man & nature # 101 ~ the most influential photog of the 20th century (who never made a photograph)
Monday, March 2, 2009 at 10:06AM 
Horse corral at dusk • click to embiggenThere was an interesting article in the Arts&LEISURE section of yesterday's (Sunday) edition of the NY Times. The title was Images Separated At Birth?
The article was an overview of a show (and its premise), EDWARD HOPPER & COMPANY at the Fraenkel Gallery in San Francisco (5 March - 2 May). Unfortunately, it seems that the article is not online so I'll provide a brief synopsis.
The exhibit presents 10 painting by Edward Hopper side-by-side with prints by 8 prominent photographers - Robert Adams, Diane Arbus, Harry Callahan, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, William Eggelston, and Walker Evans - under the premise that Hopper's painting were very influential on modern photography. Hence the idea that he "could claim to be the most influential American photographer of the 20th century - even though he didn't take any photographs" (from the British author, Geoff Dyer).
What the exhibit explores is "What we see in Hopper's paintings when we look at them through the lens of photography, and how, in turn, the language of photography was influenced by Hopper's work." The exhibit currator, Jeffery Frankel, writes in his introduction:
More than almost any American Artist, Hopper has a pervasice impact on the way we see the world - so pervasive as to be almost invisible. The photographs that follow are potent evidence of his legacy, each a revelation of how medium one might point to unimagined new possibilities for another.
I find this to be very interesting stuff, in part because Hopper and all of the 8 photographers have certainly had an influence on my picturing aesthetic. While not all the photographers express any direct association with Hopper's work, a few - especially Shore and Adams - openly admit to a deep respect and appreciation of his work. Not so much the visual specifics of his paintings (although both mention his use of light) but rather the aesthetic sensibilities thereof. This from Robert Adams:
A painter like Hopper is so powerful because his scenes are so nameless and commonplace that we tend to find them boring and dismiss them in our own lives but Hopper brings us back to them. (my emphasis)
Hmmmm ... nameless and commonplace = boring ... where have I heard that before. Wait ... let me think ... oh yeh, that's right, I've heard it about 7 gazillion times from the pretty picture crowd. Not only regarding my own pictures but about just about every mid-late 20th century Artist who uses a camera/photography.
Now, I'll admit the obvious here - I have railed against the work of the pretty picture crowd for quite some time - many might say up to and beyond the point of ad nauseum. But, I have always stopped short (by the skin of my teeth) of outright attacks upon the pretty picture makers themselves. However, once again admitting the rather obvious, an attack upon one's art is most likely to be considered an attack upon the values and sensibilities of the artist him/herself.
It should be noted, however, that I detest the sin, not the sinner. To paraphrase a common adage - many of my friends are sinners. And I am operating under no delusions here - I am certain that many who consider me a friend (or at least a friendly person) also consider me to be a sinner.
That said, here is, IMO, the thing about the pretty picture aesthetic that I find to be so utterly lacking -
For quite a long time, dating back to at least Hopper (painting) and Evans (photography), Artists have been addressing the "nameless and commonplace" as opposed to, let's say, the "grand and glorious". I can't not speak to individual cases as to why this is so but I do like, as a general consideration, the idea that they were/are trying to "bring us back to them" as a counterpoint to the uniquely American cultural obsession and glorification of the individual / individuality and as a warning to the inevitable and deleterious result of that particular fetish.
To wit: an obsession that has, ironically, led to a profound and nearly universal sense of loss of individual identity, or, at the very least, a sense of loss of personal individual worth that has escalated along with the cultural obsession and glorification of only those "individuals" who are "grand and glorious".
Simply put, the "nameless and commonplace" man/woman, and by extension, the nameless and commonplace event, place, thing, et al, have come to be considered "boring" and therefore "dismissed" in our own lives which ultimately results in concomitant feelings (because, after all and point in fact, there's no denying that most of us are rather "nameless and commonplace") of alienation, isolation, and loneliness that so many of us experience. Feelings that were Hopper's operative stock and trade.
Hopper's work gave voice to those feelings and, whether you believe that the work of others (in this exhibit's case, photographers) were influenced by his work or that they were/are just expressing / giving voice to their own culture-influenced feelings of alienation, isolation, and loneliness, IMO, what they were/are doing is tapping into a pervasive and prevalent cultural paradigm the pretty picture crowd chooses to, at best, ignore, or at worst, deny.
IMO, as a nation, we have totally lost sight of the "nameless and commonplace". We are a culture that has devolved into various cults of the "grand and glorious". As a culture, we worship and revel at the altar of the "grand and glorious" in just about any part of life you care to mention - sports, politics, economics, et al. Our America motto is no longer E Pluribus Unum but rather Nothing exceeds like excess.
I can't and won't be a part of it. And, I certainly won't be a part of it with my picturing.
I can't not state strongly enough that I believe we are in the fine mess that we currently find ourselves in precisely because, for generations - we did not get here overnight, we have ignored, dismissed, and denied the value and lessons that can be derived from an appreciation of the "nameless and commonplace" in all walks of life.
If we continue to ignore, dismiss, and deny it, we do so at our peril.
All of that said, I am curious - would anyone care to share who (and why) has influenced your picturing?
Reader Comments (11)
Great post, Mark. Couldn't agree with you more. Of course, if everyone felt like this, the entire "self-help" industry would collapse and, let's face it, in these difficult economic times, well, that would just add to the tragedy, wouldn't it?
As for influences, it's probably pretty obvious, but: Hopper (love at first sight), Meyerowitz, Shore, Eggleston, Friedlander, Polidori (O.K., that one might not be so obvious, but...).
On further reflection, regarding influences, I'm not sure that, at least in my case, that's quite the right word. I like and respond to the work of those photographers, but I think that that may be because they see things in a way similar to mine. That is, I've never consciously modelled my photographs on their work. I photograph the way I do because I really don't think I could do it any other way.
Interesting stuff. I keep almost getting Shore, or Eggleston or Frank then finding it drifting away again.
Main influences? Keith Carter, Mapplethorpe, Ed Ruscha, Kasimir Malevich, Uta Barth
My first encounter with the work of Raymond Moore resulted in a profound change to my photography. At a time when I felt stalled creatively (taking pretty pictures and starting to wonder why!), his photographs of very ordinary things and places changed my vision.
Many other photographers and artists have influenced me since, but the most pivotal moment was seeing Moore's work.
Paying attention to the commonplace is merely looking at what's around you with a bit of concentration. A good exercise and one which should be practiced often.
Nice post!
The NY Times article is online here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/arts/design/01fink.html?_r=1&ref=arts
Initially I thought your question would be an easy one to answer, but the more I think about it the less I am able to identify a direct and clear influence.
I am a self thaught musician that later became a self thaught photographer. I guess that might have something to do with it. I tend to just improvise my way around and as such am more inspired than influenced. David Hurn and Bill Jay is probably the two most influential persons as I regard their book "On Being a Photographer" as my photographic bible. In general I do documentary photography more than art photography. Unlike music I find the abstract qualities of photography very poor, thus regard photography as snaps from the life of... As such interresting photography comes from people living interresting lives.
From the above I might conclude that Eggleston might just be my biggest influence. Why? He, like few before him, published work that might be defined as metaphotography: Photographs that say something about the art and craft of photography itself. Photography is first and foremost a tool to document things visually, and second, what ultimately makes it interresting for the viewer is in the mind of the viewer, not the photographer.
There is also a Cezanne show at the Philadelphia Art museum now which shows his influence on later artists. The show includes a Jeff Wall photo, who cites Cezanne as a big influence.
"Separated At Birth," indeed.
Not to mention the nocturnal element in a lot of Hopper's works (see "Nighthawks" - http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/nighthawks/index.html).
In the first few sessions of my Night Photography classes, I like to slip in a Hopper book (along with monographs by Brandt, Stieglitz, Brassai, et al.) explaining that "Hopper is a my favorite Night Photographer - who didn't use a camera!"
I am currently finding inspiration in a few photographers: George Tice, John Pfahl, and Sam Javanrouh [daily dose of imagery]
Thanks for the link the show at the Fraenkel Gallery. I will definitely go see it.
I was going to add the parallels between Hopper's nocturnal work, and night photography, but Tim Baskerville beat me to it.