No Lesser An Art
These past few days I’ve been fortunate to witness extraordinary beauty while driving and hiking in my beloved deserts of the American West. I started my journey on the high plateaus of Southern Utah, catching the last of the turning aspens and the early snow storms before descending into the southern canyons to see the maples turning red and the small creeks, normally dry, flush with recent rains. Exiting the sandstone wonderland of the Colorado Plateau, I entered the Mojave where I walked among Joshua trees, creosote bushes, barrel and cholla cactus, and filled my lungs with the intoxicating air of wet deserts. Along the trip I managed to visit four galleries and admired the fine works of master photographers working in the region. It’s been a very satisfying trip so far, and more is yet ahead.
It occurred to me that only one of the galleries I visited referred to the photographer as “the artist,” and that practically all the works I’ve seen were explicitly documentary in nature, some going out of their way to proclaim the use of “natural” light and “traditional” processes, attempting to assert that these somehow elevated their value, while in fact shifting much of the credit away from the photographer and attributing it instead to chance and chemistry.
It is no wonder that artistic nature photography struggles to claim its place among the fine arts when photographers themselves shy away from creative expression and are quick to dismiss their own role in the creation of their work, reducing themselves to mere spectators and operators of camera controls rather than creative artists.
It seems most expect nature photography to be heavily slanted towards the documentary, while artistic photography is often perceived as obscure, abstract, or focused on the misfortunes of human suffering. Caught in between, artistic nature photography understandably suffers from an identity crisis. In reality, though, it fits into neither category and should be entitled to exist in its own right and independent of such prejudice.
Such were the teachings of photographic artists from the Pictorialists to Group f/64. Yet, in these times when everyone is a photographer and every inkjet print is stamped “fine art,” many of the lessons of the past are apparently forgotten. Audiences seem oblivious to the distinction between the creative and the documentary, publications and contests impose guidelines that would disqualify the works of even the greatest nature photographers of old, while present day photographers themselves fear embracing their own creativity lest they be tarnished with such ignorant labels as “manipulated” and “Photoshopped”.
There is more at stake than minor prejudice here. The very future of nature photography as a legitimate art hangs in the balance. All art is manipulation. Photoshop is a noun, not a verb. And lumping all products of a camera into one category is as silly as bundling together Impressionistic masterpieces with kindergarten doodles. Not all photographs are meant to serve the same purpose.
Art is about the creative expression of subjective ideas, in whatever medium. Whether the tool is a paintbrush, a chisel, a camera, or a computer program, should have no bearing on the validity of the work.
Category: Featured, Thoughts and Musings
Hi, Guy. As usual, you share some very thoughtful reflections on the state of things. My perception of what you wrote about is that–in landscape and nature photography–there’s definitely a dogma dictating that creativity ends with composition.
Although I agree with you, I admittedly have struggled with this. Where *does* the creative process stop? I’m not entirely sure, but I think you’re chipping away at the question.
I’m interested to read what others have to say.
Cheers,
Greg
Guy, first let me say that it feels as if I’m travelling with you on your present journey since I’ve been immersed in your new e-book during my breaks from editing today. I’m thoroughly enjoying your finely crafted words and images and they are enabling me to see my own work in a new light.
I agree that nature photography as an art form has struggled to find it’s proper place in the world. And, as you’ve observed recently in the galleries, it seems we the artists are as much to blame as anyone. Too much emphasis is placed on technique these days and not enough on artistic interpretation. I regularly hear “are you doing HDR, and what type of filter are you using” and while these are valid tools of the trade, they are a means and not an end. With the exception of documentary photographers, I believe we are all creative artists and owe it to ourselves and our medium to be true to our personal vision, and in doing so we will elevate our art to its rightful place in the eyes of the world.
All the best,
Russ
I feel that the issue resides in the mind’s of those creating the work. Many photographers get stuck and sucked into the gear competition. I firmly believe that you should choose your tools for the moment and if the moment dictates an iPhone, use the damn iPhone. Solidify your vision for that given moment with what ever you have available to you. Even if that means drawing stick figures on a dinner napkin while getting hammered at the local bar.
Most photographers fear the whole reality issue because photography is in fact a realistic medium. The bottom line is that it should be no different than picking up a paint brush and applying paint to a canvas. And I truly agree that there is a disconnect between art and journalism in nature photography. Those who are most successful at it and those who I want to surround myself with are the ones who disregard this “rule” and create for creations sake. They just choose the camera as their tool of the day. I think what I am truly discovering myself is that those artists I admire would be just that great artists regardless of medium. If you gave them a pile of steel and a welder they would create some kind of masterpiece.
Thanks for more great insight.
It occurred to me that only one of the galleries I visited referred to the photographer as “the artist,” and that practically all the works I’ve seen were explicitly documentary in nature, some going out of their way to proclaim the use of “natural” light and “traditional” processes, attempting to assert that these somehow elevated their value, while in fact shifting much of the credit away from the photographer and attributing it instead to chance and chemistry.
I think I understand what you are trying to say Guy but by demoting the art of composition and the craft of visualisation and idea generation to “Chance” and the production of the fine print from a ‘negative/positive’ traditionally to “Chemistry” is demeaning of most of the founders of Photography.
It sounds like you are saying that the ‘artistic’ part of the production of a photograph only really starts once you get it into photoshop or that we need to use ‘artificial’ light in order to be ‘artistic nature photographers’. I know this isn’t quite what you are trying to say but that is how I read your post.
I’d love to know what aspects of photography you see as being the most creative? Is it the seeing and composing? The craft of taking a scene/idea and imprinting it on film/sensor? The transformation from capture to print?
I wish every curator, every gallery director, every contest judge would read this post. Bravo! It is this identity crisis I struggle with every single day in trying to earn a living as an artist using photography as my medium.
The irony is that the pictorialists worked hard to present photographs as creative works of art, while the f64-ists derided their approach as mimicry of another medium (painting) and instead pushed “straight photography” as the art of the camera. Now here we are close to/more than a century later, with the bulk of photographers practicing rather straight photography and knowing little to nothing about the history of their medium. IMO art education is key, but in the US we deem it as less important than fundamentals and underfund arts and culture (art is fundamental in my book).
It’s hard to make art or be an artist when you have no background or basis of understanding. All photographers would do well to study the history of their medium and to study and appreciate all styles and forms of photography. Most “nature photographers” are stuck in an f64 style of straight photography because that’s all they know and have seen, and it’s easier to toe the line than it is to paint your own.
“If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Sir Isaac Newton
Excellent post. An artist is an artist whether their medium is a camera or a brush or a stick in the dirt or whatever.
All of us who call ourselves artists need to claim the name artist without apologies, explanations, disclaimers, qualifiers or caveats of kind. Use your camera, use it well, hone your vision, constantly strive to improve your work, and let it stand with the best of them. Be an artist and be proud of it. No apologies necessary. No disclaimers needed or wanted.
I’ve just come back to this again and I’m pretty sure I’ve misinterpreted what you were saying. I got derailed by the talk of “fear of manipulation and photoshop” and thought you were saying that we should embrace them instead.
I see no problem with people using ‘tradtional’ processes and ‘available’ light (although if your light source isn’t available – how are you going to use it) as the prime artistic tool in the photographers palette to me is composition and light.
People like Christopher Burkett, who I imagine use the same proclamation of ‘tradtional processes’ and ‘available’ light) is no less a creative artist than Gregory Crewdson.
I’m quite proud to call myself a photographer and if you asked me if I were an artist, I would say yes. I don’t see a dichotomy there (I think a lot of sculptors would call themselves sculptor as well?).
Fundamentally – all photography is manipulation, all observation distorts through exlusion before any post processing can take place. To say that documentary photography is any less intrinsically artistic is to deny the talents of street photographers such as Cartier Bresson and is the Farm Security Administration’s output any less for being primarly documentary in nature.
For me the primary issue that lanscape/nature photographers need to get over is that they are using nature as a set of ingredients, a palette with which to paint. The end result will either be representational or abstract (or somewhere in between) but will be the creative result of a photographers vision and craft.
Am I right in thinking that your argument is one of the photographers (artists) attitude to their creations rather than what the creations actually are? Or is it about post-processing versus ‘straight’ photography? or about distortion in the craft process (petzval lenses, creative defocus, blurring, etc? I’d love a continuation of this post!
by the way – I tried to highlight my quote of yours at the top of the last post but it’s ended up blended in and looks like part of my comment. Not sure you can do anything about that (delete the quote bit?)
A side issue. This latest layout of your blog is difficult to read; the type is too small! And there’s some sort of white “shadow” to the text that doesn’t really help readability, either.
My $0.02.
Much better text style now
Good points, Guy. But at the same time, I think people feel the need to proclaim those things about capturing light and nature because when non-photographers see something great in nature photography the first assumption often times is that the scene was invented in Photoshop. They are not meaning well either at that insinuation.
Thank you very much, everyone! Wonderful discussion. I apologize it’s not easy to keep up while traveling but wanted to express my gratitude.
Richard, I think you made my point. What you are describing is prejudice, plain and simple. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, prejudice is (among other things):
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
That same dictionary has much stronger words for those who practice or tolerate it, but I’ll let you look these up on your own.
In the end, it is up to each of us to stamp out prejudice and ignorance when it comes to our art.
FWIW My business cards bill me as an Artist/Craftsman/Photographer. In an age when dirty ashtrays and used Styrofoam cups are considered art because they were arranged someone who is accepted by the gallery crowd as an artist I am sometimes loath to accept the title “artist” but then. There will always be those who object to photography being called art just as I frown on arrangements of dirty ashtrays as art.
That is an exquisite photograph by the way, Guy. The prejudice you speak of comes partly from the galleries and collectors who are essentially still thinking in film era terms. Even a galery owner told me recently that collectors are generally at least 30 years behind the market, except in the rare cases when they pick up on something brand new and trendy. Photographers who try to differentiate themselves and cater to the art establishment make claims about natural light, etc. However, the f.64 Kingpin himself said the negative is the score and the print the performance. Prints of “Moonrise Hernandez” utilize much more than “natural processes” and “available light.” However, “Moonrise Hernandez” in its most manipulative form is still tasteful, refined and made with exquisite craftsmanship. The backlash against Photoshop manipulation has been egged on by the over-use or untalented use of controls in Photoshop to produce photographs that are like waffles with too much syrup. The pervasive saturation of the market with over-saturated images has led all users of Photoshop to be lumped into the same breakfast serving, even if their waffles are more tastefully made. Eventually in time, the quality, tasteful use of Photoshop, as it is seen more and more, will become accepted just like any new technology eventually is. Also, the work of those who went way overboard during this transition time, may become the most sought after by collectors or the most disdained, either one is as likely as the other.
David’s analogy is right on. I think I’ll start referring to my work as “organic whole grain photography”
[...] in any way or form you can muster. Finally I’d like to bring up this quote by the insightful Guy Tal Art is about the creative expression of subjective ideas, in whatever medium. Whether the tool is a [...]
lol @ Michael!
Nicely written Guy. I believe one of the most fundamenntal missteps in the digestion of any photograph is the assumption that a particular subject was seen and absorbed in the same manner by any particular individual. If people are going to prejudge the processes used in some way to demonize the result, then they aren’t interested in the emotional connection of the photographer.
Great point, Mark! Judging a creative image by its technical specs is like judging a novel by the font it’s printed in. To hell with the font. Read the story!
This subject goes much deeper than many may realize. I consider myself a fine art nature photographer and I live in a community that is the home of many “traditional” artists. This past summer I decided I would take a class in abstract drawing to see if I could get a better handle on the use of abstract designs in my work as a photographer and signed up for a class given by a well known potter/abstract artist in our community. I exhibit photographic work in his gallery as well as another gallery in the same town.
During a class session he was explaining a technique for abstract drawing, finished his demo, looked at me while others in the class looked on, and stated “this type of drawing is much more difficult than photography, in my opinion.” This coming from a retired art instructor and “highly respected artist” with national connections. I sat there with a blank face.
It has always been my conclusion that many, if not most, artists of other media consider photography a non-art. It’s disappointing, but it’s necessary that we ignore their narrow opinions and push forward in our mastery of our medium.