Who? Never heard of them....

[DominikDUK]

Roger I think that Ronis's lack of fame has more to do with HCB than America. HCB is this über figure of french photography that eclipses everyone else despite the fact that Ronis is at least as good as HCB if not better. Photographers that come from outside the western world are in general less well known than Western photographers. In that we westerners (Europeans) are no better than the Americans who take their little piece of America with them wherever they go

 

[j j]

Known, important and interesting, yes. THE MOST important: very, very far from it.

Cheers,

R.

It's not really your call to deny "but still he remains the most important to me personally" is it Roger?

Out of interest, what is THE MOST important in your personal view? How about one photographer and one book from the 20th century?

 

[DominikDUK]

Is there really a most important photographer of the 20th century I think not. Everything that is photography was already nearly fully developed at the end of the 19th century. The most important book of the 20th century is most likely the yellow pages. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not really your call to deny "but still he remains the most important to me personally" is it Roger?

Out of interest, what is THE MOST important in your personal view? How about one photographer and one book from the 20th century?

Para 1: Of course not, and that isn't really what I meant to say, though it came out like that. Sorry.

Para 2: There is rarely a single "best" of anything, especially across the course of a century, and it is normally childish to imagine that there can be any such thing: think back to your own childhood when (if you were anything like me) you'd ask your parents, "What the best motor car" or "Where is the best farm land".

It would be completely meaningless to choose a "best book" or "most important photographer", and that, really, is part of my point. Is J.K. Galbraith's The New Industrial State a "better" book than N.N. Taleb's Fooled by Randomness? At least there we're talking about non-fiction and (sort of) economics, so we're comparing more or less like with like. Is either "better" than a Terry Pratchett novel? Was Willy Ronis a "better" photographer than HCB? And was Raghubir Singh a better photographer than Raghu Rai?

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

Roger maybe we should start a Thread about Indian photographers this is getting really interesting at least to me who has little knowledge about native Indian photographers or even better start a thread about native third world photographers.

 

[tunalegs]

I talked to some photographers who didn't know that Ansco bought the patent for roll film from Goodwin, then used it to successfully sue Kodak for infringement.

What are they teaching people about photography history these days??? They didn't even know who Otto Perutz was.

 

[DominikDUK]

What a disgrace to the photographic profession😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger I think that Ronis's lack of fame has more to do with HCB than America. HCB is this über figure of french photography that eclipses everyone else despite the fact that Ronis is at least as good as HCB if not better. Photographers that come from outside the western world are in general less well known than Western photographers. In that we westerners (Europeans) are no better than the Americans who take their little piece of America with them wherever they go

This prompts three thoughts. One is the "Winner Takes All" syndrome, further propagated by a childish search for The Best and a sloppy-training oriented "education" system that tries to teach "high points" and "great names". Thus Yvan Travert is very little known ( http://www.travert.fr/ )

This leads to the second, which is that he is little known because he is Francophone. At least Europeans are aware that there are other countries with other languages and other photographers: most reasonably well-educated Europeans can at least understand enough of one or two other languages to understand (for example) a photo caption, or even to read, perhaps with difficulty, in another language a book that is not available in their own. I am currently reading/trying to read, very slowly, a biography of Leonard Cohen in Spanish.

This in turn leads to the third. It is a good idea to be aware of one's cultural biases and relative lack of experience. Anglophones are often very bad about this, simply because English is so widely spoken. For example, I don't go out of my way to seek out Chinese photographers, because I can't read Chinese, even though at least two of my books have been translated. But when I've seen their work (usually in Arles) I have been very impressed: Wang Qingsong, Song Chao.

Cheers,

R.

 

[cz23]

The problem with this thinking is that there will always be someone more knowledgeable than we are. We will always be ignorant to someone. Just how much do we need to know to meet the OP's standard? Better to mind our own business, not judge others, and focus on improving ourselves and our work. The quality of a person is surely not determined by what they know, but rather by who they are and what they do.

John

 

[DominikDUK]

Roger Wan Quinsong really is interesting a mix between Gursky and portrait photography and not something one would expect coming out of China. Song Chao is again an interesting photographer who reminds me somewhat of Avedon's work but more alive.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger maybe we should start a Thread about Indian photographers this is getting really interesting at least to me who has little knowledge about native Indian photographers or even better start a thread about native third world photographers.

It would probably be a great idea but unfortunately I don't know enough even to try. My knowledge of photography could politely be described as "eclectic" but more accurate words might be "magpie" or "haphazard". Because I have for decades pursued photography out of interest, rather than trying to obtain any particular qualification, I haven't had to read (or believe) others' views on who is "important". My reading has been much the same. Whenever I read an "important" work of fiction, I find that as often as not, it is not to my taste. Often, I won't even bother to finish the book. Then, if I'm feeling confident, I come to the conclusion that many people only read this stuff to the end because they think it makes them look intellectual and well-read. My favourite writer of the 20th/21st century is Sir Terry Pratchett, the Dickens de nos jours. He is however widely dismissed by would-be intellectuals because he sells too many books.

This to me strikes at the very heart of so-called education, which has deteriorated into a points-scoring system for the benefit of those (such as employers, publishers and academic institutions) who like counting points but do not necessarily know much about the subject in which the points have been accumulated. A friend of mine -- a brilliant, widely read but "unqualified" art historian, refers to it as "collecting box tops", the way you used to be able to send in cereal box tops for "prizes". Get enough box tops and you can teach other people how to collect box tops.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . there will always be someone more knowledgeable than we are. . . .

Dear John,

YES! But this ties in well with what I wrote a moment ago (see the post above) about the limitations of "education".

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

It would probably be a great idea but unfortunately I don't know enough even to try. My knowledge of photography could politely be described as "eclectic" but more accurate words might be "magpie" or "haphazard". Because I have for decades pursued photography out of interest, rather than trying to obtain any particular qualification, I haven't had to read (or believe) others' views on who is "important". My reading has been much the same. Whenever I read an "important" work of fiction, I find that as often as not, it is not to my taste. Often, I won't even bother to finish the book. Then, if I'm feeling confident, I come to the conclusion that many people only read this stuff to the end because they think it makes them look intellectual and well-read. My favourite writer of the 20th/21st century is Sir Terry Pratchett, the Dickens de nos jours. He is however widely dismissed by would-be intellectuals because he sells too many books.

This to me strikes at the very heart of so-called education, which has deteriorated into a points-scoring system for the benefit of those (such as employers, publishers and academic institutions) who like counting points but do not necessarily know much about the subject in which the points have been accumulated. A friend of mine -- a brilliant, widely read but "unqualified" art historian, refers to it as "collecting box tops", the way you used to be able to send in cereal box tops for "prizes". Get enough box tops and you can teach other people how to collect box tops.

Cheers,

R.

A sad truth.
I don't know if this kind of book existed outside of the german speaking world but in the late 19th up to the mid 20th century there was a series of books about the knowledge one had to have in order to appear intelligent and well read these books included the must have reads, must have seen artists etc... Really weird but no doubt the base of some pseudo intellectuals knowledge. I do have a degree in art history but hate nothing more than the name dropping and categorizing that goes on in this field. I also usually prefer the lesser artists galleries in art museums.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A sad truth.
I don't know if this kind of book existed outside of the german speaking world but in the late 19th up to the mid 20th century there was a series of books about the knowledge one had to have in order to appear intelligent and well read these books included the must have reads, must have seen artists etc... Really weird but no doubt the base of some pseudo intellectuals knowledge. . . .

Yes, they certainly existed in English too but they were (as far as I know) never very popular. I used to haunt second-hand book stores a lot in the 60s and early 70s and I remember coming across them occasionally: I think they had all but died out by then. I wish I could find one now, to see what they thought was "important".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Parochial is a strange kind of weasel word, when applied to the American experience. Kerouac, John Coltrane, Tennessee Williams, Muddy Waters -- are uniquely American, but certainly no one would use the word "parochial" to describe their influence on the world.

I strongly suspect that you're correct in the last statement but only because the vast majority of mankind have not the slightest idea who they are and wouldn't care if they did know.

You yourself just wrote that {Many RFF members fail to see that they are not the only one "here."} and yet you are exhibiting just that failure.

Rule One of the internet has nothing to do with small bald men (try Googling "History Monks" if you want to understand that last reference). It is that more people can see your words than you can probably imagine.

Many, quite possibly the majority, of those people will not share your cultural background or your values. So neither the authors nor the photographers you consider important will have any meaning to them.

The good news is that knowledge is not a zero-sum game. We can obtain it from one another and still have it ourselves. So why not just embrace the difference?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Respectfully Roger my original post was:

There are "better" writers (ones I enjoy more) than Jack Kerouac -- but still he remains the most important to me personally.​

The key words are "to me personally." I was deeply introduced to Kerouac by his friend Allen Ginsberg, who I was fortunate to spend time with when I was 20, and later.

Kerouac defines the 3000 mile American road trip of the '50s and early '60s, in a way that has formed much of my creative thinking. Yes it is peculiarly American, just as a drive in a Caddy though Mexico is peculiarly Mexican.

Driving US Route 66 before the super-highways cannot be recreated. One can only be 18 in 1960 if in fact -- one was 18 in 1960. You did not come of age in America in the '50s or '60s -- so how could you possibly know what I feel defines my thinking the "most" means to me?

There is a NYC expression, made famous in "Taxi Driver" (I know you have never heard of it, but Google it) "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here." Many RFF members fail to see that they are not the only one "here."

"Parochial" is a strange kind of weasel word, when applied to the American experience. Kerouac, John Coltrane, Tennessee Williams, Muddy Waters -- are uniquely American, but certainly no one would use the word "parochial" to describe their influence (Google Rolling Stones a UK band).

The expatriate poet Ezra Pound, born in the Idaho territory, seems to exemplify the flexibility of the American writers, to me.

So no matter how many English photographers you mention, they will never appear in an alternate American experience, where the US remains a colony of the UK. I speak with an Ozark lead miner's accent the only truly parochial aspect of my life.

(1) See post 114. I apologize to you as well as to him.

(2) ""Parochial" is a strange kind of weasel word, when applied to the American experience." -- Not really. One can be parochially American, or parochially British, or parochially Chinese. All of us are, to some extent. Some of us admit it. And, from the excellent post above (which appeared as I was writing this), "The good news is that knowledge is not a zero-sum game. We can obtain it from one another and still have it ourselves. So why not just embrace the difference?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . One can only be 18 in 1960 if in fact -- one was 18 in 1960. . . .

A further thought on this. Yes, exactly. The fact that someone perfectly captures a highly specific experience that was shared by other people in a particular place at a particular time is, yes, parochial. Unless that experience transcends the particular place and particular time, it's journalism, and not even necessarily very good journalism. Among "journalist writers", Hunter S. Thompson is, I suggest, a vastly better writer than Kerouac because he's better at evoking things we haven't (necessarily) experienced.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael Markey]

Be assured that Kerouac is extremely well known in Europe among those who read. Not exactly fashionable now like he was 20 and 30 years ago but by any reasonable measure he is well known and considered important. Even people who do not know the author's name know On The Road.

Kerouac never really caught on in the UK , I would suggest.
Speaking as somebody who at one time had and read all his books there was always a feeling of ...what on earth is he on about.
It was fashionable to know who he was but other than that ....
On the other hand Hunter S Thompson (most of his stuff both books and in old copies of Rolling Stone around and about the house) seemed much more successful in conveying his ideas.

 

[sevo]

Kerouac never really caught on in the UK , I would suggest.

He got more popular in Europe in the eighties when the first beat literature revival kicked off, but my parents generation, the original European beatniks, could make little of him.

In the late fifties, there was a significant poverty divide between European and US youths. Adolescents driving huge limousines across thousands of miles may have been too strange a concept at a time when even three-wheeled microcars like a Reliant or Isetta were beyond the reach of the average European student.

 

[Michael Markey]

Maybe the lack of Chevy convertibles? 😉

Yes that could be it 🙂
I think Sevo has hit the nail on the head too.
Cars were still relatively uncommon in the 1950`s in the UK at least for the majority of the population.

Most teenagers in the 60`s could still only aspire to a motor bike so the car culture was pretty meaningless other than some exotic possibility.
As for driving thousands of miles ...well there just aren`t thousands of miles in the UK so that whole romantic highway /road movie image doesn`t translate .