decay # 9 ~ 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch'
Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 11:27AM 
Broccoli and ketchup • click to embiggenOn yesterday's entry Tom Frost, playing the devil's advocate, asked; "Just to play the devil's advocate, how can I tell that it is different from sticking your camera randomly into a ditch?" He also stated; "FYI, most of what's in it is knapweed, one of the scourges introduced from Eurasia." A good question and a good observation.
Let me address the 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch' issue first. That comment is one that is leveled at much contemporary (and decidedly Postmodern) Fine Art photography, not just mine. The derisively intended slur most often comes from photographers who come the Modernist tradition - photography made by following / applying the 'classic' rules of photography, most notably (and obliviously) those of composition.
As an example, it has been opined that Modernist American landscape photography was taken to it formal conclusion by Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. Their photography, which dazzles and seduces with technical and sensual qualities that aesthetically idealize the landscape, has been described as 'self-consciously photographic' and that it 'self-assuredly declares itself as art.'
Translation - those guys worked their butts off (with malice of forethought aplenty) applying all of the traditional techniques of the medium - dramatic light, dramatic subjects, maximum dynamic range, smooth, sensuous, almost 'liquid' tonality, 'tight and clean' composition, maximum depth of field, etc. - to create prints of incomparable technical and aesthetic beauty that were obviously intended to be 'art'. Additionally, the hand of the maker is all over their photography - their is no mistaking an Ansel Adams' print. One could justifiably state that, with his prints, Adams drew as much attention (or more) to himself as he did to his subjects.
The postmodern photographer eschews virtually all of the above. In fact, postmodern photography openly questions and blatantly defies all of the above. Much postmodern photography exhibits the so-called 'deadpan' look - a cold, clinical, art-less gaze that could also be described as, in the case of The Best ku Ever, 'sticking your camera randomly into a ditch' because the hand of the maker is not everywhere evident in the guise of self-consciously applied 'technical and sensual qualities'.
However, it must be said, that most postmodern photography, despite its appearance, is anything but 'random' or thoughtlessly composed. Most of it very deliberately created with the intentionality of creating the impression of 'random'.
Why? Speaking for myself (working in the postmodern world), part of the conceptuality and intentionality of my photography is to question the very act of observing - what does it mean to actually 'see' or 'observe'? When going about one's daily life, no one 'sees' or 'observes' according the classic rules of the 2-dimensional art world, so why must Art be so directed? If a photograph is not so directed, can it still be Art?
And ultimately, my photographs are intended, by the very intrinsic nature of their 'random' look, to question the idea of what is Art? Is there such a thing as a 'proper' subject for Art? Is there a 'proper' way to make Art?
So, with all of that in mind, and in answer to your question, I would say that the more you know, the more you can know - if one sets out to know more about the history, movements, theories, and practices of the art world in general (and photography in particular), the more one can know about any particular piece of Art and the less apt one might be to ask if someone is 'sticking their camera randomly into a ditch'.
On the subject of knapweed - Many of my Adirondack photographs exhibit evidence of invasive species. While this is not always deliberate, it is, unfortunately, not always avoidable. But, in fact, I use that as part of my postmodern approach. As I mentioned in yesterday's entry, I make photographs that 'present plain facts (none of that 'aesthetically idealizing the landscape' modernism for me) using metaphor, allegory, and hints of something bigger'. I should have also included the use of irony, because, while many of my photographs could be said to picture nature's beauty (which they do), they can also be read to understand the ugly side of the hand of man.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Eric Fredine wrote; "I'm uncomfortable with your neat division of photography in to 'modern' and 'post-modern'. It just isn't that simple. Was Walker Evans modern or post-modern? How about Diane Arbus? Robert Frank? Adams, Weston and the f64 group just represented one narrow strand of photography - among many."
my response: Despite my simplification of the notions of modern / postmodern, most Art produced since around 1885 to the present can be considered to fall into one school or the other. However, that is not to say that any particular artist or work of art is 'purely' of one school or the other. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), Art (or life) is rarely that clean-cut.
decay
Reader Comments (4)
I've always struggled to find a way to explain to people why a photograph like 'The Best Ku Ever' is a considered, deliberate act. People either tend to see it or not. Once you 'get it', it seems obvious. It takes some effort or perhaps some 'unlearning' to get there sometimes - but lots of things are like that in life. So I applaud your effort to explain.
But, I'm uncomfortable with your neat division of photography in to 'modern' and 'post-modern'. It just isn't that simple. Was Walker Evans modern or post-modern? How about Diane Arbus? Robert Frank? Adams, Weston and the f64 group just represented one narrow strand of photography - among many.
Bunch of short, interesting essays on photography (and other trends in art) here: MET thematic essays.
Cheers,
Eric
Since you bring him up, how about many (not all) of Weston's late Point Lobos landscapes? The ones in which he has a field of 'artlessly' arranged snags, boulders, and succulents? To my mind they are among the masterpieces of photography.
The trouble comes when people with a less strong or realized vision attempt artless arrangements, as they often end up exactly that. And there is lots of that out there.
I certainly don't want you to think I am criticzing your work or site, as it is the first one I visit every night when I get home.
Fortunately, I'd say.
I get the 'gist' of what you're saying and agree with it.
The beauty of photography to me is that intentionality is always present. Even the most earnest attempt to be as 'dead-pan' as possible is in itself a very conscious and deliberate decision.
Tom - absolutely no offense taken - as I wrote, very good question / point
Eric - 'zakly