Who? Never heard of them....

kbg32

kbg32

neo-romanticist
Local time
11:48 PM
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
5,613
Location
New York, New York
View My Gallery
I had a conversation with a young photographer earlier yesterday. This person did not know who Edward Weston, Tina Modotti, or Manual Alvarez Bravo were. Never heard of them of them, and they apparently "studied" photography in college. Never heard of Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, or Lee Friedlander.

I've met people before who didn't care or know about history. Their reasoning, "Why should I care about things that happened before I was born? How could it possibly affect me?"

Really?

I found it confounding that some people involved in a discipline, an activity, an art, life, don't care about the hsitory of what they are involved in. How can one move forward?

Reminds me of a news story some years ago when one of the major news networks setup a map of the world on a major street of midtown New York and asked random passersby, from all walks of life and ages, where certain countries were. Ninety percent of those people did not even recognize the United States or Europe on the map. Most had no idea where the Mid-East or Southeast Asia were. Where China was or the then Soviet Union.

I can remember being in elementary school and being handed blank maps of the world and asked to identify where certain countries/regions were.

Scary, or I am just being silly.

**(Please, I am am not dissing the young or any specific age group)
 
Is it really only the young seriously how many american photographers know european photographers not many. European photographers on the other hand usually know more american photo pioneers than european photopioneers and that despite the fact that photography is an european invention. I also believe that people do not care about real history the care about romantic stories. The best known Austrian emperor was Franz Joseph and his wife Sissi which I personaly find very sad since the two of them were some of the least interesting and intelligent Habsburg rulers in history but we have the Sissi Film and that's what people know. The founder of Brazil Donna Leopoldina on the other hand is pretty much unknown in Austria simple because there was no movie about her.
The Show it on TV and people will know it rules also applies to photographers.
 
Scary, or I am just being silly.
Click to expand...

Well, the story about the world map in the street, it seems to me, provides the answer to your question. Let's assume that the experiment really was performed and the result really was as presented, neither of which I believe for a moment.

All that would have proved, is that a number of people had no reason to know anything about world geography. Same with history. It doesn't make you a better person to know about the Battle of Talavera or what element has an atomic weight of 16. Nor does it mean that you have less to contribute, if you have no idea who Edward Weston was.

People vary in their interests and there really is too much knowledge in the world to get your head round even a small fraction. :angel:
 
I think there's just a difference of scope.

While they may or may not be "missing out", and while historical knowledge/familiarity may indeed help improve their own work, if they're getting what they want out of their own personal photography, they won't see a need to study the history of what they do...and indeed maybe they're just as correct as the other extreme: the photographer who insists that anyone who wants to be a photographer must learn history.

Similarly, a field I have far more experience with is the world of fly fishing. It has a rich history, even longer than that of photography, and while most fly fishermen have a basic knowledge of fly fishing history, many do not know the names of those who've had a major influence on the sport throughout history, or what their contributions actually were. This doesn't stop them from being a skillful caster or talented fly tyer, though in most cases, once they start learning about history, their tying (not necessarily the casting) usually always improves due to the expanded context. That said, however, who am I to say someone is in the wrong if they don't know who created the style of fly they enjoy tying. If they tie it well, they're achieving objective success.
 
NY midtown? How about Brighton Beach? You'll get opposite results for geography quiz.
And math as well.

Have you checked young fella pictures?
I have seen almost no relation between knowing of big names and taking of good pictures.

What was this Spanish triple name? I looked on it twice now and remember only Bravo.
🙂
 
I think it really depends on what school they went to, what type of photography they are into, and how much they went out of their way to educate themselves. Photography history classes tend to be an overview of the whole history with one famous (important) photo by each photographer.

When I was in school for photography, teachers would ask me if I looked at a certain persons work. When I said I have, they were so happy. They said their students at another school had no clue about photography's history. So, this is not new. I knew many people who were in school for photography just because it was something to do, not because they loved it.

The bottom line is that I went out of my way to go to the library and look at photo books when I was in school. Most people didn't.

The young person in question, just may be into a whole different genre of photography than we are.
 
I think the problem goes a bit deeper and it has to do with abysmal visual literacy and a strange way we raise our kids these days. I have two school age daughters in grades 1 and 6. Their art classes are terribly unimaginative and while they get to play with different media, they actually never look at art. They are not taken to art galleries even though their school is in downtown core and surrounded by galleries and artist studios including the Provincial Art Gallery. Now, my kids are surrounded by photography and art books and we talk about art, photography and films and we visit galleries and artist studios. We do see introducing them to various forms of artistic expression as part of our job as parents.

The other thing is that there is this crazy competitive and perfectionist drive among the parents that sees kids as young as four focusing on a particular instrument or a particular sport or some other field to the detriment of everything else. There is a notion that because my children (who have exhibited no particular artistic talent so far) will not be a next concert master or a next Picasso, they don't need to 'waste' their energies and time on those pursuits. The focus is completely on drilling the mechanical skill rather than building some sort of a context for the arts in general.

And then there is the way photography is taught in schools. I can't speak for art schools, but my first degree was in journalism with emphasis on photojournalism. We were told that the only camera we can use is an SLR and everything else was outmoded rubbish unless you were a wedding photographer than a hasselblad was okay. The emphasis was on sports and quick news grabs. I think in four years we did one photoessay. If you did not feel so inclined you never had to look at a book of photographs except in the first year course when we were asked to go to the library find work of a photographer we liked and write an essay about him or her. In my case it worked. I discovered Werner Bischof which led to all sorts of other things, but for most people in my class a camera was a free ticket to hockey and football games an a way to get laid. Most of them are working as photographers and I became a geographer - just goes to show you 😉
 
When I was in college, it was required whether one was studying studio art - painting, sculpture, printmaking, etc., or photography, that you had to have at least one class per semester in art/photo history. One needs to know where they are by virtue of where they came from!
 
jsrockit said:
I think it really depends on what school they went to,
Click to expand...

College. That is school, not university, and (at least if it is not a dedicated photography college) you are not supposed to be taught everything photographic there - if the teacher manages to teach them enough about one photographer to kindle their interest in photography in a mere two hours a week, he has already done more than most photo classes ever achieve...
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Well, the story about the world map in the street, it seems to me, provides the answer to your question. Let's assume that the experiment really was performed and the result really was as presented, neither of which I believe for a moment.

All that would have proved, is that a number of people had no reason to know anything about world geography. Same with history. It doesn't make you a better person to know about the Battle of Talavera or what element has an atomic weight of 16. Nor does it mean that you have less to contribute, if you have no idea who Edward Weston was.

People vary in their interests and there really is too much knowledge in the world to get your head round even a small fraction. :angel:
Click to expand...

The US was involved at the time in the first conflict with Iraq. It was in the news everyday. To not even know where it is, ludicrous. The US was involved in Vietnam for 25 years. Still so much a part of our current history. Not knowing where that country is in the world?! I hope you know what I am getting at...
 
Ko.Fe. said:
NY midtown? How about Brighton Beach? You'll get opposite results for geography quiz.
And math as well.

Have you checked young fella pictures?
I have seen almost no relation between knowing of big names and taking of good pictures.

What was this Spanish triple name? I looked on it twice now and remember only Bravo.
🙂
Click to expand...

Manuel Alvarezz Bravo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Álvarez_Bravo
 
sevo said:
College. That is school, not university, and (at least if it is not a dedicated photography college) you are not supposed to be taught everything photographic there - if the teacher manages to teach them enough about one photographer to kindle their interest in photography in a mere two hours a week, he has already done more than most photo classes ever achieve...
Click to expand...

Well, I went ot a university and it was the same. One history of photography class two times a week for only one semester. Each school has its own philosophy on what is important in photography (or art in general) and if it doesn't match your flavor, you are on your own to learn more about what does it for you. I will add that at least we went to museums and galleries as a class sometimes.
 
sevo said:
College. That is school, not university, and (at least if it is not a dedicated photography college) you are not supposed to be taught everything photographic there - if the teacher manages to teach them enough about one photographer to kindle their interest in photography in a mere two hours a week, he has already done more than most photo classes ever achieve...
Click to expand...

Is this the norm now?
 
Of course it's perfectly possible to be a brilliant photographer even without knowing anything about history, great photographers, etc. and it's perfectly possible to be unsure where some countries are, even if you are otherwise well educated.

It is also possible to meet the same criteria about history and geography and to be a lazy, stupid, xenophobic ignoramus. On the basis of many years' observation, and in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, I'd generally start out with the suspicion that the latter is likelier.

Cheers,

R.
 
I will admit that I cannot name all of the countries on a world map. I would assume most people cannot name 190+ countries. That said, I can obviously name many major ones, but I'm sure there are some countries I've never even heard of. Geography has never been the USA's strong suit.
 
Imo opinion it's not the schools fault if the students are unwilling to take an interest in their chosen medium outside of school. It seems that people are less and less willing to educate themselves, we've become a generations of consumers that suck up everything they see on tv but are unwilling to educate themselves.
 
Since the subject at hand here is a photography, I would be much more concerned with the lack of knowledge of basic visual arts, painting being the most important in my opinion.
Not knowing who Paul Strand or Gary Winogrand was- is strange, but really not critical.
Not knowing the basic principles of composition (I am NOT talking about “horizon has to be straight” bull_**** rules ), roots of harmony, if you will, you will be bound to reinvent the wheel every step of the way. And it’s all in painting, sculpture, drawings, all this info available really…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
4
Views
533
Godfrey
Godfrey
A
The Quadrant Model of Gear vs Output
Replies
10
Views
793
Guth
G
caila77
the nightmare of buying online
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Beemermark
Beemermark
peterm1
Who has hobbies other than photography?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
2K
bulevardi
bulevardi
A
2020 - 2021: Pandemic, Lockdowns and More
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
5K
Michalm
Michalm
Back
Top Bottom