Formalism
Shockwave Rider
my beleifs on the subject. I offer it here for debate and
consideration. Enjoy.
THE EVOLUTION OF FORMALISM
AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE
By Gary Weinheimer
During the early part of the twentieth century a movement
known as modernism entered into the world of photography. This
movement is touted as one of the more important advances in
photography since the Deguerreotype. Modernism is the use of
lines, angles, form, shadows, highlights and a sharp focus to
create an image. The issue becomes not what the photo is of, but
what it conveys. This allows the photographer to concentrate on
the feeling they want to convey with the image instead of
conserning themselves with the choice of a subject. A formalist
attempts to produce a visceral response from the composition of
the piece, vice the subject of the piece. Artists that fall into
this category include Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, Emma Jean
Cunningham, and Alfred Steiglitz. It has been put forth by many
that the Modernistic Movement was conceived and born out of the
need for photography to prove itself as a fine art, rising out of
the ashes of the Pictorialist Movement. Was Modernism a change
of direction? I contend not. I will deliver evidence within
this paper that modernism was simply a progression of the work
produced before it and not necessarily a deviation from it's
predecessors.
In 1837 Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre and Henry William Fox
Talbot introduced ways to transfer the images from the camera
obscura onto a permanent medium. Even in it's early stages one
can see the formation of a modernistic viewpoint. Looking at The
Open Door, by H. Talbot we can see the use of line shadow and
form. The way the broom cuts a diagonal in the shadow of the
doorway and the way the sun highlight the frame of the opening.
These are tools that the modernist might use to compose their
image. This photo however, is by Mr. Talbots own admittance in
The Pencil of Nature, a study of the capabilities of this new
found science. In addition if one were to look at Louis
Daguerre's Still Life, one could say that his use of shadow is
comparable to Helmar Lerski's German Metal Worker. It is known
however that due to the limitations of the Daguerreotype that
Daguerre had to place the items in his photo near a light source
to obtain a workable exposure time, yet one can already begin to
see a foundation being laid that is to form the basis of the
formalistic art form that became popular in the early twentieth
century.
As the art of photography began to form a history, line,
shape, and form seemed to become more apparent in the work of the
photographer/ operators. As the Civil War broke out, operators
like Timothy H. O'Sullivan and George N. Barnard began to
document the events surrounding our civil strife. In Barnards
Rebel Works in Front of Atlanta, Georgia, we can see a dirt mound
forming an arching angle from left to lower right. Obviously
this was not a decision based on limitations of the equipment, so
why compose this photograph with what could later be described as
a formalistic style? It could have been taken from the mound
itself, or any number of other angles. It would appear that not
even thirty years into this new medium operators are becoming
concerned with composition. The look was becoming important.
This interest in the use of lighting, angles and shadows as
means of conveying feeling or at least make a stronger point,
grew even more pronounced as the Westward Expansion and the
Industrial Revolution began. Many of the operators that
photographed the Civil War went west to seek their fortunes while
others used there vision to glorify mans accomplishments using
skills learned form their past experiences.
One of the possibilities for a young man with photographic
skills was to become a member of the many geological survey teams
that the government had begun employing to categorize this new
wilderness. One of the tasks, be it self motivated or assigned,
was to make the west appealing to those people in the east. This
desire to give the west a favorable focus seemed to have a
profound influence in the way this new territory was documented.
Some of the operators involved with the westward expansion were
Timothy O'Sullivan, Carleton Watkins, and Eadweard Muybridge.
Looking at all three of these mens work we can see strong roots
forming the modernistic tradition. Timothy O'Sullivan had a
vision that must have influenced Ansel Adams. Looking at
O'Sullivan's Ancient Ruins in the Canyon de Chelle, New Mexico we
see the use of lines and highlights that Mr. Adams must have
found so compelling some years later. O'Sullivan's Ancient
Ruins... seem's to embody the use of highlights, shadow, and line
to compose a very powerful piece of work. Your eye is drawn into
the crevice by the highlighted lines on the rock face causing
your eye to fall directly on the ruins. This is not an oddity
among the many photos taken of that period. We can also look at
Carleton Watkins' Magenta Flume, Nevada Co. California or Henry
Hamilton Bennett's Sugar Bowl with Rowboat, Wisconsin Dells and
come to similar conclusions.
On the other side of the continent the industrial revolution
was getting under way. Photographers felt the need to bear
witness to the massive advances being made. To this end
photographers began photographing anything mechanical.
Interestingly enough machinery seem's to lend itself to the
concepts of formalism quite well. The angler formations and the
way that the different outcroppings form shadows when the light
falls on it make for a strong composition. It may have therefore
been purely coincidental that A. Collard's Roundhouse on the
Bourbonnais Railway, Nevers has a very symmetrical, modernistic
feel. The engines forming a semicircle that matches the outline
of the building which matches the outline of the highlights made
by the glass in the ceiling. We could compare A Collards work to
Industry by Sheeler made in 1932. The angles and created by the
covered conveyer belts and the smoke stacks give the photo a kind
of symmetry that cropped up in work 30 years prior. Additionally
it should be pointed out that both of the afore mentioned photos
were sharply in focus, a trait bestowed to the modernists of the
early twentieth century. The similarities between modernistic
work and the work before it seem to be endless.
Then we have the Pictorialst movement. Pictorialism
predates modernism by approximately thirty years, however I
believe that it is the pictorialsts that are in fact the odd man
out, if you will. Could it be possible that the branching out of
the photographic field simply occurred at an earlier date than
believed by many. Looking at the varied work that occurred
between the 1850's and the 1880's we can see essentially two
types of images. That which was designed to inform people, and
that which told a story of some kind. These two branches had
vastly different styles. Pictorialsts used among other things a
fuzzy focus to distill a since of art in their work, while
modernists used a sharp focus to get every possible detail. It
is easy to make the statement that modernists were contrasting
their predecessors, but what if they are simply progressing from
the work produced by people like Muybridge, Watkins and
O'Sullivan? Even in the Pictorialist Movement we can see the use
of lines and angles to make the composure of the image more
harmonious. Take for example Humbert De Molard's The Hunters.
The line of the brick wall behind the models and the sweeping arc
of the Ivy and the way it mimics the line of the models pose.
Being a directed photograph, it could have been taken in any
setting, with any back drop, but the artist chose this
composition, why? It may be that there are simply people who are
by nature, formalistic.
Pictorialists were, like modernists, trying to convince
critics that photography was in fact an art form. They did this
by emulating painters, sculptors and other "true" artists of the
time. To some degree they could be compared to abstract artists
of today. Abstraction is constantly under fire for it's lack of
apparent effort and skill, where as photography in the late
1800's was under fire as an art form, as it is today, for it's
apparent lack of effort and skill. After all can't you just
point the camera and get a picture? Where's the artistic skill
in that? To answer this challenge pictorialsts began to emulate
those people in the art community that were considered true
artists. One has to realize though, that while these
photographers were fighting a battle to put them on the pedestal
next to the other "fine arts" that there were a number of other
photographers producing work throughout the west that can not be
denied as art. As I have already pointed out through numerous
examples operators from the westward expansion and the industrial
movement of the mid 1800's were already using composition as a
tool to obtain incredible images.
By the standards of the time however these images were
simply being taken to show people how wonderful our
accomplishments were and how much room there was for expansion.
However if the artistic conception begins at the time of
composition could it not be said that these people were in fact
artists? If this is the case, then is it possible that we have
two distinct styles emerging much sooner than generally
perceived? It could be said then, that modernism is a direct
outcropping of the documentary work done before it, and that
abstraction is the progression of pictorialism.
The people, it would seem, are the ones that control what is
considered art as in the above case. During the westward
expansion the people decided that the work being delivered from
the west was not to be considered art, yet. Thirty years later
photographers are rendering pieces that use similar techniques to
those produced out of the west and are touted as great artists.
It is the consumer that determines what art will sell, however it
is not the consumer that determines what artists will create. If
following the line of logic that the art of photography has more
or less been branching since it's inception then how can we truly
say that modernism was a reaction to the fuzzy focused
pictorialists as so much as it was to the critics finally waking
up to the fact that it takes some effort to compose a piece like
Frank J. Haynes Geyser, Yellowstone, Wyoming, c.1885 or George
Barker's Moonlight on the St. Johns River, 1886.
We are finding more and more that the consumer is coming
around to the formalist viewpoint of art. If you were to ask
some one off the street to name five famous photographers one of
the first name to come out of their mouth would more than likely
be Ansel Adams and they would probably be hard pressed to name
any others. So what if it is simply a case of popularity when
dealing with this topic? If painting was popular among the
working class could it be that a more abstract form of
photography may be popular today among those that pursue that
career? Eugene Smith might not have pursued a career as a
photojournalist but as a gallery artist, had the whims of the
populace been different. I'm not completely convinced that art
controls it's own direction. Like every thing else in life art
turns in the direction of popularity due to the fact that
popularity is where at least a living can be made even if it's
not a grandiose one.
If we look at the world today, especially the United States,
we can see examples of popularity commanding a market. Take for
example professional football. If it were not for the popularity
of the game, the players would not necessarily be able to make
quite as handsome a living in that field. Likewise the populace
has decided that the place for photography is to replicate what
it feels is reality. It has become our duty as photographers to
fool the populace, giving them the harsh details while keeping
them away from the actual dangers. If we take this one step
further we could say that video has built on the numbing that
photographers began. We, as visual communicators, gave the
populace what they seemed to demand and now we have people who
believe that soap opera stars are real people. What does this do
to the value of our work and what paths does it give us to
travel? There is a trend in the air that may give us an
indication of what the populace is willing to except. People
seem to be becoming weary of stark reality as the popularity of
resent animations involving pure fantasy being released out of
Hollywood may indicate.
For the still photographer this may mean a future of
photograms and double exposures. With the introduction of the
computer into the art world it seems to be becoming easier for
those of us with the talent for artistic rendering in the
photographic medium to manipulate our work to exactly what hides
in the depths of our imagination. If we were to wake up tomorrow
and find that the fickle public has changed what they consider
art would we rather go hungry or give them what they want? Could
we answer their desires?
In conclusion, I feel that the many and varied styles of
photography have always been in the minds of the artists. I do
not feel that a true conflict exists, only a difference in
opinion in the way an artist chooses to use their medium. It is
the public that controls which particular form or style of art is
dominate at any particular time. We will continue to produce
what our hearts tell us to, however we may find ourselves wanting
and therefore produce what we are told we should produce, at
least for a little while. This may not seem "fair" yet it is the
way of the artist. We have to eat, clothe ourselves and
preferably live indoors. We will therefore do what we have to do
to survive, at least for the most part. On occasion we have
purists like Eugene Smith who would not bend in their way
regardless of the pressures real or conceived, but these people
are in the minority and most of us will survive, when pressed, by
what ever means it takes. Even if that means bending to the norm
for a short while. Where the many branches of our art will go
from here is up to those who tell us what they want, and what
they want is never certain and always changing.
May the future be kind to the arts in what ever foom it
takes, for it is one of the few things that keeps us human.
FIN
_____________________________________________________________________
| | |
| | |
| Gary Weinheimer | The ignorant of the future |
| | will be illiterate of the |
| | pen and camera alike. |
| | |
| g...@pogonip.scs.unr.edu | Mholy Nage |
| | |
|__________________________________|__________________________________|
Dan Mackle
"This is a rather lengthy discussion on the eviloution of formalism
and my beleifs on the subject. I offer it here for debate and
consideration. Enjoy.
THE EVOLUTION OF FORMALISM
AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE... "
An interesting article, but why post in this group
rec.photo.darkroom? The other photo groups would be more appropriate. This
is for darkroom related material...
Regards, Dan
Donald Martinich
: This is a rather lengthy discussion on the eviloution of formalism and
: consideration. Enjoy.
I must say, I have mixed feelings about this post. It's in the wrong group
and it is loooong. Mispelling Imogen Cunningham and Moholy-Nagy does not
exactly provide credibility. OTOH, it's a rare treat to see a post about
image content. I would like to see more of it in the proper place. A new
group perhaps?
-D.M.
Don MacLeod
>
>Shockwave Rider (g...@scs.unr.edu) wrote:
>: This is a rather lengthy discussion on the eviloution of formalism and
>: consideration. Enjoy.
>
>I must say, I have mixed feelings about this post. It's in the wrong group
>and it is loooong. Mispelling Imogen Cunningham and Moholy-Nagy does not
>exactly provide credibility. OTOH, it's a rare treat to see a post about
>image content. I would like to see more of it in the proper place. A new
>group perhaps?
>
>-D.M.
and the philosophy of photography (which is a long-winded way of saying "image
content") is just what I'm looking for. Most of the news groups seemed to
be concerned primarily with "swap meet" and "what-should-I-buy?" questions
which is fine. But I would love to see a group for photographers who
have all the lenses they need, who know their materials well and who are
out looking for pictures, not more equipment. I'm with you Donald! More talk
about the art not the mechanics. Anyone else with us? - DM
>
Robert Rosen
You get a hearty yes from me.
This is also the hardest element to speak about, since much of what
resides in this domain defies the capabilities of the spoken word.
However, the struggle is worth it!
cheers,
Bob
Pete Bergstrom
> and the philosophy of photography (which is a long-winded way of saying "image
> content") is just what I'm looking for. Most of the news groups seemed to
> be concerned primarily with "swap meet" and "what-should-I-buy?" questions
> which is fine. But I would love to see a group for photographers who
> have all the lenses they need, who know their materials well and who are
> about the art not the mechanics. Anyone else with us? - DM
How about carrying on this sort of discussion in the new (well,
soon-to-be-created) moderated newsgroup? The charter appears to cover what
you listed (and I'm one of the moderators for the group so I have to
interpret the charter). Providing a forum for these topics was one of the
reasons for creating the moderated newsgroup.
From the r.p.m CFV document:
!OVERVIEW
!
!Rec.photo.moderated is a moderated Usenet newsgroup for the
!discussion of topics related to the art and science of photography and
!that are of interest to the serious amateur recreational photographer.
!
!MODERATION CRITERIA
!
!Articles must be relevant to the art or science of photography and of
!interest to serious amateur recreational photographers, must be in
!reasonably good taste, and must conform to Usenet guidelines.
!Suitable topics include: the technical aspects of photographic
!equipment, technique, optics, film, photographic philosophy, ethics and
!conduct, photography as fine art, and brief reviews of new products
!and announcements of events. Other topics may be accepted at the
!moderators' discretion, with the main criterion being interest to
!serious amateur recreation photographers.
!
!Articles about topics usually associated with commercial/professional
!photography may be accepted on a limited basis as long as they are
!relevant to serious amateur recreational photographers. Thus, for
!example, postings regarding wedding photography may be accepted if
!they meet the relevancy test, but articles regarding the business
!aspects of wedding photography are not acceptable.
!
!Advertising is prohibited, except that brief notices of events, shows,
!workshops, and the like will be considered if they relate to the art
!or science of photography and are of interest to serious amateur
!recreational photographers.
!
!Postings must bear the submitter's real name and contain a valid reply
!address. Authors that are affiliated with or have other financial
!interest in manufacturers, distributors, or service providers must
!disclose this fact in postings mentioning those products or services.
!
!Picture (binary) postings are not accepted.
!
!The moderators reserve the right to cut off the discussion of a topic
!when its "signal to noise ratio" has dropped too low and reject
!postings on recently discussed topics. They will also normally reject
!postings comparing or seeking comparisons of equipment, "what xxx
!should I buy?" and "me too" postings, and postings asking questions
!the author could have answered for himself/herself with a minimal
!amount of work. Flames will be rejected. Postings may be rejected
!because of inappropriate crossposting, and postings to multiple
!moderated groups will normally be rejected. (Approved FAQs, RFDs, and
!CFVs are a special case.)
David Dyer-Bennet
>
>> I agree! A group about aestethics, photo theory, compositional questions,
>> and the philosophy of photography (which is a long-winded way of saying "image
>> content") is just what I'm looking for. Most of the news groups seemed to
>> be concerned primarily with "swap meet" and "what-should-I-buy?" questions
>> which is fine. But I would love to see a group for photographers who
>> have all the lenses they need, who know their materials well and who are
>> out looking for pictures, not more equipment. I'm with you Donald! More talk
>> about the art not the mechanics. Anyone else with us? - DM
>
>How about carrying on this sort of discussion in the new (well,
>soon-to-be-created) moderated newsgroup? The charter appears to cover what
>you listed (and I'm one of the moderators for the group so I have to
>interpret the charter). Providing a forum for these topics was one of the
>reasons for creating the moderated newsgroup.
It's on-topic in .advanced and in .misc already, too. Go ahead, talk. Other
people have, and nothing bad happened to them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org, d...@mtn.org
Me: http://www.mtn.org/~ddb (photos, sf)
Minicon: http://www.delivery.com/minicon30 (sf convention)
Mazourka
nature find a common ground for doing so. Right here in the middle of
net-space, surrounded by things tech-no-logical, let's discover why
photography is one of many art forms. From high-end to pinhole to
push-and-shoot; from inspiration to an image rendered on some kind of
visible medium for the creating artist to see and perhaps share with
others. Let's move to a forum where high technology does not overtake
highly personal development of technique, where anything is possible.
A conservative government is an organized hypocrasy