I confess to over simplifying the current condition of photographic art regularly in this blog. While it is true to say that generally the banal is king, it is not true to say that there are no photographic artists who share the f-64/straight photography aesthetic because landscape photographers do. These artists think nothing of spending tens of thousands of dollars to obtain NASA-like technology. This state-of-the-art technology allows them to make photographs so technically perfect that they have reached the limits of human sight. Very large prints are now the rule because the resolving power of a 60+ megapixel back seeing the world through a modern Zeiss, Schneider or Rodenstock lens needs the space of a large print to unfold all of its glory.
Thus we have the academy turning out socially conscious, aesthetically challenged photographers and “old school” landscape photographers turning out the most technically perfect photographs ever seen, with only “deadpan” devotees possibly bridging the gap. I have no idea what to do about this. I do not consider myself a landscape photographer, in part because I’m not sure that they have anything new to say that hasn’t already been said by previous landscape photographers. How many outstanding photographs do we need “capturing the light” at Half-Dome? At the same time, I’m certainly no post-modernist from the academy. If one goes to exhibits regularly as I do, frustration sets in. I recently went to the Texas Photographic Society International Competition show in Johnson City for example. It was yet another assemblage of technically challenged work whose purpose I can only guess. Where is some really interesting new work? Why is no one presenting technically competent photographs that celebrate the photographic in a new way? How can we establish an aesthetic that can be appreciated as Art by the current viewing public? Surely no one actually likes what the numerous contests and galleries are throwing out at us.
No. 32: The Current Photographic Art World Is Schizophrenic
I confess to over simplifying the current condition of photographic art regularly in this blog. While it is true to say that generally the banal is king, it is not true to say that there are no photographic artists who share the f-64/straight photography aesthetic because landscape photographers do. These artists think nothing of spending tens of thousands of dollars to obtain NASA-like technology. This state-of-the-art technology allows them to make photographs so technically perfect that they have reached the limits of human sight. Very large prints are now the rule because the resolving power of a 60+ megapixel back seeing the world through a modern Zeiss, Schneider or Rodenstock lens needs the space of a large print to unfold all of its glory.
Thus we have the academy turning out socially conscious, aesthetically challenged photographers and “old school” landscape photographers turning out the most technically perfect photographs ever seen, with only “deadpan” devotees possibly bridging the gap. I have no idea what to do about this. I do not consider myself a landscape photographer, in part because I’m not sure that they have anything new to say that hasn’t already been said by previous landscape photographers. How many outstanding photographs do we need “capturing the light” at Half-Dome? At the same time, I’m certainly no post-modernist from the academy. If one goes to exhibits regularly as I do, frustration sets in. I recently went to the Texas Photographic Society International Competition show in Johnson City for example. It was yet another assemblage of technically challenged work whose purpose I can only guess. Where is some really interesting new work? Why is no one presenting technically competent photographs that celebrate the photographic in a new way? How can we establish an aesthetic that can be appreciated as Art by the current viewing public? Surely no one actually likes what the numerous contests and galleries are throwing out at us.