Craft Vs. Idea and Intention

[re_visible]

Generally speaking and with enough exceptions, any great photograph could have been taken by any skillful photographer of that particular time period.
The photographs subject, the used tools or the lightning might be slightly different, but basically, the content can be reproduced.

I remember standing infront of a Thomas Struth photograph in a Museum in Zürich, and not understanding what it was about.
But then I saw one of his prints in a collectors home, and I began to see it. The content (it is basically a photograph of two unfinished ships in a dry dock) is almost irrelevant.
It could have been taken by a tourist as well.

But Struth took it with a specific idea and intention in the first place. It had to be printed in a huge size, in neutral colors and apparently without any subjective touch by the artist. That makes it a piece of art.

It is so clearly a Thomas Struth photography. It is dry, cold, somehow cynical. Its idea and the intention that are mostly carried by the size of the print, not by the scene itself. I still don't understand that photograph, but that is more of my problem now. I guess the goal was just to provoke an emotion, and not to be read as a documentary image.

So it is only the artists idea and the intention that matter, and that need to be judged.
Did the artist made his point clear enough to the targeted audience using the knowledge and the tools he had in his hands?

Everything else is just is it a necessary evil to get there.

 

[robert blu]

I think in a photo there are more levels (not the PS ones!): one the easiest to see is what is shown in the photo. Observer finds something which catch his attention. But there is another level, more deep which consists in the way which the photographer runs in order to arrive at the photo and why. Someone looks for a shocking content and someone else is able to use a "boring" content and expecting that viewers look at it and put themselves questions about why that photo has been taken. Or maybe just look at the photo and appreciate the formal aspect of it. At each one his own. Personally I think that Struth photography are not so casual as they can seem and that he has a clear intention for each of his photo.
robert

 

[Jamie123]

Generally speaking and with enough exceptions, any great photograph could have been taken by any skillful photographer of that particular time period.
The photographs subject, the used tools or the lightning might be slightly different, but basically, the content can be reproduced.

I remember standing infront of a Thomas Struth photograph in a Museum in Zürich, and not understanding what it was about.
But then I saw one of his prints in a collectors home, and I began to see it. The content (it is basically a photograph of two unfinished ships in a dry dock) is almost irrelevant.
It could have been taken by a tourist as well.

But Struth took it with a specific idea and intention in the first place. It had to be printed in a huge size, in neutral colors and apparently without any subjective touch by the artist. That makes it a piece of art.

It is so clearly a Thomas Struth photography. It is dry, cold, somehow cynical. Its idea and the intention that are mostly carried by the size of the print, not by the scene itself. I still don't understand that photograph, but that is more of my problem now. I guess the goal was just to provoke an emotion, and not to be read as a documentary image.

So it is only the artists idea and the intention that matter, and that need to be judged.
Did the artist made his point clear enough to the targeted audience using the knowledge and the tools he had in his hands?

Everything else is just is it a necessary evil to get there.

I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly but you seem to suggest that Struth's work is mainly conceptual and that the actual images are just a vehicle to get a point across with no particular aesthetic considerations. If that is what you're saying I strongly disagree.

Struth's and many of his contemporary's work (Höfer, Gursky, Wall etc.), IMO, can best be categorized with Jean-François Chevrier's term of the tableau form in photography that emerged towards the late 20th century. The idea of this concept being that artists started to make photographs 'for the wall', i.e. to be beheld as an object hanging on a wall and therefore considerations of the exhibition context are of utmost importance.
However, that does not at all mean that the subject matter or aesthetic considerations are secondary to the work. Quite to the contrary. And I do not agree at all with your statement that any tourist could've taken the image. Of course anyone could take almost any picture but I fail to see anything 'touristy' in Struths work either in technique or subject matter. Unfinished ships in a dry dock are not really tourists' favourite subjects, neither are most of his other subject matters so I don't know why you use the tourist reference. What you seem to want to say is that his subject matter is boring, uninteresting or unspectacular.

I did see the same exhibition at the Kunsthaus (I live in Zurich) in 2010 and must admit that Struth is not my favourite. I like his museum spectator pictures and some of his family portraits. However, most of his work, while being interesting, just doesn't stick with me very much.

 

[konicaman]

@ re_visible

I tend to agree with you. I don't see any story or any aesthetics in his photographs - they just make me yawn. It is kind of deadpan - only deadpan can be made to tell a story (e.g. extreme wide angle shot of empty parking lot with a closed supermarket in the distance - but hey what's that? A rusty tricycle in the foreground - you got your story. Struth forgot the rusty tricycle

Some of his family "portraits" might make you think of Bill Owens, except for the fact that the Suburbia shots are well composed and processed as well as telling a story!

I sometimes have the feeling that critics and curators think: It walks like and artist, it BSs like and artist - it's got to be an artist, right?

Ohh dear...I am gonna get spanked for this...

 

[Jamie123]

@ re_visible

I tend to agree with you. I don't see any story or any aesthetics in his photographs - they just make me yawn. It is kind of deadpan - only deadpan can be made to tell a story (e.g. extreme wide angle shot of empty parking lot with a closed supermarket in the distance - but hey what's that? A rusty tricycle in the foreground - you got your story. Struth forgot the rusty tricycle

Some of his family "portraits" might make you think of Bill Owens, except for the fact that the Suburbia shots are well composed and processed as well as telling a story!

I sometimes have the feeling that critics and curators think: It walks like and artist, it BSs like and artist - it's got to be an artist, right?

Ohh dear...I am gonna get spanked for this...

No, you're not gonna get spanked for this. Most people on RFF share your antintellectual views.

I don't quite get your criticism. So you're saying that Struth's photographs fail because they don't employ some worn out cliché?

Like I said, I'm not the biggest fan of Struth but I think your ''walks like an artist, BSs like an artist" statement is unfair and counterfactual. Struth and his Düsseldorf school contemporaries were among the first 'art' photographers to engage in this kind of large scale ''tableau form'' photography that the photography art market has now become so inundated with. If large scale photographs have become the dominant form in the art photography market it's because people like Struth have established this.

Besides, if you look at his body of work (http://thomasstruth25.com) you can see loads of images the aesthetic quality of which would probably be contested by few.

 

[sirius]

You're taking it apart backward. Perhaps it would be better to look at how an artist arrived at their unique and celebrated vision of the world. We all know that it's a combination of hard work and talent, and maybe luck, but people often forget the commitment they make to their profession. Most of the great artists who attained a lasting and celebrated personal vision arrived there through a deep commitment to their profession—they were not hobbyists. Hence, it is problematic to dissect their work through their final methods or high level of skill attained as if they were something a hobbyist could arrive at.

 

[konicaman]

You are quite right - I am not an intellectual; proven by the fact, that I had to look up "counterfactual". Yes, I used a cliche to make a point , and actually I prefer a good cliche to pure boredom.

Large scale is great in many ways and I acknowledge the work of Struth in that respect, just not his photographs. I somehow come to think of "The Emperor's New Clothes" - written by one of my countrymen.

But then again, every man his taste - I am sure a lot of people here would disagree with me on both Struth and Bill Owens.

 

[Steve M.]

"So it is only the artists idea and the intention that matter, and that need to be judged."

Well, no. There's also that pesky business of the work itself. Intention is very important, but you have to follow that up w/ execution. That old argument that anyone could have made the photograph (heard this one a lot in the modern art days regarding abstract paintings) doesn't hold water because no one else made it, that photographer made it. If I made a nice Pollock abstract, it may superficially look like a Pollock (or a Hopper or whatever), but it isn't. He made it, it's his invention, and in the end, no matter what I do mine won't ever be a Pollock. His work, and the work of other known artists, isn't good just because they made it, it's good because it's actually good.

Having said that, I've never seen the work of that particular photographer, and it may indeed be crap. But maybe it's GOOD crap

Don't worry about the critics. I certainly never did when I was painting. A piece either works, for you, or it doesn't. Things really don't go any further than that, or you get into the intellectual sand pit. Ever been in a sand pit w/ the minions of pontificating intellectuals? Sends a shiver down my spine!

 

[Jamie123]

You're taking it apart backward. Perhaps it would be better to look at how an artist arrived at their unique and celebrated vision of the world. We all know that it's a combination of hard work and talent, and maybe luck, but people often forget the commitment they make to their profession. Most of the great artists who attained a lasting and celebrated personal vision arrived there through a deep commitment to their profession—they were not hobbyists. Hence, it is problematic to dissect their work through their final methods or high level of skill attained as if they were something a hobbyist could arrive at.

Exactly. What annoys me is not that people criticize or don't like the work of artists such as Struth but that somehow it seems ok to dismiss as BS the work of people who, as you put accurately, have worked for decades with a deep commitment to their vision. At the same time equally successful commercial photographers seem to command a high level of respect for their achievement even from people who don't really like their work.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I would say most great masters of photography (or any other field of plastic arts) from Nadar to present days, have included a considerable amount of intellectualism in their work: not the attitude of pretending being an intellectual in the bad meaning that word can have, but related to the serious thinking -before acting- any successful communication requires: the good meaning that word has... And that narrative communication includes lots of things (to consider while shooting, and to be learned before) needed to achieve a narrative success even if the photograph is open to different readings... And those considerations include technical and subjective ones... I think having limits (before taking those intellectual decisions) is very important: that's the difference between a photographer and a surveillance camera... "The absence of limits is art's worst enemy" (Orson Welles). Anyone saying "I don't think while shooting" means "I think too fast, or I though before shooting"...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dct]

...
...His work, and the work of other known artists, isn't good just because they made it, it's good because it's actually good.

Having said that, I've never seen the work of that particular photographer, and it may indeed be crap. But maybe it's GOOD crap

I don't want to put down his serious and important work bringing big format photography at the art level. But, again: There are - between real eye catchers - many images which are only somewhat appealing by the format, but definitly not by the image itself. I should say: the content is boring to my eye. For this piece of art I have to ask: Why should we think this is GOOD crap?

E.g.
GARDEN ON THE LINDBERG - N°1, WINTERTHUR 1991, Cat. 5791
(mentioned in many reviews in the internet)

I know this place personally and - with or without this photograph - there is really nothing special there. To the worst: This image doesn't touch my heart in any way and neither do I see any evidence of well done composition or light effort in it. In simpler words: I don't get it!

Compare it to another Struth's work: PANTHEON, ROME 1990, Cat. 4171
That is definitly another piece of cake! This image brings me back to the cool impression inside this building I visited many years ago during a hot summer.

Don't worry about the critics. I certainly never did when I was painting. A piece either works, for you, or it doesn't. Things really don't go any further than that, or you get into the intellectual sand pit. Ever been in a sand pit w/ the minions of pontificating intellectuals? Sends a shiver down my spine!

With this part of your comment I agree completely. If MY work does for ME: it's enough for ME.

 

[gdmcclintock]

It's so easy to accuse one of being "anti-intellectual" if the accused cannot relate to any art that has been built upon or butressed by one or more theoretical foundations rather than based on a subjective, emotional response to the subject.

For me, no image is art just because it is large. Indeed, image size has more to do with commerce than art, given that such large works are destined for museums, corporate lobbies, and the foyers of houses owned by hedge fund billionaires.

 

[re_visible]

Jamie123, you are very close with your interpretation.

But if his (or of many other famous photographers form the Bechers class) work is not mostly conceptual, well then I must say I missed the point of conceptual art.

And the statement "anyone could have made that Photo" is related only the execution, not the creative process. Struth could have also sent somebody there to take it for him, with exact instructions what to look for. There is no distinctive technical point to that photograph that could identify it as a Struth.

But you could put any other photographer in his place. As long as the photographs impact is not essentially based on a special and rare creative process or retouche, or a subject that is special for the one and only photographer, every photograph ever taken is replaceable.

The only thing that remains unique and original to any photography is the creative proces that precedes the moment the photographer presses the shutter button.
And a good photograph is the one where you can see at least a trace of that process.

But it is the same with any other artform. It is built on ones experience and intentions, and often enough is not very easy to read for people that come from a completely different background. There are not much secrets to understanding art, if you first try to see where the artist comes from and what else did he do in his life...


I think there is something about this in Susan Sontags "On Photography" as well, which is far less intelectual than many people think.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Jamie123, you are very close with your interpretation.

But if his (or of many other famous photographers form the Bechers class) work is not mostly conceptual, well then I must say I missed the point of conceptual art.

And the statement "anyone could have made that Photo" is related only the execution, not the creative process. Struth could have also sent somebody there to take it for him, with exact instructions what to look for. There is no distinctive technical point to that photograph that could identify it as a Struth.

But you could put any other photographer in his place. As long as the photographs impact is not essentially based on a special and rare creative process or retouche, or a subject that is special for the one and only photographer, every photograph ever taken is replaceable.

The only thing that remains unique and original to any photography is the creative process that precedes the moment the photographer presses the shutter button.
And a good photograph is the one where you can see at least a trace of that process.

But it is the same with any other artform. It is built on ones experience and intentions, and often enough is not very easy to read for people that come from a completely different background. There are not much secrets to understanding art, if you first try to see where the artist comes from and what else did he do in his life...


I think there is something about this in Susan Sontag's "On Photography" as well, which is far less intellectual than many people think.

Great words, really...

And in photography that unique/original process before pressing the shutter can be concept oriented (creation) or reality oriented (reflection)... Both of them can be art: and as you say in other words, that's where art ends, that's where "photography" ends... That's why most of the Fine Arts photography category seems weak: it's too related to IQ from a technical point of view (in most cases) and printing is not that important, or sharpness... Of course there are lots of people worried about printing and sharpness: a huge community worried about sales... But "different" reasonable prints from a great photograph are great anyway, all of them, and no great photograph would be really better if sharper... No better at all, just sharper, and its possible printed versions or sharpness have no relation with what matters on photographs, often called art, or any other name people fearing/hating that word prefer to use... No matter the word we use, things after hitting the shutter don't belong to the same game...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Tompas]

(...) The only thing that remains unique and original to any photography is the creative proces that precedes the moment the photographer presses the shutter button.
And a good photograph is the one where you can see at least a trace of that process. (...)

That may be the case for you. I don't need that. I may or may not be interested in what went on in the artist's head.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That may be the case for you. I don't need that. I may or may not be interested in what went on in the artist's head.

Hi Thomas, it's not about exactly what went on in the artist's head, neither about agreeing with that or not, but about the existence of that process... If not, a surveillance camera could be exactly the same as a photographer just because there's an image: and some images by surveillance cameras could be considered good from time to time... And installing lots of them with zooms shooting randomly could produce shots enough for a "Photographs without photographers" book, but the process, and that means the visualization of a goal and the best ways to achieve it, can end up in art, where more than a literal, direct reading can be perceived by the viewer... By the same viewer, I mean...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're taking it apart backward. Perhaps it would be better to look at how an artist arrived at their unique and celebrated vision of the world. We all know that it's a combination of hard work and talent, and maybe luck, but people often forget the commitment they make to their profession. Most of the great artists who attained a lasting and celebrated personal vision arrived there through a deep commitment to their profession—they were not hobbyists. Hence, it is problematic to dissect their work through their final methods or high level of skill attained as if they were something a hobbyist could arrive at.

It is however possible to make a massive commitment and work very hard indeed -- and still be lousy. In other words, commitment is something you can put in, even if you are substantially or completely devoid of talent, in which case no one will care how committed you are.

Basically, I don't have much problem with letting the market decide who is an "artist", but I do have a problem with "artists' statements" where it is clear that the artist has wandered into a realm with which he is ill at ease, i.e. words. It would be like me painting pictures to explain why I write the way I do. Quite honestly, I see a lot of art criticism as being similar, except that the critics are familiar neither with the process of creating art nor with words. Occasionally you read something brilliant, but most of it is drivel.

Then again, this is merely an illustration of Sturgeon's Law. When someone said to Theodore Sturgeon that 90% of science fiction was rubbish, he replied that 90% off anything is rubbish.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rxmd]

The only thing that remains unique and original to any photography is the creative proces that precedes the moment the photographer presses the shutter button.

I don't think I agree with that, it reminds me too much of all that decisive moment fetishism that is going on. For example, you might have someone whose creative approach to photography is all in the post processing, then the creative process takes place after the shutter button is pressed. Or you might have a creative printer. Or it might be in taking other people's pictures and arranging and reusing them in creative ways.

If one wants to look for any specifically photographic creative process, it becomes artificial, awkward and exclusionist. That kind of thing works only if you narrow down the definition of photography to whatever you agree with and exclude everything you don't agree with. There isn't really anything specific to photography that makes it artful.

The only thing that can be said in general is that if someone puts brainpower and creativity into creating something, there is a good probability that it will show.

 

[Jamie123]

I don't want to put down his serious and important work bringing big format photography at the art level. But, again: There are - between real eye catchers - many images which are only somewhat appealing by the format, but definitly not by the image itself. I should say: the content is boring to my eye. For this piece of art I have to ask: Why should we think this is GOOD crap?

You're making a distinction between form and content which this kind of photography means to challange. The point of this kind of large format photography that emerged in the late 20th century is exactly that it is made for the wall, to be exhibited in a certain size with the spectator standing in front of it. You should not distinguish between the image itself and the format for the format is a crucial part of the image.

Of course nowadays every crappy art photographer wants to have their photographs printed as large as possible often with no consideration of whether the size is appropriate (e.g. I find it ridiculous that Ryan McGinley prints his images large). But we should not forget that for people like Struth, Ruff or Gursky back in the 80s and 90s it was not merely a question of bigger is better.

Now, again, I have to stress that I'm not a big fan of Struth. I like some of his work but most of it doesn't do it for me. I can certainly understand when someone says his work doesn't impress them. What I take issue with is when people dismiss anything they don't like as art world BS simply because they don't like it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're making a distinction between form and content which this kind of photography means to challange. The point of this kind of large format photography that emerged in the late 20th century is exactly that it is made for the wall, to be exhibited in a certain size with the spectator standing in front of it. You should not distinguish between the image itself and the format for the format is a crucial part of the image.

Of course nowadays every crappy art photographer wants to have their photographs printed as large as possible often with no consideration of whether the size is appropriate (e.g. I find it ridiculous that Ryan McGinley prints his images large). But we should not forget that for people like Struth, Ruff or Gursky back in the 80s and 90s it was not merely a question of bigger is better.

Now, again, I have to stress that I'm not a big fan of Struth. I like some of his work but most of it doesn't do it for me. I can certainly understand when someone says his work doesn't impress them. What I take issue with is when people dismiss anything they don't like as art world BS simply because they don't like it.

Indeed, at Arles, the motto of many appears to be, "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.