practice of true art.

However to tar Picasso and Miro with the same brush as blatant publicity-seekers such as Hirst and Emin is to greatly misunderstand the nature of art in the 20th and 21st centuries. Picasso and Miro were seeking a new artistic language. Hirst famously admitted that he couldn't actually draw and when he did make the effort to learn the resulting exhibition was roundly derided (and rightly so).

Say what you like about the works of Picasso and Miro, their artistic abilities have never been called into question.

[Marizu]

and if it requires me to spend a lifetime studying to try and work out what it is that he's trying to say, then that's his fault, not mine. He's not doing his job right.

Jackson Pollock is the classic example: what on earth is a heap of paint-drippings actually saying? To me, it's saying, look, I can get money from the credulous for infantile drivel - and good luck to him. But I'd never have one on my wall - gimme one and it's straight to the auction house.

That is a good point about communication, Neil. Who is the intended audience? Should all art appeal to all people? All books don't.
I think that my life has been enriched by learning about some art history and contemporary art. There are lots of different kinds of reading that are not strictly related to everyday life that can be enjoyable. Reading sheet music, for example.

Perhaps I lack the art gene?

Not at all. You have a different perspective. Our differences are the things that stop life becoming tedious

For me, one of the great strengths of the LF camera has to be the movements it commonly offers by default. By using them, you can link your grandma to her surrounds. For me, too much portraiture is about the person rather than the person-in-context (there are exceptions - I am fascinated by Newman's picture of Stravinsky). This is especially true for those folk who use wide apertures and Victorian cameras. I don't know if that's what you were using for your project. Beyond that, there is nothing to say that photographers can't go the Crewdson route (interesting photos - thanks joolsb for the suggestion) and stage a backdrop for the sitter. A bit like the old studio portraits with painted backdrops but updated. Then you can have all the fun in the world with out of focus effects, Petzval lenses, selective plane of focus, in silico post-processing, you name it.

Large format is simply a tool. The image is king. I can't remember the last time that I picked up my van from service and the mechanic ran down the list of Snap-On tools that they used. For some reason, photographers think that this kind of information is relevant. Mechanics emphasise the end result. They point out how smoothly my engine is running.
To me, out of focus effects, Petzval use, etc are simply condiments. They can add a subtle (or not so subtle) flavour to a meal but the meal itself should already be substantial. This is why my creative journey is not unduly interested in Petzval aside for their speed for wet plate. Again, this is only my perspective.

Conceptual art is a particular subset of modern art which is somewhat controversial, where collectors, galleries and artists are all locked together in a highly profitable business that owes nothing to the practice of true art.

I think that the commercial side of things should be considered separate from the integrity (or lack, therin) of the art.

[Neil Barnes]

Large format is simply a tool. The image is king.

Yes. Imagine: "That was a wonderful meal. You must have an excellent cooker..."

Neil

[Charles Twist]

This is going way OT, but different ovens will do different jobs. Bread ovens, microwave ovens, fan ovens, and many others. Knowing when to use each one shows you to be a knowledgeable cook (although not necessarily a good one - granted). The flexible camera is a very versatile tool and will allow you a different representation to a fixed-plane camera. You may call it special effects, but if it drives the narrative, it's pretty core.
Regards,
Charles

[Nigels]

To continue the analogy;
I'd rather use a full featured gas cooker (my Ebony 45SU) than a microwave oven (my digi compact). Although the microwave can be used to quickly proove food combinations for cooking properly later.
I'd rather use fresh ingredients (Large sheets of film) than supermarket readymeals (digi files, often jpegs). If I must have a readymeal then I'll go for the premium ones, e.g. "be good to yourself" range (RAW digi files).
I'd rather have my meal served on a decent piece of crockery and eat it at the dining table (a large print properly matted and framed and hung on my wall) than out of a paper bag walking down the street (web viewer).
And to round this off I do not need good food to live, I can live off microwaved readymeals but the whole process of preparing a good meal and sitting down to eat it unhurried is more rewarding and pleasurable - even if it is more expensive.
(This thread is getting weird!)

[Neil Barnes]

I think people may have taken my analogy the wrong way...

All a cooker does is puts heat under a pan - the chef selects the ingredients, prepares them, knows the order and for how long to cook them.

All a camera does is put an image on a light sensitive film at the back of a dark box. The label on the front may determine how *easy* it is to get the image you want, but you're the one who knows what the image you want *is* and how to achieve it. All the rest is technology.

Neil

[Marizu]

All a camera does is put an image on a light sensitive film at the back of a dark box. The label on the front may determine how *easy* it is to get the image you want, but you're the one who knows what the image you want *is* and how to achieve it. All the rest is technology.

That's how I see it. I think that the food analogy is really useful. It helps us to understand each other's perspectives.

I'd rather use fresh ingredients (Large sheets of film) than supermarket readymeals (digi files, often jpegs). If I must have a readymeal then I'll go for the premium ones, e.g. "be good to yourself" range (RAW digi files).

I had always considered the ingredients that go into a photograph to be the stuff in front of the camera. Landscapes, people, whatever...
The camera converts the ingredients into a meal. The meal/photograph is what we consume.
How does it taste?
Jamie Oliver would do a better job with ten minutes and a microwave than I could ever do in the world's best equipped kitchen because he understands content (ingredients), balance (composition) and understands how these elements can be manipulated to guide us through a beautifully unfolding culinary journey.

[Nigels]

And the great thing about life be it cooking or photagraphy or anything else is the variation;
Put a bunch of cooks in kitchen with a potato each and you'll get chips, mash, roast, boiled, baked, saute, rosti, etc. None are wrong and all are good and we are all richer for having them.
Right, my last foody post!

[joolsb]

Enough already!!! Talk about an object lesson in how to stress-test an analogy beyond breaking-point and then stress-test the little pieces of that analogy once they've been glued back together again!!

How did we ever get onto the subject of food???

[Neil Barnes]

When all you've got is a hammer, everything's a nail...

[Marizu]

Shall we move to Crewdson, then?
He is a great suggestion by John.
That fellow doesn't even operate the camera himself, anymore.
Is he a photographer? An artist? A charlatan?

I think that he has moved to working with digital nowadays but much of his work until fairly recently was shot on 10x8 and heavily digitally composited (not by him, in a video that I saw). I seem to remember reading that he wanted to get beyond pixels and grain as they just distract from representations of the world as we know it.
His compositing allows him to have everything that he wants in focus, moving beyond the limitations of lens based media.
I think that I read that the move to digital was due to the uncertainty of film considering the cost of his shoots.
When you set half of a town on fire, you need to be sure that the photograph is going to come out.

Away from the technical, Crewdson's work is influenced by Hopper, Todd Haynes and owes more to Hollywood than photographic traditions. His increasingly filmic use of light highlights the isolation and familial dysfunction that pervades our broken society (ok, I'm stirring it up a bit, here). His large prints allow fine details to deliver hints as to the underlying narrative details.
I have not been fortunate enough to see any of his work, myself.