I hardly know where to begin in response to you, Bill. You do need to know your art history. (I'm self-taught at that, too.)
Post modern art is opposed to modernism. Modernism basically started at the end of the 19th century and was predominant until the middle-late 20th century. In the lase 1960s, perhaps a few year earlier, much art, at least in the "art world" became "post modern."
Abstract expressionist painting is perhaps the ultimate example of modernist painting
Modernism, and I am proudly a modernist, is concerned with the object itself—more than the message the object conveys. Modernist art is certainly informed by intelligence, but modernist works are not "about" ideas. Edward Weston is the quintessential modernist photographer, as is Brett Weston. Also in that category are Aaron Siskind and Harry Callahan, Imogen Cunningham, Walker Evans, and so many others. Edward Weston wrote that what he photographed was "life rhythms" whether the subject pictured was clouds, torsos, smokestacks, etc. (Since I am traveling I do not have the exact quote at hand, Apologies.) Actually, what he did say, is that he "photographed the "me" of universal rhythms." I used the term "life rhythms." Same thing.
Post modernist art is about ideas. To post modernist artists it doesn't matter so much what the art looks like, what it "says"--its message--is paramount. (This is a very summary explanation, but it works.) Examples of post modern photographers would include Richard Prince and Barbara Kruger. They goal in their work is usually to critique society. (Again, this is a generalization.)
The great art historian Sir Herbert Read once said that the plastic arts are not about ideas; they are about feelings. " If one has ideas to express the proper medium is language."
If you are unfamiliar with the term "post modern" it is a sad comment on your knowledge of art and the art and photography world, as the term has been used more than extensively for more than 50 years.
Diane Arbus, who I knew by the way, was an excellent photographer. Adams made many great photographs, but is a lesser artist. Far too many of his photographs are just representations of what he photographed. They do not, as Edward Weston's photographs do, allude to more than what they are of. That is because, although technically perfect, they are not as well seen. What I mean by "well seen" is this. The rhythms created by the tones in a well seen black and white photograph (for the moment I am only speaking about black and white photographs) do not cause the viewer's eyes to move in such a way that connects them to universal rhythms. For Adams, what was seen--the beauties of nature--was more important than how it was seen. For Weston, subjects were essentially interchangeable--it was how he saw the thing before his lens that makes his photographs so wonderful, not what he was pointing the camera and lens at.
In the art market Adams's photographs were the first to get relatively seriously high prices, but essentially they have not gone higher in the last ten years than they were ten years ago, whereas some of Edward Weston's photographs have sold individually for over one million dollars. Why is this? It is because there is an (often unconscious) understanding that Adams's photographs are only representations of what he saw; they are nothing more than that, no matter how lovely some of them may be to look at.
Perhaps the prime example of Adams missing the point is the section "Technical Notes" (it was called something like that, I do not have the book at hand) in his 1949 (I believe it was) book "My Camera in Yosemite Valley." In this section he describes the making of each of the 24 photographs that were exquisitely reproduced. That was good. But then, for each of the pictures, he goes on to say something like, "Bridevail Falls: Photograph here in last May and early June between 10: AM and noon. Use a normal lens and a K2 filter." (I'm making up the exact words—if I had the book here I would quote exactly, but really, my words are accurate in relating the tone of what he wrote.) He might as well as put brass markers at the spot so that others could set their tripods in the same place. Why would he have written this? It can only be because he thought that what was seen (to "best" effect to show the beauty of the falls) was more important than how it might be seen. You can bet that had Edward Weston photographed there, the picture would have been more abstract—the "me of universal rhythms would have been paramount." The falls would have ultimately been just the excuse for making an exposure.
Now, of course there must be an emotional response to the subject for Weston and for anyone else. No one in their right mind (I hope) would want to go to the trouble of setting up cumbersome large view cameras unless they had an emotional response to the subject. But then, the photographers job is to make the best picture they can; realizing that foremost they are making a picture, regardless of what the picture is of.
Now, to contradict myself, there have been many great photographs that are pretty much only about what was pictured. They are usually news photographs of some type.But even here, the photograph of the naked girl running down the street burning from napalm and the other great one from the Vietnam War of the Vietnamese "good guy" shooting a Viet Cong guy in the head at point-blank range are great not only because of what they show, but because they are extremely well seen--in some way, and this I do not think I can explain, the rhythms in the photographs relate to universal rhythms. Had the photographs been poorly seen, they would never have become such iconic pictures.
I hope this is clear. I urge you to educate yourself about art, the history of art, and the art world. Art speak is disgusting in the extreme and you can safely not read any of it, but terms such as "universal rhythms" and "life rhythms" are as far from art speak as you can get. But you do need to educate yourself so that you can make this differentiation yourself.
Now, I read your response again. Ideas are always expressed through photography, but the work, unless it is post-modern work is not about ideas. Weston's "me of universal rhythms: is an idea, but his photographs are not only about that.
A beautiful object, to me, is one in which the abstract structure of the picture conveys universal rhythms. It might be a photograph of something disturbing and gruesome. It is the rhythms that count. This discounts almost all "pretty" pictures. Pictures that many think are beautiful because what is photographed is considered beautiful—photographs of pretty sunsets usually fall into this category.
One last thing: there are an infinite number of ways to see in terms of universal rhythms. There are no rules. Arbus and Weston are, in this regard, not so very different from each other as you may think. There is a far great difference between Adams and Weston than between Arbus and Weston.
If you find it rare to see a photograph that isn't much more then the sum of its subject matter, may I suggest that you learn how to look at photographs. Most folks look at them for the subject matter—and leave it at that. but there is often more to be seen. In this regard I was just looking for a quote that I cannot locate. It was from text on a wall at hte Peggy Guggenheim Museum in Venice that I saw when I was there ten years ago. I paraphrase: The viewer of a work of art in the viewing has the same responsibility to the work as the artist had in making it."
I truly hope this has been helpful. Michael On 11/19/13 12:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Oh, Michael - you and I really don’t see eye to eye. First of all, could you please define “post-modern photographers”? Is that a group? An organization? Photographers bounded by the years in which they’re active? “School of f/64” I understand; “post-modern”, I don’t. Question: why on earth should a picture be a “beautiful object” to have value? What is not valid about “ideas” expressed through photography? You probably really hate Diane Arbus! As much as I loathe Picasso (there - I said it!), “Guernica” has no beauty about it, but it’s certainly “art”. I think that the bottom line here is that I have to challenge your assumption that a photograph - *any* photograph - can be only "about what they are of - and nothing more”. It’s rare to see a photograph that isn’t much, much more than the sum of its subject matter. I happen to think that Arbus - and Ansel - were pretty damn good photographers!ct -Bill On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The word "image" came into common usage when referring to photographs with the post-modern photographers. They are not concerned with pictures as beautiful objects; they are involved with "ideas" and invariably their photographs are indeed about what they are of--and nothing more. This is a debasement of art, reflection of where our so-called society has slithered (to quote my favorite poet). Michael==========================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
