urban ku # 47 - why I'm a postmodernist (sort of)
Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 07:49AM 
Vac • click to embiggen"I'm no art historian, Bret Kosmider wrote here recently, but I am aware of Straight photography (Ansel and the boys) as a direct response to Pictorialism. Pictorialism died away in the 19-teens replaced by Modernism. There's some debate as to where postmodernism fits into this ...
For those who are interested in such things, it's an interesting idea.
For those who are a bit confused by such matters, it's a change to learn something. So, first a couple very brief definitions (both of which are topics for never-ending discussion and debate):
Modernism - the 'modern' dates from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment with the emergence of and emphasis on rationality, technical progress and the explanatory power of emperical sciences - the basic hallmarks of Western thought and culture. In Landscape Photography, think of Ansel Adams as a consumate moderist.
Postmodernism - literally 'after the modern'. In Art terms, that means just about anything that challenges modern concepts and concerns. Think William Eggleston as a consumate postmodernist.
To further simplify photography-wise, modernist photography adheres to 'rules' and concentrats on 'grand-theme' subject matter. Postmodernist photography rejects the 'rules' and concentrats on 'banal' subject matter. Modern photography is filled with evident warm 'passion', postmodern photography is said to be 'dispassionate' and 'cold'.
Now, to be certain, there was, and is, lots of cross-pollination between the movements. Like life, it's a messy world out there.
All of that said, here's my point. I consider myself to be a somewhat messy, cross-pollinated postmodernist because (a few highlights) -
My photography stands in direct and deliberate contrast to modernist Ansel-Adams-ish landscape photography - I have deliberately rejected his 'grand-landscape' theme in my photographic pursuit of the everyday (considered banal by many). Photo-modernists overwhelmingly reject the pursuit of the 'everyday' under the oft-mentioned banner of 'who cares?', 'so what?', and, 'you can't just take a picture of 'anything''.
My much-questioned and oft-maligned corner vignetting is a very deliberate rejection of the photo-modernist pursuit of technical 'pefection'. Sure, I use the most modern of tools, but I thoroughly reject the notion of 'salvation' throught the pursuit of 'scientific' perfectionism. I obviously haven't spent enough time with lens-comparo charts. Anyone know what the 'best' aperture is on my Zuiko 11-22mm lens is?
My photographs are very often reffered to as 'accidents' by adherents of the modernist photographic tradition - surely, the camera was activated by 'accident' since the subject itself is not worthy of consideration and the 'composition' is so utterly random. Haven't I ever heard about the Rule of Thirds?
And, of course, adherents of photo-modernist photography most often find my photographs to be deviod of 'meaning', at least that's what I infer from the endless stream of 'what's-this-photograph-suppose-to be-about-anyways?' comments which my photographs elicit from them. What am I trying to 'say' anyhow?
So why am I bothering you with all of this personal drivel? Consider this.
All of the preceeding 'becauses' about my pictures can be synopsized in the most prevalent criticism leveled at postmodern photography - that it's all a silly, self-absorbed opposition-for-opposition-sake reaction to modernism. Re-active rather than pro-active. You know, being against something without knowing what you stand for. Little more than affecting the mantle of the 'enfant terrible'.
Bunk.
For some photo-postmodernists, I'm certain that is the case but you can't ignore the fact that postmodernism did not erupt in a culture-vacuum. It was, and continues to be, the honest product of a segement of the culture that, at the very least, questions the perceived foundations/wisdoms of the prevailing paradigm - societal, political, art and otherwise.
It's no mystery to me that photo-postmodernism emerged to prominence on to the world scene in the 70s. You know, right after the bomb nihilism of the 50s, the cultural unrest of 60s and the political mess of the 70s - the duck-and-cover, burn your bra and the flag era.
I lived through that time. While some jumped onto the Peace Train for the party and the free ride, many (a distinct minority of the baby boom, baby generation) did not. They (include me in) were profoundly effected, and continue to be, by the times and the questions. While they may have not known precisely what they stood for, they knew what they stood against. They and their heirs and descendents continue to this day to pursue, in all walks of life, the self-knowledge of what they stand for.
The Arts are no exception. Photography, as the most modern of arts, has been very instrumental in this pursuit. If you will, call it 'postmodern' in its current state. Everything has to have a name, right? But, in my mind, it's just another round in the Culture Wars.
So, when I hear the accusation that, with my photography, I am just being-different-to-be-different (sorta postmodernist), I am tempted to respond, "F**kin' A, man. Bummer. You're stepping on my trip, man. Chill out and free your mind. This is heavy s**t, dude."
Reader Comments (2)
Hi Mark,
nice self analysis... I would guess that most of the reaction by photo-modernists to your style is pure knee-jerk, especially the much-questioned and oft-maligned corner vignetting. I know I had a knee-jerk reaction against it when you first started using it; however it only took a couple of months to see that it offered something that I had not seen before in nature photography. As for technical perfection, this again is just a problem people have with breaking the 'rules'. When I look at, for example ku#27, at least on my monitor (can't wait to get the book) the capture of the nuances of light appears technically perfext.
I am less sure about the banalness of your subject matter, I have never seen it as a rejection of modernism thing, to me it is just that you see the beauty of being in whatever landscape you are in, where as the problem that I see many photo-modernists currently having is simply that they have no vision. However I am prepared to accept that maybe I am just out there a bit on this; am I the only one who enjoys for example abstract painting because it is visually aesthetically pleasing to me?
If you ignore the subject matter part of it, to me part of the photo-modernist approach in landscape photography is to capture the scene as it looks before it gets to the lens/film/print stage. This has been corrupted somewhat by the grandness theme; for example the rise of velvia. Again ignoring the subject matter part of it, to me much of the post-modern photography I see captures the scene as it appears once it has been processed by the lens/film/print; in a way it recognizes that a photograph of a scene is just a photograph of a scene; that is to say the scene/subject is not the photograph (whatever that means...).
Again ignoring the subject matter part of it, the work being currently done by photographers that I find fascinating all captures the scene as it looks after it has been processed by the eye/brain. The out-of-focus/vignetted corners in your work actually represent what our brains see (at least early in the visual pathway) much better than the modernist approach; we simply cannot see any detail in stuff which is not in our direct, narrow field of view. Memory also plays a big part in how we process what we see, again your work captures this.
From what I have read of Jeff Wall's work (and I have not had the opportunity to see it), the process that he uses to create it is akin to capturing the scene from memory on film, in essence memory is part of the capture process. Another example that I have seen is the work of Kelli Connell http://www.kelliconnell.com/ , recreating scenes from memory (with a twist).
In this sense I feel that some photography is starting to move on from post-modernism, to what I do not know (post-post-modernism? Since we are not there yet maybe we should call it pre-post-post-modernism...), but I do not really have a great argument as to why it is not post-modernism, except that to me it does somehow appear significantly different.
cheers
Ian
I’m not so sure that the issue lies within the labels of Modernism vs. Postmodernism but that the issue is the labels themselves! I agree with Mark, go out and shoot more, do your own thang, make your own art – let the critics critique.
But on the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice to understand why we make art, and what subconsciously motivates our art? My naive voyage into the depths of art criticism – specifically photography criticism – is to learn more about my art. Besides communicating a mood or emotion I don’t really know why I do what I do, it just looks good to me, I enjoy the process and where it takes me, but by understanding my art as the art world might see it I hope to take it to a higher level.
I create art for a few different reasons but one of them is for people to hang it on their wall to enjoy for a lifetime. As another photographer said to me recently, “so they can ‘live’ with it”. I won’t cut down any kind of photography anyone else is producing out there - there are so many different flavors of good art, and there are equally a myriad of different ways to view the world. And that’s all good. But, I don’t think I could hang a 40 x 60 Gregory Crewdson, Paul Shambroom or an Anthony Goicolea in my house – I just don’t see those works belonging there. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate contemporary pomo photography, some of it I love, but the desire to create art, for me, is different and I think that is what defines and individual artist’s categorization.
On the other hand, if I see another Ansel Adams poster (in a cheap shopping mall metal frame) hanging on a wall I am going to scream (an original, I might be a bit more receptive to, but please a nice frame would be appropriate). The AA, St. Ansel thing seemed to have its zenith when I was 22. I still respect what he did, and why he made the photographs he did, but personally my aesthetic has moved beyond that.
Most of what I learned (so far) about art criticism has come from the net, most notably Wikipedia and Artnet. I haven’t had the time to even look for a good book on the topic, let alone find the time to sit down and read! A four month old will do that to you! Any suggested reading?
I was wrong to say Modernism died in and around the 19-teens, and that’s where the debate comes in that Mark mentioned. The common belief, though, is that Modernism and Postmodernism are both alive and well and living side by side in the contemporary art scene. Another thought is that both are dead and we’re in a completely different age of art, as yet unnamed.
I’m a fan of grand themes (Modernism). I’m not a fan of rules (Postmodernism). It’s debatable that my photographs have meaning; in all honesty I do not consciously go out to convey some deep philosophical message or social commentary (Modernism). So where does that leave me? This is the whole reason why I am exploring these definitions within the photography world. At the same time that I am peeling away the layers of this onion of self exploration and art criticism I am saying to myself, “Who cares, just go out and do what you do!”
(And for the record, at this moment in time I’d say I’m more of a Modernist with Postmodern tendencies. Is that possible?)