Salgado's Genesis and "Subjective" photography.

From a personal photography stand point, none of these concerns matter to me.

However from a birds eye view of photography I find it fascinating.

Is post-modernism in itself not a dead end? It implies no rules, no boundaries, is it not the wilful end of photographic movements?

To me Google photographers and similar are the photographic equivalent to conceptual artists. It is a niche where the gimmick is the concept not the result.
 
doolittle said:
From a personal photography stand point, none of these concerns matter to me.
Click to expand...
An entirely valid and reasonable standpoint.
doolittle said:
However from a birds eye view of photography I find it fascinating.

Is post-modernism in itself not a dead end? It implies no rules, no boundaries, is it not the wilful end of photographic movements?
Click to expand...
An astute observation! Modernism was too inward-looking and restrictive, gazing at its own navel - and Postmodernism was needed to redress the balance, but Postmodernism with its attitude of anything goes swung the pendulum too far. No boundaries are as destructive as too-restrictive boundaries...

The pendulum is now swinging back, to a less extreme position. A lot of contemporary art - including photography - falls within an evolving approach to art, called by some Postpostmodernism (a name so annoying it should be crushed forthwith!) and by others Metamodernism (much more sensible!).

Metamodernism melds aspects of both Modernism and Postmodernism. It accepts as a given the premise that there are no boundaries - "a photograph is what I say it is" - and has moved away from the bias that Postmodernity had for naivety, pop culture and irony. Its fundamental characteristic - what differentiates it from the Postmodern - is its inclusion of and relation to real life and concerns that involve and affect all of us in our day to day lives. Metamodernism is defined by its inclusiveness, often involving IT and digital technology (partly because it's so pervasive you can't do anything - art or anything else - without using it).

A good example is Doug Rickard, whom I described previously as a Postmodernist. I did so as I didn't want to talk about "Post-postmodernism". He's better described as a Metamodernist. Regardless of what you think of him and what he does, there's no doubt he provokes strong opinion. This is because he includes us in what he does: he challenges our ideas of photography, he is showing us real life close to all Americans - Google Streetview is your neighbourhood; we can do exactly what he does - right here and now - and explore Google Streetview, and can even search for the scenes he captured. Whether we like what he does or not, we can relate to it, he touches a nerve - not necessarily the case with Postmodern art (let alone Modern art), which can often seem remote and disconnected from us - as if created for an audience with "special" knowledge (as someone wrote earlier in this thread, "art bollox").

However, Metamodernism is still all about the present. Someone once said (I'm quoting from memory here, so apologies if it's not exact): "The photographer is not an archaeologist, the point is not to resurrect and imitate the past."
 
I would agree that Salgado did not show us something entirely new, but I do think he fused familiar but normally separate styles of work together, executed to an exceptional standard. Completely new? definitely not, but with a slightly different spin to what came before? I would argue, yes. I think I said as much in my first post, but of course its a very subjective view that many others may not share.

Regarding the difference between landscapers and PJ/Documentary photographers, I'd agree with this; however, in Turnley's Parisian work I see the cherry picking of scenes that look exactly like the sort of shots HCB would have shot and little to no recognition of how the world has changed in 50 years since HCB produced the same shots. The very fact you could intermingle some of their images and not know who shot what when despite the fact that the world, including Paris, has changed dramatically, is perhaps telling. The technical delivery is also cloned.



mrmeadows said:
Turtle:

While you, the OP and I see something dramatically new in Genesis, some critics/reviewers have negatively asserted that Salgado had nothing new to show us as compared to others who got the shots first.

In my personal opinion, there's a vast gulf, nay an abyss, between landscape photographers "wearing out the tripod holes of the pioneers" to reproduce classic photos and jounalist/document photographers continuing to make photos of the ever-changing world of people, their interactions and events. Comparable selections of tools and subjects do not of themselves make a later practioner a carbon copy of an earlier one. Your opinion that Turnley's work is just a carbon copy of HCB's is makes as little sense to me as opining that Rembrandt's work is just a carbon copy of Titian's or that National Geographic decisively pre-empted Salgado's effort.

--- Mike
Click to expand...
 
marek i just wanted to say i think your photography rocks, i love the way you do you photography, keep it up. you have a process that works for you and you make the most of it.
 
Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. It's not that I have felt discouraged, but rather I have seen more clearly what kind of photographs I should not strive to make.
As to Salgado, documentarist, everybody will have some yardstick to measure him against, this is not my concern in this context.
I believe, that accusing him of being "Ansel Adams of poverty" is unjust. I feel, that good photographs, should always strive to show beauty, even when the more important element is documentary (the truth).
In "Genesis" I personally perceive an immense love that Salgado certainly has for the Earth, and for the humanity. If you do not love your subject, you will find it hard to show it in the best possible light.
His peculiarity is, that he has decided to show it to us, in a grandiose, Hollywood like manner. Is there anything wrong with this? I don't think so. Perhaps his harshest critics are a bit envious. Does he make good money out of this? Perhaps, and then, why shouldn't he? He certainly deserves it not less, than guys shooting the weddings or the latest fashion show.
Maybe to some people it does not seem right, that you can get rich photographing the poor. I see no conflict here. It would be like saying, that Lincoln should not have abolished the slavery in order to win the war, because it was not a fair move versus his fellow Americans from the south.
My personal vision of the world, is, that it is too divided, too entangled in meaningless value systems rooted in the past. The world needs people who are educated, aware, compassionate, and ready to collaborate for the common good, in other words, needs people prepared to think with an open mind. "Genesis" is an excellent reminder to us all, about what is at stake.
I am in the process of following an excellent course on Coursera, about the history of Humanity. Many pictures from "Genesis" were crossing my mind while I was listening to the lectures. I heartily recommend this to anybody interested to reboot his beliefs about who we are:
https://class.coursera.org/humankind-001/class/index
 
Salgado or not, it seems to me that the only meaningful direction for any enduring creative endeavor is toward the subjective. Leaving aside the fact that it's all been done before -- and likely better than we'll be able to -- what's inside us is much more interesting and rewarding than what's outside us. Isn't that what lifts photographs into the realm of art?

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom