Is Photography Dead?

[MikeL]

Mike, I have no clear idea. But can art survive in a vacuum? Can the "general population" survive without art? Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations?

Seems to me people tend to self sort, right or wrong. Not everyone is comfortable or interested in exposure to new/different things, whether going from the coast to the middle or vice versa. I know I'd feel out-of-place or "not my scene" at a nascar event. Could I learn to appreciate it? For sure, but the activation energy is there, and why put out more energy when there isn't enough time to do the things I want to do already? I imagine others feel the same way about art.

Isn't it all just entertainment in the end (nascar or art), or are there mystic truths?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Mike, I have no clear idea. But can art survive in a vacuum? Can the "general population" survive without art? Why is art so ghettoized in this country, only visible in our largest cities at certain times and locations?

Borrowing from a great fictitious character: "Art is as art does".

Some people love peanuts; others have a lethal reaction to it. As peanuts, art is different things to different people. Wars, political careers, fortunes and countless establishments have influenced it, been influenced by it, and many others have been blissfully unaware of it.

The peanut farmer may not have much time and/or interest in the works of O'Keefe. And that may or may not have something to do with farming, but the priorities of the farmer. Just as much as an "artist" may not have much time and/or interest in the difference between high-yield crops, organic fertalizers, and soil rotation; the "artist" still needs somebody to know all of those for the "artist" to be fed.

Unless it's a "starving artist".

I wonder if all of this is "posturing"? You certainly need to do some posturing if you don't want your spine to go bad. And if you want a good, controlled portrait. Or a comfortable ride on the bus...

 

[kevin m]

There is so much fear, and in St. Louis so much violence.

I can't help but think there's a connection between that and the lack of real art out there. Honestly. I don't know exactly what the connection is, but I feel it. The emptiness out there. The fact that all their creative, different, weird children who don't quite fit in and end up moving to either coast must have something to do with it.

I miss Steak 'n Shake.

Me, too....how sad is that? I especially miss the weird, old Steak 'n Shakes in downtown St. Louis. The ones with stainless steel and white tiles everywhere...

 

[kevin m]

Isn't it all just entertainment in the end (nascar or art)

There's an element of entertainment, sure. That's the honey that draws the flies, so to speak. But I have to disagree that that's all there should be to it. I think the risk is what draws an audience; the risk of death, in racing, and the risk of....what...self? in art. You have to put yourself out there or it doesn't matter much in either case.

But Nascar is a ghetto now just as much as the art world is. It accepts no outside influence, now; the technology is laughable ("the car of tomorrow" ...with a carburetor? ) and the competition seems as fixed as the WWF.

 

[furcafe]

While I agree w/your broader statement that the author overstates his narrow thesis (something that rarely occurs in newsweeklies, I'm sure ), I don't believe the issue of the "reflective/indexical" nature of photography is really the same as the questions posed by the mechanical reproduction of all art (IIRC from my long ago readings of Benjamin, et al.). Mechanical reproduction is not the same as mechanical generation, which I believe is the main concern of the author.

There is a lot of misreading of the article here. The article's argument hinges on a very conventional and utterly pedestrian view of photography that we can call "reflection theory". According to this view, photography is a reflection of reality. This is a naive platonism, period. From this perspective, it seems as if the advent of virtual technologies has destroyed the indexical function of reality that "photography", in the sense understood by the author, formerly relied upon for its prestige. Hence, the author concludes that "The next great photographers—if there are to be any—will have to find a way to reclaim photography's special link to reality".

This kind of "reflection theory" view of the technologically-reproduced image was anachronistic as soon as the advent of cinema and mechanically-reproduced works of art. What is so striking about this article is the fact that the author can mount such a naive argument in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the history of the image in the twentieth century! Apparently, it is easy (for the corporate media) today to consign to oblivion the innumerable ways in which art of the image in the 20th century has led us to go beyond the idea of ONE SINGLE UNITARY REALITY (phew! that has to be written in capital letters), giving us precisely a precious and nuanced sense that "reality" itself is actually composed of many layers which themselves have no more, nor less, substance than an image. Images are substantial--everybody here knows that!

I suppose next thing we will be told by the pundits of oblivion and forgetting is that post cinema and virtual photography should be banned from the City.

 

[kevin m]

furcafe, thanks for the post.

I agree with many of the points you made, particularly the anti-intellectual bent of many Americans. Art and Democracy seem to be increasingly at odds lately, that's for sure. If artists feel no obligation to give back to society and the general public is content to view any attempt at self-improvement as snobbery, then where does that leave us?

I still think that it's the artists who need to make the first move. They, after all, are the ones who are aware of this situation. I think "art for art's sake" is an idea whose time has passed.

You mentioned a palazzo...I remember walking into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul for the first time. Even in its present condition, with the mosaics faded, etc., it still has the power to inspire simple awe. The harmony of the proportions; the light that seems to come from inside the golden tiles of the mosaics...it simply shuts your mouth. Which, I think, is a key effect of art: hushed reverence. Even this far past its prime, and to a modern eye, it can have that effect.

What is there in modern America that the common man has access to that can have the same effect?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I still think that it's the artists who need to make the first move. They, after all, are the ones who are aware of this situation. I think "art for art's sake" is an idea whose time has passed.

Oh, no! So you mean that Shostakovich was wrong in being at odds with his Soviet government which pretty much contended that "Art" couldn't be "for its own sake" but something more utilitarian like "for our sake"?

 

[furcafe]

Ah, I've yet to visit Istanbul (on my to do list).

True, not all the great art was in palazzi, er palazze (sp?). Whatever the faults of the church, they did (& do) have some great art, much of which was intended mainly for straightforward didactic/instructional purposes, but just happened to be executed by the greatest artists of the time. The same could be said of public art in the classical period.

Harking back to MikeL's comment, I think the modern secular analogs to basilica & cathedral are entertainment arts forms, like popular music, cinema, & television. For better or worse, those are the venues where artists, or @ least those practiced in the arts, engage w/ordinary people today.

You mentioned a palazzo...I remember walking into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul for the first time. Even in its present condition, with the mosaics faded, etc., it still has the power to inspire simple awe. The harmony of the proportions; the light that seems to come from inside the golden tiles of the mosaics...it simply shuts your mouth. Which, I think, is a key effect of art: hushed reverence. Even this far past its prime, and to a modern eye, it can have that effect.

What is there in modern America that the common man has access to that can have the same effect?

 

[noimmunity]

While I agree w/your broader statement that the author overstates his narrow thesis (something that rarely occurs in newsweeklies, I'm sure ), I don't believe the issue of the "reflective/indexical" nature of photography is really the same as the questions posed by the mechanical reproduction of all art (IIRC from my long ago readings of Benjamin, et al.). Mechanical reproduction is not the same as mechanical generation, which I believe is the main concern of the author.

You're right, furcafe, there is a difference between mechanical production and reproduction, but mechanical reproduction according to Benjamin posed challenges for art precisely by undermining the primacy of the original production. Once everything is a copy of a copy, it is not very long before one questions the concept of origin in general. To question the ontological primacy of the origin and to reverse platonism and see something akin to the image at the heart of ontology---this was the course of continental philosophy in the 20th century, from Bergson and Heidegger, Barthes and Benjamin, to Deleuze and Derrida. Deleuze shows how cinema was on to this idea from its very inception...

Amyway, I'm not sure these points are as important as observing the fact that this thread has revealed some deep intolerance...Nikonshwebmaster's commentary pretty much sums it up. For that reason alone I'm on my knees in gratitude to furcafe for bringing discussion back into the thread.

OT rant: Island? America the nation-State lives on a proverbial island in more ways than one, folks. Why single out artists? There is a HUGE scalar transformation going from individual artists to State and Corporate actors. If ya hafta vent about bein' outta touch with the reality of "most people" why stop at the limits of the national, especially given today's global economy and transnational security regimes. Once the category of "most people" begins to include more than the 5% of the world's population chewing up 35% of its resources (= the United States), you can begin to see the incredible inequity in facts such as the 345 individuals whose income equals 45% of the global population. Who is living on an island now? If you want to bring community back into the discussion, why not start with State and Corporate actors rather than artists? Singling out artists while ignoring State and Corporate actors is part of that whole strategy I call proactive immunity, in which the overexposure of a certain view is used to fundamentally disavow the real problems. End of rant.

 

[kevin m]

nikonwebmaster, I'll be honest with you and say that I don't "get" Rothko. The work has nothing like the impact the Hagia Sophia had on me. It seems too intellectual and dry to me. But I haven't been to the Philips in person, so it's entirely possible that it would have an effect in person that can't be duplicated in pictures.

Another confession: the first painting I saw in person that had any effect on me was the one I've attached below. I saw it when I was 18 years old at the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.. I didn't "like" it before I saw it and I still don't "like" it, but it still stopped me in my tracks upon first viewing. I just stopped and stared at it for the longest time, wordless. Later, the thought that came to me was, "how did Monet get light into his painting?" I knew nor cared nothing about art at the time, but that experience of hushed reverence is one of the defining characteristics of art that I've come to recognize. Perhaps it's different for everyone, but I'd like to think it's universal.

The Guggenheim wasn't yet built when I was last in Europe, but I will see it next time I'm there.

 

[MikeL]

I think this reflects on the superficiality of Americans in general.

Two words: Thomas Kinkade

 

[kevin m]

Oooh! "Painter of Light," and, yes, that's my final answer!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Two words: Thomas Kinkade

::shudder::

It's half a notch above the wild ducks and grey wolf paintings I see for sale at the mall, at least.

But it sells. And in this culture it's all about "selling", whether be a product or an idea.

 

[crawdiddy]

Americans definitely have a populist, anti-elitist bent, and those qualities are pervasive on this forum. There are no "experts" here. Nothing prevents an individual from deferring to an "authority" about a particular subject, except independence of thought. But that is sufficient for most. Although some members derive their livelihood from photographic craft or art, everyone who participates does so out of passion, even those who just need a hobby. I have yet to run across any who have all the answers.

 

[crawdiddy]

... the first painting I saw in person that had any effect on me was the one I've attached below. I saw it when I was 18 years old at the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.. I didn't "like" it before I saw it and I still don't "like" it, but it still stopped me in my tracks upon first viewing. I just stopped and stared at it for the longest time, wordless. Later, the thought that came to me was, "how did Monet get light into his painting?" I knew nor cared nothing about art at the time, but that experience of hushed reverence is one of the defining characteristics of art that I've come to recognize. Perhaps it's different for everyone, but I'd like to think it's universal.

Your reaction seems universal to me. I had a similar reaction to Henri Rousseau's Sleeping Gypsy. I was familiar with the painting, but had never thought much about it. When I first saw it I was transfixed. It was one of the most amazing things I had ever seen. There was a wonderful depth to the rendering of the sky, and the whole piece had a sort of magical stillness to it.

I haven't seen the Hagia Sophia yet, but I intend to. I recall having a similar response to the Pantheon in Rome. The scale is much smaller, but it's an incredible interior.

 

[kevin m]

I think it must be true that pictures just don't do justice to paintings. It doesn't make "sense," but there it is; you have to see them in person.

Thanks for the lively discussion, everyone...

 

[40oz]

Sooooo... what you are saying is that the article is dumb and you know why, but you are unwilling to offer any sort of proof that your opinion is correct and his is not.

Interesting.

Sooooo... what you are saying is you have no comment on the article one way or the other, but find my short post far more interesting and worthy of comment.


Interesting

 

[amateriat]

I think it must be true that pictures just don't do justice to paintings. It doesn't make "sense," but there it is; you have to see them in person.

Oh, it makes tons of sense.

Some years back, I went to see an Andrew Wyeth retrospective at the Whitney. A week before, I had received by mail the accompanying book to the exhibit, Unknown Terrain. I've long liked Wyeth's work, and winced at the cat-calls he's long recieved from certain critics. And, upon seeing the actual works on exhibit, I was once again reminded of the vast gulf between art reproductions and original art. I was quite taken away by it all. It was also a reminder that that good art isn't, or shouldn't necessarily be, an either/or, above- or below-the-neckline (beltline?) experience in order to resonate beyond the moment.

It's good to get out more, especially for art.


- Barrett

 

[jan normandale]

Go look at the "Night Watch" in the Rijksmuseum if you want to see what a photograph can't tell you. Spend a day in the Picasso Museum in Paris and you'll come out a believer.

I don't mind 'wall art' I'm glad it's there. It might lead the buyer to think about what art is and what else there is. This is a start as far as I'm concerned. "Americans don't have culture"... gimme a break. There is a ton of great art and artists from the US, from the easily understood like Rockwell, Sargeant or Homer to artists some people complain about and say "that's not art "like Pollock, Koons or Warhol.

 

[John Camp]

One reason Mary Ellen Mark may have reacted the way she did to digital photography is that her photos rely on her getting very close to strangers, and to building a tight net of trust so that she can take authentic photos of them. With digital, that can actually be faked -- the guy got caught doing it, but remember the LA Times guy who made a good war photograph out of two not-so-good shots? He made that dramatic shot on the fly, with Photoshop on a laptop, in the field...A real good Photoshop guy would have created a hell of a fake photo, and would never have been caught -- not even by the people in the photograph, I suspect. And it would have had great continuing political effect, since it seemed to show a heavily armed US soldier intimidating an Arab guy and his small child, when in fact, IIRC, the photos were made at a food distribution point.

When the Newsweek writer was talking about the "end," I think it referred to a kind of trust you could have with a silver photo. When the Russians would erase a person from a photo on Lenin's tomb, they'd always get caught, because before digital, that was extremely hard to do convincingly. Remember the old "flying saucers photos from the 50s? And there's a famous art photograph, by a photograoher whose name escapes me at the moment, of a plaza scene of people and their shadows in the early morning. One of the walkers apparently was placed badly, creating an ambiguous image, and so he was very carefully and skillfully removed from the photo, using old technology, re-photographing, etc...except the photographer forgot to remove the missing guy's shadow, which is still there, a trace of reality...

It may be possible, I suppose, for the trust to be entirely eliminated, leaving the viewer without any intellectual fame of reference. Is this photo real, or is it all Photoshop filters? Jeff Wall is attacking the "reality" of photos from a different direction, but it has the same effect...the trust diminishes, and without getting into any big argument about it, I think it was an important aspect of photography.

How many people now can look at a photograph -- any photograph, like a war photograph, and react in a visceral way, without the automatic...wait a minute? Is that a Photoshopped propaganda photo? Or is that real? Because it it's real, I'm going to act this way -- and if it's not, I'm going to act another way; and if I can't tell, I won't act at all. I think that's a serious problem.

JC