Postmoderism and the Future of Traditional Photography

It is inevitable, as we devote considerable time, energy, and resources to our photographic quest, that we will eventually raise questions, with ourselves and possibly others, about the direction of our work and what it is that we really want to say with our photography. Most of us began by using the camera, lens, processing methods, and materials in a straightforward manner with silver images and only a nominal amount of traditional manipulation. However, for those who hope to exhibit or publish their work or subject it to critical review, there will eventually be the voice of the postmodernists to consider. What does that voice say about so-called "straight" or "modern" photography? What does it say about the idea of making original, personal images using traditional procedures in photography?

In my opinion, most of the prominent curators, galleries, museums, and critics reflect the views of this philosophy regarding photography. One very important book (Photography and Art, Grundberg and Gauss) on postmodern photography made the point that, "What postmodernist art implies is that things have been used up, that we are at the end of the line in terms of the creation of images, and that we are all prisoners of what we see." That means that the photographic world to which most of us are limited is only what we view with our eyes, as we stand beside our cameras and tripods. For those of us who partake of the landscape with our camera work , the postmodernists also have this to say about us, ". . . we (traditional photographers) enter the woods as prisoners of our preconceived image of the woods, and what we bring back on film merely confirms our preconceptions."

They are saying that it is impossible for traditional photographers to produce original fine art photographs, because of our conditioned preconceptions. It has all been done before, and we are limited by what we can see with our eyes. Finally, this book states, "There is little room in the postmodern world for a belief in the originality of one’s experience, in the sanctity of the individual artist’s vision." They, on the other hand, encourage the pursuit of "subjective and manipulative conceptual notions." They feel they are not prisoners of what they see or of their preconceptions, because they are free to conceptualize, even construct, their images. They can proceed from their conceptualizations to create the images they have visualized by using any means; materials, processes, constructions, or merger with other art forms at their disposal. The term "ideation" has frequently been used to describe this process of free creation.

My response to the above point of view is that when a photographer encounters the visual world "through one’s eyes", "through one’s intuitive self", when you are touched in some way and moved to capture that feeling, that "mystic revealment" only you experience, then you have established a process for true creativity, for originality, and for taking one’s work beyond surface appearances. This process gives us the means for clearing away our preconceptions and blocks to personal creativity and originality and for permiting the physical world we encounter to provide us with an endless source of visual images to capture through our camera work, rather than becoming a prison for limited visual possibilities.

It was interesting to go back in Ansel Adams’ writings (A Pageant of Photography, 1940) to read his comments about manipulation in photography. He said that even the most extreme "purist" photograph has usually been controlled in some way, beyond a mechanical photographic procedure. Adams added that there were huge vistas of control, even to the "most ridiculous mirages of Old-Master paintings and barbaric applications of sheer bad taste". He argued that, "the manipulative freedom of the photographer must be arrested by the inescapable limitations of the medium". Of course this was before postmodernism, which largely came upon us during the l970’s. Ansel was comparing the old pictorialism at the turn of the century and shortly thereafter with the "modernism" that he, Weston, Strand, and many others successfully promoted during the decades from roughly 1920 -1970. Ansel concluded by saying, "This point of honest simplicity and maximum emotional statement suggests the basis of a critical definition of photography as an Art Form." This statement clearly defines the kind of photographic legacy that Ansel left us in his photographs, books, letters, exhibits, statements, and lectures. However, Ansel’s "modernism" has been giving way to "postmodernism" in galleries, museums, universities, and publications across the country since about the 1970’s.

If a photographer has reached the point where he or she is seriously devoting a significant amount of time and personal resources to the medium of photography, the above ideas and comments, from one extreme to the other, will not be taken lightly or put aside with the comment, "who cares anyway." We cannot escape being a part of the history of photography and being involved in these ideas that are being discussed everyday in books and periodicals and by most of the people who are leading photography into the 21st century. We will all be a part of the future of photography whether its main direction will be labled postmodernism or deconstructive postmodernism or some other form of image making, but we cannot control its future. What we can control is our own personal role in that future and the direction of our own creative life, without being intimidated by pronouncements of the death of traditional image making.

I don’t presume to speak for or against postmodernism or to defend modernism. I have been working in many aspects of fine art photography and promoting its importance in the art world for over 40 years. As part of that effort, I have consumed a lot of reading material on the creative process and have organized and taught a workshop with teachers and artists in that field. I have tried to bring all these ideas together into an understandable and personal point of view of the history of photography during this century. This brief statement can only survey some of the highlights of the matters that have come to my attention, as I have tried to evolve in my own path in photography and in life. What I am advocating is that any of us, who are caught up in the medium of photography and can’t let it go from our creative lives, should be willing to inform ourselves about the ongoing history of fine art photography. We can then use that knowledge to guide us as we develop our personal perspective and direction in the creation of our photographic images. In this process, it will be important that we not be intimidated by challenges that we cannot develop original images or that we have no hope of avoiding static preconceptions of what our images should look like.

Since the coming of postmodernism in the 1960’s and 70’s, I have, very thoughtfully, gone through this process of discovery. I’m sure that many other photographers will continue, as I have, to work in a straightforward manner with camera and lens. I’m also sure that they will strongly disavow the notion that they are prisoners of what they see or prisoners of their preconceptions of what their images should look like. They should also be determined that their work can and will rise to the level of originality in their own creative lives. I further hope that they will not succumb to the idea that all the meaningful photographic images have already been made and that somehow they must eventually abandon their direct use of camera and lens, as though this equipment has been literally consumed to death by our photographic predecessors.

At this point one could stop and undertake a book on the subject of how to proceed from here. We could talk about the creative process as it could apply to photographers. We could evaluate how our life style or spiritual philosophy could influence the outcome of our camera work. We could discuss the challenge and methods of discovering who we are creatively and what we really want and need to say with our visual images, that we wring out of camera and lens. However, this is not intended to be a detailed statement on how to think more deeply about our camera work. Nevertheless, a few photographers whom I have admired have had the courage to talk about their own ideas at a mythic level to which they tried to take their, and other’s, work. I’d like to briefly survey some of these ideas, with the hope that they might suggest to us how we can still have hope that our work can be personally original and how we can also surmount the obvious physical limitations of the visual world that our senses experience. We needn’t be a prisoner of any preconceived notions of what our images should convey. Originality and the creative process are still ideas in which we can believe. I’d like to briefly introduce the ideas and language of four photographers, whom we have all recognized as having made a great contribution to photography; Wynn Bullock, Minor White, Alfred Steiglitz, and Alexy Brodovitch. Their contributions will live even through the postmodern age we are now experiencing.

Wynn Bullock used the term inner realities to describe that level of photography that speaks to the "essences or qualities, the inward nature of things". He said he could feel these "fourth dimensional realities just as strongly as I see form and color". He was particularly aware of the roll that change plays. He felt that change "is one of the most significant truths of the universe, and we can pursue ways of perceiving and symbolizing it that have the power to expand who we are and what we know." Bullock continued to emphasize his need to grow and respond to these changes in his work. "What you see is real", he said, "but only on the particular level to which you’ve developed your sense of seeing. You can expand your reality by developing new ways of perceiving. Growth in photography requires that the photographer continually engage in a critique of his ways of perceiving and thinking so that he may not be unconsciously ruled by them."

One of the key concepts that Bullock discovered was the relationship of space and time to photographic vision. A significant idea that changed his visual thinking was expressed in this observation, "As I became aware that all things have unique spatial and temporal qualities which visually define and relate them, I began to perceive the things I was photographing not as objects but as events. ...Discovering the concept of space/time and applying it to photography doesn’t guarantee good pictures," he said, "but, for me, it represents a tremendous leap forward. Through it , I am learning about form, balance, energy, light, perception, uniqueness, connectedness, change, interdependence, and how, through an awareness of tones and opposites, I can create powerful symbols of my experiences with these things."

He always emphasized the need to grow visually and philosophically and to be open to new ways of expressing that vision. He maintained that, "Searching is everything - going beyond what you know. And the test of the search is really in the things themselves, the things you seek to understand. What is important is not what you think about them, but how they enlarge you." Bullock felt that, "photographs --- are symbols of what you see, think, and feel things to be, but they are not the things themselves." Although he spent considerable time analyzing his craft as well as his philosophical approach to camera work, he said the act of photographing, the creative act itself, "comes from an intense, direct, one-to-one relationship between myself and whatever photograph. ...In a photograph, if I am able to evoke not alone a feeling of the reality of the surface physical world but also a feeling of the reality of existence that lies mysteriously and envisibly beneath its surface, I feel I have succeeded."

Bullock taught workshops, exhibited his work, and published several fine books, all of which described this approach to camera work in some detail. He felt that photographers "more and more will extend their search for greater visual expression in a reality that is not frozen in time or limited to the surface appearances of objects." One of my most treasured friends as well as one of the most creative and perceptive photographers I have ever known, Wynn had this to say about the subject of creativity in his work:

Minor White responded to a critic, in his magazine Aperture, who pleaded with photographers to "come to grips, make a statement,....take a stand in regard to the realities of war abroad and threatening riots at home", by urging recognition of the photographer who "maintains within himself an ear for the still, small voice". He said that this photographer "In full consciousness of the insanity of the world,....makes his action; his photograph, a prayer. He turns his camera on rocks, water, air and fire, not to escape but to be in life, but not of it". White often used the term spirit to describe the essence of these kinds of photographs, as in his saying:

No matter how slow the film

SPIRIT stands still long enough

For the photographer IT has chosen

Occasionally he used the term magic as in the following:

These unexpected gifts of MAGIC still continue

Their source still as mystifying as ever

Whether the "face" before me

Is human, cloud, ice, fire. . . .

He also made the following observations in his writings: "Consciousness in photography comes out of an awakening to the interlocking interconnectedness of everything..."

And, "....insight, vision, moments of revelation. During those rare moments something overtakes the man and he becomes a tool of a greater Force...." After World War II, he was invited by Ansel Adams to teach at the California School of Fine Arts. Visits to see Edward Weston in Carmel began shortly thereafter. On one of those visits, on December 26, 1946, White wrote the following account:

Alfred Steiglitz, in 1922, had been working in photography for about 40 years and during that time had many times been preoccupied with photographing clouds. He had the opportunity and desire at Lake George to spend days and weeks photographing clouds from a hillside that provided a special vantage point. He wanted to find out what he had learned about photography in these 40 years of work. He printed a portfolio of 10 prints, all straight prints on gaslight paper, except one on palladiotype. "All", he said,

"in the power of every photographer of all time, and I was satisfied I had learnt something during the forty years". In commenting on these cloud pictures he said, "My cloud photographs are equivalents of my most profound life experience, my basic philosophy of life." His associate for many years, Dorothy Norman, said that, "In time he claimed that all of his prints were equivalents; finally that all art is an equivalent of the artist’s most profound experience of life". In describing his work with the camera, Steiglitz said, "In looking at my photographs of clouds, people seem freer to think about the relationships in the pictures than about the subject-matter for its own sake. ...I simply function when I take a picture. I do not photograph with preconceived notions about life. I put down what I have to say when I must. That is my role, according to my own way of feeling it. Perhaps it is beyond feeling. What is of greatest importance is to hold a moment, to record something so completely that those who see it will relive an equivalent of what has been expressed".

Alexey Brodovitch was a European who came to America in 1930 and made a major contribution to American design. While at Harper’s Bazaar from 1934 to 1958, he is credited with creating a design look, "whose energy, elegance, and simplicity captured the spirit of American fashion. Magnetic and controversial, he inspired the designers and photographers who attended his famous Design Laboratory with his constant admonition, Astonish me!" The style of photograph that Brodovitch fostered was radical and controversial. Grundberg (in his book Brodovitch, Harry N. Abrams, 1989) says, "It abjured any pretense to reportage, stressing emotional immediacy through such devices as imprecise focus, large foreground forms, and blurs to suggest movement - precisely the qualities to be found in his own ballet photographs. Technically, it was one hundred and eighty degrees from the precise control and ‘previsualization’ admired by the school of Stieglitz, Strand, and Weston. Instead, imperfections of craft were cherished as indicators of that most prized of artistic virtues, honesty." John Szarkowski, (former Director of the Department of Photography, Museum of Modern Art, New York) has observed that, "the new photographers were referred to by unsympathetic observers as the quality-be-damned school." He goes on to say that these photographers’ pictures, "seemed to be lifted directly and spontaneously from the flow of real life; they seemed formed not by rules and calculation, but by intuition and strong feeling".

Brodovitch was awarded a Doctor of Fine Arts degree by the Philadelphia College of Art (posthumously) and was inducted into the Art Directors Club Hall of Fame in recognition of his contribution to graphic design and photography. His photography students at the Philadelphia College of Art and the New School for Social Research included Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Gary Winogrand, and many other accomplished artists of the time. Whether or not we wish to produce images that would have satisfied the design objectives of a person like Brodovitch, we can still observe that, in addition to understanding the value of "rules and calculations" at times in making photographs, there is also the constant need to understand the value of using a strong measure of intuition and feeling in producing images that can reach out to the viewer. Quantum physicists and chaos-complexity theorists concur that the mind cannot demonstrate absolute limits to the possibilities of novelty, that is, to the possibilities that "something new," can always emerge in this Universe. Early in the 20th century, the mathematician Godel established that in a system of sufficient complexity (and that level is reached in the syntax of any toddler) a complete description of that system is not possible. The complexity of the simplest photograph - any photograph - is incalculable, and the creative possibilities of the simplest photograph are in fact infinite - and always will be. In fact, it is not possible for deconstructive critics to de-construct their own presumptions, nor can anyone completely deconstruct or draw clear limits to the creative possibilities of any photograph. The attempt to do so is simply the sort of "power trip" of interpretation that deconstructionists in theory oppose.

I would like to end these observations by presenting a quotation from Edward Weston, regarding his successful completion of a long period of time trying to make a satisfactory photograph of a pepper:

Edward Weston recognized the vital importance of being technically proficient and not, as he put it, "a sloppy bohemian". Nevertheless, he used a very simple, straightforward, and largely unchanging technical approach for over 30 years. Even fine tuning of this technique was based on his intuitive reaction to what he saw and felt as he observed the light, or as he inspected his negatives as they were being processed with a green inspection light, or as he evaluated the luminosity and clarity of his contact prints. Most of us today are far more obsessed with being technical masters of our medium and its hardware that Edward was. We can learn much from Edward Weston about our need, as photographers, to develop our intuitive self and to look for that inner reality and mystic revealment in our own work.

Regardless of our methods, equipment, approach, or goals, we can find our own path to originality and creativity, indeed, we can challenge ourselves with each performance of our cameras to bring forth a unique combination of intuition, insight, and discovery. This leads us away from preconditioned thoughts about appropriateness or expectations and allows an expression of inner reality that takes our work beyond surface appearances. These and many other varieties of camera work challenge us - there is no ONE way to work with a camera or to use photographic images. If I have any goal with the camera it is to intuitively, as Wynn Bullock says, "transform exterior reality and make it an expression of inner reality ". If it additionally "astonishs" someone, becomes an"equivalent", evokes "spirit", conveys a feeling beyond surface appearances, evokes an ambiguity of visual interest, or a host of other possible objectives, then I have clearly reached my goal.