Discussing Sally Mann...

[Sparky]

I dunno. Look at the thread title. Discussing Sally Mann is what we're doing. Facile dismissals get tossed around...participation in the discussion would seem to involve examining those dismissals.

JS - thanks for the response. It's just that his comment seemed so 'bait-like' it didn't seem worthy of a response. And I was surprised that someone bothered. But I chose to pick your comment out for questioning among others because I thought it was an easy way to frame a larger question - i.e. it seems that people tend to view the validity of certain work from a surprisingly absolutist place. it's as though there is no room for individual value-judgement. But anyway...

[jstraw]

Sort of, yes. There's public art -- I wouldn't necessarily want to live with Guernica or much Bosch -- and there's private art, which yes, I would like on my wall, if only I had enough/big enough walls (Alma-Tadema being a prize example).

Cheers,

R.

Bosch, there you go...perfect. I sure as hell don't want it on my wall and it sure as hell is art.

[TheFlyingCamera]

Bosch, there you go...perfect. I sure as hell don't want it on my wall and it sure as hell is art.

Oh, I think it would be a hoot to have "Garden of Earthly Delights" hanging on the dining room wall. Especially when you had company over who you really didn't want to stay long.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Oh, I think it would be a hoot to have "Garden of Earthly Delights" hanging on the dining room wall. Especially when you had company over who you really didn't want to stay long.

Guys, where is your stoner ethos? I have seen plenty of people with a poster of the Garden hanging in their flats because of the cool weird little people.

[bjorke]

How do you mean that björke? Why do you construe it as 'corrosive'?

What you wrote:

But they're too emotionally close - (mann i mean) to be art. For me. It's impossible to distance the author from the subject enough.

Which was quoted out of context (why I said "non sequitur"). Still -- the idea that closeness disqualifies art is imo a horrible sentiment. What distinguishes art from craftsmanship (don't forget, we're discussing images here that are clearly being received as "art"), at least since the 1800's, is the idea of the artist's personal internal emotions, discoveries and realizations finding external outlet. There is no "too close."

...the photographer absolutely dominates the subject into submission.

Light on the surface is ultimately all you get. The photographer needs to confront this fact when making pictures, whether through direct action of the power of chance. Whatever your greater purpose, you own it to the work itself to do whatever you can, whether it's Mann's watery idylls or even journalism (Natchwey: "I need to make pictures that are eloquent")

BTW, Jessie Mann is on the back cover of SHOTS 95 ("Books-Words"), and inside too. So is Sam Portrera:

Sam Portrera, March 2006

Too close?

[SuzanneR]

Regretting deeply that I've let my subscription lapse... I'll have to change that. Actually, a thread about looking might be worthwhile... after all, the camera can only record what is in it's point of view. Nothing else... no irony, poetry, or politics. At least at the start.

There's usually plenty to discuss later... Thanks, Bjorke, for your posts.

[Neanderman]

There is a world of difference between a 'snapshot' and a photograph made using the 'snapshot aesthetic.'

[Sparky]

Bjorke - I don't really think you're gettin where I'm coming from. You're paraphrasing an earlier post 'out of context', not to mention the fact that I think you have some fairly romantic ideas about the discourse of visual art. But anyway - there comes a time one is just beating one's head against a wall...

What you wrote:
Which was quoted out of context (why I said "non sequitur"). Still -- the idea that closeness disqualifies art is imo a horrible sentiment. What distinguishes art from craftsmanship (don't forget, we're discussing images here that are clearly being received as "art"), at least since the 1800's, is the idea of the artist's personal internal emotions, discoveries and realizations finding external outlet. There is no "too close."
Light on the surface is ultimately all you get. The photographer needs to confront this fact when making pictures, whether through direct action of the power of chance. Whatever your greater purpose, you own it to the work itself to do whatever you can, whether it's Mann's watery idylls or even journalism (Natchwey: "I need to make pictures that are eloquent")

BTW, Jessie Mann is on the back cover of SHOTS 95 ("Books-Words"), and inside too. So is Sam Portrera:

Sam Portrera, March 2006

Too close?

[bjorke]

...You're paraphrasing...

Actually, I pressed the "reply with quote" button, which did all the direct-quote typing for me, to avoid any duplicity of effort

Your quoting of MY post let me realize how poor a typist I am! "direct action of the power of chance" should have been "direct action OR the power of chance" and "you own it to the work" should be "you OWE it to the work" *sigh*

I continue to be puzzled though, why someone who says they avoid portraiture has been so vocal in their opinions about Mann & the other aforementioned and influential portraitists (and quick to inappropriately trot-out the "p word" too) -- while not really talking directly about the pictures themselves very much (not even simpl elow-hanging fruit like the prominent role, in both Mann & Sturges, of water). Not to turn it into armchair psychology (though a huge bit of art, imo, is exactly that).

Sometimes I think that art with all that icky human internal-state stuff sliced-off is what most "crasftman" imagery strives for. A dully art-like product made from Statements, rather than questions or poems.

Rachel Mozman


Doug Dubois


Allesandra Sanguinetti

(these shooters are imo Mann-influenced in varying degrees, and Sanguinetti is an especially good example of kids-as-collaborators, of what Jessie Mann, these days, calls "the agency of the subject")

[Sparky]

Actually, I pressed the "reply with quote" button, which did all the direct-quote typing for me, to avoid any duplicity of effort

Your quoting of MY post let me realize how poor a typist I am! "direct action of the power of chance" should have been "direct action OR the power of chance" and "you own it to the work" should be "you OWE it to the work" *sigh*

I continue to be puzzled though, why someone who says they avoid portraiture has been so vocal in their opinions about Mann & the other aforementioned and influential portraitists (and quick to inappropriately trot-out the "p word" too) -- while not really talking directly about the pictures themselves very much (not even simpl elow-hanging fruit like the prominent role, in both Mann & Sturges, of water). Not to turn it into armchair psychology (though a huge bit of art, imo, is exactly that).

Sometimes I think that art with all that icky human internal-state stuff sliced-off is what most "crasftman" imagery strives for. A dully art-like product made from Statements, rather than questions or poems.

(these shooters are imo Mann-influenced in varying degrees, and Sanguinetti is an especially good example of kids-as-collaborators, of what Jessie Mann, these days, calls "the agency of the subject")

THANK YOU Bjorke - for the very thoughtful reply. Well, indeed - it puzzles me too. I just feel that portraiture, for me, is EXTREMELY complicated. Much of the reason why is political (i.e. - having the consent of the sitter, for example... and then there is SOOO MUCH responsibility involved in that transaction vis-a-vis representation). So - certain portraiture illustrates why this is. Perhaps mann & sturges both. I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it more.

I WOULD SAY (perhaps this will be EQUALLY as contentious a statement for you as the earlier ones) that the examples you've provided are WORLDS away (again, for me only perhaps) from Mann's portraits. I say this because you could EASILY replace the model in either of the photos and it would be the same photograph. I don't think that is at ALL the case in Mann's portraits. Nor do I think it's the case with Sturges! Perhaps that is somehow the CORE of what gets to me about that work. About the 'personal' - the 'closeness'. I don't pick that up from the examples you gave... again - I hope this made some sense and somehow, from this dialogue we can both, and all, grow in terms of our relationships to the work and photography/art as a whole.