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

[Marizu]

Ok, I'm stirring it up a little with the title but contemporary fine art photography gets little attention in this forum, and yet the large format camera is frequently used to produce works in this genre.
At the moment (until September 16th 2011) there is a Thomas Struth retrospective at the Whitechapel Gallery in London.

http://www.whitechapelgallery.org/exhib ... -1978-2010

A protégé of the Becher's, much of Struth's work has been produced using a large format camera. His gigantic prints explore our relationship to the environment as well as our relationships with each other.
Love it or loathe it, this is a fantastic opportunity to see the work of one of the world's most prestigious photographers in the flesh.

Has the emperor got no clothes? If you can't make 'em good, make 'em big? A profound insight into familial dynamics? Why has he taken pictures of some branches (without using Velvia and an ND grad)?

I'll be taking a trip down to London to see this over the Bank Holiday weekend!

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Marizu

an excellent new thread, I have to say

you're dead right, for whatever reason "...contemporary fine art photography gets little attention in this forum..."

and "...Why has he taken pictures of some branches (without using Velvia and an ND grad)?..." personally I've no idea and without wishing to irk anymore people on here than I seem to have managed to recently (albeit unintentionally), the mere mention of 'Velvia' sends me into shock mode , as I believe that it's:-

way too rich;
presents an overly unnatural image;
has a ridicoulsly far too large following; and
if other emulsions were purchased maybe there would be more choice for others

as Neil Barnes and I have both said on here within the next 24 hours, there should be far more discussion on this forum so let's hear from you plus also with your thoughts on Marizu's post, not wishing to hijack your thread of course

and fellow members.....................................................................

do check out the outstanding portrait of Marizu over on John Brewer's website

regards

andrew

[joolsb]

I saw this exhibition last year when it came to the Kunsthaus in Zurich and was well impressed - especially by the photographs of people in art galleries (in an art gallery - oh the irony.... ) His formal portraits were pretty good, too. There's a lot of variety and depth in his work.

Totally agree about Velvia (even if I do occasionally shoot with it ). It's defined the 'look' of landscape photography to the degree that anything other than the 'high-saturation, high-contrast' style is largely scoffed at.

The most important photographer of the late c20th?? Well, he's still shooting so why not the early 21st?

Anyway, don't forget Alec Soth and Nadav Kander (both use 10x8)....

[Andrew Plume]

I saw this exhibition last year when it came to the Kunsthaus in Zurich and was well impressed - especially by the photographs of people in art galleries (in an art gallery - oh the irony.... ) His formal portraits were pretty good, too. There's a lot of variety and depth in his work.

Totally agree about Velvia (even if I do occasionally shoot with it ). It's defined the 'look' of landscape photography to the degree that anything other than the 'high-saturation, high-contrast' style is largely scoffed at.

Joolsb

thx

yes you're right, Fuji have literally saturated (sic) the market with it - great for them, though

regards

andrew

[Marizu]

My tongue in cheek nudge at Velvia was only a light hearted joke highlighting aesthetic differences. I have no desire to denigrate anybody's choices or make it a topic of this discussion (maybe another thread or a new forum )

I was hoping to stimulate an inclusive dialogue on Struth's work and the use of LF in the contemporary art world as well as highlight the opportunity to see his work.

Jools, you're so right about Soth et al. it was studying these images that drew me to LF in the first place.

[Nigels]

I work just 200 yards from the Whitechapel Gallery - I feel a visit coming on!

I don't think photography is generally viewed as art. Especially since the proliferation of cheap digital cameras where everydody and their dog now thinks they are a photographer and whats the point in professional photographers now.

Light-heartedly, i'd say, to me, The Most Important Photographer of the Late 20th Century (and beyond) IMVHO is obviously me! I've followed my progress from the beginning, have a huge collecction of my work (all original) and a large collection of limited edition prints which I show people with great enthusiasm at every opportunity.

On Velvia, I have been using it since the early 90s and love the stuff. I shoot landscapes of course.

[Ed Moss]

Looks interesting but love him (or hate him) the title is surely about Martin Parr.
His style in the 80's was 25 years ahead of it's time.

[Andrew Plume]

[quote="Nigels"]..............................

".....Light-heartedly, i'd say, to me, The Most Important Photographer of the Late 20th Century (and beyond) IMVHO is obviously me! I've followed my progress from the beginning, have a huge collecction of my work (all original) and a large collection of limited edition prints which I show people with great enthusiasm at every opportunity. ...."

right, so do you have a link to your website, please

and (yet) another use of le Ebony products I see, too

regards

andrew

[dennis]

Ed,
Surely Martin Parr is merely a snapshooter, who, like some over-celebrated 'fine artists', is adept at getting himself noticed. His pics are nothing more really than colour versions of what can found in many a box Brownie collection. Emporer's clothes. Dennis.

[joolsb]

I was hoping to stimulate an inclusive dialogue on Struth's work and the use of LF in the contemporary art world

I wonder how many people are even aware of Struth's work (apart from the recent royal portrait, of course)? The fine-art photography world doesn't get huge coverage, sadly, and opportunities to see this stuff are quite rare. I'm lucky where I live. Struth's work is highly regarded enough to be shown in the city art gallery, rather than in some out of the way place.

A short distance away, in Winterthur, there is a publicly-funded gallery dedicated to photography and I've visited exhibitions of work by Crewdson, Soth, Atget and Kertesz (amongst others) there. It's just a shame that 'art' photography isn't more widely exhibited in the UK. Outside of London, you have very little chance of seeing this stuff.

The other point, which I alluded to before, is that the 'Velvia aesthetic' is so strongly ingrained that many landscape photographers just don't get the washed-out colours and flat, dead-pan look of much 'fine-art' work and generally denigrate it in forums and the like.

[Nigels]

..............................

".....Light-heartedly, i'd say, to me, The Most Important Photographer of the Late 20th Century (and beyond) IMVHO is obviously me! I've followed my progress from the beginning, have a huge collecction of my work (all original) and a large collection of limited edition prints which I show people with great enthusiasm at every opportunity. ...."

right, so do you have a link to your website, please

and (yet) another use of le Ebony products I see, too

regards

andrew

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24301567@N08/sets/

[Charles Twist]

Do you mean there are other ways of seeing the world than through Velvia-tinted glasses?!?

The other point, which I alluded to before, is that the 'Velvia aesthetic' is so strongly ingrained that many landscape photographers just don't get the washed-out colours and flat, dead-pan look of much 'fine-art' work and generally denigrate it in forums and the like.

I think there are several issues at work here. One is the long reign of Velvia in the small world of popular / commercial landscape photography. Beginners aspire to those results because they are the most apparent. So they will naturally acquire the right kit and talk about their experiences on forums which are often treated as a place of learning. It takes a while to tire of it and want to try something else. By that stage, they might not seek learning from others but from themselves. So I can imagine there'll be less discussion online.

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. And there is little form / structure to delight and surprise the eye. The work I have seen, tells me that the artists are either shy or lazy. Or possibly they are wedded to a dogma ("Rule 1 - I mustn't put any of myself in the picture") which is not shared by non-initiates. So I can imagine that a lot of folk don't get it.

I also sense that the feeling is reciprocated by a lot of fine artist types who don't like the deliberate formalism, colour and narrative of the more naive sorts.

I don't think photography is generally viewed as art. Especially since the proliferation of cheap digital cameras where everydody and their dog now thinks they are a photographer and whats the point in professional photographers now.

FWIW I am finding that the public are less interested in buying prints generally now. However, I think it's more to do with the ease of reproduction than the ease of production. I still have a lot of people saying a professional does a much better job, and when they do the photography themselves, they acknowledge it will be less well done but cheaper. I suspect that ultra-large prints from LF film are seen as less easily produced and therefore more collectible. As LF'ers we put a lot of thought in to the production side but I contend that we now need to look at the printing & presentation side and make that special in order to attract the favours of the public.

Regards,
Charles

[Neil Barnes]

Maybe I'm the odd one out here - but I doubt if I could name *any* photographer after the vintage of Adams, Man Ray, Stieglitz, Weston, and maybe O'Keefe. And I could name those only because they were pioneers as much as Daguerre or Fox-Talbot, and I've come across them in general historical research or through their writings, not their photography. Which is a bit weird, when you think about it...

Certainly there's no-one outside the newspaper world whose work I could unambiguously recognise and identify, except for the most famous images which 'everyone' knows.

That said, I can't tell a Manet from a Monet, either...

It does seem to me that the only critical thing about an image is nothing to do with the author: it's simply 'do I like the picture?'. It's no good telling me it's 'by xxx' or 'from the school of...' or 'in the style of...' or even claiming an image as high art because it took three days to take the picture. That way lies the same idiocy as a Monet being denied it's 'Monetness' simply because some authority refuses to accept it as such; you're collecting creators, not the product. And it seems to me that what matters in an image is not the maker, nor even the maker's name, but simply the question of whether I'd like it on my wall.

Er, you might have guessed at this point that I am no fan of the vast majority of abstract art - either in plastic media or in photography. A wander around the Tate Modern leaves me cold... give me images that say something, even if it's only 'mountains are pretty'. Presented with Jackson Pollock, I'd be looking for turpentine to clean up the mess... it's the same with photos. 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...

Which is not to decry the importance of the photograph as an art-form. I believe it is, and - as with most art in general - I believe that the majority of practitioners should not have the title, including many that do. Though the fundamental use of art is to feed the artist and pay his mortgage, so good luck to those that have managed it.

The abuse may start now...

Neil

[Andrew Plume]

..............................


http://www.flickr.com/photos/24301567@N08/sets/

thanks indeed Nigel for the link

regards

andrew

[joolsb]

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).