Inspiration

At the risk of wearing out my welcome here, I'd like to start yet another thread. Having recently discovered this forum, Sean's website and the writings of Ben Lifson, I've been exposed to some tremendously inspiring material.

I'm relatively new to the world of photography, however, and I'm feeling the desire to get to know the work of some of the masters - both historical and contemporary. I will throw out some of the photographers I do know of and enjoy to give you an idea of what I'm interested in, and I'm hoping that perhaps you can turn me on to others past & present that I might like. In general, to use Ben's words, I prefer extraordinary photographs of mundane subjects to ordinary (or even extraordinary) photographs of extraordinary subjects.

Historical (I think?):
Kertesz, HCB, Winogrand, Mann, Brandt, Strand, Eggleston, Koudelka, Doisneau

Present (I think?; some more well-known than others):
Friedlander, Shore, Salgado, Zabrinsky, Gursky, Hilla & Bernd Becher, Scott Irvine, Jeff Brouws, Ken Merfield, Desiree Dolron, Burtynsky, Michael Kenna, Lili Nahapetian, Chris Jordan

Thanks for your ideas and inspiration!

Chris,

There are two books that will contain 85% of good basic education in the history and current practice of photography:


The Genius of Photography by Gerry Badger (went with a TV series in the UK, which was itself and art school course crammed into six hours!)

Art and Photography by David Campany.

Both will tie the technical and creative sides of you new passion into the history of nations and of art itself. Both are excellent.


Best

Tim

Chris Kresser said:

At the risk of wearing out my welcome here, I'd like to start yet another thread. Having recently discovered this forum, Sean's website and the writings of Ben Lifson, I've been exposed to some tremendously inspiring material.

I'm relatively new to the world of photography, however, and I'm feeling the desire to get to know the work of some of the masters - both historical and contemporary. I will throw out some of the photographers I do know of and enjoy to give you an idea of what I'm interested in, and I'm hoping that perhaps you can turn me on to others past & present that I might like. In general, to use Ben's words, I prefer extraordinary photographs of mundane subjects to ordinary (or even extraordinary) photographs of extraordinary subjects.

Historical (I think?):
Kertesz, HCB, Winogrand, Mann, Brandt, Strand, Eggleston, Koudelka, Doisneau

Present (I think?; some more well-known than others):
Friedlander, Shore, Salgado, Zabrinsky, Gursky, Hilla & Bernd Becher, Scott Irvine, Jeff Brouws, Ken Merfield, Desiree Dolron, Burtynsky, Michael Kenna, Lili Nahapetian, Chris Jordan

Thanks for your ideas and inspiration!

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Eggleston and Koudelka are still alive and working. Kertesz, HCB, Winogrand and Strand have died. I'm sure not about Doisneau and am not sure which Mann you're thinking of (Sally?).

I'm particularly interested in monographs that a photographer him or herself put together.

There are well-known photographers whose work does not interest me at all but the ones that are most interesting to me have been (off the top of my head).

Garry Winogrand
Robert Frank
Helen Levitt
Walker Evans
Paul Strand
Diane Arbus
Stephen Shore
Bill Eggleston
Andre Kertesz
Josef Koudelka
Lee Friedlander
Lewis Hine

And, of course, there are the painters. Some whom I continue to learn a lot from are:

Pieter Breughel the Elder
Vermeer
Manet

and many others.

Cheers,

Sean

Tim Ashley said:

Chris,

There are two books that will contain 85% of good basic education in the history and current practice of photography:


The Genius of Photography by Gerry Badger (went with a TV series in the UK, which was itself and art school course crammed into six hours!)

Art and Photography by David Campany.

Both will tie the technical and creative sides of you new passion into the history of nations and of art itself. Both are excellent.


Best

Tim

Click to expand...

Thank you, Tim. These both seem excellent. I've managed to locate (not easily) copies of both of these books. Art and Photography is only available used, it appears. I had to search high and low for The Genius of Photography, but eventually found one on Abe Books. Unfortunately my local library carries neither of them.

Best,
Chris

Sean Reid said:

Hi Chris,

Eggleston and Koudelka are still alive and working. Kertesz, HCB, Winogrand and Strand have died. I'm sure not about Doisneau and am not sure which Mann you're thinking of (Sally?).

I'm particularly interested in monographs that a photographer him or herself put together.

There are well-known photographers whose work does not interest me at all but the ones that are most interesting to me have been (off the top of my head).

Garry Winogrand
Robert Frank
Helen Levitt
Walker Evans
Paul Strand
Diane Arbus
Stephen Shore
Bill Eggleston
Andre Kertesz
Josef Koudelka
Lee Friedlander
Lewis Hine

And, of course, there are the painters. Some whom I continue to learn a lot from are:

Pieter Breughel the Elder
Vermeer
Manet

and many others.

Cheers,

Sean

Click to expand...

I've been perusing the Web Gallery of Art lately and I have to say I am blown away by Breughel the Elder's work. Wow. That website is an absolute gold mine.

Since many of the photographers on your list are the same as those on mine, I'm looking forward to checking out Hine, Frank and Levitt. I've seen some of Frank and Levitt's work, but not much.

Thanks for sharing this.

Chris

You will also enjoy Geoff Dwyer's The Ongoing Moment.
Cheers
Mike

Michael_Stones said:

You will also enjoy Geoff Dwyer's The Ongoing Moment.
Cheers
Mike

Click to expand...

Thanks Mike. That does look interesting, and a nice bonus is that it's available for $10 on Amazon.

Chris

Chris Kresser said:

Thank you, Tim. These both seem excellent. I've managed to locate (not easily) copies of both of these books. Art and Photography is only available used, it appears. I had to search high and low for The Genius of Photography, but eventually found one on Abe Books. Unfortunately my local library carries neither of them.

Best,
Chris

Click to expand...

They really are worth searching out. The Genius book is a more digestible but still extremely good guide, whereas the David Campany book is very deep and brilliant and is required reading on many MA courses - but is still very readable.

Tim Ashley said:

They really are worth searching out. The Genius book is a more digestible but still extremely good guide, whereas the David Campany book is very deep and brilliant and is required reading on many MA courses - but is still very readable.

Click to expand...

I found the Genius book for $50 on Abe Books and purchased that. The only copies I can find of Art and Photography are over $150 which is a bit out of my range for a book right now. The Internet database of my local library claims there is a copy there, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they'll actually have it (their photography section is usually quite poor).

In any event, I'm sure I'll find one somehow. And I'm excited about the Genius book! Thanks again, Tim.

Chris Kresser said:

At the risk of wearing out my welcome here, I'd like to start yet another thread. Having recently discovered this forum, Sean's website and the writings of Ben Lifson, I've been exposed to some tremendously inspiring material.

I'm relatively new to the world of photography, however, and I'm feeling the desire to get to know the work of some of the masters - both historical and contemporary.

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

The risk is not wearing out your welcome, since that is very wide and deep. Rather the hazard for any of us is to take too seriously the art of anyone else, yet not miss visiting with them. Each great photograph teaches us what took decades to learn from the decades of other peoples work. So each great picture is a 100 years or more of fine photography.

All the photographers mentioned are important. What one has to do is also protect one's own being. There's a danger that you will be so impressed with the work of Ansel Adams that you will try to repeat what he has done. However, he has done that; it's his, not yours to appropriate.

I'd rather you rationed your exposure to a few you happen to like and drown that out with your own photography of everything around you, even when you are not ready or educated sufficiently! Reward yourself. For every 20 pictures (of 500) you print, allow yourself another photographer.

In creative work, whether it be screenplays, pottery, painting or photography you must master the basic skills of the medium. However you should not try to "ape" others work". Now you should be so lucky if you could.

There is a huge dilemma. Not to know what other photographers have achieved starves you of landmarks and language that you might use on your own journey. The danger is that you might simply get to believe that you are somehow one of their disciples.

Rather, walk through every gallery near you. Keep returning and see such an abundance of sculpture, paintings, architecture and you will stimulate your brain. However during this time one needs to balance these wonderful corrupting influences by shooting birds in the zoo, moths on the window, a man fixing the power lines, people crossing the street, the icecream vendor, a river bank, a cloud, cups and saucer, an older tree, everything and anything you can find.

Of all the pictures select the one's to delete. Gone! Then select the 1 in ten that are impressive to you.
Prepare them for printing. Go back and check that there were no others that are better. Print them.

Go back to the museums and galleries.

Reward yourself with another photographer to study. Don't do that work, just enjoy and appreciate it.

This way, I believe allows your brain to give expression to a voice that is yours.

It might be that you are inspired by Picasso more than any photographer mentioned. Maybe your calling is to express the sense of the absurd of "Waiting for Godot" or "the meaning of life".

So the struggle is not to be another wannabel Diane Arbus or Henri Bresson. Those buses are crowded already. Not to know their work is robbing yourself. However, as soon as you like her, hide that book. Now look at Vogue. Next month landscape photographers. You will develop favorites for sure, but keep looking further. Do not stop and marry any of the photographers!

You will slip up somewhere on the way and get obsessed with one photographer's work. However, make a break for it and look for the opposite. Learning about the breadth and depth of photography is a challenge that is almost schizophrenic. One needs to adulate and despise, follow and avoid.

Be humble!



Asher

Asher,

Thanks for your very thoughtful and thorough response. Although I am relatively new to photography, I am not new to art and the creative process - and I agree with you wholeheartedly. There is always a razor's edge between searching for and even finding inspiration in the work of others and remaining true to one's own inner vision. These processes are not mutually exclusive, as I believe you alluded to throughout your post, but too much energy in one direction can lead to plagiarism on the one hand and narcissism on the other.

The rhythm you describe of balancing art making with art viewing is more or less what I follow myself. I may go through a period of weeks where I'm very inspired to read about or expose myself to the work of other artists. Inevitably, after a while I become "full" and cannot take in any more information this way. I need time to process, to assimilate, to embody what I have learned. Thus follows a period of brainstorming, creating and finishing art where I am deliberately not exposing myself to the work of others.

And eventually, the cycle starts again.

Your post has reminded me that it may be helpful for me to find a little more balance on a daily basis. My cycles tend to run in periods of weeks, rather than days. It might be nice to see how a daily cycle would shift things... in other words, making sure I'm shooting/printing/finishing a little bit every day. Perfect practice makes perfect, right?

Best,
Chris

Hi Chis,

Photographing for oneself at least several times a week and looking at the images on a screen is helpful if one can find what few delight you and carry the most satisfaction and meaning. However photograph things you wouldn't. Why? Because you will find out things about your self when you do.

Sitting in schools with 22-55 kids, 45 minutes at a time and not being allowed to have one's mind wander is one of the most destructive parts of our schooling. The artist must try as hard as one can do do what is forbidden, to cross lines so that one can test where one belongs.

Other people's art, conversations and opinions all feed into this but the enemies of good art are perfection, discipline and following gurus. Still one has to know the language one wants to speak in, so it sucks to need to see what everyone else is think doing and has done. That, unfortunately is the reality for us all. So, ultimately, we all compromise to some extent our values. We pander. We feed on praise then seek to market art more than express our "inner-self".

At least we should struggle to stay on the right path and have some contact with one's own inner self and needs for externalization of expression.

Above all, be humble or one's mind and compass no longer can guide you; just hubris and delusion.

Asher

Very eloquently stated, Asher. It is indeed a razor's edge, and as you've said so clearly, the key is to maintain contact with one's inner vision and creative intent throughout the process... knowing that along the way we will inevitably be swayed by the "enemies" of good art and the desire for acceptance, recognition and praise. This isn't a problem, so long as we always return to that source - whatever it is for each of us.

I just got back from the central library. Oh my.... rows upon rows of photography books. Every single photographer mentioned in this thread is represented there, often with several titles. I even found a copy of "Art and Photography" by Campany which I promptly checked out. I limited myself to one book, and I think that will be my practice for a while. I also made sure to make some pictures on the way home.

Here's one:

Think of the power those birds are sitting on and don't know it!

That's life!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

So the struggle is not to be another wannabe Diane Arbus or Henri Bresson. Those buses are crowded already. Not to know their work is robbing yourself. However, as soon as you like her, hide that book.
Asher

Click to expand...

What Asher wrote is very true but there's something else worth saying. Take Arbus, for example: why did she become such an historic figure in photography? I don't think it was her technical or compositional skills - many forgotten figures from that era were no less proficient. Nor was it just her choice of subject - she was not the first to photograph twins or freaks.

I think it was largely a matter of timing: her photographs resonated with the major issue of the day. That issue was the challenge to conventions about normality and abnormality being fought in philosophy and literature as well as psychology and psychiatry (e.g., Camus, Foucault, Huxley, Laing, & Bateson being just some key figures from these fields) and which added fuel to the turbulence of the 1960s. The distinction between normality and abnormality had begun to supplant earlier debates about sex and socialism in the minds of a generation and Aldus's photos of freaks that appeared no less than normal than normal people no less than freakish fitted perfectly within this conceptual framework. That's why viewers loved or hated her work but were rarely indifferent.

A similar analysis applies to Mapplethorpe homo erotic photos and Nan Godwin's work; both resonated with issues of their times that had significance way beyond photography. Would Karsh be so significant a portrait photographer if people of his time didn't want public figures to be their legends? And these are examples drawn from the fine arts domain, with no need to buttress support from photojournalism.

What I'm getting at is that historically significant photographers were at the forefront in the translation of vital issues of their time into visual imagery. We can learn from their technique, but Asher was on the button in writing that those buses are crowded. Because those times and issues are past, the bus they traveled on has long since departed. So the key to becoming a significant photographer is ... well, you complete the sentence.
Cheers
Mike

I agree with you, Mike, that timing is a critical factor in determining the "success" of an artist's body of work in both the marketplace and amongst his or her peers.

I guess another question we must ask ourselves is whether our goal is to become a "significant photographer" or simply to make art that is meaningful to us and creates a connection with its viewers. I think this is an important question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer in the objective sense, but I agree with Ben Lifson when he says we have to answer it for ourselves.

I'm guessing a lot of derivative and forgettable art has been made with the intention to become "a significant artist".

Chris

One of the benefits of a good forum is that one can raise a topic and get a variety of viewpoints, which is indeed what we see in this discussion.

I have a quite different perspective on some of the subjects raised here and once I finally have enough time to post about them I will. But I'm glad that people are indeed debating ideas, definitions, etc.

Cheers,

Sean

I'm guessing a lot of derivative and forgettable art has been made with the intention to become "a significant artist".

Click to expand...

Chris
My background is behavioral research, which colors my perspective on what significance means. I tend to apply the same perspective to art and literature with the reservation that personal motivations may differ in those fields. The following elaborates.

The motivation of most researchers is not to become a significant scientist but to do significant research. What researchers consider significant research depends in part on personal orientation but includes the following: elegance of the research design; clarity of the findings within design limitations (no research design is perfect); applied or practical relevance (more important to some researchers than others); contribution to the explanation of some natural phenomenon that hitherto was a puzzle (more important to some researchers than others); robustness of the findings (e.g., other scientists continue to replicate or build on that work long into the future). Considerations about theory development are much the same as those that apply to empirical research.

The 'Eureka!' experience of a scientist with a new discovery should parallel that of the photographer who creates a significant image: a sense of breaking through boundaries. That is what significant photography conveys to me: work that breaks through boundaries. Although I admit to awaiting that full experience within my own photography, I remain hopeful.
Cheers
Mike

Sean Reid said:

One of the benefits of a good forum is that one can raise a topic and get a variety of viewpoints, which is indeed what we see in this discussion.

I have a quite different perspective on some of the subjects raised here and once I finally have enough time to post about them I will. But I'm glad that people are indeed debating ideas, definitions, etc.

Cheers,

Sean

Click to expand...

Sean,

I have also enjoyed the diversity of opinion represented here. It is always my intention to maintain an open mind and not cling too tightly to my own beliefs or ideas. I find I learn more this way.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic.

Chris

Michael_Stones said:

Chris
My background is behavioral research, which colors my perspective on what significance means. I tend to apply the same perspective to art and literature with the reservation that personal motivations may differ in those fields. The following elaborates.

The motivation of most researchers is not to become a significant scientist but to do significant research. What researchers consider significant research depends in part on personal orientation but includes the following: elegance of the research design; clarity of the findings within design limitations (no research design is perfect); applied or practical relevance (more important to some researchers than others); contribution to the explanation of some natural phenomenon that hitherto was a puzzle (more important to some researchers than others); robustness of the findings (e.g., other scientists continue to replicate or build on that work long into the future). Considerations about theory development are much the same as those that apply to empirical research.

The 'Eureka!' experience of a scientist with a new discovery should parallel that of the photographer who creates a significant image: a sense of breaking through boundaries. That is what significant photography conveys to me: work that breaks through boundaries. Although I admit to awaiting that full experience within my own photography, I remain hopeful.
Cheers
Mike

Click to expand...

Mike,

Thanks for making such an excellent distinction. I'm training to become an acupuncturist and I happen to read a lot of scientific studies, so I understand the analogy very well.

I've seen plenty of research that is highly significant according to the criteria you define (elegance of design, practical relevance, robustness of the findings and implications of the results) but that is dismissed as "insignificant" by the medical mainstream because the results of the study don't fit the current medical paradigm.

Perhaps this is similar in the world of art and photography. "Significant" work is done, but is dismissed by critics because it doesn't fit in with the current trends.

In any event, like yourself, I do aspire to create significant work. But I do not aspire to be a "significant artist". Luckily, there's probably not much chance of the latter happening!

Chris

Asher Kelman said:

(snip)


Rather, walk through every gallery near you. Keep returning and see such an abundance of sculpture, paintings, architecture and you will stimulate your brain. However during this time one needs to balance these wonderful corrupting influences by shooting birds in the zoo, moths on the window, a man fixing the power lines, people crossing the street, the icecream vendor, a river bank, a cloud, cups and saucer, an older tree, everything and anything you can find.Asher

Click to expand...

All of Asher's advice is good but I think this is the best bit. When Sean writes essays about photography he encourages us to learn from the techniques of the masters in other fields of art. I agree 100% that this is an extremely useful and valuable thing to do.

I can't draw to save my life but I still take life classes sometimes, purely to challenge the way my brain sees space, tone, shape and line. I find it always invigorates my photography. Similarly I paint abstract oils sometimes when what I want to represent photographically, for example the quality of light in a particular place, proves photographically elusive.

For me all these things work together - and seeing it this way gives me much greater pleasure too!

Tim

Chris Kresser said:

In any event, like yourself, I do aspire to create significant work. But I do not aspire to be a "significant artist". Luckily, there's probably not much chance of the latter happening!

Click to expand...

I have no issue with someone wishing to become a significant voice for anything they truly contribute that is worthwhile. After all, we are harnessing personal drive and success to being creative. If the person is not successful in society, then the work might get buried and ignored.

I am frustrated to see mediocre contributers such as a major famous photographer who made a book on a famous building, become famous when al they real have done is exploited the fame of the building to propel their own career. However, if an artist is not able to sell his prints or books he'll starve and may never progress anyway.

One has to do good work and eat. So the person has to be successful and significant. One has to nurture belief in oneself as one gets command of the technical necessities of any medium of art. There is always the duality of promoting good work, continuing to improve as well as one's own identity as a photographer and/ artist. One needs to think one is a person who is doing something people think is worthy and significant. However, at the very least one has to think one's own direction is significant.

So we need to do this but also have insight, humility and good friends to tell is when we are full of it!

Asher

Asher,

I think what you say is true for every professional endeavor. Of course there are those, like myself, who do not aspire to be professional artist (if we define "professional" by doing it to make a living). In these cases the element of success, at least in financial terms or acceptance in the commercial marketplace, may be less important or even nonexistent.

But the element of significance does still remain, regardless of the commercial intent.

Chris

Significant is a relative term.

Many artists are relatively unnoticed until long after they are dead.

Many well known names are not producing anything new, artistic, novel or interesting but they know people and have connections. Dont think every well known name is deserving of the fame.

Also, dont let your work go unnoticed just to be romantic, do what you love and dont worry about what others think, unless they have a valid point to make. Do what you know you need to do and dont allow them to tell you you wont make it.

And "making it" is also pretty relative... lol

David Sommars said:

Significant is a relative term.

Many artists are relatively unnoticed until long after they are dead.

Many well known names are not producing anything new, artistic, novel or interesting but they know people and have connections. Dont think every well known name is deserving of the fame.

Also, dont let your work go unnoticed just to be romantic, do what you love and dont worry about what others think, unless they have a valid point to make. Do what you know you need to do and dont allow them to tell you you wont make it.

And "making it" is also pretty relative... lol

Click to expand...

Good point, David. Significant is indeed a relative - and subjective - term. I've spent the past three weeks intensively studying the work of other photographers, past and present. What I've learned is that outside of a few photographers that almost everyone seems to agree are masters, there is considerable disagreement and even discord when it comes to evaluating the "significance" of a body of work.

This was true historically, and it's true now. The f/64 folks like Adams and Weston dismissed the work of the "pictoralists" half a century ago, just as today many working photographers dismiss the more conceptual work that often comes from "fine art photographers" and graduates of MFA programs.

Some people love Eggelston and Shore. Others refer to their work as "mere snapshots". Gursky and Wall may have a lot of fans, but they have just as many critics. And so on.

This is nothing new in the art world, is it?

So David, I think your advice to aspiring artists is right on. Do what you love and what inspires you. Because in the end, that's really what matters. A life of commercial success producing work that isn't one's passion probably isn't very satisfying ultimately.

"Why am I doing this?" is a question I try to remember to ask myself throughout any creative process. I find it helps to keep me close to my purpose.

Chris

Chris, did you get your delivery from Abe books? I'd be fascinated to get your reaction.

There's a bit in Gerry Badger's Genius of Photography where Ansel Adams' work in Yosemite is compared to that of Stephen Shore. If I might paraphrase it, because I don't have the book to hand:

Adams' work is good because it is very expertly done and extremely pretty but some people think it is too idealised and that its drama is overcooked. Also, by unrealistically presenting the landscape as truly wild and unsullied by mankind, it fails to make some of the documentary points that might have been made and (implication here) therefore lacks in depth what it achieves by being pretty. Shore's work is considered by many in the 'art' crowd to be of more value because it does the opposite: it shows the landscape inhabited by humans with their barbecues and their bathing suits. It therefore makes an interpretative point or commentary and many consider that this has value beyond Adams' 'pretty'.

Now, forgive me all for that precis if it is incorrect but assume for the moment that it's about right: I personally find it incredibly useful as a comparison. I grew up longing to be able to print like Adams and longing to visit these beautiful, dramatic places. I had repros of his work hanging on my walls as a student. I did not for one second question whether his work lacked depth. But now, having looked at my own very pretty landscapes on the wall for too long, I have begun to make work that is much less focussed on pretty (which absolutely does not mean I have abandoned my aesthetic!) but is much more interested in getting under the surface of pretty to see what else there is. People have noticed. The people who used to say 'oooh, that's gorgeous' now look politely confused but those who I would estimate have a better trained eye for a wider breadth and depth of art have now started wanting to hang my stuff on their walls in a way they rarely did with pretty. And I enjoy the work much more myself, both to make, to live with and to represent me artistically to others.

I was talking to a friend at the gym the other day. He's an honest type with no artistic pretensions and he has never seen my work but he wanted to know about the most expensive photos ever sold. I told him about the Steichen pond, which might well appeal more to the average pictorialist, and then about the Gursky Toyota/Toys R Us shot. His reaction was in effect, 'I don't get why that's art or has financial value because I could do that myself.'

To me that's a very interesting reaction: not only does it imply that anything he could do himself must therefore have no value, but it also begs the obvious question: 'If that snapshot that just sold for X dollars (where X is a large number!) was so easily done that you could do it yourself, then why don't you? You'd make a fortune very quickly.'

His answer was pretty smart. 'Because I don't know the right people and I couldn't talk fancy about the picture.'

He may have a point.

BTW if you do have that book, I'd love to know what you think of the Chris Killip shot on page 142, Crabs, Skinningrove.

I'd give my right shutter finger to have taken that one!

Best

Tim

Hi Tim,

Nice to hear from you. I did in fact find a copy of both the Genius of Photography and Art & Photography. I enjoyed them both immensely, for different reasons. If I had to choose between the two, I'd say I found "Genius" to be more relevant and useful to the exploration I'm engaged in.

Your paraphrase of Badger's analysis of Adams and Shore is pretty much accurate. Here's a direct quote from page 144, which is Shore's "Merced River, Yosemite National Park" shot:

He has accepted that where nature is, man is also, but that does not prevent him from making his own version of the American Sublime, for if he can find it in a suburban gas station or motel he can surely find it in Yosemite, albeit tinged with gentle irony.

Click to expand...

I definitely have a range of thoughts and feelings about all of this. Truthfully, I am much more drawn to the work of people like Eggelston, Shore, Gursky and Meyerowitz than I am to Weston, Adams and the other "straight" photographers. Most of what is called "street photography" doesn't appeal to me much, and thus I am not a huge fan of Winogrand, Weegee, etc.

On the other hand, even though I am drawn to what has been termed "the snapshot aesthetic" at the same time another part of me mistrusts it like your friend does. I also really don't "get" a lot of the work or understand why it has been identified as "significant" by critics. I happen to really like Shore's "Merced" picture that you mentioned, but I'm equivocal about his picture of the Chevron station in L.A. In that case I had a similar reaction to that of your friend to Gursky's "99 Cent": anyone could make that picture, and the reason it has gotten famous is simply that it was taken by Shore (or Gursky), and that it is part of a larger body of work exploring these themes.

I think your friend hit the nail on the head when you asked him "why don't you go out and make those pictures if anyone could do it"? 1) Because he doesn't know the right people, and 2) because he doesn't know how to speak about the work in the language of critics and MFA instructors. I really do believe that both of those factors are absolutely crucial to the success of many "art photographers" working today. I often see pictures by these photographers that make me wonder if they would have gotten any attention whatsoever had they been produced by other lesser-known photographers. And the opposite is also true; I frequently see pictures on Flickr that completely blow my mind and surpass a lot of what I see in galleries or art books. Commercial success as a fine art photographer has many variables, only one of which is the quality of the work.

I find it somewhat interesting, and perhaps revealing, that the snapshot aesthetic and its modern equivalent - which I would call the "Yale MFA program style", since I see it in so many Yale MFA grads - is often enjoyed mostly by fine art photographers, art students and some and art critics. Most "working" photographers seem to dismiss it, and I imagine a lot of the general public would also find it completely uninteresting. Does that mean it's not valid? Certainly not, but I tend to think that if a work of art has to be "explained" at length to someone in arcane language that they don't relate to for them to "understand" it, then there is perhaps something missing.

I do get that all art through history has contained social, political and religious references that enrich it's meaning, so I'm not referring to that. What I'm referring to is the "self-referential" quality of a lot of modern work I see. I'm reading "On Being a Photographer", by Bill Jay and David Hurn right now. Both of them, as you might guess, are quite critical of this type of photography. Hurn says:

The fact is that all photographs, even the most prosaic records of things, are subjective. They are made as a result of various decisions arising out of the mind of an individual. So inevitably that self will intrude on the picture-making process. It would be impossible to keep it out. But it is not the primary aim of the images. A unique style, which is what we are talking about, is the by-product of visual exploration, not its goal. Personal vision comes only from not aiming at it.

In today's art-photography environment anyone who asserts the prime importance of subject matter will automatically produce distinctive, different images!

Click to expand...

Another question I often ask myself when looking at a picture is "what would someone think of this in 100 years? Would they find anything redeeming about it? Would it interest them?" I think that a lot of the work that is highly conceptual in nature, and in line with the "current trends" in the art world will quickly be forgotten because it doesn't contain any of the elements that make an enduring work.

Sorry if this is a bit incoherent. I have a lot of thoughts and questions about this and I'm having a hard time organizing them clearly. In any event, I'm enjoying the discussion!

P.S. To be frank, I didn't spend much time looking at Killip's "Crabs" before you mentioned it. I am appreciating it more now after studying it more carefully. And perhaps that's another discussion!

As an addendum to my previous post, I should mention that I am still very much on the fence about most of this. I haven't been exploring these questions for long, and I want to give myself permission to "not know" and the freedom to change my mind as often as I wish!

If one were to look at the work I've produced over the two years I've been making pictures, they would probably conclude that my sympathies and interests lie much closer to the "pictoralists" and contemporary color photographers than they do to the classic masters of straight landscape and street photography. And they'd be right. Certainly my recent series, Choice, is highly conceptual and could be subject to all of the criticism I levied against conceptual photography/art in my last post. My latest work, Birds on Wires, is also likely to have a very narrow appeal and could certainly elicit comments like "I could do that".

Yet, for better or for worse, this seems to be the type of work that inspires me. For now, at least.

If you protest that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth... I wouldn't argue with you. I can't figure it out myself.

Chris and Tim

This is a great conversation and there are themes in your discussion that echo my current learnings.

Tim, I resonated with your comment about landscape work. I too have work that people like, but which contains little evidence of man's influence - in spite of the fact that the landscape was formed by our actions over time. Whilst I still enjoy the work and making some of these pictures, I have become much more captivated by the life that goes on around me, by the processes of aging and decay and all sorts of other ideas as well. Yet when people see some of this work they often 'don't get it'.

I have been encouraged by this forum and also a friend who is an architect and whose reaction to my more recent work is positive. One warning he sounded - echoing something Asher said - is that there is value in the work and if I exhibit I should offer for sale. To do otherwise becomes too self indulgent (my words).

Like you Chris, I have many thoughts going on and am still finding a voice - I wondered about doing a solo exhibitoin using about 3 different names for the works authors...

Here is a picture that I took last year that remains precious to me - though maybe not great art! My 5 year old simply abandoned her bike in the path by our front door at the end of a day's play, and the total lack of regard for anything but the moment made me smile. This perhaps started a journey which continues.

Mike

Picture added again

Picture added again to overcome Flickr's limits and at Asher's request!

Mike