ku # 471
Friday, April 13, 2007 at 09:38AM 
West Branch Au Sable River • click to embiggenAnother picture from last evening's target-rich environmant.
A tip o' the hat to Paul Butzi and his photomusings blog for referencing my urban ku # 49 and suggesting that those who indulge in a 'new' post-postmoderism kind of photography be labeled New Landscapists. Sounds good, especially since a 'landscape' need not be of the traditional kind - it also be a 'landscape' of the mind, ala Aaron's Cinemascapes.
But, that said, the problem still remains (from an excerpt found on Tim Atherton's photo-muse) - "She was doing her best to suppress her irritation — defending contemporary art photography from the longstanding “style over substance” charge was an awful chore .... She had felt skeptical of much of what had happened on the photography scene in the past few years, particularly the return of expressions and attitudes from before the postmodernist breakthrough; her old nagging doubts about whether photography could be considered a critical (and not simply decorative) medium were coming back..."
IMO, the answer to the 'nagging doubts' reside in the notion of photography as a 'critical medium'. A return to pretty pictures just isn't going to cut it. Like it or not, photographers are going to have to think a lot more - think about 'concept' within the bounds of what-do-my-pictures-say-not-only-about-my-referent-but-also-about-picture-making-in-a-picture-saturated-culture. And, oh yeh, don't forget about the social/political and economic cultures.
No more, 'I-don't-know-why-I-do-it' statements. Time to figure it out, gang. Time to put much more time into the dreaded and oft-maligned artist statement. Time to think critically, as in dictionary definition #3 - ...involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.. - about why and what you're doing photography-wise.
That said, and on the basis of my 'it's-not-what/how a-picture-is-created-it's-who-created-it' premise, if you don't live a life based on critical thought, your photography will be ever assigned to the ubiquitous dust bin of the merely decorative.
Comments please.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Bret Kosmider wrote; "Clearly there's some pushback on the tough-love "get with it, people" insistance on thinking more critically of one's work..."
my response: I asked for it...I got it. And, much thanks to all who commented.
This is exactly the type of 'push back' I enjoy - it is great fodder for thoughtful discussion, but, note to all, while many of my opinions may be profferred with emphatic emphasis, they are opinions and, as such, they are meant to incite critical thought and resultant 'push back'.
It is through the exchange of thoughtful ideas and opinions, that I temper, modify, solidify or even abandon some of the tenants of my 'religion', photography-wise.
That said, I will be responding to many of the good points and questions raised on this topic. In fact, I'll post one later (within an hour or so) in order to leave you all with something to chew on while I and the limelight-grabbing boy are away in Pittsburgh for tomorrow's Penguin playoff game.
Reader Comments (7)
"if you don't live a life based on critical thought, your photography will be ever assigned to the ubiquitous dust bin of the merely decorative."
That I have to disagree with. I think it's good to engage in citical thought and it's a really productive thing to do BUT it's not the only way to get there. Some people do their thinking in the back of their heads; they may have really important things to say but maybe it's all happening subconsciously. And then there's a whole body of photography that was not made with any critical or artistic intent and that after the fact turns out to be really important to a discourse that takes place in the future. Etc..
I agree, in part, both with Ana and with Mark. There is a definite subconscious element to being a fine-art photographer (at least in my experiences), and over thinking the "why" may interfere with the creative process. On the other hand, if we cannot communicate our purpose or thought processes to the public, how can we expect them to take our work seriously.
In my case, I definitely need to think a bit more about my work as Mark suggested, but my main efforts need to be about how to better communicate my message to the public. That's gotta start with the artist's statement, which is, IMHO, one of the most difficult things to write.
Chuck
Mark,
I should give the 'take no offense' disclaimer up front on this one, but, really take no offense when I say that Ku #471, 470, 469, 468 (and a many other Ku) fall quite squarely into your "pretty picture" definition. At least for me, I do not readily see the message you are trying to convey - if there is one, it is lost on me because I am admiring the beauty of the photographs. Perhaps I could glean that meaning out of your artist statement but there's nothing compelling me to read it since I just assume that they are "pretty pictures" and nothing more.
And I think that is the case for many photographers - unless the message jumps right out (or is subtle and forces the viewer to be inquisitive) and is readily decoded by the viewer it's either a "pretty picture" or nothing. Assuming the viewer will read the artist statement is a quaint idea, but really we're photographers here! Shouldn't the burden of conveying the message be put on the photograph - not the artist statement? I can justify snapshots of my dog taking a crap on the front lawn as some sort of social commentary through a well written artist statement, but without reading that statement the viewer may just assume they are funny pics of a yellow lab relieving itself.
I'm not buying it, or maybe I'm demanding more than the crutch of an artist statement. If you want a photograph to convey meaning as a prerequisite for inclusion into the contemporary art scene then I think that meaning needs to come through in the photograph.
This raises a few questions (some tired and old):
1. Can beauty and critical message coexist in a photograph on equal terms or is one always going to overpower the other?
2. Can a photographer pursue both "pretty pictures" and critical photography at the same time? In different projects perhaps? And still be taken seriously in the fine art world?
I'm currently trying to tackle #2 in my own work - I'm developing a parallel project to my "pretty pictures" (I know that, I accept that, I'm OK with that) that is critical of the way humankind has used (and abused) the land where I live (Great Lakes region, aka "The Rust Belt"). I see it as a totally separate project that may get exhibition attention but not the volume of sales I would in the "pretty pictures" department. I know far more people who would like to hang a beautiful black and white coastal scene over their fireplace than a color documentary-style picture of a coal-fired power plant. Which raises an entirely differnt moral quagmire of commodity vs. art.
I would love to live on the photographs I would potentially sell from an "activist" or critical project but I just dont see it happening. Even a book containing said photographs would not be a way to pay the rent. So in a way the "pretty pictures" (which I still enjoy making) are subsidizing my critical work. I have no qualms with that.
Brett Kosmider
Minneapolis, MN
For me it's being true to my own creative vision and following my heart rather than trying to second guess critics who may or may not like my work,
Gary
Why is it that the central core of the post-modernist gobble-de-gook (or post-post-modernist, if you prefer) is that if you make photographs that are considered "pretty" or depict an "idealized form", you are not, by definition, "thinking"? If all of your work is not a horribly obvious metaphor for how bad the human condition currently is, then somehow you "don't get it". Everything you do is simply "decorative". Isn't that just a little arrogant? Well, OK, isn't it a lot arrogant?
Who made these folks the arbiters of what constitutes "critical thought" when it comes to making photographs? Do they believe that people like John Sexton, David Muench, or the late Galen Rowell never had a critical thought about the images they created? Am I supposed to be more enlightened somehow if I look at an image of the side of a tractor trailer than if I find myself drawn to an image of the Sierra Nevada at dawn? They make it sound downright sinful!
Do they believe that they alone understand that humanity is not doing very well these days? Well, I have a "flash" for them - humanity has never done very well. There's just a whole lot more people not doing very well these days than there was a century or two ago. Is that a good reason for anyone's photography to spiral down into expressions of hopelessness? If that's what seems right for them, then fine. But don't tell me that I "don't get it" just because I don't want to follow along.
I thought briefly that Mark was starting to really "get it" when he moved from a black and white view of things to a more moderate "gray" view. Guess that was wishful thinking.
All right, Mark. Time to get down to nuts and bolts! Descend from the heights of critical philosophy for a minute and talk about your artist's statement(s). You've had the same one for a while now. Has it changed? Has the work changed? These things change over time and it's not that the old statements become invalid, but as the work gets reexamined new ones need to be generated. How about urban ku? Any glimmers of a statement? Spill the beans, man.
Mark,
Clearly there's some pushback on the tough-love "get with it, people" insistance on thinking more critically of one's work. Despite what it may sound like, I do see your point, but maybe its just not for everyone. Maybe that approach is appropriate for an aspiring photographer with the goal of an exhibition at MoMA or MOCP. I don't see my "pretty pictures" hanging in any museum under the banner of contemporary art, ever. I DO see my work, someday, being represented by fine art galleries around the world and I approach it differently than if I was aiming for an exhibition at The Getty.
Brett Kosmider
Minneapolis, MN