BBC1 Tonight 10.40pm Harry Cory Wright

[George S]

Didn't see the programme but I love the images on his website.

Depends on your point of view but I think he has a very engaging and consistent style to his images and I feel the pictures of The Minch are superb.

[Charles Twist]

It is true that it isn't easy talking about oneself without sounding pompous, but I feel he could have made an effort. It would have been nice, say, if he had talked about his boat-house as being more than an engagement with his subject. Landscape photography is unique (I think?) in that the photographer is part of the subject: there is much he could have said in this regard.
Considering he gave himself three days to find one decent snap in Bristol, I hardly think that is flogging yourself. I don't feel he should have exteriorised his worries so strongly: in all probability, he was going to find something. I suppose that calm professionalism makes for poor telly.
And the picture does have a sign in it which states where the picture was taken: so it is attached to the location through the detail, so beloved of HCW.
Charles

[mark b]

Having just watched the program and thought "why are you being so dramatic" I think this sums it up for me very nicely,

I suppose that calm professionalism makes for poor telly.

[timparkin]

I was watching him arrive in the reeds and seeing the beautiful ice around the reeds and the lines of the stream and the he just plonks his camera in the middle and misses it all.. 3m lower and 2m to the right and he'd have included the delicacy and transience of the ice and the way it reflected the morning light and the lines of the reeds. A bit earlier and he'd have got the creek highlighted with reflections from the sky... Goddamn it, what a waste of an opportunity! I shouldn't criticise.. perhaps his tripod is broken..

Tim

[Charles Twist]

Hello Tim,
We're frightfully close to agreeing for once, but...
It is true that we have now seen a lot of pics with a big foreground and bold colours, courtesy of the Light & Land landscapers and the popular photo press. And we have come to like that. But there is a more arty tradition, and maybe we could hear from the likes of Stephen Vaughan what they think of that type of photography. Bob Singleton who has just told us about his blog also seems to apply some of these post-modern principles, noting in his blog:

It seems that to be an art photographer today in early 21st century it is necessary to abandon the photographic element, that your pictures should be either manipulated to resemble images produced some other means or alternatively that all craft and technique be abandoned so that the mechanical nature of the process is shown up.

Without wishing to anger anyone, I would like to hear what the different parties have to say on what seems a fundamental schism between "L&L" and "arty" styles (as described above - not a generalisation I would want to take any further).
I would like to understand why the arty crowd are shunning structured pictures and favouring what looks like tourist snaps taken with a big camera (attendant question: why bother?). Are these people bent on saying nothing with a big tranny? Do they consider bold colour and strong composition a hindrance to whatever it is they are trying to say?
And to the L&L crowd: do you need strong structure and bold colours to make your point? Do you ever think of doing away with them? Do you sense your pictures are simplistic or childish?
And then there are all the half-way houses who may want to take pot-shots at both sides.
Is the "arty" stuff coming out now or becoming more popular because we are growing bored of the "L&L" stuff?
Over to you.
Charles

[joolsb]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for putting into words something that has been bothering me for a while, now. Why is there such a disconnection between the 'art' tradition and, as you call it, the 'L&L' tradition?

Laying this at the feet of L&L, by whom I presume you mean David Ward, Joe Cornish and Charlie Waite, is a little unfair given that the style has been perpetuated by those, such as David Noton, not affiliated to L&L. In fact, this style is really just a continuation of a strand that can be traced through the American landscapers such as David Muench or Jack Dykinga which probably had its beginnings with the work of Ansel Adams.

My own theory is that both Joe and David's styles come from a background as assistants to commercial photographers where punchy colours and dramatic lighting are necessary to push product. They have simply transferred this training to their landscape work with, let's face it, brilliantly successful results.

Where the fine-art crowd are coming from really beats me. That style seems to celebrate the banal and the artless with unending series of dull snaps in which it is often impossible to tell one photographer's style from another. HCW's work, otoh, is an interesting halfway house. I like much of what he does and, in some ways, it is a more honest interpretation of the landscape than the 'L&L' approach. Not that either are 'right' or 'wrong' - just different.

To be frank, I was a little saddened when David Ward wrote so vehemently against HCW in his blog. There is room for many different approaches in the genre of landscape photography and, whilst I admire David's work immensely, I find the quieter beauty and softer tones of HCW's images somewhat refreshing.

[timparkin]

I think you've got me wrong. I've nothing against the art tradition; I love Mr Burtynsky, I like the Bechers (although not Ruscha); I'm not so much a fan of Gursky but I do like Scott Wheeler. But Mr Wright just gets it wrong. And I think it manipulative to create a spectrum with "art" at one end (defined in your case by the New Topographics movement) and "L&L" at the other end (defined, in your interpretation, by the popular presses choice of work of JC,DW and CW).

For one, there is no spectrum! It is only in the minds of other photographers. The only spectrum appears to be in the tastes of many photographers (who prefer to see pictures that have an explicit beauty as opposed to the art fraternity who appear to favour intentions over results). Laziness (and the popular press) is responsible for pigeon holing certain photographers. Perhaps they should answer your question (but the answer will be - "most of our readers don't want to see pictures of the latest new topographics wunderkind")

Anyway, if you take certain pictures by Burtynsky and Gursky you'll see a visual aesthetic that has much in common with your L&L movement.

http://www.paulkuhngallery.com/assets/i ... Cicon5.jpg
http://www.abstractdynamics.org/archives/02_big_en.jpg
http://www.artsjournal.com/man/images/GurskyNF.jpg
http://www.fadwebsite.com/wp-content/up ... 7_xvga.jpg

And if you look carefully at your L&L movement you'll see a lot more than photos that a photography monthly would be happy to publish and which show a more complex compositional strength and less reliance on CMYK busting colour.

http://www.into-the-light.com/gallery/m ... naachlaise
http://www.into-the-light.com/gallery/h ... rokenfence
http://www.joecornish.com/global/images ... 161243.jpg
http://www.joecornish.com/global/images ... 165432.jpg
http://www.charliewaite.com/images/2682a.jpg
http://www.charliewaite.com/images/2444.jpg
http://www.charliewaite.com/images/2638a.jpg

The last has some similarities to HCW's house style (if only he'd moved the horizon up a little)!! I have two main problems with HCW and that is the approach (which denies craft and "artistic" thought) and the result (which mostly dissapoints as "art" and beauty). I've written my thoughts on HCW's work (of which I like some of the results and think he would be better concentrating on extending his interpretation of the seas horizon) and the programme mostly confirmed them.. He's happy to turn up at a location that 'feels' right and then let the camera and film do the work (ooh just look at how much resolution you get on a 10x8 tranny!). This doesn't leave me much, apart from the photograph, to get my teeth into.

My favourite art photographers have made the thinking the majority their art and don't mind ignoring composition tools. My favourite L&L photographers have made composition and beauty part of their art.

I'll leave with a question: I'd like to know why you place Charlie Waite within the L&L style but leave Paul Wakefield outside of it?

There is no dichotomy to see here, please move along

[Charles Twist]

Hello Tim,
I am not saying that you don't like arty, nor am I saying that individual people practice only one style (give me some credit). Nor did I ever mention a spectrum with "arty" and "L&L" at each end - that's far too linear and simplistic. I was wanting to know what the people here thought of an apparent divide and was keen to hear from the likes of Stephen Vaughan and Bob Singleton. I am not sure these people and HCW would like to be lumped in with the New Topographers, either. What is interesting is that when I say "L&L", that conjures up an image, a caricature of a style. Although I am sure there is a better moniker, there is a single, identifiable class of pictures behind it. Even when you refute dichotomy, you happily talk about two styles / approaches. I will also ask you: if there is a spectrum of tastes as you say, then why wouldn’t there be a spectrum of styles (independently of the people)?
In terms of explicitness, commercial value, the desire to create art and accessibility, there isn't much to distinguish "arty" and "L&L". The main distinctions I make between the two are to do with the use of strong colours versus bleached ones or B&W, compounded with a different use of composition. What I call "L&L" composition is about a strong centre of visual interest around which are carefully and tastefully arranged elements of texture, descriptive context, etc. What I call "arty" composition, doesn't have that fulcrum and am not sure has any composition actually desired by the photographer (ie place the subject centrally or revert to default setting = horizon in the middle). Although arrangement and framing matter to both “arty” and “L&L”, the way they are carried out, differs.
So you see: "L&L" style is a only a part of what the L&L photographers churn out. Definitely need a new label. Any offers?
The “arty” people are clearly coming up with pictures which are thought-provoking or even uncomfortable to those brought up on or peddling “L&L” fare. I would like to know if those feelings are mirrored. Do the “arty” people see the "L&L" pictures as dumbed-down drivel, over-articulated, too laboured, too boring? It could be that both sides are calling each other unimaginative.
However, it could be there are no classes: it may well be that once you get in to the detail, all the styles overlap and borrow from each other, ending up in one great gray goo. So are there classes and are they exclusive?
Charles

[timparkin]

I am not saying that you don't like arty, nor am I saying that individual people practice only one style (give me some credit).

Apart from the implication that L&Lers practise the L&L style? OK I do realise you know this but I often think there is what you know and what you pretend to know for the sake of an argument. Capiche?

Nor did I ever mention a spectrum with "arty" and "L&L" at each end - that's far too linear and simplistic. ... Even when you refute dichotomy, you happily talk about two styles / approaches. I will also ask you: if there is a spectrum of tastes as you say, then why wouldn’t there be a spectrum of styles (independently of the people)?

But you do suggest an either or type of relationship and I'm happy to have classes of people/style but I would allow room for more than one and that there needn't be any relationship to each other. As I hope I demonstrated, the photographer can, and does, practise different styles.

You're suggesting that the L&L'ers have a typical style. This is based on a use of colour as a compositional tool and also on the graphic use of line and shape that is reflected in most art apart from 20C+ modern art.. This aesthetic is not unusual, what is possibly unusual is the outright rejection of it as an artistic endeavour. This isn't something that should be abhored or adored but simply a choice.

In terms of explicitness, commercial value, the desire to create art and accessibility, there isn't much to distinguish "arty" and "L&L". The main distinctions I make between the two are to do with the use of strong colours versus bleached ones or B&W, compounded with a different use of composition. What I call "L&L" composition is about a strong centre of visual interest around which are carefully and tastefully arranged elements of texture, descriptive context, etc. What I call "arty" composition, doesn't have that fulcrum and am not sure has any composition actually desired by the photographer (ie place the subject centrally or revert to default setting = horizon in the middle). Although arrangement and framing matter to both “arty” and “L&L”, the way they are carried out, differs.
So you see: "L&L" style is a only a part of what the L&L photographers churn out. Definitely need a new label. Any offers?

Traditional compositional aesthetic. I don't see anything that really needs to be said beyond this..

The “arty” people are clearly coming up with pictures which are thought-provoking or even uncomfortable to those brought up on or peddling “L&L” fare. I would like to know if those feelings are mirrored. Do the “arty” people see the "L&L" pictures as dumbed-down drivel, over-articulated, too laboured, too boring? It could be that both sides are calling each other unimaginative.

Most art takes some thought to understand and appreciate (like wine, food, etc). Some artists like to include elements that are easy to understand, and hence quick to discover, but also spend a lot of time instilling greater depth. Joe Cornish is a good example; the problem is most people don't spend the time to find the next level of understanding.

Contemporary art eschews that instant understanding for many reasons, to force people into thinking being a good one, and spends most of it's time trying to codify deeper meaning (mostly this codification remains in the artists head).

Both art forms need time to understand properly. Without time, most people will like the former and dislike the latter. Without time, the 'modern art' disciple will reject the former and possible try to find meaning in any old tosh..

Both of these are charicatures - the real viewer should look deeper regardless.

Tim

p.s. I don't mind the discussion - it's quite healthy - but quite often a confrontational approach can end up in confrontation (surprise) so don't be surprised that when you overtly pigeonhole in a detrimental fashion, even if you do deny that this is your own opinion, you get someone to bite... You are using what is a common tabloid technique to plant suggestions without taking responsibilty i.e. "Do people here think that Charles is a blatantly confrontational art house apologist or do they think his contribution is an interesting aside" - the question in itself implies a state of mind that perhaps doesn't exist. There are better ways to post questions if you want a considered reply, otherwise people will start to think "Troll!". Other than that, the discussion is quite interesting.

[joolsb]

Methinks Charles is playing Devil's Advocate here. There does seem to be more than a whiff of the 'L&L style' in his own portfolio....

[timparkin]

I might agree with that Julian,

http://www.chtwist.com/landscapes/UK_Im ... werjWM.jpg
http://www.chtwist.com/landscapes/Highl ... burnWM.jpg

Perhaps.. ?

Wheras myself and yourself working in the same locations...

http://www.lightandland.co.uk/images%5C ... 27eba_.jpg
http://www.lightandland.co.uk/images%5C ... a5c5e_.jpg

Personally I think your image is the strongest one and most representative of location out of the four (I don't normally take black and whites but the subject matter seemed to suit the reduction of colour)

Tim

p.s. this wasn't about who has the better pictures anyway - it's a discussion about 'house style', or the lack of in my opinion. I'm thinking a better name for the style would be 'Photography Monthly Landscape'...

[joolsb]

Personally I think your image is the strongest one and most representative of location out of the four

Cheers, Tim. I just wish you hadn't picked that one. It's one of those images you like at first but then later you see nothing but its weaknesses...

At least I managed to avoid taking a shot of the wreck (well, on LF, at least... )

I like yours. The mono approach suits the subject well. Nicely composed, too.

'Photography Monthly Landscape'...

Good grief, noooo! DW, CW, JC et al are far, far better than that miserable rag!

[Charles Twist]

"L&L" as a style is strongly promoted by L&L the company and its associates, either because they like it or because it helps to attract punters. Whatever, I felt justified in using highly visible proponents of the style for a label. I don't care what you want to call that style.
I won't deny that my formative years as a landscape photographer were spent in the "L&L" shadow and it was a style which genuinely appealed and with which I felt comfortable (and still do). None of that prevents me from seeing the argument from the other side or at least wanting to. A single person can take an active interest in more than one aspect of their art. I have a questioning mind and so it is natural to question what I do.
: lol : you could have chosen another picture taken at Mewslade Bay, which goes against what you say:

I don't call this "L&L" style. That picture is much more to do with my personal interest in the photograph being a planar surface populated with further contrasting planes. But that's not relevant to this discussion - it's not a discussion about house style. Let's keep the personal out of it - let's keep it at style level. If you weren't so hell-bent on burying the argument, you might actually take an interest in the question of how "L&L" is perceived by the "arty" sort.
Charles

[timparkin]

"L&L" as a style is strongly promoted by L&L the company and its associates, either because they like it or because it helps to attract punters

Excuse me for not being so eloquent in response but .. HUH?!

Where does this "L&L Style Promotion" occur and which "associates" do you refer to?

As for picking some photographs from your site, I wasn't trying to imply that you were or weren't taking pictures in the style you mention. I was only pointing out that the edges of your style and light and land style overlap a huge amount and that light and land photographers (if you want to call them that.. ) take pictures that could very well be considered 'arty' ... My point was it's disingenous to try to suggest otherwise.

As for 'taking the other side' .. you use quite strong derogatory language with 'Do you sense your pictures are simplistic or childish?' and 'dumbed-down drivel, over-articulated, too laboured, too boring' in mentioning how L&L could be considered and yet the strongest language you use in the arty example is 'unimaginative' and 'tourist snaps taken with a big camera' and 'saying nothing'. The former seems a lot more emotive than the latter to me.

I apologise if my bringing up your pictures is perceived as an ad-hominem attack.. it wasn't meant as such..

I'm off for food but I'll address your last question in a moment

Tim

[timparkin]

Post food for thought

OK ... the question is 'how is L&L perceived by the arty sort' ..

First of all, I imagine most of the arty sort don't even know what L&L is.. So let's try to get to the essence of what you are trying to say.

Firstly, L&L Style is meaningless. Let's find another way of describing it by first of all working out what it is.

I think the two people to whom you are probably mostly referring to as representative of the style are Joe Cornish and David Ward. Whilst they are very different photographers, they do share a sense of strong graphic composition and also make a great deal of artistic use of colour. Where does this style arise from?

I personally think this style is something that has been around for a long time as evidenced by the photography of Ansel Adams and Eliot Porter, the former for his portrayal of the landscape and the latter for his use of colour. (see Ansel Adams 'Trees' book for his Aspens on page 7 and Banyan Roots on page 59 - also p67 and p79 for David Ward like and Charlie Waite like resepectivley ... Eliot Porters Sunrise in "The Colour of Wilderness, p29 and Pool in Hidden Passage on p26 - also p7 and p13)

But these strong compositional styles are evidenced with Paul Strand and even further back with Gustav Le Gray, Timothy O'Sullivan and William Henry Jackson (we'll excuse them the use of colour - or lack of it). But let's go further back and look at Monet and Turner whose use of photographic elements and colour pre-date Velvia by a year or two at least. Turner had a very strong graphic influence and knowlegde of perspective but used it very cleverly.

The strong desire for bold colours goes back hundreds of years however (I'd recommend reading Victoria Finlay's recent book 'Colour' for a taste).

What else about this style is prominent? An honesty in reproduction in using the subject to create the photograph? Nothing that Ansel hadn't done before.. What about use of 'magic light'? Well Turner had a head start like we just said.

In essence, the style you refer to is a continuation of the tradition of artistic interpretation of the real world.

So what about 'art' photography? Well photography was one of the prominent factors in the modern art/surrealist movement. More importantly, like most 'art' collectives, the 'art' photography movement wants to snub it's nose at the establishment. There is nothing wrong with this, it's like the mutation noise that contributes to the velocity of evolution. The mutations are often wild and wacky but each mutation has the possibility of contributing to the more mainstream branch.

'Art' photography also needs to have a pedigree of some sort, hence why Joe Bloggs from the street can't throw some paint around and say "Hey look at me, I'm as good as Jackson Pollock"... Jackson Pollock's art is what it is because of the path taken to get there. That includes most of his prior work, the company he keeps and the published notes that go with a collection or item. This is where the Bechers' art, which to some is just a contact sheet of industrial insurance shots, can become a statement about structure and design in a post industrial world, heralding back to typologists such as August Sander.

What art photography needs is this pedigree and rigourous thought. But what it seems to get mostly is the reactionary.

What classic landscape photography needs is the real application of art and craft and rigourous thought about the why of each photograph. What it mostly gets is just craft and cliche.

When I speak to people who are 'art' photography fans, they appreciate some of the work of Joe Cornish and David Ward but mostly those peices that make them think. The problem with some people is that they want to be forced to think; they aren't willing to do it naturally.

The alternative is that most classic landscape photograpy fans don't really want to think at all (apart from what camera did he use? Do you reckon that was photoshopped? etc).

So.. can we use the phrase 'Classic Landscape Photography' because pigeon holing Charlie Waite, Joe Cornish and David Ward into a compartment that excludes the like of Paul Wakefield, David Meunch and Christopher Burkett does noone any favours.

Now how do you think the art photography fans perceive classic landscape photography?

Tim