| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. realism may cause boredom
Asked by kirk kennelly
(K=45) on 4/3/1999
|
Cartier-bresson employed surrealist tactics to make interesting images. Photographs consistently frame out context that could be usual like a boy playing with a ball watching it up in the air and he leaves the ball out of the image and doesn't even mention anything about the photo except what city it was taken. Ansel Adams on the other hand took many beautiful photographs of conventional subject matter IN CONTEXT and aptly labeled as to who what when and where. Surrealist photography = interesting photography/ and realist photography = banal and expected photography. I think of Weston's photograph (s) of green peppers and how they seem out of context with light revealing strange pattterns in the folds becoming no longer expected and real but surreal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 4/3/1999
|
The success of Adams and others like him is realized when someone assumes that the subject matter of the print conveys the scene in a realistic way. In fact, Adams rarely created literal depictions, but an interpretation of what he saw and felt at the time of exposure. The viewer, rather than waste time thinking about "effect" simply accepts the image as natural and spends his/her time actually enjoying the photograph in front of them. What you may call "surreal and interesting" by others may be call "gimmicky and boring", likewise the reverse with your "expected/boring" comment.
But thanks for defining photography for all of us anyway :)
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
Surrealism, as a movement in art, (especially is terms of painting and photography) is concerned with the perspective of the subconcious mind. Man Ray was a surrealist (as was Salvador Dali) Henri Cartier- Bresson was emphatically not a surrealist. HCB's images are quite realistic...he worked for many years as a photojournalist for the Magnum Agency. Cartier-Bresson was interested in depicting the drama and beauty present in every day life...his uncanny "nose" for the unfolding scene, his sense of timing (decisive moment), and his rigidly controlled perspective (cropping in the printing stage) all contributed to an amazing "signature" style. Comparing landscape photographers to photojournalists is an exercise in futility...and while I agree that Adams was more a craftsman in the darkroom than an artist with the camera...I don't agree with your basic premise. If you find Adams work banal, that's fine (although St. Ansels disciples are many in number and fervent in their devotion) but that does not mean that ALL landscape photography is banal (or boring) check out the work of Minor White, Eliot Porter, and many many others. What may prove more enlightening is to check out the work of W. Eugene Smith, Ernst Haas, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Bruce Davidson, et al. I suspect that your tastes may run more to gritty urban street reportage than to landscape.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
Kirk, we've been through this before, especially the opposition HCB - Adams. See e.g. the thread 'How much damage..' or 'Art vs. Craft'. Interesting to see how people can get hysteric when someone dares to hint at the relative importance of Adams' work in an artistic sense. I loathe the Adams hype in the States myself, but he certainly was (interested in and) excellent in TONAL SCALE - especially given the emulsion technology in his days. His 'departures from reality' as he calls it himself are just adjustments to lighten up certain details that were important to him and to reach a certain aesthetic effect. I see that as craftmanship and not as art. HCB was interested in and excellent in THE DECISIVE MOMENT. And he was certainly inspired by surrealism and praised by surrealist artists, Howard.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
Lot, I didn't say that HCB wasn't appreciated by surrealists, or that he didn't draw inspiration from them (surrealisme was originally a French artistic movement afterall) but it is quite a stretch from that to, "surrealist photography=interesting photography/and realist photography=banal and expected photography" with HCB as the prime example. The highly individual/personal perspective of HCB's signature style would obviously appeal to and contain elements of similarity to an artistic movement that was concerned with showing the perspective of the subconcious mind....but in all fairness, there were no solarizations, no added viola soundholes to the asses of HCB's females, no stark mask/face comparisons, no melting clocks, no slashed eyeballs....don't get me wrong...I love the work of the surrealists (especially Man Ray) and I don't deny that some of HCB's images have the power to evoke a subconcious familiarity with scenes we have not seen before....but HCB's work was emphatically realistic (he never added an element to any of his images) The apparent surrealism is more a testament to HCB's ability to appeal to the viewer on more than one level...than it is to any real surrealistic component in his work, people DO jump over puddles behind railway stations.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
As a matter of fact, HC-B considered him self a surrealist. Early in his career he was persuaded by another artist not to identify himself as such because it would limit his sphere of influence. But he was very much a surrealist, and consciously so. If you need the reference on this I think I can dig his statement out for you. I read it either in one of his books or in a magazine article about him some years ago.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
I should state, by the way, that I emphatically do not agree with Kirk's main thesis, which I understand to be that realistic photography is boring. The slogan I use in my professional photography business is "The Power of Reality."
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 4/4/1999
|
Lot you really should base your opinions on facts rather than ignorance; saying that Adams did nothing more than make slight adjustments to the levels of contrast is very laughable. Like his work or not, this is just such a far reach from reality in regards to his level of craftsmanship.
I would also like to know how Kirk, in his original question, can equate "beautiful" with "boring". He says that Adams made many beautiful photographs, and yet says at the same time that they are boring? Is this possible?
And no, just because I appreciate and admire the work of Adams, it does not make me a disciple, which is nothing more than a catch all phrase used by Anti-Adams zealots who can find no justification for their views other than the massaging of their own egos.
All who are pissed off please raise their hands. Thank you! :)
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
Dave, I would like to know the source of that HCB information....I have read much about him and been an admirer of his for many years, and while I know that he was always active in artists circles...I was not aware that he considered himself a surrealist...if so his embrace was tentative and the effect on his work not readily apparent. Mark, my appologies...no offense was intended...it was an attempt at humor, and I do like Adams work (as I like the work of the other members of F64) He was part of the most intense period of artistic growth that the planet has ever seen...his contemporaries and friends (people like D. H. Lawrence, Georgia O'Keefe, Stieglitz, Eliot Porter, Edward Weston, and many others) defined art and literature from the 20's through the 70's. While I don't subscribe to the St. Ansel school of thought, I do acknowledge his significance. I would like to question the idea that anyone who doesn't like Adams work, and says so, is guilty of being an, "anti-Adams zealot who can find no justification for their views
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
OOPs, gotta watch which button I push here...to continue..."other than massaging their own egos" This seems just a tiny bit judgemental to me....most of the anti-Adams zealots who post here mention that they believe Adams was more a craftsman than an artist, seems like a pretty consistent criticism, and maybe a reasonable justification for their views. Reminds me of an exhibition of Jock Sturges work that I saw at "A Gallery for Fine Photography" in New Orleans...a gentleman viewing the exhibtion informed me that no one but perverts seeking titilation would view the work of Jock Sturges (no I didn't ask him if he was aroused by what he had seen) Photographers are an opinionated group of individuals....but I think we will all benefit from an exchange of opinions offered and considered without sarcasm or anger.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
Howard, the information that HC-B considers himself a surrealist is in an article which ran in the November, 1979 issue of Pop Photography. The article is by Arthur Goldsmith, a noted photo-writer, and begins on page 100. The statement in question is on page 149. It was Robert Capa, according to the article, who cautioned HC-B to guard against being labeled as a surrealist.
If you can't find the article and want to read the whole thing, let me know and I'll fax it to you.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
I should add that Goldsmith did not consider HC-B's embrace of surrealism "tentative" or that "it was not readily apparent" in his work. In the 1979 exhibition of HC-B's photographs at the International Center of Photography in New York, which was the occasion for the Pop Photo article, Goldsmith says "his affinity to surrealism is strikingly evident."
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
Hey lot thanks for yet again proving my point with such a great response full of useful information.
Howard, no offense taken, my comment wasn't really directly pointed at you, only at those who, on this forum and elsewhere, go after big names (not just Adams) to make themselves feel important.
I don't claim that everyone who dislikes Adams' work is anti Adams, everyone of course has his or her own tastes and differences. I have no problems with that, what I do have a problem with are people who dislike someones work and continually attacks not only the artist but also anyone who does appreciate that particular artists work (again I am not claiming that you are, just explaining my position on what I see as immature behavior based on ignorance and a desire to fit in with what someone may consider to be the "in" ideals of the times).
The most irritating aspect of all this is that all these types can do is write off the opposing opinion by claiming that they are zealots which shows that they really don't seem to have much of an opinion, such as Lot's response to my question which was,"there we go again". Its okay to attack all the time, but its not okay for anyone to defend.
Pretty feeble I think.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
Dave, thanks for the additional information. I am still not really satisfied, since your sources are not primary, but rather secondary. However, even if HCB and others consider his work to be surrealistic, I still have trouble seeing it....there is absolutely no manipulation in HCB's work...other than cropping...have you seen his series of photographs from India (shot over the course of more than 20 years) they are starkly realistic....Surrealism is movement with definite goals and ideals...primarily, to show life and the world from the perspective of the subconcious mind...I can buy Bunnel, Dali, Man Ray, and others...but not HCB...Surrealism, as a movement in art, is a French contribution and AFFINITY, is defined as "kinship" so I will cling to my belief that HCB felt a kinship with his fellow French artists...and maybe even inspiration....but I just don't see the evidence in his work (most of which I have seen) I am speaking from a personal perspective, not from an art critiscm viewpoint. This reminds me of a story that I recently heard about the famous Eddie Adams photo of the Saigon Police Chief's summary execution of a Viet Cong suspect...the story was that the Police Chief was taking revenge for the "suspect" having killed the Police Chiefs family...I was told then that this story was commonly known. Please point out specific works, and the reason that you believe them to be surrealistic (I mean in HCB's body of work) I may just be stubborn in my beliefs, and unwilling to accept a view that I don't see, but I will stand by my earlier arguments. Mark, I appreciate your direct answer,no offense was taken, and I agree that some photographers try to increase their own importance (and the importance of their views), by pontificating on the faults (real or supposed) of famous and well known photographers. Attacking someone personally, for their views and opinions, is an easy way to avoid dealing with their arguments or the points they make. This forum invites photographers, a motley assortment of unrepentant individuals, to share their opinions...most of which are passionately held...obviously there is much disagreement to be expected...I don't see the need to discard civility in the interests of getting the point across.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
I agree with Kirk 100%. There were no manipulations in HCB's work, but that doesn't render his work realistic. They look realistic for during the first three seconds of viewing, but then the relationshops of the people/objects take on new meanings and roles. A huge majority of his work leaves the context for the viewer to figure out. I think the boy throwing the ball up is a perfect example. Some of his early work is particularly abstract, like the bicyclist riding by when the photographer was perched up on a staircase; the boys playing within the demolished building; the one of the man strolling amidst the children playing with the stark white building with the small dark windows in the background. HCB used real life objects and people only to help portray pattern, texture, shapes, shadows, parallels, and sometimes even "riddles."
By the way, Howard, you've mentioned twice now that HCB uses or has used cropping in his photos. Are you positive about this? Every photograph I've ever seen of his was printed full frame, and I thought that was part of his style - never crop. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Dave Jenkins
(K=1350) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
Howard, I think I'm going to bow out at this point. I've quoted an authoritative source who knows HC-B and his work better than you or I ever will, but you're going to think what you want to think and that's fine with me.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 4/5/1999
|
The sense that "reality" is frequently surreal isn't an unusual thing, I'm surprised we are debating it. Robert Frank and Gary Winogrand and WeeGee all showed us the surreal aspects of everyday life. Life may not be surreal to those who are living what they consider to be "normal" (see "Suburbia" by Bill Burke), but when that same life is recontextualized by the mat and frame, carried far from itself, the surreal qualities become evident. Ansel Adams black skies are surreal, when you consider them dispassionately, which some folks in this discussion should try. A little critical distance goes a long way...but I'm not talking to you..t
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 4/6/1999
|
There is a serious problem with the definition of surrealism, in that the popular way of using this term has nothing to do with the intentions of the person who initiated its use (Andre Breton) or the descendant philosophical/artistic movement that followed. Merriam-Webster defines it as the principles, ideals, or practice of producing fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects in art, literature, film, or theater by means of unnatural juxtapositions and combinations. However, Breton used this definition originally: Pure psychic automatism, by which it is intended to express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the real process of thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of all control exercised by the reason and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations. (Much worth reading, if one wants to discuss surrealism in any coherent way, is Breton's What Is Surrealism which can be found here.
By both of these definitions, Adams' work fails to meet any test for "surrealism," but many other photographers' work does. It's worth noting that Breton chose Bravo to provide a photograph for the cover of the catalog for the largest surrealist art exposition of his time. The photo that Bravo originally provided ("The Good Reputation Sleeping" was not used because of its nudity (this was not Breton's doing), and another Bravo photograph, name unrecalled by me, was substituted.
It could be argued that photography is the best way in which to realize Breton's definition of surrealism. Automatic writing, which was Breton's own art form, is incredibly difficult and produces essentially unreadable work, although it could perhaps be argued that Burroughs' novels were written in a way that Breton would approve, and Burroughs is quite readable, if not always coherent. Too much painting/sculpture requires considerable pre-thought which negates the "automatism" that Breton states at the beginning of his definition. Photography does allow a fair degree of that automatism, especially "street" photography such as HC-B practiced, particularly because of the fast nature required in street photography.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 4/6/1999
|
I would like to clarify my position, although I believe that I clearly made my case earlier. Based on the extremely broad definition of what constitutes surrealism presented by various photographers here, all of us are surrealists. I was working from a much narrower definition. Surrealism for me is the group of artists who called themselves "dada" based in Paris after WW1...people like Salvador Dali, Luis Bunnel, Man Ray, and others who were concerned with representing the perspective of the subconcious mind, a reaction to the conventional artists of that day...with works like "Le Chien Andalou", Dali's "Melting Clocks", and Man Ray's "Kiki and African Mask"...I don't regard these works as "hokey phenokey", but rather as a legitimate reaction to the conventions of the day, weariness with war/politics/social upheaval, and business as usual...a natural progression between Art Nouveau and Art Decco. Their work was very influential and changed the artistic perceptions of the era....many artists benefited from the groundbreaking work done by these individuals...and every art form was influenced to a lesser or greater degree. I have acknowledged that HCB was probably influenced by this group of artists, as were hundreds of other artists, to include Alfred Hitchcock who had Dali design the famous surreal sequences (the perspective of the subconcious mind) through which Ingrid Bergmans psychiatrist is able to determine that Gregory Peck is not the murderer in "Spellbound" (A classic retelling of Hitch's common theme of the ordinary man thrown into a "nightmare" he isn't in control of) "I confess" (no pun intended) that my argument with regard to HCB is flawed, to paraphrase our Serbian opponents...I didn't know that Ansel Adams was a surrealist.
|
|
|
|
Mark
(K=248) - Comment Date 4/7/1999
|
Wake me up when we get there...
|
|
|
|
ray tai
(K=310) - Comment Date 4/7/1999
|
I just want to make a few pointless comments:
I have been to Yosemite quite a few times during all the seasons, sunsets and sunrises; and Ansel Adam's prints look nothing like reality. While some may say this is craft and not art, I wonder if all studio photography isn't a craft by that definition. After all it is only lighting control, filters and film! I remember reading critics shredding Paul Strand and Aaron Suskind in print for similiar reasons. It is certainly easy to dismiss a pioneer in hindsight. Look at Galen Rowell and then look at AA; and it is not the silver.
If HCB is a surrealist then Josef Koudelka is a super-surrealist.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 4/7/1999
|
To be more clear about my statements earlier: I consider Rembrandt as an excellent craftsman too. His artistic value is rather relative in my view.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 4/7/1999
|
Henri Cartier-Bresson and the artless art, Jean-Pierre Montier, quotes H.C-B: 'I was profoundly influenced by Surrealism, and I have tried to remain faithful to it all my life.'
Regarding Kirk's original point: Isn't the distinction here that Adams created works that looked literal (whethere they were or not is beside the point), but HCB didn't?
For me, the surrealism of HCB can be a point of immediate interest. As we flip over the pages of a book, we are quickly drawn to such images because of these ambiguities. To that extent, I agree they make the image 'interesting'. But it isn't enough. If that is all the image has, I will have a quick laugh, and turn to the next one. When there is much more to the it, I can admire it for years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
