Posts
The other day I read a criticism of Lenswork for not being innovative enough, keeping up with the times and not having exciting new photography. It wasn't long ago that I had written a blog bemoaning the decision of some editors to proclaim 'new' to the point that being different appeared to be the only requirement for selection.
I have great difficulty believing that the work showcased in magazines like Camera Arts is going to have lasting influence. Of course if they espouse enough 'new' photography, sooner or later they are going to get it right at least once and be able to say 'see, we showed you X before he was important'. Problem is, they do so to the cost of us poor readers who have to wade through a lot of photography that is frankly crap.
The problem is, some years ago I too dropped my subscription to Lenswork for a while, feeling that it didn't have much new to show me. I'd casually flip through each new issue and not getting much of a kick out of it, lost interest. After a few years though, I couldn't stand being without it and grabbed every copy off the newsstand I could find and when I missed some issues, resubscribed.
This whole business got me thinking. Does photography have to be new to be good? Is Bruce Barnbaum's photography good because he made some of the first slot canyon photographs, or showed English Cathedrals and monestaries as they hadn't been seen before? Do we then discount all his other work, in sand dunes and forests, mountains and shores because we've seen it before? IS someone like John Sexton incapable of taking a good photograph because he shoots in the style of Ansel Adams and so by definition 'it's been done before'.
Here's an alternative theory.
The more photographs we look at, the larger the reference bank of images we have in our mind, the more likely we are to see something quite similar to previous work. That's fairly obvious. But the other part is the more work we have seen, the higher we set the standard for new work. After years of pouring over landscape photography in Lenswork, we are pretty jaded and our standards so high that few images if any from a new photographer really excite us, unless his style is sufficiently different from those who went before to make us 'sit up and pay attention'.
One of the primary purposes of photography is to show us things and relatinoships we hadn't noticed before. If the only thing a photograph has to offer is that it's well composed, nicely printed and pretty, is it any wonder that we become jaded.
Does this mean, though, that the only alternative is to make photographs so odd, distorted, multiple exposed, muddy, unfocused, odd, even perverted that we can almost guarantee we haven't seen this before (or at least if we have, we threw them out years ago as a bad attempt and wouldn't in a million years have thought to submit them for publication)?
Does a photographer get credit for imagination without either purpose or execution? Seems like some editors think so.
Is it not possible to show a 'rocks and roots' image which is so well done that it takes our breath away? Should we all completely give up photographing the landscape becuse 'it's been done before". Does this mean we don't need any more war pictures or famine shots, portraits or nudes? Is it not possible to show us a photograph in one of these categories without covering the nude with post it notes, the landscape with ropes, the portrait with graffiti in order to make it new? God, I hope not.
Getting back to Lenswork, as we quickly flip through the magazine, looking for something different, we risk ignoring the strengths of the work which is presented. At something like 1 second per page or less, just how likely is it that we are going to learn anything from a photographer. With that kind of viewing time, the images really have to be very different to catch our attention.
Perhaps, dear Brutus, the fault lies within ourselves. Mayhap we need so spend some time with at least some of the images from each photographer presented, before discounting the work. Straight photography is hardly a passing fad, now out of fashion. It is the mainstay of photography and has been from the days of Fox Talbot - it's what photography does well and has been doing for 150 years and I suspect will continue to do so for many to come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The human condition has changed very little since the inception of art. It's no wonder that what we create now is often very similar to what we created in the past.
Re-covering subjects and topics that have already been done doesn't invalidate current work. It just demands that the work builds on the shoulders of it's forerunners and at least reaches the same level of prior work in some way.
Thank you for the thought provoking post.
Good post. I agree that we do see so many images but somehow when I get lenswork, I take the time to sit down and look. It may not be the "perfect" magazine and it's editor is human too but I haven't found a better magazine yet.
I know the other blog posts you have referenced and I think part of their issue was with Brooks (the editor of the magazine) putting his portfolio into the magazine, which detracts from the objectivity of the magazine when choosing other artists' portfolios.
BK
I'll admit I was also a bit dismayed to see that Brooks Jensen published a portfolio of his own, but that is his right as publisher. At least the work was worthy of publishing, although the accompanying text was annoying, at best.
That aside, I find the magazine quite inspirational and appreciate it's distance from political and social reportage. There are too few outlets for we lyric artists who are more interested in the wonderous image than in social manipulations.
"One of the primary purposes of photography is to show us things and relatinoships we hadn't noticed before."
I'm going to disagree with this. A unique perspective is an easy way to grab a viewers attention, but there is a larger purpose to photography that shares a common foundation to other artistic medium. Great photography reflects the interpretation of the photographer and will prompt a reaction from the viewer.
It's a matter of interpretation if shock value is the reaction to gauge against or if it is a reaction of joy, awe or inspiration. The interpretive nature of photography is what makes it so broadly appreciated and challenging as an artist. To sum it up as all about showing something differently short changes the power of photography as an artistic medium.
As to judge a photographer and their work I think it has to do more with consistency than it does with the impact of an image or two in their portfolio. We live in an interesting time where photography is much more readily available. In that regard I'd say there is an evolution under way and how significant artists or photographers surface out of it all will be as much about luck as it is skill.
Great post. I enjoyed reading it.
I don't think Jim and I are far apart here. In talking about showing us things and relationships, I'm talking not about radical ideas or techniques, the forte of some magazines like Camera Arts, rather showing us little things.
For example, the smile of Mona Lisa - one could simply brush it off as another old dusty, paid for by the inch jobbing portrait, till we start wondering about that enigmatic smile and rightly or wrongly make up a story to go with it.
I remember a series of church pictures - not glorious cathedrals, rather a fairly ordinary church with the congregation in it - It would have never occurred to me to find beauty there, yet it was handled with delicacy and skill and made a lovely portfolio, and we saw it, thanks to Lenswork.
Edward Weston peppers and dead birds and seaweed in ways that altered our perception of these things forever.
Michael Kenna has a unique style, yet he hasn't had to resort to bizarre toning, out of focus images, and other 'new' techniques to do so.
I wonder if the desire for something new is partly a selfish desire to see something to give ourselves some other inspiration?
I just renewed Lenswork for another 3 years recently because I enjoy the images, the quality, and the writing like no other publication I receive. I don't care that Brooks published one of his own portfolios, and don't understand what the big deal is. Out of the thousands he has published of other photographers, it hardly seems overly self-indulgent.
Post a Comment