Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before

A

Al Kaplan

Veteran
Local time
4:07 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
4,463
In the last few years North Miami, FL has developed a vibrant art scene and MOCA, the Museum Of Contemporary Art, as well as numerous glleries in the "Arts District" have been showing a lot of photography. Coming up:

FEBRUARY 14

2PM

Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before
Lecture by art historian Michael Fried, MOCA North Miami

Known for his seminal writings on minimalism, in recent years Fried has turned his attention toward art photography, a topic of great current interest in the art world. In his book Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before (Yale University Press, 2008), he examines the work of artists such as Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Demand, and Bernd and Hilla Becher in an attempt to explain how photography has become a cutting edge of contemporary art.

Fried’s 1967 essay Art and Objecthood is considered to be one of the most important works of art criticism on 20th Century art. He is the J.R. Herbert Boone Professor of Humanities at Johns Hopkins University and author of such books as: Morris Louis; Absorbtion and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot; Courbet’s Realism; Manet’s Modernism; Menzel’s Realism: Art and Embodiment in Nineteenth-Century Berlin; and Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews. Dr. Fried is a contributing author to the catalogue for MOCA’s current exhibition Anri Sala: Purchase Not By Moonlight.

The Art Talk series is made possible by an endowment at MOCA established by Dr. Sanford and Dolores Ziff.

The museum is locate at 770 NE 125th St. in North Miami and the lecture is included with admission. For more information call 305-893-6211 or visit the website www.mocanomi.org

Across the street from the museum and half a block east at 12502 NE 8th Ave. Mario Flores Gallery is currently hosting a group show featuring the work of several photographers, everything from abstract color to photojournalistic realism, and inkjet to conventional gelatin silver. Last night was the show opening and it will run until the end of February.(disclaimer - I have 13 prints in this exhibit) www.mariofloresgallery.com
 
I'm going to try to attend the lecture. I've been to a number events over there and it's nice to be amongst folks who might remark about my still shooting film or using a Leica but never try to steer the conversation into this lens-vs.-that-lens.
 
I wish i could attend, I love events like this. When I was in college I went to hear critic A.D Coleman and Jerry Uelsmann speak in Chicago (A fairly short drive for me), and next month Peter Turnley will be speaking here in Ft. Wayne (their hometown, and mine too!).
 
Yeah, it'd be so cool if ''somehow'' an audio recording of the talk came out. I would love to hear this, but travel to and from Miami - on a day I'd better be spending with my girlfriend! - just seems too dear for a mere avocation.
 
Chris101 said:
Yeah, it'd be so cool if ''somehow'' an audio recording of the talk came out. I would love to hear this, but travel to and from Miami - on a day I'd better be spending with my girlfriend! - just seems too dear for a mere avocation.
Click to expand...

My girlfriend would go with me :D
 
Photography is at the height of it's powers. Maybe not in money terms but in the way society perceives it's weight as a corner stone of culture.
The height of creativity happened in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s... those were the years of infancy and adolescence for the medium. Now it's maturity: directors shoot thir films since photography became a signature. Artists such as Vik Muniz define themselves as photographers.
SEbastião Salgado can take an aesthethic from the 50s (W. Eugene white) and make it an universal language in the 90s.
Photography is the real thing right now.
 
colker said:
Photography is at the height of it's powers. Maybe not in money terms but in the way society perceives it's weight as a corner stone of culture.
The height of creativity happened in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s... those were the years of infancy and adolescence for the medium. Now it's maturity: directors shoot thir films since photography became a signature. Artists such as Vik Muniz define themselves as photographers.
SEbastião Salgado can take an aesthethic from the 50s (W. Eugene white) and make it an universal language in the 90s.
Photography is the real thing right now.
Click to expand...


Perhaps ART photography (whatever THAT is) is on the rise, but I disagree about photography of the Salgado type - photography that is rooted in representing a subject that existed in REALITY - this type of photography is doomed.

Here's why:

Photography (and cinematography), unlike all the other visual arts, has a direct connection with REALITY - we are all socialized from a young age to "trust" an image as being a representation of reality, and hence we all feel as if we've seen things that we haven't really seen - such as the Taj Mahal, or Jackie Onassis in the back of the car with the slumped-over body of JFK in Texas, or the newspaper story about the tenement building fire which killed a family of 5, etc.

We trust that these things existed or happened.

Manipulation of photographs has always existed, but now in the digital photography age it's happening at an unprecedented rate. Think of just about every advertising picture you've seen recently. Think of the Apple iPhoto feature that'll merge a photo of your choice with any background of your choice - "yipee, look at me, I'm in Paris!

But you actually weren't at the Eiffel Tower or Paris...

I FEAR THAT THE IMPLICIT TRUST IN PHOTOGRAPHY as REPRESENTING REALITY IS ALREADY BEING LOST.

If/when this trust is lost, photography will not be photography anymore. It'll be just another visual art such as graphic arts or painting.

If my kids, when they are mature adults in say 20 years time, see a Salgado-type picture of refugees struggling under difficult conditions, will they believe that this tragedy REALLY HAPPENED? Perhaps, but will their belief be AS STRONG as, for example, my belief that the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on re-entry on Feb. 1st, 2003? I didn't see that explosion, but I saw the pictures...
 
Last edited:
Hi Al,

thanks for the heads up - I'll be around Hollywood later this month, and will try to check out the exhibition at the Mario Flores Gallery, and MOCA as well.
 
Very interesting thoughts, Sleepyhead. I certainly don't trust photographs anymore - I just see too much manipulation everywhere. What about what I don't see? Is it manipulated too? And those in the future will, as you say, probably not trust anything.
 
I agree with the topic - that photograpy CAN be as important as ever given the era of manipulated photographs, FX and every event being captured with some video device. However good photography - and I am talking no manipuation - still evokes emotions that cannot be duplicated by any other art field except painting, and then only from master painters. Movies are entertainment; good photography is a look at the soul of the world.

O.C.
 
Food for thought:

http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2009/02/one-collectors-view-of-current.html

Over the past few weeks, we have watched with much trepidation as the signs of imminent gallery failures have started to become more obvious, and the gawkers and nay sayers have begun the death watch with not so hidden glee. As long term collectors, we view ourselves as part of the photography world, tied to the rise and fall of the “industry” just as much as the gallery owners, private dealers, museum curators, and even the artists themselves. As we watch with dismay as our own budget shrinks and talk to gallery owners who are increasingly worried about the burden of their fixed overhead, how we together get out of this tightening trap becomes a more complicated puzzle for everyone up and down the food chain.

As we look ahead to collecting in 2009, we are starting to develop an approach to pursuing our passion in the midst of this collapse. Here are a few things that we are thinking and planning:
Click to expand...
 
sleepyhead said:
Perhaps ART photography (whatever THAT is) is on the rise, but I disagree about photography of the Salgado type - photography that is rooted in representing a subject that existed in REALITY - this type of photography is doomed.

Here's why:

Photography (and cinematography), unlike all the other visual arts, has a direct connection with REALITY - we are all socialized from a young age to "trust" an image as being a representation of reality, and hence we all feel as if we've seen things that we haven't really seen - such as the Taj Mahal, or Jackie Onassis in the back of the car with the slumped-over body of JFK in Texas, or the newspaper story about the tenement building fire which killed a family of 5, etc.

We trust that these things existed or happened.

Manipulation of photographs has always existed, but now in the digital photography age it's happening at an unprecedented rate. Think of just about every advertising picture you've seen recently. Think of the Apple iPhoto feature that'll merge a photo of your choice with any background of your choice - "yipee, look at me, I'm in Paris!

But you actually weren't at the Eiffel Tower or Paris...

I FEAR THAT THE IMPLICIT TRUST IN PHOTOGRAPHY as REPRESENTING REALITY IS ALREADY BEING LOST.

If/when this trust is lost, photography will not be photography anymore. It'll be just another visual art such as graphic arts or painting.

If my kids, when they are mature adults in say 20 years time, see a Salgado-type picture of refugees struggling under difficult conditions, will they believe that this tragedy REALLY HAPPENED? Perhaps, but will their belief be AS STRONG as, for example, my belief that the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded on re-entry on Feb. 1st, 2003? I didn't see that explosion, but I saw the pictures...
Click to expand...

so be it: art then. it's good photography is liberated from it's role as Proof or document.
It should be on the same level as a drawing or a person's diary.
the glass is half full.
 
I have a copy of Fried's book and though I have not read it cover to cover (it's a big book) I have spent enough time with it to get the gist of what he has to say. A lot of the book is about Jeff Wall. He does reference a number of other contemporary photographers but he obviously is enthralled with Wall's photographs and uses them to highlight his conclusions.

I think that SleepyHead is right in saying that this new role for photography has to paid close attention to because it is not so much what is coming that is of concern but what is being lost. When you look at Susan Sontags' writing about photography (primarily her later essays) and the role it plays in our understanding the world we live in, it is not so easy to shrug off the new direction picture taking is moving towards.

This past weekend I was at the National Gallery here is DC and saw the Robert Frank show. Even though I have seen these photos many times I was taken with their strength in depicting American life and how they have lost nothing in their relevance to our current situation and the foreseeable future. What happens if we no longer trust what artists do with photography to show us the world, especially the world that is far away? Do we become more and more suspicious with time? Or do we become more and more like children who believe in the fairly tales that are concocted for us by those who benefit from our sleep?
 
While Photography is Art.......

While Photography is Art.......

I have a copy of Fried's book and though I have not read it cover to cover (it's a big book) I have spent enough time with it to get the gist of what he has to say. A lot of the book is about Jeff Wall. He does reference a number of other contemporary photographers but he obviously is enthralled with Wall's photographs and uses them to highlight his conclusions.

I think that SleepyHead is right in saying that this new role for photography has to paid close attention to because it is not so much what is coming that is of concern but what is being lost. When you look at Susan Sontags' writing about photography (primarily her later essays) and the role it plays in our understanding the world we live in, it is not so easy to shrug off the new direction picture taking is moving towards.

This past weekend I was at the National Gallery here is DC and saw the Robert Frank show. Even though I have seen these photos many times I was taken with their strength in depicting American life and how they have lost nothing in their relevance to our current situation and the foreseeable future. What happens if we no longer trust what artists do with photography to show us the world, especially the world that is far away? Do we become more and more suspicious with time? Or do we become more and more like children who believe in the fairly tales that are concocted for us by those who benefit from our sleep?
 
laughingbuddha said:
I have a copy of Fried's book and though I have not read it cover to cover (it's a big book) I have spent enough time with it to get the gist of what he has to say. A lot of the book is about Jeff Wall. He does reference a number of other contemporary photographers but he obviously is enthralled with Wall's photographs and uses them to highlight his conclusions.

I think that SleepyHead is right in saying that this new role for photography has to paid close attention to because it is not so much what is coming that is of concern but what is being lost. When you look at Susan Sontags' writing about photography (primarily her later essays) and the role it plays in our understanding the world we live in, it is not so easy to shrug off the new direction picture taking is moving towards.

This past weekend I was at the National Gallery here is DC and saw the Robert Frank show. Even though I have seen these photos many times I was taken with their strength in depicting American life and how they have lost nothing in their relevance to our current situation and the foreseeable future. What happens if we no longer trust what artists do with photography to show us the world, especially the world that is far away? Do we become more and more suspicious with time? Or do we become more and more like children who believe in the fairly tales that are concocted for us by those who benefit from our sleep?
Click to expand...

so how did everybody live before photojournalism? this so called eye on reality is just one of the possibilities of photography. besides, it ALWAYS distort things. there is no such thing as an unequivocal look at things. do you live in black and white? ,y life has reds and blues and yellows... i don't see them in Robert Frank's work. His work is good because he can SEE how we live. not because his film was Tri X.
 
so how did everybody live before photojournalism? this so called eye on reality is just one of the possibilities of photography. besides, it ALWAYS distort things. there is no such thing as an unequivocal look at things. do you live in black and white? ,y life has reds and blues and yellows... i don't see them in Robert Frank's work. His work is good because he can SEE how we live. not because his film was Tri X.
Click to expand...

Before photography drawing was used to depict things for people in a visual way. What I was referring to is that because of the reality based consciousness that surrounds photography there has always been heavy responsibility laid on photographers as truth tellers that as you pointed out is often not true at all. What Fried and Wall are pointing to is the power that photography inherently has to both document and persuade which makes it very important as a social phenomena now and in the future. The intersection between reality and art is becoming more and more integrated as time passes and photography is currently at the forefront of that development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom