Am I a 'modernist' photographer? When shooting, am I creating art or just another photograph? I wonder... though I'm not sure there's a definitive answer.
In an article for PetaPixel "Why Photographers Don't Get Art", John Raymond Mireles discusses the nature of modern professional photography versus contemporary art to try and tease out the differences between the two and how they might be reconciled. Central to his argument is the idea that photographers operate within a narrow definition of what's considered a great photograph through a modernist lens. Or rather, technical proficiency equates quality of art—camera operation, quality of light, aesthetic achievement and the description of a visual narrative must be of the utmost quality. Photography is a well-defined narrative captured in a single image, apparently.
Art, Mireles argues, relies on the "underlying conceptual currency"* of the piece and less so on the aesthetic result with "the move away from craft...art has increasingly focused on exploring concepts and philosophies and less on advancing art on its aesthetic merits. Postmodern art especially is about dissecting historical perspectives and denouncing traditional narratives. Basically, you have no idea what you’re looking at nor how to judge it unless you read the often densely written artist statement affixed to the nearby wall." For conceptual art this might be true—ideas push the artist to explore abstract concepts rather than obvious visual narratives—but not always. And there are many practicing artists who's craftsmanship is impeccable.
I take issue with the photograph he uses as an example of "commercial photography" as well. The image by Mark Seliger is the most cartoonishly exaggerated example of a female cowgirl standing on an obvious set with painted backdrop and all the props you can scavenge from a country goodwill store in order to make his point. But commercial photography has so many facets which include the creation of images that are inspired by art, or documentary, or editorial styles. Sven Kovac, for example, created this beautiful commercial / fashion image which also feels like the best of contemporary street photography.
Still, I enjoyed reading the article and it's obviously got me thinking which is never a bad thing.
Drawing from my own city for example, Adelaide local Yanni Floros has produced a series of hyperreal illustrations of men and weapons to discuss masculinity and power using only charcoal as a medium. Joshua Smith creates incredible miniature reproductions of real dilapidated storefronts inspired by his love of graffiti culture and architecture, spending many hours developing new techniques to perfectly reconstruct tiny bricks, chains and milk cartons. And Lisa King, who paints aesthetically beautiful images of women in oil, inspired by the work of fashion photographers and designers and while her images may appear "simple" in composition there's many hours of mood boarding and concept development before she even begins painting. Then there are artists such as Tom Borgas who creates highly refined sculptural works that exist in reality but which he only completes if they "look good through a camera, as all work exists to be digital these days." (I'm paraphrasing Borgas here from a presentation he did a few years ago at the Relay design forum.)
Maybe I'm going off point but I feel that the position taken by Mireles assumes that most photographers are still steeped in traditional values only held by pure commercial studio photographers of the late 1990s but aren't necessarily here today. At least, they're not the same views held by many of my contemporaries (photographers in their late 20s to early 30s) who love and appreciate art in all its facets.
 |
| Acquisition, 120cm x 50cm, Charcoal on Paper © Yanni Floros. Used here with permission from the artist. |
 |
| © Sven Kovac, borrowed from Instagram. |
Drawing from my own city for example, Adelaide local Yanni Floros has produced a series of hyperreal illustrations of men and weapons to discuss masculinity and power using only charcoal as a medium. Joshua Smith creates incredible miniature reproductions of real dilapidated storefronts inspired by his love of graffiti culture and architecture, spending many hours developing new techniques to perfectly reconstruct tiny bricks, chains and milk cartons. And Lisa King, who paints aesthetically beautiful images of women in oil, inspired by the work of fashion photographers and designers and while her images may appear "simple" in composition there's many hours of mood boarding and concept development before she even begins painting. Then there are artists such as Tom Borgas who creates highly refined sculptural works that exist in reality but which he only completes if they "look good through a camera, as all work exists to be digital these days." (I'm paraphrasing Borgas here from a presentation he did a few years ago at the Relay design forum.)
Maybe I'm going off point but I feel that the position taken by Mireles assumes that most photographers are still steeped in traditional values only held by pure commercial studio photographers of the late 1990s but aren't necessarily here today. At least, they're not the same views held by many of my contemporaries (photographers in their late 20s to early 30s) who love and appreciate art in all its facets.
* How great is the phrase "conceptual currency"?!
No comments:
Post a Comment