Lost in translation...
I've just returned from a visit to my local Waterstones. Whilst browsing for Christmas presents (tis the season to spend money...) I came across a copy of a book called Journey Through the British Isles with photographs by Harry Cory Wright. It is one of the recommended books in my local branch, receiving fulsome praise from a member of staff in the Hereford shop. Intrigued that a book of landscape photographs should get such 'positive' publicity I spent a few minutes studying it. You will have gathered from my use of the word fulsome that I was extremely disappointed with what I found between its covers.
First the good news; the paper stock is fine and the reproduction of high quality. The excellent author Adam Nicholson has written the forward. It is a large book (192 pages and 30.5 x 37.5 cm) and hence feels like the price of £40 is justified. The publishers synopsis states:
In the tradition of the great journeys taken by such photographers as Fox Talbot, Fenton and Bourne, Harry Cory Wright set out, in March 2006, on a quest to capture the variety of natural landscapes that make up the British Isles using a large-format plate camera. Beginning in the fragile, frozen beauty of Unst in Shetland at the spring equinox, he travelled down through the Western Isles and mainland Scotland to Northumberland and further south through England and Wales. This stunning book documents Cory Wright's remarkable journey. Each photograph is infused with the unique spirit of its location - from vast, wild mountain ranges to verdant, dewy forests at sunrise, from windswept beaches in winter to fields bathed in late summer, early evening sun. It is a unique photographic record of a journey through some of the most breathtaking locations in the British Isles. Cory Wright's Gandolfi plate camera captures images of exquisite detail and intensity. This is a magnificently produced, large-format book that will appeal to anyone interested in landscape photography.So what's the bad news? Well I'm not so naive that I don't recognise hype when I see it - nor am I so naive as to not realise that similar hype has been applied to my own work. The pressures of the market encourage hyperbole, publishers do need to sell books after all. However the phrase "[a] book that will appeal to anyone interested in landscape photography." does seem a little dangerous. I realise that sweeping generalisation are always good in marketing land but this is a little too rich.
The important question is does the work justify the hype? Well, I have to say, for this viewer, a resounding no. The majority of the images feel as if anyone might have made them, they feel as if they just present what was in front of the camera without any distillation of the scene. Almost as if they were pretending to be unmediated. They feel like the kind of images that a non-photographer would have made if they had been presented with that scene. They don't feel as if they've been composed. Follow these links to see for yourself:
Candover Brook Alders Firle Beacon from Mount Caburn
Maybe their apparent lack of artifice is the point. Maybe Harry Cory Wright is the people's photographer, re-presenting the landscape to the public as they would have seen it (but in more detail because he uses a 10x8 Gandolfi) rather than with any sign of a photographer's mannerisms. But I don't think so, I think that he's just using a different set of mannerisms and that in fact these are quite elitist images - I'll return to this point further on.
For me the real failure of these images is that the vast majority didn't evoke any emotional response in me. As someone who's pretty susceptible to being moved by the British landscape this complete lack of evocation struck me as quite a feat. Now it might be that they're all 'growers' and that continuous study will bring wonderful rewards. I'm a fan of quiet images, however, and feel that I would recognise this quality were it present. I know that I'm in danger here of sinking without trace in the treacherous uncertain ground of taste, lost in the mire of what constitutes a 'good' photograph, but I'm going to press on regardless!
Adam P suggested in an earlier post that he might be making photographer's photographs and questioned whether this was a good thing. Someone he knows opined that he 'wish[ed] to avoid the "dreary photographer's photography " I'll lose the visual immediacy "... ' This seems on the face of it to be a simple desire to present the world as it is. But more than this it is a desire to avoid a particular style, a photographic 'imprint' that carries with it a set of connotations that this person felt deleterious. How might one characterise this 'imprint'? The photographer's photograph seems to me to be typified by the conscious effort to distill reality (a concern with form, careful framing and composition), the deliberate manipulation of perspective (use of wide angle or long focal length lenses) and careful control of contrast & colour (use of filters). These transformations of reality are elements of a photographic syntax.
Why might these transformations be undesirable? Wishing to avoid them is perhaps a wish to avoid being associated with photography - a desire to make an unphotographic image, one that doesn't declare that it is photographic. An oxymoron if ever I heard one; there can be no such thing as an un-photographic photograph. Cory Wright's images also seem to spurn these visual signs. Instead they use elements from a different syntax; one characterised by passive compositions (an indifference to form and apparent lack of concern with framing), standard perspective (a weak relationship between foreground, middle ground and background) and unremarkable lighting (burnt out highlights, unsaturated colours, little or no filtration). I feel that this syntax is borrowed from, or strongly influenced by, a strain of Modernism - an art movement that is notoriously antipathetic to a concern for the natural world. A strange choice for landscape photography perhaps?
So why do Cory Wright's images fail to move me? Is it just that I don't understand the language that he's using? This possibility cannot be ruled out, nor that he wouldn't understand mine. Is it that I need nature to be enhanced by the photographic 'imprint' in order to appreciate it? I definitely don't feel that this is true. I have no trouble appreciating nature when I experience it but a photograph of nature isn't nature, it's something else. It begs the question, do you feel that photographers - or any other artists - enhance by re-presenting or that they reveal by their selection and applied technique? I feel that it is the latter. Of course Cory Wright has made selections, has chosen which lens to use and where to place the camera. He just hasn't revealed anything to me by those choices. Once again I freely admit that I might just be blind to his message. The syntax that predominates in landscape photography today owes much to the syntax used in landscape painting from the 17th century through to the 19th but has evolved over time. In part its strength comes from the richness of its sources. Cory Wright's images seem to turn their back on this heritage. There's nothing wrong with that per se, in fact that's exactly how revolutions in art begin. I just don't see any evidence of his application of an un-dynamic aesthetic to landscape photography revealing anything new or more importantly evoking a passionate response. The images seem both literally and metaphorically to have no focal point. I don't know what he wants me to look at in an image like Candover Brook. It seems an image willfully without direction. I certainly don't feel that, "These are moments captured and communicated with great intensity. These are timeless photographs that change your way of seeing..." as his dealer's website proclaims.
Or might the crux of the matter be that the syntax that he is using and the one that I, and I would suggest most of my readership, use have evolved from quite different foundations and now have quite different resonances? His syntax has, as I suggested earlier, evolved from Modernism. As such the images have a resonance that appeals more to the art market than the general public (and a consequent economic value). The syntax that underpins my work originated within the American landscape photography of the early part of the last century. Its pedigree, whilst recognised by fellow photographers, has somewhat less cachet than Modernism (and a consequently lower economic value).
It's like he's speaking French (a language in which I only have a smattering of understanding) and I'm speaking German (of which he is equally ignorant). Each has our audience of fellow native speakers and a tiny minority who speak both languages. Does this then mean that there's no such thing as a bad photograph, only something that doesn't translate well? Certainly not! I await your comments...
Highlight this Comment Guy09/12/2007, 09:00
Ok I'll say it - there is hope for us all to publish a book.
They look like snaps - I don't get it. They feel like my pet photographic hate - fine art images of service stations.
Interestingly his website does have some emotional evoking images. He can obviously publish himself and even tries to engage with the viewer: http://timestravel.typepad.com/travel/britain_through_a_lens/index.html
Still don't get it. Interesting to hear what Eddie would make of it. £40 staying in my wallet. Wonder how much the prints are
Highlight this Comment Guy09/12/2007, 09:03
Actually scratch what I said about emotional evoking images.
http://www.saltwater.co.uk/gallery/product.php?productid=5&cat;=1&page;=1
Seems like a hell of way to burn film - and its over exposed
Really really don't get it and I like Gregory Crewdson - now thats' how to us a 10x8
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Perkins09/12/2007, 09:50
Hello David,
I enjoy reading your blog and felt I had to comment on this one...
I've visited Harry's gallery several times now as we often visit the Norfolk coast. When I first saw his prints I remember walking out of the gallery thinking "he wants how much for those?" - not impressed at all. On subsequent visits I started to enjoy the images more, and now I look forward to seeing his work. I can't at this moment express eloquently why I like the images, its just a gut feeling thing. The images on his website do no justice to the real prints, for example what appears to be washed out sky at first glance has subtile texture in the 5x4 foot print.
I actually find it very pleasing that there's room for another approach to landscape photography - I think it would be very boring if everyone followed what has become a very formulaic "velvia, Glen Coe/Elgol/Torridon, golden light" school of photography (don't get me wrong, velvia works for me).
Perhaps we've just got too used to seeing prints from transparencies that we don't appreciate the qualities and opportunities presented by negative film?
Jonathan.
Highlight this Comment Tom Perkins09/12/2007, 10:48
Hi,
I have also had the pleasure of meeting HCW several times at his gallery (I'm Jonathan's son), and here is my take on this topic.
I believe I am right in saying that your images (David) are in some sense reflections of yourself and your reaction to the landscape, being carefully framed and filtered, very selective in what you include/cut out.
In contrast though, I think Harry's are images of places. They capture a view, or perhaps as much of the experience as possible of being at this particular place at that particular moment. Thus there is very little apparent direction or enforced emotion in his photographs. Instead, it is really dependent on the viewer to find the beauty (which, at least I think, is certainly there in abundance), and to see both the things that Harry saw when he was motivated to make the photo, but also other things, tiny details otherwise invisible if this moment in time had not been frozen for us to enjoy, in all its 4x5 foot glory.
I love to see both angles on photography (I am, after all, a David ward large format convert), and I recommend that you keep Harry's book on a shelf somewhere, and come back to it now and then. After all, who can learn an entire foreign language in just a few minutes?
Just my thoughts, Tom.
Highlight this Comment adamp09/12/2007, 11:30
Hmmm, interesting to see these comments. I first came across Harry Corry Wright in the September issue of Outdoor Photography magazine. My reaction then was hesitant, in the sense that I didn't quite know what to make of some images. I thought they were boring, but something in them nevertheless attracted me. So, seeing the two Perkins' comments made me dig out the magazine just now to take another look and yes, I am now seeing them in " the same way! In other words, still boring! But I think that I can agree that a) these are photos with a sense of "I was there... rather than an obvious reflection of the photographer's feelings or vision and b) they probably would look great as huge prints on a corporate or hotel wall, or in a tourist/visitor's centre. But then almost any photo looks great at that size - even mine!
I think that the fashion over the last few years has made us almost immune to "real... faithful Kodachrome colours. Instead, we have become used to seeing highly saturated Velvia or Elitechrome Extra colours, which, I understand, is more akin to the way we remember scenes. However, in Harry's shot of Loch Coruisk Day 209, I really don't like the wishy-washy colours although they probably are close to reality in the grey light of that day. Incidentally this image, as well as several others, does nothing for me in terms of composition. These shots seem to be no more than a record with no input from the photographer, sort of point-and-shoot.
What does spoil some of his images for me, is the deliberate non-use of ND grad filters to even out the extremes of lighting. This does lead to burnt out highlights, in particular bland skies. I wonder whether these images would have been better in b&w;?
A couple of quotes from the magazine article - in fact quotes from the man himself - may help to illuminate (sorry, I couldn't resist) his approach: On his use of colour neg and no filters: "I try to keep it as simple as possible and as true to what I felt it all looked like at the time....
Well, that sure explains the bland skies BUT the photos do not give off any feeling: I know I have had some really uplifting emotion even when in a landscape with poor lighting; it depended very much on the grandeur of the scene, not just the weather itself. Mountainous scenes are the obvious example for me here, with clouds quietly slipping in and out among the rocky spires and ridges. Menacing, yet serene. See, it's got me going: I can see the scene in my mind's eye right now, despite the desperately flat lighting. It was emotion, not just the view that got me there, but does not come across in Harry's pictures.
On his use of 1/15th sec: "I find that if you have exposures of longer than a fifteenth of a second you begin to abstract the scene in front of you and it starts to look like something else...
Fair enough for moving water and rustling leaves, but in a static landscape - e.g. blue skies so no change in light and with immovable mountains - exposures of longer than 1/15th are almost certainly unlikely unless we are using tiny apertures and slow film.
In summary, I am afraid that given the size of image I can comfortably hold (books, small prints) or even 20...x20... on the wall, these images wouldn't do anything for me.
Highlight this Comment Anonymous09/12/2007, 12:51
I'd like to comment on the notion of "showing it as it is," i.e., unmediated. It is astonishing that this bit of nonsense can still be touted and taken seriously. A lesson learnt by artists in various fields around the end of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century was that to be "natural" is not the same as mere reproduction, at least not if the intention is to produce interesting art. Chekhov took a while to develop his art to the point of presenting "life as it is" by entirely theatrical means that do not in fact consist of conversation and action as "it is." The early work of Janácek (as well as many others) was marred by too literal a use of folk song, he learnt and moved on to produce great work.
Photography, in some forms, seems to have maintained this stance for much longer; presumably because of the idea that the camera just records what is in front of it. This is only true in the sense that once the shutter is opened optics and light sensitivity will do their job (ignoring manipulations at the time of making a print). But it is just as true that as soon as a pencil, crayon, brush or whatever are applied to paper or canvas in a certain way the marks made are governed by physical laws. What is interesting is what selections are made by the artist. In the case of painting these selections can be on many scales: choice of brushstrokes, deciding to leave something out or move it in the interests of balance etc. In the case of photography (of the non photoshop type) the selections are different but just as varied.
If I am to give up my time to look at a photograph I want the photographer to have made it as a result of some genuine insight; maybe to reveal surprising structure, colour contrast or whatever. Telling me that this is the scene as it appeared just leaves me bored beyond belief and if I weren't a pacifist (militant wing) would feel like reaching for my gun. Going hand in glove with this position is the fad for gigantism; the triumph of quantity over quality. There are works of art that justify their large size, e.g., Géricault's The Raft of the Medusa but most examples (not just recent ones) fail miserably in my view. True, if somebody uses a large format camera, points it at a scene then makes a very large print out of it and if I give up enough time to look at the print I am likely to find something in it. But I'd find even more by looking at the landscape itself, as would anybody else. Finding a worthwhile composition from the landscape is, however, a much more difficult exercise and I will give up quite a lot of my time as well as travel fair distances to see the work of those who have the talent to produce worthwhile results.
The colour palette used is surely only relevant in so far as it suits the work concerned. I use (Classic) Velvia most of the time because it suits the conditions under which I work. There are occasions when Provia is a better choice. What is objectionable is a predetermined position in favour of any one "look," this is just ideological posturing.
KK.
Highlight this Comment Julian09/12/2007, 13:29
Wow! This topic has certainly provoked a lot of response.
To be honest, I don't quite understand the vehemence of David's reaction to HCW's work. Surely there is room within the genre of landscape photography for many different approaches? Or have we become so used to seeing everything through 'Velvia-tinted glasses' that we pour scorn on less idealised representations of the landscape?
Certainly, HCW shies away from dramatic light but, then again, dramatic lighting is hardly the norm in the UK. It could be argued that saturated golden-hour landscapes present a very unusual view that is quite at odds with the everyday reality that most of us perceive. What's wrong with trying to represent beauty in a more down-to-earth way?
Most of these images do have a quiet charm - I say most because there are a few clunkers in the set, to my mind at least - and the best of them invoke a mood of reflection and meditation. Just not enough of one to tempt me to part with £40 of my hard-earned to buy his book...
Highlight this Comment adamp09/12/2007, 13:39
Hello KK,
I tend to agree that in landscape photography, merely recording a view is rather clinical and devoid of feeling or emotion. However, I would hesitate to dismiss it outright.
In terms of artistic landscape photography I very much enjoy viewing pictures taken by yourself (I am guessing from your initials who you are!) and others whom I have met on photo tours and workshops: you and the other photographers were trying and often succeeding extraordinarily well to show a new viewpoint - to inject something which they and only they saw.
But there is a place for record photography: on some of these tours as well as on my own holidays I find I take a mixture of types of photos. There are the simple records of a pretty view. I take these (and am conscious that they have no artistic value) because I want to show the folks back home where I was. Then I take "better... scenics, where I try to come up with good/interesting composition, use filters to balance out sky and foreground, chose an appropriate lens etc. Again records, but hopefully technically better and already with some of my particular vision thrown in.
Lastly, I work hard at a few select scenes where I am moved to go further and transform what I see. I want to convey the feeling I experience. These are of course the most difficult, take a long time to set up and increasingly I end up not taking the picture because I can't seem to get the image in the viewfinder I "feel... in my mind's eye.
I suppose this latter struggle is one of the steps along the path to photographic enlightenment that David Ward mentioned in his appraisal of Sami Nabeel's book. I find that I am now taking fewer photos as I sense dissatisfaction and simply don't want to take something I am not absolutely happy with. Of course I still take rubbish shots when I fail to spot something glaring in the viewfinder, but that is part of my learning. Sigh!
Highlight this Comment David Ward09/12/2007, 14:05
Hi KK, Julian, Tim and Jonathan (welcome both!) et al...
As Julian wrote; "wow!" I do seem to have provoked some debate...
Firstly, I would like to say that I think I was quite careful not to be vehement. True, I made no secret of the fact that I don't like Cory Wright's images but I also defended his right to make images with a different syntax and pointed out that my lack of appreciation may be my fault.
The muted colour palette is less important to me than other aspects of the images. I'm a big fan of Paul Wakefield, Pete Dombrowskis and KK's work all of which usually have a muted palette. The colour palette of Velvia isn't exactly idealised in my view; saturated, yes and sometimes inappropriately so. That's why it is so good in so called 'poor' light. Again, I don't have any problem with his shying away from dramatic light.
My real issue with his work is that he doesn't offer me any insights into the landscapes he depicts. It seems to me that part of the job of an artist is to direct the viewer's attention, to say "Look, isn't this amazing?! I bet you hadn't noticed it before or thought of it in quite this way!" This can be perfectly well done with quiet images (see the work of all those I mentioned above!) As KK put it:
If I am to give up my time to look at a photograph I want the photographer to have made it as a result of some genuine insight; maybe to reveal surprising structure, colour contrast or whatever. Telling me that this is the scene as it appeared just leaves me bored beyond belief and if I weren't a pacifist (militant wing) would feel like reaching for my gun.Showing a huge print and basically saying "have a good long look and you'll find something interesting eventually." seems lazy or even arrogant. Now, I haven't met Harry and I'm sure that he's a perfectly nice guy but that doesn't mean that I have to like the images he makes or agree with his approach. Rather than entirely leaving the discovery of what is amazing up to the viewer the artist should make some effort to bring that thing to his or her attention. Otherwise what is their purpose in life?
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist09/12/2007, 14:29
I was hoping this chap's book would get a discussion here. So far, I can see what readers are saying and agree broadly with the different stances: ie I have mixed feelings. I know I have often wondered at the value of just shooting what is there, because it is there. It is a record of where I have been, what I have seen. It is a record of places that have resonated with something within. Following on from our earlier discussions on transcendance, I would say that the other object being alluded to, is actually locked within the photographer's mind (Cory Wright's, my own). As such, it is unlikely that the spectator will resonate with this other object, ie it is unlikely the spectator will find it transcendant. Is that a possible basis for art? Some would say so. All my results in this vein tell me, is that they are quiet and understated photographs which don't do much for spectators looking for strong visual cues. Which is not to say that there is no structure or pleasing detail (or indeed no effort on my part). One division I have found in my photography is between: (i) places, usually local, where I have the time and opportunities for several visits. This allows me to refine my vision, to get as much as much as I can out of the land. (ii) photography on the road, where I have to make snap decisions (appropriate pun) and make the most of the light, the location and the general conditions (including boring, practical, non-photographic considerations such as somewhere to sleep for the night...). These are hardly likely to produce the most stunning or considered work which time would allow, but the pictures do provide a reflection of the journey - the evolving landscape and the photographer's response to it. As such, we should perhaps put HCW's work in the travel photography section rather than the landscape section, albeit one devoid of people, sites of world renown and all the other things demanded of travel brochures. Shame about the burnt highlights though. Just a few thoughts. Charles
Highlight this Comment Chris A09/12/2007, 16:27
Like Adam, I first came across HCWs work in Outdoor Photography. I remember it well because at the time I couldn't understand why he was using a 10x8 camera to do what he does. No movements, no control of contrast, limited range of exposures and a lot of kit to lug around. My overriding feeling on the project was frustration - I would love to be given the chance to travel the UK with a LF camera. I know what I'd produce would be very different from Harry's pictures, but they may not appeal to everyone. Although I have to say his pictures don't appeal to me, if Harry is able to make money from his prints and books then part of me says good luck to him. The challenge is for those of us who think we can do better to get out there and prove it.
Highlight this Comment Anonymous09/12/2007, 16:32
I now remember having looked through this book at some point in the not too distant past. And that's the point. I had completely forgotten it already. There was nothing memorable in it for me. On the other hand while in Norway in July we visited a bookshop and came across two books, one of more standard work and one portraying a more personal approach to landscape photography. Both were full to the brim with beautiful images that are seared into my memory. Both I would buy today if I could find them.
On another subject, dramatic photographs don't have to be made in dramatic light. Anyone who hasn't done so already should visit Paul Wakefield's site www.paulwakefield.co.uk and try to find any direct sunlight in one of his very dramatic photographs. Look at KK's work too. Lots of drama and little evidence of the sun.
There is no excuse for purposefully making un-memorable images in my opinion.
Richard Childs
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Perkins09/12/2007, 17:48
But Richard, the're not unmemorable to me - I can easily visualise several of HCW's images of the North Norfolk coast that mean as much to me as any I've seen of Glen Coe. But I was born and brought up here, his images invoke feelings that are deeply embedded in my past. I'm talking of images seen in his gallery that are not part of this book, but executed in a similar style.
This has now been worrying me all day, as I just don't understand the reaction this is getting. Is it just that I have a connection via this particular landscape of North Norfolk? If an image requires the viewer to have knowledge or understanding of an area to respond emotionally to it, does that lessen its worth? Does it cease to be art and become a curiosity or keep sake for those affected?
Jonathan
Highlight this Comment Anonymous09/12/2007, 18:20
First of all my thanks to David and Richard for their kind endorsement of my work; getting quite worried by now. This is by way of a short response to Jonathan's posting (timed at 17:48). First of all let me state that I am not commenting on HCW's work as I have not seen any original prints though from what I know I am not strongly motivated to make any great effort (if he exhibits in Edinburgh then I'll certainly go along).
Jonathan asks:
If an image requires the viewer to have knowledge or understanding of an area to respond emotionally to it, does that lessen its worth?My view is that it certainly does lessen it very significantly as a work of art, this is not to diminish its value for those who have a connection with it from locality or whatever. More generally I think that it is necessary for the photographer to have a very deep knowledge of place to have a chance of producing images beyond the illustrative. In my case I have been visiting the same location for the last few years and plan to continue this for several more (at the very least); I have barely scratched the surface of what is possible. Admittedly this approach makes no economic sense at all and is the exact opposite of the travel book format. I have no objection to the latter but were I the author of such a book (not likely) I would take a red pencil to hype that claims Each photograph is infused with the unique spirit of its location; pull the other one mate!
In the end each of us has a right to enjoy or not enjoy work produced. We also have a right to discuss these things in an intelligent and courteous manner which is the case here of course.
KK.
Highlight this Comment David Ward09/12/2007, 19:12
Hi Jonathan and KK
Well if nothing else I think that we've firmly established that what we get out of another's photograph, or any other work of art, relies to a great extent upon what we bring to the viewing. Harry Cory Wright's images of the Norfolk coast obviously have great personal resonance for you Jonathan and they deserve to be valued by you for that.
I agree with KK that if a photograph requires intimate knowledge of its location in order to be evocative then in my opinion it has to some extent failed. Surely one of the definitions of a truly great photograph, or any other kind of artwork, is that it will move you without you needing to know much of its backstory?
My own approach to image making is quite different to KK's Where he has immersed himself in 'place' in order to truly realise its potential I tend to travel with my camera without a location or particular goal in mind. Perhaps Tom is correct when he says that my images are more about me than they are about the places where they were made. In many instances the location is in any case anonymous. I find anonymous places more productive because they are relatively free from unwanted connotations - try making an image of the Grand Canyon without burdening it with connotations (note that I wrote 'of' not 'in').
I have carefully chosen the word anonymous to describe my ideal kind of location, not merely as a synonym for unknown but also to suggest an unassuming place. It has been my experience that my best images were made in quite ordinary places. As a landscape photographer I obviously don't mean the local supermarket car park but quiet, wild places. The intent of many landscape photographers is to make an image of somewhere extraordinary; mine is to reveal the extraordinary in seemingly mundane wild places. It is relatively easy to make an exclamatory image, in places such as Bryce Canyon or Yosemite, which shout at you, and it is a simple matter to pass this loud message on to the viewer. It is much harder to make an image that is contemplative. The irony is that I feel that HCW has a similar, worthy intent but that for me they fail to be evocative.
I must emphasise that this is in no way a personal attack on HCW but an attempt to understand where he is coming from with his photography and explore why I (and the readers) might or might not like his images.
Highlight this Comment Guy09/12/2007, 19:47
An excellent discussion...
...but I'm still struggling with 'why' other than perhaps it all meaning 'why not.'
The images don't work for me - fine; but they obviously work for those that buy HCW work and books. Well done to the author for finding a market and earning a living from that which he loves - something that ALL photographers struggle with.
But please shoot the copywriter!Going back to the publishers original comments:
"This stunning book documents Cory Wright's remarkable journey. Each photograph is infused with the unique spirit of its location - from vast, wild mountain ranges to verdant, dewy forests at sunrise, from windswept beaches in winter to fields bathed in late summer, early evening sun. It is a unique photographic record of a journey through some of the most breathtaking locations in the British Isles. Cory Wright's Gandolfi plate camera captures images of exquisite detail and intensity. This is a magnificently produced, large-format book that will appeal to anyone interested in landscape photography."
Really... I enjoy the landscape, I'm a photographer, I use a camera (metal not wood but hey) and I sometimes produce an image that works for me and others..so I should fall into this category...
Who writes this stuff? Have to say that given the significantly minimalist approach of the images, the text just doesn't work.
Would our thoughts be different if the text was better?
Perhaps HCW should have written some text that matched the style of the images? Wonder if he agreed to the wording?
Mind you it has prompted me to go and find this book tomorrow.I guess any discussion about photography is a good one and for that we should thank HCW!
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Perkins09/12/2007, 20:14
Hi KK,
I'm with you 100% on the marketing nonsense! In an earlier post you mentioned that 'What is objectionable is a predetermined position in favour of any one "look," this is just ideological posturing.' I understand and agree with you, although I am worried about the boundary between a dogmatic adherence to one look and developing an individual style - I guess as long as the continual development or journey that David talked about in a previous blog happens this should be prevented. At the other end of the spectrum I think there can be a temptation to dabble in a range of styles and not make progress in any one - I'm sure I've been guilty of that in the past, although perhaps its needed to find out where you feel most comfortable?
Anyway, very enjoyable discussion!
Jonathan
Highlight this Comment Anonymous09/12/2007, 20:31
Hello David,
So my cunning plan has worked and we have a disagreement. Well that's what I wish I could say but the truth is that in making my statement about the need for deep knowledge of a place I was thinking of the context of the discussion, i.e., photographs that reveal a place (or places in the case of the book concerned). While intimate photographs can reveal an aspect of a place they cannot do the full job and of course that is not the intention. To be more precise my comments should have stated a body of work concerning place.
This brings up a thus far un-stated assumption in a lot of the discussion. There seems to be a lot of concern about producing a great photograph. However if the aim is to produce a coherent body of work on some theme then a sequence of knockout photographs will ensure failure of the project. There must be some of these but also others that modulate and set the mood.
KK.
Highlight this Comment Jonathan Perkins09/12/2007, 20:59
Hi David,
_'I must emphasise that this is in no way a personal attack on HCW'_ Of course, thats fully understood.
As someone who is still desperately trying to get an initial compass bearing on my own small journey, this discussion is very interesting. I do need to clarify in my mind how important 'place' is to the images I want to make. Hmm, yes I think you might have just helped quite a bit!
Looking forward to seeing your exhibition next year,
Jonathan
Highlight this Comment adamp09/12/2007, 22:12
Very interesting and helpful discussion! HCW has perhaps unwittingly produced some thoughtful reflection (if that's not too much of a tautology) even if his work produces mixed feelings. I agree that an evocative photograph will induce a strong reaction from viewers whether they know the place depicted or not. I can think of many such images from several people who have contributed to this discussion - their photos are quite arresting even though I have not been to the places shown. Indeed, their success lies in making me want to be there.
I also think that it doesn't matter whether the place is well known or not. So yes, Bryce has been done to death and I was very conscious of that when I visited it last year with David and others. Nevertheless I enjoyed it immensely and took a load of illustrative pictures purely as a memento of the trip. I did also try very hard to produce images which are supposed to convey what I experienced. The problem - and perhaps this is a general problem - is that what is my "emotional record... may be no more than an illustrative photo to someone who was not there and felt as I did. I believe that to do Bryce justice I would need to go there again and again so that I could almost ignore its stunning immediate beauty in order to see the subtler details and find new viewpoints. This goes back to KK's point of the need to know a place well in order to find the less obvious.
Richard wrote that "There is no excuse for purposefully making un-memorable images in my opinion.... Whereas I think I see where you're coming from, that is quite a sweeping statement. If my purpose is to quite consciously merely record a scene for my pleasure, surely that is OK? However, this is where HCW fails for me: if he wanted to simply take a point-and-shoot record, then on that level the images succeed. I now know how the places he visited look like, but sadly I have no desire to go there too. I am simply not moved by them at all. Had he chosen or been blessed with better light, or made better use of what was there, I think that many of his photos could have had more impact on me.
I suppose we could now debate what does "better... mean? On that note I shall bid you all a very good night!
Highlight this Comment Anonymous09/12/2007, 23:09
Hello Jonathan,
My statement about not having predetermined positions was as much about how we view the work of others as how we approach our own. I must say that I have never been concerned about developing a style as such. I have, however, spent a great deal of time thinking about what makes a good photograph, why bother making one at all, why this rather than that photograph etc. Style follows substance sums it up.
Anyway I've made rather a lot of postings on this thread so I'd better sign off. Back to working away at the sums tomorrow so I shan't be so tempted!
KK.
Highlight this Comment Anonymous10/12/2007, 09:36
Hi Adam
I don't think my statement was sweeping. Your record shots from overseas trips should still be of memorable moments to you personally. We will all in the past have had images back and wondered why we bothered but as we mature as photographers we make decisions in the field not to waste film/memory. We become more discerning with how we choose our record shots, no longer snapping but taking a little time to better compose an image, even family holiday photos. I do and I'm sure all the readers here do too.
I've seen so many books published where it looks as though the whole thing was done in a hurry and the results are disappointing. What I want to see in published work, whether books or hanging on walls is something I can return to and marvel at again and again. Record shots should also have some of this quality I feel otherwise you will not have captured the magic that made you press the shutter in the first place.
Richard Childs
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin10/12/2007, 23:32
I hope you'll excuse this half blog post, half comment - it started in your comments but ended on my blog..
The discussion seems to be about whether Mr Wright is using a different visual language and that the apparent lack of compositional and technical 'style' is an artistic affectation, and if so of what kind, or whether he is attempting to make transcendent landscape art but misses the mark in some way.
I think the artist deserves to be listened to so I read through Harry's blog on the Times website and also looked through his websites and book output to see if there was anything I could glean.
The first thing I noticed is that on his book covers and on his website, the featured images that have been chosen are the most visually compelling pictures in a typical landscape style; i.e. Luminous light, composed (loosely), etc. This sort of implies that there is at least a concious filtering of his images after the fact that fits with a real attempt to create traditionally 'beautiful' images. (of course this could be a cynical choice of images to try to draw the average punter in?).
Given this, why are so many of the images so banal? Reading through the blog, it is often said that (paraphrase) 'I stayed in a location for a couple of days to absorb the environment and then took a picture right next to where I was parked/camped'. This doesn't seem to leave much room for choosing a view. With a 210 lens on, it's probably only possible to point in 8 different directions.
However he then goes on to say that in some locations he spent time finding a location, asking locals where the best views were and even going to the the top of Meall Na Cuilce overlooking Loch Coruisk to get the final shot of the tour.
If it weren't for this, I could start to understand his stated influences of Cindy Sherman, Thomas Struth, Neil Young and Paul Strand. The only one of these that really gives a hint at a minmalist viewpoint (the only explanation that springs to mind) is Thomas Struth's work but that is mostly about the viewers perception and social commentary. Neil Young is, I think, the singer thrown in for some trendy music references (Bob Marley is mentioned amongst other music references). Cindy Sherman is obviously post modernist but not in the context of the landscape. As for Paul Strand, I don't see any of his empathy with the communities in which he is taking his pictures.. Mr Wrights pictures are more reminiscent of Stephen Shore (or even Richard Misrach), which at least match with the look of the images and tallies with his mention of Thomas Struth, but this misses the mark in the fact that Shore was always about the human element, not the pure landscape and that Shore and his recent crop of modernists (Gursky etc) were/are very knowing. I get the feeling (and I may be wrong) that Mr Wright's images are produced out of Naivety rather than a knowing commentary on something.
Mr Wright, on his blog, answers a question about his influence.
hcwThe camera I use gets more detail across than any camera I have ever used. It gives a relevance to everything in the frame. This allows the photographer to use it with great confidence, knowing that the final print will reveal more (not less) than you were able to take in at the time. The more I go on using the camera the less I worry about the detail and this lets me concentrate on the bigger thing; the feel of the whole place, the 'sum' as you say.This just suggests that he's enamoured of the 'resolution' as in "Who cares about the subject matter - look at the detail" or "As long as I'm pointing in roughly the right direction, the camera is bound to pick up what I'm seeing".
HCW: What do I look for? That's difficult to say, because as you get closer to taking the picture it varies. The night before I might decide where to go, and that's based on a bit of weather, where I was the day before, what someone's told me etc. But the most exciting bit is walking from where you have begun, knowing that the chances are that you about to get swept away by what's out there. The key I suppose is not to anticipate it all too much, and to try not to do what you have done before.But how does this happen if he only takes pictures next to where he started. Nothing is really adding up to a consistent view, style or even goal.
To paraphrase a couple of quotes from Mr Wright "I select the spot from where to take picture: a promontory where I feel the view has been important or admired; bend in a track that has a sense of significance; crossing points of track and stream giving a sense of convergence not just of transport but of ways of living and history." - This does sound good but doesn't really tally with random pictures of hedgerows (however nice these seem) or beach scenes with little beach and a lot of sky, or a scrap of soil, etc.
Overall I don't get a sense of any consistency. I see a photographer that can see beauty and occasionally capture it but who very often misses or confuses the experience with the realisation. This is not to say that he is a bad photographer, but he doesn't rate as a 'great' photographer in my opinion, despite taking some pictures that I really like (as seen below..); But for every one of these there is a picture that does nothing for me at all.
My conclusion is that Mr Wright is a very good marketer (someone even adds fake reviews and ratings to his Amazon books) and has obviously hit a nerve with critics and at least one publisher, I think because of his similarity to the modernists mentioned above; but he doesn't really know what he wants to be and this shows in the book and through his writing. He's either a savant modernist that I don't understand or just happens to have hit this zeitgeist through a naive (and I don't mean this as an insult) approach to photography.
Either way this is not the landscape photography that I really enjoy, even though I may enjoy individual pictures. I should add that there is something in some of the pictures that works in the way that it totally removes the photographer from the process; a deadpan, minimalist view of the landscape that leaves the viewer to do all of the work. If Mr Wright were to focus on this and develop this style, focusing on how to achieve a refined version of what he appears to do accidentally I'd interested in seeing a sequel.
(I've posted a link to some of the pictures I like on my blog at http://blog.timparkin.co.uk/2007/12/harry-cory-wright-discuss.html)
Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin11/12/2007, 09:22
I forgot to subscribe to the comment - I also discovered he gets his prints made at the same German lab as Andreas Gursky .. hmmmm
Highlight this Comment David Ward11/12/2007, 10:04
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the very interesting analysis, I'll ponder on it and come back with more detailed comments in the next few days but I must say that I too got the feeling that the work was more naive than knowing.
BTW this is Harry Cory Wright's blog at The Times Online.
Highlight this Comment Bax11/12/2007, 20:56
Well this discussion (or does this qualify as a lambasting?) has really taken off in rather a grand manner. I don't think that I am ever able to get out of the shallow end of the think tank, but am familiar with HCW's pictures. There was a feature on him a few years ago in the Saturday newspaper supplement and have sporadically checked his website. Until now I haven't been tempted to buy one of his books, but did so with JTTBI 3 weeks ago.
His use of colour neg film intrigued me early on and was an influence in my willingness to try this alongside other film types.
I have not had time to do much other than barely exist recently, but somehow when snatching a few minutes have managed to keep returning to HCWs book, fleetingly. An initial scan read of the text was perhaps too much, they are trying too hard - I had no idea that Landscape photography was such an ordeal or hard work.... if so, I'd never have started.
However the pictures - his is a different way of seeing from the L&L; cohort and I hope to learn from getting to know the pictures better. I want to learn from a wide spectrum of influences. His output from colour neg film is very different from that which I currently achieve and prefer. I would certainly prefer to look at this book than one comprising over-gradded HDR landscape images with distorted horizons from 10-15mm lenses on DSLRs.
Yes, it does appear that he has a horizon line etched on the Gandolfi Ground Glass at 40-45% from the bottom of the frame. But there is a quietness in his pictures I enjoy - almost as if he isn't trying too hard - I feel that he overcompensates here with his writing....
No, I am not trying to say that every picture is compelling, not even a small minority are! It is however a valid, albeit stylised, document of a journey he chose to make and take. But I do think that the better pictures have the potential to grow on oneself. Certainly given free rein, I would have printed the negatives differently, but then this would have corrupted his view of the British Ises.
Each of us would produce something unique and surely in our own humble opinions with the courage of conviction, better, if only we had had the idea of the journey (or one of our own) and made the commitment to complete the project. So why don't we?
And yes, harnessing some marketing of equivalent power to that of HCW may well come in handy.
Highlight this Comment Charles Twist18/12/2007, 19:17
With the increasing popularity of photography, there are more and more non-professionals taking up LF because the large trannies produce large prints in which you can actually see something with some detail which we recognise as life-like. So I foresee an increasing popularity in the production of large prints. I'd be curious to know what terrain that will leave the arty sort who produce the HCW/ Gursky / Misrach stuff. Your end is nigh - maybe. Maybe this popularisation will force them to rethink, following a repositioning of the market. Open for discussion. Charles
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!