A matter of opinion...
I am not generally in the habit of checking to see whether my books have been reviewed on Amazon, but I was pointed in that direction by a friend who said that I really must read the first review of Landscape Beyond. He said that the review was favourable, but had a sting in the tail. Mentally prepared for the worst I was not too unpleasantly surprised to read that the reviewer “felt that it was beneath [me] to demean other photographic authors.” I was a little taken aback by this comment and had to think for several minutes before I could make any connection between his comment and my book.
Eventually I realised that he could only be referring to a couple of critical quotes from the wonderfully opinionated writer David Lee about the work of Andreas Gursky. These appeared in my chapter on Beauty. I have reproduced the passage in full below so that its context remains intact:
"Proponents of high Modernism fear beauty because it may swamp their logic. They fear that it will beguile the viewer into accepting a lie. From their stance beauty is something that clouds the vision, something that obscures or, at best, elaborates upon the truth. If beauty is untruthful then the obverse must be true of ugliness, seems to be the `logic’. Anything ugly then takes on an unimpeachable authenticity. We can see the effect of this dominant philosophy in the art photography market, where the deliberately cold, drab and enervating work of photographers such as Andreas Gursky is not only highly praised but also the most economically successful photography of today. David Lee, writing in Ag magazine, noted:
'Self delusion abounds in all walks of life. . . there is a universal belief, taken as read, that Andreas Gursky is a great living photographer but on the visual evidence alone, without reference to price tags, size and the promotional rhetoric of his galleries and doting critics, there is nothing to support this view.'
We might usefully ask why Gursky's work fails to persuade Lee at a visual level. I think it is because the work doesn't evoke an emotional response. His images are illustrative rather than transcendent. The concept may be exciting but the execution is dull. Isn't it important for the visual arts to stimulate us visually? For many Modernist and Postmodernist artists the manner of representation is more important than the subject – the intellectual has taken precedence over the visceral, the emotional and the decorative aspects of the image. An ugly image is seen as intellectually more successful than a beautiful one, almost irrespective of its message. This is a clear case of the triumph of style over content. In other words just what the over-eager intellectuals were seeking to avoid in the first place.
Beauty is a rare quality in our everyday lives and we hunger for it but does this mean that it will necessarily deceive us? Are we all so callow as to be overpowered by its simple presence and not to seek other levels of meaning in an image? Clearly for some this will be the case. But surely those who rail against beauty are those least likely to be swayed by appearances, those best equipped to find deeper meanings?
David Lee went on to write:
'I wish sincerely that someone would explain Gursky's genius to me because I’m damned if I can see it or, more importantly, feel it.'
This last point is for me the most telling: we should feel something other than disdain or boredom when we experience art. For me, one of the most important criteria for a good work in painting, sculpture, music or photography is that it should evoke an emotional as well as an intellectual response. Interacting with works of art should make our heart beat faster, make us feel sad or happy or wistful or depressed or whatever. . . Just make us feel!"
Well, try as I might I cannot see any point at which I demeaned Gursky. I constructed an argument about how the notion of beauty has been spurned by many Modernists and used Gursky’s work as a supporting example. I was critical of his work but I expressed my opinion in a reasoned way. That is a long way from demeaning someone.
And why is it "beneath" me to express an opinion on another photographer's work? The phrase suggest that I may have crossed some ethical divide and debased myself in the process. To me opinions are as essential to making art as the creative process. In fact I can't see how one could be creative without an opinion on what one was doing. Is it just "not cricket" to say that you don't like somebody else's work in public? Something to be muttered behind your hand only to close friends and colleagues? Are other artists' egos really so fragile?
We are allowed to dislike the work of other artists, whether they be painters, photographers, sculptors, composers or writers. I have no doubt that many people dislike my work. I don’t lose any sleep over that fact, and I doubt that Andreas Gursky loses any sleep over what I think. Placing one’s work in the public domain opens it up to criticism, whether we consider it to be fair or not. That’s why it’s so scary! When an artist is passionate about their work, as I am, then they place their beating heart in the open every time they show a piece. It takes courage to do that. But without that courageous act our work would remain a private pleasure, something tantamount to the sin of onanism. Art should be shared, it is something that feeds the Human spirit in the same way as love does.
I believe that passion is an essential ingredient in any artistic endeavour and I was making a plea for passionate photography in the quoted passage. Being passionate about one’s work naturally leads to holding passionate opinions but I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s not wrong to have an opinion, it’s essential to have an opinion if you want to make images.
A passage from Ansel Adams’ autobiography seems apt:
"To be fully committed, an artist has to believe so strongly in his own work that it is difficult to have affinities to other artists’ production. If I truly believed in the art of another artist, I would be making it rather than what I am making."
I am certain that Adams does not mean to infer that one cannot appreciate the work of other artists; simply that one must adhere to one’s own path. The comment underlines my view that one needs to hold passionate beliefs about art in order to be an effective producer of art.
In fact it is absolutely essential that we dislike a proportion of the works of art that we see around us. We cannot love some artworks without the balance of disliking others. If we loved everything we saw it would mean that we had no critical faculty. Without the internal critic none of us can progress and develop our work.
Of course this isn’t the first time that I’ve ruffled a few feathers by expressing my opinion. On a recent forum thread one poster commented that he was “saddened” by my remarks on this blog about some of the work of Harry Cory Wright. He seemed to feel that I was trying to, in some way, restrict the breadth of work that falls within the genre of landscape photography. Let me assure you that this is very far from my intention. I simply want to take part in a debate. Without such debates artistic endeavour will stagnate, landscape photography would fall to the level of the lowest common denominator. Of course, debate is inevitable no matter how much some might wish to create an atmosphere that stifles critical opinion; any group of like-minded individuals in a field of endeavour will always hold differing viewpoints. I simply cannot understand why some people seem afraid or offended by others expressing an opinion.
Having a personal opinion is not the same as being prescriptive or proscriptive about the opinions of others. I’m not directing other people to think in a particular way; not telling them what they should or shouldn’t do when making images. I believe my audience to be adult and fully capable of making up their own minds. I’m simply telling people how I feel about something. Though I’m sure that it’s nothing new, there is a worrying trend in society for people to attack others for expressing robust opinions without feeling that they need to back up their own attack with a reasoned rebuttal of the original argument. Frowning on the opinions of others merely because they had the temerity to express them is tantamount to an attempt at censorship. I wonder if this all springs from a fear of litigation or whether it is merely the product of a society in which any kind of intellectual debate is avoided in favour of a quiet life.
I subscribe to the humanist, libertarian view that we all have an equal right to express our views and that it is our duty to uphold that freedom. The production of works of art is part of that freedom of expression. As Voltaire famously wrote, in a letter to M. le Riche, “Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” I defend Gursky or HCW's right to make whatever images they wish to (okay, maybe not to the death!), as they should defend mine to express my opinion of their work.
Of course, all of this is just my opinion, let me know yours!
Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson17/05/2008, 15:14
Hi David,
When I saw that comment I could not imagine what the reviewer was on about, as I have read your book through four times. Maybe he was referring to your comments about the images in some well known photo mags. I admire David Lee as he does not pull his punches and really states what he feels. Some of his recent articles in the AG mag were straight and to the point. I spoke to Chris Dickie the editor and told him that was why I bought his mag on subscription, for the images and articles. Nice to see your work in it also. As I said in my email to you, the exhibition prints were superb. Five minutes chatting to you is an inspiration for me and any other serious photographers that have the privilege to come into contact with you.
Oh, have you bought the TAO photography book yet? I'm sure you will not be disappointed when you do.
Highlight this Comment David17/05/2008, 15:59
Hi Sandy,
It hadn't occurred to me that the reviewer might be referring to a general comment about the photo mags. That seems to me to be too wide a target to raise his ire.
I have to confess that I haven't bought the Tao book yet, though I fully intend to and am sure that I will find it interesting.
Kind regards
David
Highlight this Comment Robert M. Teague18/05/2008, 04:23
David,
I can fully understand the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, it does seem that having an opinion of someone else's work generates anger on the point of others. I've had the same type of anger directed towards me for my opinion of the work of Joel Meyerowitz; work I find totally boring and banal.
Like you, I too have a passion for the landscape. It is necessary to have a passion, otherwise our work would come across as banal as well - and this what I consider to be the key, emotion and passion transforms an ordinary scene into a moving one.
I'm thankful to you for your passion; one which you have chosen to write about, which gives food for thought in my own work.
I've read your book "Landscape Within" cover to cover, several times, and look forward to your new book being published in the US (my copy is on pre-order with Amazon.com).
Robert Teague
Kaneohe, Hawaii
P.S. Long live film!!
Highlight this Comment David18/05/2008, 05:57
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your post!
I have come to believe that there is some kind of "alchemy" (for want of a better word) at work in the mundane chemistry of photography (OK, in the physics of digital photography as well...). When a maker is passionate that passion is apparent in the final image, no matter how imperfectly they may have captured their passion in the image. Of course, craft plays a role too. The more accomplished one's craftsmanship the more clearly the passion is transmitted.
I can't explain the mechanism (and it may all be a figment of my imagination!) but having looked at a good deal of work during critique sessions in workshops, and therefore been able to relate the individual to the image, the theory certainly seems to hold true. I've experienced the same feeling of passion in the work of those I don't know, and once I've met them or read their words on their work, had their passion confirmed.
By the way I have to disagree with you on Meyerowitz. I love some of his Cape Cod images for their quiet beauty. I guess the difference between me and the reviewer is that I'm not going to beat you up for not liking them!
David
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist18/05/2008, 08:13
Dear David,
As someone with a history of ruffling feathers, I understand your frustration. I still maintain that it is better to express oneself truly whatever the thought police says. Now, to your comments, I will respond with a few disjointed thoughts which you can follow up at your leisure.
(i) There was another bout of discussion just in the last few days on the relative merits of HCW at UKLFPG which you may want to read through. I think there are a few interesting answers on how to distinguish or define the different styles.
(ii) Would you be upset if someone came to you saying that your pictures were interesting rather than beautiful? Would you consider that a failure on your part or accept it manly as yet more evidence for diversity in opinion?
(iii) Tarkovski's Stalker had something about passion being the fire within, not the friction between personalities.
(iv) I think that all photographers show pictures which they like. They believe that they are expressions of their inner vision; I am sure they all feel passionate about the results. I like to think that beauty doesn't exist solely according to my definition of it. If these people saw beauty, then analysis of their work should tell me in what form.
I will turn your sentence around and say: if we have critical faculty, then we would love everything.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment David18/05/2008, 10:34
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your interesting post.
I've been following the thread on UKLFPG and was interested to read that I'm an exponent of the L&L style of photography. It's news to me! I think that I'm with Tim Parkin on this, there is no L&L style. If you look critically at the work of Charlie, Joe and myself you will notice a number of very important differences. Perhaps the best place to do this would be in Developing Vision & Style.
I wouldn't be upset if someone else didn't think my images were beautiful. I'm acutely aware that I cannot make anyone see the beauty that I see when I make my images. The best I can hope for is that a proportion of my audience might relate to a greater or lesser extent to my images.
Passion may well be expressed as "the fire within" but there has been a very long history of people externalising that passion – either as acts of love, works of art or the passing on of opinions! I maintain that expressing a reasoned opinion, whether its foundation is entirely intuitive or entirely logical, is not wrong. Nor should it cause friction if the reader treats the opinion in an adult way rather than being childishly offended merely because somebody disagrees with them.
Of course photographers show the pictures they like when they are not influenced by external forces such as the marketplace. The problem is that these external forces do sometimes intervene to promote an image. The photographer can hardly turn around at this point and say, "Actually it's not one of my favourites and I don't really see the passion in it that I felt." or, worse still," I only made that image to make money as I knew that it would be saleable." Before anybody jumps down my throat I'm not suggesting that Gursky or HCW are guilty of this.
And, of course beauty doesn't just exist as our personal definition, despite Margaret Wolfe Hungerford's famous assertion that it is "in the eye of the beholder." Beauty exists on many levels: cultural, particular and universal to name but three. However, I fundamentally disagree that the analysis of another photographer's work will inevitably lead to the discovery of how that photographer saw beauty in the world. It may, but it is just as likely not to. Some insights of how another sees the world are always beyond one's reach and therefore the work of some photographer's will always fail to move one – no matter how hard we might try to understand what they are trying to express!
I think that you're mixing up two concepts when you talk about critical faculty in your final sentence. Searching for another photographer's expression of beauty isn't using one's critical faculty. It is a different kind of analysis.
Critical is defined thus:
critical |ˈkritikəl|
adjective
1 expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgments
2 expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art
Having a critical faculty means the ability to distinguish "good" from "bad", distinguishing what one connects with in an image from what one fails to connect with. The definition of those terms necessarily comes from within, one man's "good" is inevitably another man's "bad". If these judgements were imposed from outside by some official aesthetic (enforced by a kind of Art Police?) then art's remit would be incredibly restricted and it's scope for expression vastly impoverished.
I can't believe that you truly believe that everything in art is good. Your comments on this and other posts have shown that you have a critical faculty. One of the biggest cons perpetrated by the art market in the last half century has been the persuasion of their clientele that anything is art if the artist says it is. It simply isn't but not having a critical faculty might easily lead one to this belief.
Having a critical faculty does not mean the ability to see "good" in everything. It simply cannot be the case that everything in art and photography is good. If it were none of us need ever have bothered to progress beyond the making of meaningless/naive/craftless snapshots.
Kind regards
David
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist18/05/2008, 13:42
Hello David, Thanks for the provocative comments - thought-provoking, that is. I was meaning pictures shown by artists according to their free will (assuming it exists - but let's not go there).
(i) This discussion of a L&L style reminds me a little of your blog post on photographer's photography. Once one learns the technicalities, there are a myriad fashions of interpreting photographs, including ways which non-photographers wouldn't recognise. To the non-photographers I know, there is definitely a L&L style. It is natural, if sometimes mis-leading, to bundle together discrete entities because they share similar traits. There are points in common between yourself and the other L&L associates who got mentioned. Those commonalities may be gross, first impressions, but they are valid in their own way. As I said in my last UKLFPG post, it is very much a L&L mist: as one gets nearer, it just disappears out of reach - a nebulous concept, you might say. I am not qualified to pronounce definitively, but I rather suspect that if there isn't a well-defined style to be associated with L&L, there isn't one to be associated with the Modernists and post-Modernists either. This dissolution of the classes invalidates any contrasting of the two approaches. It gets to the point where one can only express opinions one photograph at a time, at best one series at a time, with difficulty one person at a time but certainly not one group at a time. Could this be the problem with the reviewer? Generalisation is an easy target.
(ii) I go with definition 2 of critical (I was brought up in France and there, they are steeped in philosophy from which I extract my own understanding of the term - critical reasoning etc). I find the French Galerie Photo forum to be far more tolerant if not positive about Gursky and co. They don't think of their work as a con. There is something inside me which refuses to believe that these people are out to deliberately con art collectors and lovers. That would be very sad. But I must admit I find it hard to point out the beauty in a lot of what they produce. Maybe it is philosophy not art. Maybe art has other purposes than showing beauty.
(iii) I think it is possible to see why someone would find something beautiful while not agreeing with them. I believe that critical thinking is the best tool, although we are agreed that I am not certain to see that other subjective beauty and that I will definitely not see it in all the detail and with all the feelings of the other person. Even if my appreciation is warped, it enriches my world and gives me new opportunities in my search for new pictures and new work generally. This matches the use to which you put your opinions but I feel is more positive.
And I do believe there is beauty in everything: if I don't see it, I tell myself I lack the right outlook/ perspective. In some cases, I might be looking for a long time :-). As photographers, I am sure we both know that beauty is out there for the taking.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment David18/05/2008, 16:00
Hi Charles,
More food for thought!
On the subject of an L&L style, I think that you may be mistaking general aims for style. Style and aims are not the same thing. To use your example, Modernists shared a number of loose aims but these were expressed with wildly varying styles. Charlie, Joe and I certainly share a number of aims, including a desire to show the beauty in the world around us, but our styles are quite different. Similarly, in photography, the Group f64 had common aims but each member had quite different approaches for expressing them.
I too would go with definition number 2 of critical:
an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art
It explicitly states that one is looking to distinguish "merits and faults", or as I put it "good" and "bad". Not beauty and ugliness, or light and dark, or any other kind of duality one can think of. Using one's critical faculties was quite explicitly and narrowly defined in my original post as a way of discerning what one did or didn't like. Are you saying that there is no reason to make such judgements? That everything is beautiful and therefore everything is good? Perhaps I need to make a couple of definitions first. Beauty can be seen as an anodyne, decorative quality – something extremely nice to look at. It can also be thought of as something deeper than this, as a way that art might express deeper truths about our feelings and experiences as in Keats' famous lines from Ode on a Grecian Urn:
Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth and all ye need to know.
If we look at the first case, beauty definitely does not equal "good" nor vice versa. Art can be great without being easy on the eye. But great art almost certainly contains the second meaning of beauty. And both meanings can be present, something can be beautiful and contain the deeper sense of beauty. My problem with some modern art is that it eschews all beauty simply because it distrusts the decorative qualities of beauty. For intellectual reasons it favours what I consider to be a drab aesthetic, something that I feel is epitomised by some of Gursky's work.
I believe that art should be obviously passionate and not merely an intellectual exercise, as much of the art produced since the 1930's has been. Gursky may see beauty and undoubtedly feels passionate about his art but despite my studying his work at great length this isn't apparent to me. This may be my failure not his. As I said in the last post some aspects of another human's perception of the world are simply beyond our reach. It doesn't mean that I can't say that his art doesn't "do it" for me. I'm entitled to that opinion, especially as I have backed it up with a number of arguments rather than just saying, "Nah, I don't get it."
I agree that there is beauty in everything but I reiterate that finding it has got nothing to do with using our critical faculties. As I originally defined them, the purpose of using one's critical faculty is to be discerning, to determine whether one thinks something is worthwhile or not, to separate the wheat from the chaff. End of story. Critical thinking is the name given to the broader framework of intellectual investigation. This may help you find the deeper form of beauty but I'm not entirely sure.
The search for this deeper form of beauty is not something that I feel is best undertaken by analytical thought. I feel that we understand this notion of beauty at a subconscious level and we instinctively recognise it when we look at or make art. There is a link between solving problems with critical thought and beauty. Many scientists and mathematicians have expressed the idea that when they solve a problem the solution appears beautiful. But this isn't quite the same aspect of beauty.
I never suggested that Gursky or HCW were cynically manipulating the art market. In fact I went out of my way to point out that I didn't mean that. Generally it's the gallery owners who manipulate the market for their own financial gain. In the process some of their stable of artists may also be taken for a ride and cajoled into producing art that they might themselves consider substandard. I will state once again that I do not feel that Gursky and HCW are behaving in this way. I'm sure that they believe in what they are doing. I reserve the right to have a different opinion, just as I'm sure that they would have a negative opinion of my work. I can live with that and I'm sure that they can.
Sorry that this has been such a long post, I got carried away a little!
David
Highlight this Comment Chris A18/05/2008, 19:11
David, getting back to the original thrust of this blog entry, it is possible that your reference to "too many tones" in some Ansel Adams prints could be construed as unwarranted criticism and have ruffled some feathers. This may be particularly the case as Adams seems to be one of photography's "untouchables". I have to admit that I wasn't a fan of Adams many years ago as I found his pictures too clinical. However, after visiting Yosemite in 2003 I got to appreciate his skill in capturing the essence of the place. So there are pictures of his I now like, others which still don't do it for me.
There are parallels in other fields. I like music in many forms but have never been a fan of The Beatles: heresy in some people's eyes! In the art world, there are some Jackson Pollock pictures that I think are fantastic and others that do nothing for me. For me, one of the pleasures in life is discovering new things, and part of the thrill is not knowing whether you're going to like what you discover or not. Sometimes you can discover hidden gems, like coming across a fantastic band playing as a support act, but sometimes the main attraction may not be quite as good as you expected. But a little bit of what you don't fancy never hurt!
Highlight this Comment David19/05/2008, 06:58
Hi Chris,
It would be deliciously ironic if I was being criticised for having an opinion on Ansel Adams' work. He would have been horrified that anyone should be criticised for having an opinion on his work.
This quote from his autobiography describing how the great man felt under attack for expressing his opinion is particularly apt:
I confess to a limited appreciation of all art, even less the contemporary statements... When I rashly explore such thoughts, I feel as if I have questioned Scripture in the time of the Inquisition. I tread as softly as I can and carry a gentle twig.
Adams strongly believed that there should be an open debate:
While I may reject most of what I experience in the art world, I feel obligated to do what I am able to keep this world going...I believe it is the obligation of all creative people to keep creativity moving
Without a robust discussion on what we feel about art in all its forms it will stagnate.
David
Highlight this Comment Alice Strange20/05/2008, 23:43
Good grief! So much blogging … how do you find time to make art!
Greetings from Oban - thought it was time I entered the fray, particularly since the subject matter is, broadly, art criticism, a topic we embarked upon briefly post-“Northern Shores”.
Some random thoughtlets …
Who will take a four line Amazon review seriously? Book Review Rule Number 1: read the book properly. Book Review Rule Number 2: justify all comments with examples. Four lines??? ‘Nuff said. Your intended audience (she says presumptuously …) and devoted fans will surely know that you are completely familiar with Art Criticism Rule Number 1: thou shalt not “like or dislike” an artwork. Thou shalt critique the work from any number of art historical perspectives (form, culture, class, ethnicity, gender, … ), expressing any opinion as long as it is fully backed by example, interpretation and evaluation … and matches the opinions of the art establishment élite … ; )
It is fair to say that despite “one man’s good being another man’s bad”, an “official aesthetic” does and has always existed (may the gods bless art schools and academies and all who paint in them … ). And while it’s OK and necessary for the “avante-garde du jour” to critique establishment norms, the opinion of the avante-garde is always ridiculed and ignored until an acceptable time has passed and the stroppy recalcitrance can be adopted by the Keepers of the Canon without shame as a logical step in the development of Art Tradition …. Marcel Duchamp pissed in the face of the Establishment only to become the Father of Postmodernism.
As for beauty, truth and passion … well, there’s a whole other blog topic, so I’ll engage only briefly with a quote from David Hume’s “Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, 1737” - “Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived.”
And as for me, I shall sign out with a quote from Euan Uglow “We would go out and paint all day, come back, drink wine and go to bed. An ideal artist’s life.”
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin21/05/2008, 20:21
Hi David,
I have to applaud your desire to communicate your opinions rather than be another silent but politically correct member of the masses. I think it takes courage to publicly give an opinion on something knowing that there is always room for error, knowing that your opinion may change and that you will undoubtedly offend someone. If more people were to express opinions, perhaps we would become accustomed to understanding that opinions aren't offensive. We could happily discuss our personal reactions to things without fear of randomly causing offence.
I developed a website for a programming language, Python, a few years ago. It was a voluntary effort and I put in a year of my own personal time into trying create the best balance for the community I was representing. When it was launched, a substantial number of people were very vocal about how bad the new website was, so much so that I was quite upset for a while. However, it was a good lesson to learn because after some time I realise that the majority of people actually liked the new design and that those that had expressed opinions to the contrary were either trying to point out the bad things in a non-diplomatic way or had personal opinions about design that differed from mine. This lesson in the unpredictability of mass opinion was a very valuable one. It made me realise that the only way to not offend anyone was to stand still and do nothing. The other things I learned were that people are happier to complain about things they don't like than to comment about things they like and that it's good to have a thick skin!
Actually doing something was guaranteed to cause offense in some manner. Doing a lot, and doing it publicly, is guaranteed to annoy a significant and vocal percentage of your audience. So if you are getting some reactions to your comments, it could just be a sign that you are doing things right :-)
Tim
p.s. Obviously we have to avoid becoming the online equivalent of tabloid journalists who see provoking a reaction as the goal itself.
Highlight this Comment Alex Nail26/05/2008, 11:45
Hi David,
I think strength of opinion is to a certain extent what separates your work from other writers who seem to be overly diplomatic.
Whilst we are on the topic of your book, one of the passages I found most interesting related to taking photos of photography hotspots and re-shooting tried and tested compositions.
I am going to Skye in the summer which amongst other things means an early morning shoot at the Old Man of Storr. What struck me is that I would struggle to take a shot that is not very similar to Joe's shots of the same location, looking down on Storr with the landscape beyond. This begs the question, is the shot worth taking?
Flicking briefly through your book (although I do plenty of dwelling too) I notice that there are only 2 shots where I can work out where they were taken. JC seems happy to shoot iconic locations and, indeed, I had seen some of his shots, in very slightly different compositions, prior to reading "First Light". It would appear that you make an effort not to shoot iconic shots, but if you went to Storr, what would you do?
Alex
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook26/05/2008, 12:13
Hello David, My thoughts for what they are worth.
I feel that we can only like what we like, that might sound too simplistic but I don’t think that having an image explained to you will help in the slightest. Chris A made a good point with the Beatles (which I happen to agree with) and music is a good comparison. I can appreciate the skill involved in creating music, but it does not matter. In the end, if I don’t like it, explaining that it has a complex melody or whatever, does not change the basic fact that I do not enjoy listening to it. With an image, lots of skill may have gone into it (which can be appreciated) but if it does not 'hit your switch' it will not be hanging on the wall. I think there is nothing worse than liking (or saying you like) something because we feel we should, or are told we should, or because everyone says it's good. (and I am sure if people are really honest with themselves this happens more than you would think).
I firmly believe that art in all its forms works on a level within the brain that we have little control over, we can spend time in debate over the thoughts that went into its creation but that thing inside us that goes ‘wow’ that’s wonderful, is something we have little control over. Very much like being truly in love, you don’t know why or how it happened, a light got switched on and you have no idea where the off switch is!
I happen to think it is perfectly OK to simply say ‘nope, that does not do it for me’ why should we feel we have to back that up with words and reasons. To pick up on one of Charles Twist's points, as photographers we must accept that some will like our work and others will not, and we must not get upset about it. It must not be considered a failure on the photographer's part; it is just the diversity of human taste (otherwise surely we are all failures). This diversity makes criticism of art inevitable but also a possibly fruitless exercise! Discussion between artists on how we can improve our work and technique etc, is different and course very worthwhile.
Highlight this Comment David26/05/2008, 12:20
Hi Alex,
I'm sure that other photographers and writers on photography hold equally strong opinions they just don't seem to want to share them. I do wonder if this is because they feel that by so doing they will open themselves up to criticism. Sad if that's the case.
Well, I have been to the Old Man of Storr. In fact I went with Joe on three or four occasions about eight or nine years ago. One of those early morning hikes yielded one of his iconic images of the Old Man in early light with the landscape beyond. I took a very similar picture that morning – and it has rested in my filing cabinet ever since. Joe's was better!
I was more interested in the wider landscape then than I am now. Would I go again? Perhaps for the walk or if I felt that the light conditions might be very unusual. Not otherwise. I do have an image of the Old Man that I'm quite fond of. It was made from an area called The Sanctuary. This is on the other side of the monolith from either of Joe's famous views. For those of you who might be interested, it featured on the half title page of Landscape Within. If I made the climb I think I would be more inclined to turn my back on the iconic view and find a less obvious composition. But maybe that's just because, as Joe says, my middle name is "Contrary"!
David
Highlight this Comment David26/05/2008, 14:46
A belated "Hello!" to Alice,
It was a pleasure to meet you at Richard's gallery. Thank you for your comments, they were amusing and interesting in equal measure. I do hope that the other reader and I can look forward to more lively comments in the future!
"Good grief! So much blogging … how do you find time to make art!"
Well, you've found me out (although I don't spend that enough time on my blog to answer you straight away), I plainly don't spend enough time making art!
“We would go out and paint all day, come back, drink wine and go to bed. An ideal artist’s life.”
Wot, no food!? As someone who can't hold his liquor this might not be the best way for me to proceed. Not that I'm being Calvinist! I note that Uglow worked as a teacher to subsidise his painting habit just as I subsidise my photography habit by leading workshops. Some things never change...
David
Highlight this Comment Joe26/05/2008, 22:28
Greetings David,
I have read this thread a couple of times and I am struck by the remarkable quality of the debate. And also the afct taht no0ne seems to get there spelings rong.
I couldn't help wondering if I might be one of those bland photographers guilty of being 'overly diplomatic' at times, as Alex Nail says. For what it is worth, while I do have strong views on some things (as you well know) I do find it difficult to voice in a public forum views which might be taken as critical, when they refer directly to the work of other photographers. While I can and do accept that not everyone will like what I do... in fact, if everybody did, could we not argue that was a form of artistic failure?... nevertheless I am conscious that criticism, even when meant constructively, can be hurtful. We have often agreed (and I think this is reflected in most people's comments) that what we like is largely a matter of opinion, especially once work has reached a level when its craft and art can be taken for granted.
I would prefer to reserve my own criticism for the art establishment which seems to operate in a dimension occupied by knowingly urbane modernists and extra terrestrial billionaires; and for critics who never practice the art form of which they criticise (as many critics are practitioners, I realise this could be quite a narrow field). Of course not that many people make feature films, so perhaps one has to make exceptions...
Anyway, I applaud anyone who is brave enough to put their views before public scrutiny in a forum such as this, especially when those views are reasoned, balanced, thought-provoking and not overtly personal. We are only talking of photographs here after all. Having once been described as an 'eye candy merchant' in a forum I would not wish to say anything that could be construed as so hurtful and insulting as I personally found this comment.
From my point of view, a reluctance to criticise (at least in public) is a matter of courtesy, and putting yourself in the other guy's place. It is not necessarily a sign that I have no opinions.
Also, if I may just make an observation on one of Alex's comments about shooting 'tried and tested' compositions, and being 'happy to shoot iconic locations'. I would like to assure Alex that I do not only shoot iconic locations, and I would also like to point out that while they may seem iconic now, some of those locations were rarely photographed when I first went to them. I regard making images in these genuinely amazing places a privilege and a challenge. Call me naive, but I still am thrilled by the wonder of the Storr, and the light is never ever going to be the same, and there is an infinity of possibilities for placing and pointing the camera. The challenge being, 'how can I do this differently? see it with fresh eyes?' Is the shot worth taking? Surely it is for you to make it so!
Sometimes the 'overexposure' of some locations does become wearisome however, and if you were to examine my photography as a whole you would find only a minor percentage was made at what might be called iconic viewpoints. An enormous amount of what I do now is simply too far off the beaten track for it ever to become iconic. And I also do a lot of work close to the camera, non-specific images. I will readily admit that my work of this genre may not be of David Ward standard, but as part of my personal mission as a photographer, looking at the processes, forms, textures and beauty of nature it matters a lot to me.
Hope I haven't rambled on, just wanted to contribute to such an excellent debate.
And for what it's worth I give the book five stars (but I worry, am I being overly diplomatic??!!)
Joe
Highlight this Comment David27/05/2008, 08:08
Hi Joe,
Really good to see you joining the debate, even with your apalung spling! Thanks for popping in, as our good friend Clive would say. I hope that you will do so more often!
I'd like to raise a couple of further points. Firstly, I think that it's worth considering the influence individual photographers can have on whether a view is considered iconic or not. You, Joe, are certainly responsible for bringing the attention of the wider world to certain views. In fact I'd say that you had made some of them iconic, I'm thinking particularly of the view of Staithes from Cow Bar and the Nab and the wreck at Saltwick. I'm sure that other people had photographed them before you but none had done it quite so powerfully and with such consummate skill.
The other thing that I think is worth mentioning is the long standing habit of artists, from any field, to return to subjects that they are fascinated by. I seem to recall that Cezanne painted Mont Ste-Victoire on numerous occasions and there are plenty of other examples of this trend. One might describe your work as part a long and noble tradition.
As you know, my reason for moving away from making images of the wider landscape isn't because I no longer find it beautiful; I most certainly do! It's just that I've become fascinated with the intimate viewpoint and its possibilities for abstraction and evocation.
David
Highlight this Comment Sami27/05/2008, 09:37
Hello David, All
I do not normally feel very comfortable to blog but as Joe has said the quality of the debate is of such value that I can no longer resist. The point made with regards to shooting an iconic image, and I quote, “This begs the question, is the shot worth taking?”…….
Well if two scientists arrive at the same solution independently and without copying each other and the work is of value then both share the Nobel Prize. In music a composition written by Paganini inspired later composers such as Brahms and Rachmaninoff to build themes and variation of equal and varied beauty, I think humanity would have been worse off if these talented composes have taken the view… Is the shot worth taking!!!
Monet produced very similar paintings of water lilies and Rembrandt of rich burghers’ wives in similar pose and style, all of the highest artistic integrity and passion, it would be a tall order to try to reduce the significance of any of these paintings. So, I for one advocate that we should try to stand on the shoulders of giants {yourself and Joe} and try to see the alternative; taking our cue from Chopin, Liszt, Brahms and Rachmaninoff, when they stood on Paganini’s shoulders.
Sami
Highlight this Comment Peter Cook27/05/2008, 12:41
Hello again David and all,
This fascinating debate has moved along somewhat from the original theme! I don’t see a problem with iconic viewpoints, sometimes these might well be the ‘best’ (or most beautiful) viewpoint and while I can understand that professionals may need to try and create something different from a sales point of view us non selling, non professionals sometimes just want a great image and while the viewpoint might be the same the light and sky never is. At the same time however one should still try to find a new take on something whenever possible.
I guess that’s one thing with your style of photography David, there is no real iconic viewpoint in (most of) your intimate landscapes!
Highlight this Comment Adam P27/05/2008, 12:50
Greetings to all,
Well, after all this I decided to have a look at Gursky’s work. And that in itself was interesting – I could not remember seeing it before. And after I looked at it again at the weekend, I remembered why I forgot about it: his work does nothing for me. Emotionless, purely factual depiction of man’s buildings. Perhaps if I saw the big images I might be interested in picking out little details. Something along the lines of the American “Where’s Wally” books perhaps? I’m not being derogatory here, just illustrating the search for details.
On the other hand the huge industrial landscapes by Edward Burtynsky do make an impact and although some show a brutal scene, they are strangely beautiful.
Which brings me to David: your work increasingly looks at the details within the bigger picture (vista) and your images are memorable as a result. If we think back to images that remain in our memories, I bet that for many of them we actually remember certain details rather than the image as a whole. I see that Joe has joined this debate: his pictures seem effortless (how does he do it!?!!) and show the grand vista but I tend to remember selected details within them rather than the whole image. For example the round boulder in the Elgol shot, the soft colours on Roseberry Topping or the wonderfully pink boulders on a Northumberland beach (see – I can’t even remember the name of the castle on the hill).
Another point: I remember the images that please me but I forget the images that don’t. Except perhaps for a very few really great pictures such as the little Vietnamese girl running away from the burning village. But here again I remember just her and her face – the rest of the picture is a blur in my memory.
Does this mean that our perception of beauty in the landscape is also our own perception of truth? In other words, what we see as being beautiful and so worth committing to film is in some way absolute? This train of thought falls apart when we see beauty in architecture or man-made rural landscapes. They are by no means absolute but to my mind on a higher plane than the shock-horror ugliness of some of today’s work.
Highlight this Comment Alice Strange28/05/2008, 01:29
Three cheers for the vast choirs of artists (Bellini, Cézanne, Monet, Mondrian, Rothko, et al) who illustrated Einstein’s assertion that genius was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration by working obsessively on variants of a single subject - iconic or otherwise.
We just can’t help ourselves, can we? My particular obsession is the view from Oban to the bay, Kerrera & Mull beyond. Too right this common if not iconic shot is worth taking!! Over and over again. I certainly can’t stop looking at it, morning, noon, night, rain or shine. Well, I do (obviously), long enough to convert the many little ideas that pop into my head (while looking) into an ever-expanding series of images on the same subject. I also feed on images produced by others of the same subject, standing on the shoulders of the somewhat vertically challenged rather than giants, this being Scotland.
I like to think that this obsession is honing my technical skills and enabling my own personal style to emerge. (I also like to think that the All Blacks should have won the last Rugby World Cup, so perhaps what I like to think is somewhat unreliable …. )
In any event, regardless of what I like to think, my viewers and critics (I use the plural loosely and with hope in my heart) no doubt have different opinions. Sadly not all well-argued, clearly articulated and non-judgmental. Let’s face it, it probably takes at least 600 polysyllabic words to properly critique an artwork, which is way beyond the mobile phone text message capacity of the average man (or woman) on the Clapham omnibus. So we’re faced with tabloid criticism, the smart, single idea soundbite, shot from the lip.
What to do?
We sensitive artist-types need to save our fainting fits for hosts of golden daffodils. Even a thoughtless, poorly worded, emotive opinion is generally not personal, so we need to practise not taking it personally. Look on the bright side - as Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist28/05/2008, 12:18
Dear blog,
Les Bleus did play rather well though, Alice.
Critique and photography: it’s like a game of football. Someone brings a ball along and then we all kick it around. The point is to play the ball, not the player. To think that every lunge at the ball is an attack on one’s person, would be quite wrong. While altruistic respect is important, being non-committal doesn’t score goals. Sometimes there are accidents; sometimes there are bad eggs who deliberately tackle your shins. Is that reason enough to ban the game? I think it is actually healthy to have a good kick-around: it provides fullfilment, self-validation, a proof of one’s existence (where we don’t do it with others, don’t we all do it in ourselves?).
As David pointed out, there is unfortunately a fair bit of diving in the modern game. It’s not much fun being yellow-carded for it, so hopefully you’ll come away unscathed. There we are, that’s life.
I now await a mauling on the lines that photography is not competitive. But that’s not the point: criticism is constructive and allows one to grow using other people’s views as well as one’s own. I think that if we are brave enough to put our work in the open, we should also expect that work to be set upon. And we should be sensible enough to realise when the comments are shallow and when the comments are well constructed. They both have their value but they shouldn’t be treated equally. I, for one, believe there is usually a kernel of truth in any but the most devious comment. If someone says ‘X’, is he justified? Do I want to change my work to accommodate, influence or in some way address that viewpoint? This insight is exactly the benefit David was talking about in his post about his recent exhibition.
Critique and photography are actually alike in many ways. They are both opinions; they are both thoughts made external, which can be kicked around without harming the progenitor. Some take a lot of time to put together; some are snap decisions. Kandinsky argued that painting could be divided into impressions, improvisations and compositions. I feel it isn’t just painting.
Now some bits and pieces:
(i) It may be that the fairest criticism of one photograph is another.
(ii) Tripod holes and commerce: let’s say we go to the Old Man of Storr and bring back two pictures – one of the beautiful, crystalline intrusions in the basalt and one of the dramatic sky-line with the Old Man standing proud. Now you submit them to a photo mag or to a local tourism mag. Which do you think they will choose? I put my money on the sky-line because they seem to show a lot more of that kind of stuff. One should make the most of being an amateur or photographing in one’s spare time – generally being free in one’s choices. Before anyone thinks so, I am not the one who said Joe was an eye candy merchant, but the bad thing with being a pro is that you need to promise sweets in order to get them to eat the greens. Unless you’re very good at negotiating…
(iii) I haven’t responded to David’s previous answer because I am still thinking about it – some incisive comments there. I do believe you can know beauty as much feel it, but I am not sure how to argue it beyond what I have already said. I also accept David’s comment that I confused aims and style, which I am now trying to disentangle.
Thank you to David and all those who play the ball.
Best regards, Charles
Highlight this Comment Alan Rew29/05/2008, 14:51
The subject of 'iconic locations' is an interesting one.
I think there's nothing inherently wrong with using such locations, as long as you're not trying to pass off your work as that of somebody else. There's always the chance of producing something that is radically different from the 'accepted' or 'definitive' interpretation of a scene.
For example, with reference to the Old Man of Storr, if Michael Kenna (whose minimalist photos never cease to amaze me) were to use that location, I'm sure he would produce something radically different from either Joe's or David's versions but which was still original and valuable (I'm imagining the stones shrouded in fog as one possible 'MK interpretation').
One possible factor at play is that some landscape photographers might be a bit possessive about locations that they 'discover' that no-one has used before (at least, amongst published work) and therefore when someone else publishes a photo from the same location they take offence.
Another possibility is simple competitiveness or setting high standards - 'finding' a 'new' (i.e. previously unpublished) location is seen to have more merit than re-shooting something that has become familiar. Galen Rowell, in the essay 'Relying on Faulty Faculties' in his book 'Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography' implies this when he says that a set of photos he shot on one assignment 'rank well below other work I did' because they were 'knock-offs of concepts that had worked for me before rather than freshly conceived images'.
I have no doubt that there is competitiveness between companies that organise photographic tours as well - no doubt some firms make use of locations that L&L pioneered for such trips :-) I'd rather not say any more about that as I risk mud-stirring!
Highlight this Comment Robert M. Teague06/06/2008, 05:57
Interesting turn this blog entry has turned into. I am anxiously awaiting this book to be published in the US - frankly, I don't care what the reviews say. I know what I like.
I admit to being quite ignorant of landscape photography as practiced in the UK, until I first came across Joe's book, "Light and the Art of Landscape Photography". Subsequently, I made a trip to your wonderful country, (it didn't rain the entire time I was there - spring no less), found Outdoor Photography, which I still buy almost every month. From there I learned about your work, and the work of many other fine photographers.
This is a long-winded way of thanking your for the time and sweat you have put into these two books. Don't let the critics get you down - that way you can keep publishing these books. I have to admit my work is probably closer to Joe's than yours, but that is why I enjoy your work so much - I'm hoping to learn to look at something other than the wide, grand view.
Keep up the great work!!!
Robert
Send us your comments
Comment Preview
Comment Formatting
The following are a some examples of how you can add links, bold text and lists to your comment entry. The section below this shows how they will look on screen. You should be able to see a preview of your post as you type.
Enter This
Get This
One or more consecutive lines of text separated by one or more blank lines.
This is another paragraph.
This is bold and italic
Links need angle brackets like so http://example.com/...
...or if you want to link some text you can!