Is modern photography lacking soul?

[_mark__]

how did you arrive at the "most" part? was there a study done? is there information available supporting this?

Did i say most, sorry, i meant a lot of the less strong work.

 

[Kevin]

it seems to me that the soul seems to be missing from a lot of the modern work that I see, when I compare it to the images from the great Life and earlier Magnum photographers. So, what is going on - if anything - that is making this apparent, to me at least?

Ray, is it possilble that you are seeing a proliferation of imitation, something you did not see so easily 20 years ago, because there was no internet?

The new digital technologies have made an iterative photographic process possible: Instead of defining a project, creating deliberate, authentic images over a longer period of time, editing these with experts and publishing a cohesive series in print (the waterfall method), millions of people today are publishing/uploading random images as they go and tagging them with keywords and/or adding them to existing sets (the new agile/iterative method). This has led to an obvious increase in imitation because people are looking at each other's uploads, cherry-picking the popular images and copying them in one way or another.

I guess this is what you mean by "lacking sole." It's basically the rehashing of ideas/imagery over and over again by people who have no ideas of their own.

If you google +photo "I'm going to try that sometime" or +photo "I should try that sometime" you get the feeling that something's not quite right with the general photographic mindset. It's similar to the garage band scene of the 1960s, when millions of teenagers worldwide played and recorded imitations of the great songs of the Stones, Beatles, Kinks and Who.

 

[nome_alice]

same amount of soul, but different type. don't want to get bored doing what our grandparents have already done.

 

[emraphoto]

same amount of soul, but different type. don't want to get bored doing what our grandparents have already done.

and that pretty much covers it.

 

[Pablito]

Nope, these are from a series of long term (1hr, to be exact) exposures with a solarized trace of the sun. Schink is unmanipulated to the degree that many of his exhibitions have it in the title.

Solarization is not manipulation?

 

[gavinlg]

I hate HDR

Just wanted to point this out - this was what I meant to say. There are thousands of fantastic photographers making fantastic work with digital cameras.

 

[Ducky]

Merry Christmas, Roger, I have gone through some of my loser images from way back and all of a sudden the don't look that bad, (maybe not that good either). This is from my low quality camera period, which I have gone through many times, and am going through again, (this one is a 104 Instamatic about 1964-5 with Ektachrome):

This is what I like about photography. I remember the car, the coat, the hairdo and even the feel of the 60's. Could be anywhere in 1960 USA.

 

[charjohncarter]

same amount of soul, but different type. don't want to get bored doing what our grandparents have already done.

Like the man said that about covers it: good thought.

And thanks above.

 

[jsrockit]

There are two things to it: colour and digital.
The colour to begin with is boring, and at best it can stun you with a postcard like images of wildlife or sunset landscape, at worst it presents you face to face with everyday's banality like the work of Eggleston.
Digital is a big equalizer - all photos look roughly the same, with the same burnt highlights and oversaturated colours, to the point that you lose the sensitivity to a good image when it comes up.
I disagree that it has to do with when the photo was taken. Look at today's shots of Salgado, or a talented photographer like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmanuel_smague/sets/72157594412763400/show/
and they do have the soul.

While the phots you have posted are very nice... and I'd say do have "soul," Eggleston definetely has soul! And digital all looks the same? huh? :bang:

 

[back alley]

This is what I like about photography. I remember the car, the coat, the hairdo and even the feel of the 60's. Could be anywhere in 1960 USA.

i still hate the look of those coats.

 

[charjohncarter]

i still hate the look of those coats.

You hate the look of a coat, I'm glad you don't live near me.

 

[dan denmark]

what does 'modern' mean?

 

[user237428934]

what does 'modern' mean?

Good question. From several visits of exhibitions I know that the term modern art is generally used for art from 1900 up to now. As far as i know modern art startet with expressionism that came up in early 1900.
I doubt that there is an "official" date when modern photography started.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While the phots you have posted are very nice... and I'd say do have "soul," Eggleston definetely has soul! And digital all looks the same? huh? :bang:

Eggleston all looks the same!

One school says "We have lost the genius [or soul] of the past."

Another school says stuff that is even more nonsensical, such as "Good colour photography didn't exist before 1970" (cf Szarkowski or Eauclaire).

My own view is that we remember the good stuff and forget the bad. We just haven't had time to forget the bad current stuff yet. Go back to books and magazines from the past -- any era you like -- and there was a high percentage of rubbish around then. Even Camera Work, which is all but worshipped by many, was often not very good.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good question. From several visits of exhibitions I know that the term modern art is generally used for art from 1900 up to now. As far as i know modern art startet with expressionism that came up in early 1900.
I doubt that there is an "official" date when modern photography started.

Whistler in the 1870s? Seurat in the 1880s?

'Modern' art really started when people felt the need to belong to a 'movement', and the label or manifesto became as important as the art. The Fauves and Impressionists got the ball rolling, indeed around 1905; then (sorry, can't remember the chronological order, nor do I care) Constructivists, Cubists, Surrealists, Socialist Realists, Photo-Realists, Hard-Edge, Pop, Op, Minimalists, Post-Modernists and any other label you care to make up.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

Whistler in the 1870s? Seurat in the 1880s?

'Modern' art really started when people felt the need to belong to a 'movement', and the label or manifesto became as important as the art. The Fauves and Impressionists got the ball rolling, indeed around 1905; then (sorry, can't remember the chronological order, nor do I care) Constructivists, Cubists, Surrealists, Socialist Realists, Photo-Realists, Hard-Edge, Pop, Op, Minimalists, Post-Modernists and any other label you care to make up.

Cheers,

R.

Before a movement, you have to have someone that steps out of the normal rules and boundaries; in art, what is now call modern (visual) art, it was JMW Turner; way before the impressionists. To me he (Turner) was the first modern visual artist (Beethoven was the first modern artist).

http://www.allartclassic.com/pictures_zoom.php?p_number=131&p=&number=TUJ026

 

[back alley]

You hate the look of a coat, I'm glad you don't live near me.

why, do you wear ugly coats?
😉

 

[charjohncarter]

why, do you wear ugly coats?
😉

I've got a couple, I even have one of them on now.

 

[bmattock]

My own view is that we remember the good stuff and forget the bad. We just haven't had time to forget the bad current stuff yet. Go back to books and magazines from the past -- any era you like -- and there was a high percentage of rubbish around then.

I very much like that statement. Thank you!

EDIT: Let us also not forget that we have not yet had time to hoist current photographers on our shoulders and pronounce them Gods. This will also happen in time. Then, their work will be considered deep and meaningful.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Before a movement, you have to have someone that steps out of the normal rules and boundaries; in art, what is now call modern (visual) art, it was JMW Turner; way before the impressionists. To me he (Turner) was the first modern visual artist (Beethoven was the first modern artist).

http://www.allartclassic.com/pictures_zoom.php?p_number=131&p=&number=TUJ026

Don't think I'd argue with that, except that he was more 'realist' and 'figurative' than Whistler or Seurat. For that matter you could step back a few centuries and argue for Cimabue. Certainly, Turner coincided with the rise of the critic (bloody Ruskin again!) which is what you need for a 'movement'.

Cheers,

R.