Conceptual vs Traditional Photography - questions for the viewer

[jovo]

I don't often listen to Brooks Jensen's podcasts anymore, but today's was definitely worth it. ( Podcast #582, 17 December 2009 ) He relates what I have, as a resident of the periphery of NYC, been increasingly made aware of which is that the only photography worthy to hang in NYC galleries has to be post-modern, conceptual, and ironic or any combination of those. It also helps if it looks rather amateurishly produced (though not always), is stupid large (as if everyone had acres of wall space), and is in blandly desaturated color If you're producing "beautiful" images, you haven't got a chance (except in a couple of rent-a-wall galleries), Of course, "calendar" or travel brochure work was never gallery worthy, but didn't pretend to be...it goes on calendars and in brochures, and gets shown that way in the first place. But the idea that the kind of work that some of the best photographers on apug produce is just not going to get shown here is really disappointing and unfortunate.

So...what's it like where you live? Are the same constraints being put on photography in the mid-west, the south, or the west coast? And what do you think of the type of work that IS being shown in NYC?

[df cardwell]

Conceptual art ? That's so '70s.

[juan]

Here in the tourist traps of northeast Florida, its over saturated, over sharpened, works which evoke sentimentality.
Or, maybe I'm too harsh.
juan

[jovo]

Conceptual art ? That's so '70s.

Yes it is, and so is new topographica, but it's there nonetheless. Here's a link to a whole slew of 'em:

http://art-support.com/galleries_ny.htm

[jovo]

Here in the tourist traps of northeast Florida, its over saturated, over sharpened, works which evoke sentimentality.
Or, maybe I'm too harsh.
juan

From what I remember seeing in the galleries in Ponte Vedre and Jacksonville, your comment isn't harsh, it's rather accurate.

[Marco B]

been increasingly made aware of which is that the only photography worthy to hang in NYC galleries has to be post-modern, conceptual, and ironic or any combination of those. It also helps if it looks rather amateurishly produced (though not always), is stupid large (as if everyone had acres of wall space), and is in blandly desaturated color If you're producing "beautiful" images, you haven't got a chance (except in a couple of rent-a-wall galleries)

I think you nailed it properly, but it is not just the US. Here in the Netherlands, a similar gallery "trend" is visible, though I must admit that some of the true photomuseums still do manage to stick their neck out once in a while and come up with good old "vintage", "aesthetic" or documentary photography of the great masters, but also lesser known souls.


But the idea that the kind of work that some of the best photographers on apug produce is just not going to get shown here is really disappointing and unfortunate.

I think the photography gallery market is actually going through its "puberty" stage... In the eighties and especially nineties, the first true photo galleries found their place in the art market, and did also deal in more "aesthetic" forms of photography.

Now that the market is going through its puberty stage, everything aesthetic is more or less abandoned, in favour of "arty" forms of photography with all the characteristics you describe. If it is big, it is good, if it is huge, it's excellent, seams to be a major theme... And yes, there is also big money going on in this, I have seen galleries here in the Netherlands running price tags of 10.000 euros for digitally printed and photoshopped works of 2x3 meters or so... and not even by world famous artists.

It all reminds me of the absolute rejection of romantic or realistic styles of painting when modernism started creeping in in the beginning of the twentieth century.

I guess we will have to wait for "maturity" in the photography art market, like with the regained interest in realistic art forms, that now can thrive next to modern forms of painting and sculpture and installation art.

[jovo]

It all reminds me of the absolute rejection of romantic or realistic styles of painting when modernism started creeping in in the beginning of the twentieth century.

.

Interesting, Marco. As far as I can tell, some of the best art (i.e. painting) galleries in the city totally embrace both contemporary realism and romanticism among their represented artists. Here, for example, is an excellent one on the upper east side of Manhattan:

http://www.spanierman.com/

[Vaughn]

Have not notice this trend locally -- but then Humboldt County is a rural area (with more artists per capita than anywhere else in California) and is a bit of a backwater -- no one has 10,000 euros, or dollars, to spend on art, so no reason to show that kind of work around here. I suppose I could find plenty of it by going 300 miles south to San Francisco.

Vaughn

[doughowk]

Somewhere I read a statement by Cindy Sherman that she has run out of cliches. The Eastern corridor galleries are still pushing it, but one has to wonder if others are also running out of ideas/concepts.

In the provinces here we're just catching up to NYC and conceptualism. Could be Northern retirees influencing the local viewpoint/taste. Conceptualism is an acquired taste; and, being provincials, we do want to demonstrate our good tastes. So I suspect the local scene will swing between gaudy and conceptual, with us traditionalists looking for the like-minded few.

[Greg Davis]

Like it was said above, the times change, and tastes with it. The Pictorialists bemoaned galleries showing only Modernist work, the Modernists complained only Post-Modern work was being shown, and now its Post-Post-Modernist art taking place. When the next movement comes along, they will complain, too.

[CPorter]

I just wish I had a gallery to visit around here. :rolleyes:

[zenrhino]

Trends come, trends go.

I saw a lot of new conceptualist work in all media this Nov in my gallery/museum trip to NYC but I also saw stunning street work, figure work, formal portraiture and documentary work. I saw PtPd prints so sublime I wanted to cry and plenty (plenty!) of 8x10's on walls that begged you to get up close to study them.

Having said that, I also think there's a big difference between the sort of wry irony that say, Erwitt or Duane Michals or Martin Parr provide vs the overly intentional hipster irony seen in the "make it pale, make it flat, make it big" photos I saw so many of in the student galleries. Give me the former in buckets, take the latter far away.

[Greg Davis]

It depends on haw far west you are in the state. Murray State University has a gallery that shows contemporary photography. There are plenty of galleries in Louisville, Indianapolis, Evansville, Memphis, Nashville, and Paducah. Art is an ever changing thing. If you go to a gallery expecting to see work like that made 50-60 years ago, you will probably be disappointed.

[David Brown]

We have two professional photography galleries here in Dallas. One is close to what you describe, but the other has a more "traditional" inventory and hangs more of the same in most of their shows. So, even in only 2 galleries, I guess we have it covered. And, we can usually drive over to Ft. Worth and go to the Amon Carter museum to see whatever they've got on exhibit from one of the best photography collections in the country.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The claim that only conceptual work is being shown in New York galleries or that what Jensen calls "the New York galleries' agenda and academia" could be considered a unified entity is just off base. If one goes looking for traditional work in galleries and publications that aren't known for it, it's no surprise that it isn't there. "Academia" is a large mishmash of enterprises that includes scholarship on virtually every period of photography since its origins.

Howard Greenberg is probably the most well known gallery showing work from the tradition and in response to it. John Stevenson Gallery closed a few years ago, but he's still doing private sales of alt-process work, contemporary and classic, and has a website listing the artists he currently represents and one may inquire regarding his backlist. Yossi Milo shows conceptual work, but also shows artists like Shelby Lee Adams. Robert Miller Gallery is another that shows a mix from modernism to post-modernism. I haven't been to Sepia Gallery, but they're another gallery showing work in the tradition. Ubu Gallery is a small gallery specializing in European modernism, some of which is photography. Ariel Meyerowitz Gallery shows conceptual work, but also Roy DeCarava, George Tice, and I guess her father has an in there as well.

[CPorter]

It depends on haw far west you are in the state. Murray State University has a gallery that shows contemporary photography. There are plenty of galleries in Louisville, Indianapolis, Evansville, Memphis, Nashville, and Paducah. Art is an ever changing thing. If you go to a gallery expecting to see work like that made 50-60 years ago, you will probably be disappointed.

Interesting----I'm in Owensboro and although I knew Louisville had galleries, I can never seem to get there. Evansville across the river would be better for me, do you know the names of any that might be worthwhile visiting? I would really love to see some traditional b&w photography.

[bowzart]

Have not notice this trend locally -- but then Humboldt County is a rural area (with more artists per capita than anywhere else in California) and is a bit of a backwater -- no one has 10,000 euros, or dollars, to spend on art, so no reason to show that kind of work around here. I suppose I could find plenty of it by going 300 miles south to San Francisco.

Vaughn

I bet you could spend any amount of money if you hung out around the Morris Graves museum for a while.

[Vaughn]

I bet you could spend any amount of money if you hung out around the Morris Graves museum for a while.

Yes, if I had it! http://www.humboldtarts.org/index.htm

But every community does have its "very well-to-do" people, and we have a couple. At any time, one can go down to the photo store in the county and see original Adams, Westons, Karshes, Bernhards, etc hanging in the gallery there -- just about as good of a collection as anywhere in the world. The shop and collection is owned by the fellow that publishes the TV Guide (or something like that).

[bowzart]

The claim that only conceptual work is being shown in New York galleries or that what Jensen calls "the New York galleries' agenda and academia" could be considered a unified entity is just off base. If one goes looking for traditional work in galleries and publications that aren't known for it, it's no surprise that it isn't there. "Academia" is a large mishmash of enterprises that includes scholarship on virtually every period of photography since its origins.


I think you are absolutely right. As much as I admire what Brooks Jensen does with Lenswork... Right here in my town.

I haven't been to NYC in a long time, since my daughter had her senior show at Cooper Union, gosh, when was it, 1992? But I must say that I was absolutely amazed at what I saw. Lois Connor? Not trash that, not by a long shot. And since I subscribe to the New Yorker, I get to regret I'm not there on a weekly basis. There is a rich variety of work of all kinds. As my daughter says, there is a lot of art in New York. There's a lot of good art, and a lot of bad art.

As a person whose roots were personally watered by White, Cunningham, Welpott, and Don Worth, I am deeply appreciative of traditional work, and in fact, my work generally has its center there, though I do wander a bit across media boundaries. As a recently retired academic, I see more dimensions in this topic than seem to be represented in the thread. There is a lot of crap, a lot of people imitating people imitating people imitating people, producing derivative work that's based on worn out ideas, self conscious attempts to be somehow different, more shocking, weirder than thou, tiresomely banal, and on and on.

On the other hand, when a student of mine actually came up with a real IDEA that had substance and produced it at a level of craft that was appropriate to what it was, how could I not rejoice? I encouraged that, along with critical thinking about the world we live in relentlessly, as thankless as that often was. (Question: "What is real?" Answer: "We get to make that up for ourselves, don't we?").

Another slippery slope is there as well. We see pictures (word chosen intentionally) that belong(ed) on calendars from times past, and we see a lot of stuff that is derivative of the masters who worked in the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties. Weston's tripod holes are very well worn. Besides the personal satisfaction someone gets from knocking off a master, which has value I don't deny, I don't see that as having a great deal to offer the greater world.

Now, I'm weird, I know. I often said to students "I don't care about what I like; let's see what you can do. Forget about me. Here, you have permission to try what you want. We learn through failures as much as through success." Not only do I really not care, in that role, about what I like, I don't think my opinions are necessarily worth any more than yours. All of our opinions exist within a greater context. Usually, we forget about that and see ourselves as individual warships battling it out on the high seas.

So: A balance. Can't we be open to new ideas and let them stand on their own, seeing them with a critical eye, but turn the same eye toward work that is within established tradition?

[nick mulder]

Trends come, trends go.

... the overly intentional hipster irony seen in the "make it pale, make it flat, make it big" photos I saw so many of in the student galleries.

uh huh - and digital, with the associated peachy-crunch-blah skin tones and interpolated 'resolution'. The cost involved in the prints is so high that the extra work and cost involved of originally shooting in say 120 or 4x5 would be minimal - ah well :)