As Deborah Bright discusses landscape photography in the text, Illuminations, I found myself spending a fair amount of time trying to digest her argument which spans pages 346 & 347. Bright introduces the concept of addressing other fields which utilize image-making outside of the realm of art. The examples include areas that are concerned with the development and analysis of the landscape and terrain, such as landscape architecture and urban planning. Of course it makes sense that these fields would employ photography in a methodical and objective nature, as the images act as tools for analysis and understanding.
Bright goes on to state that art photographers are inherently afraid of having their images paired with text, because that would be essentially devaluing them (as I understand her argument). In light of this fear, Bright makes a two-part statement about university photography programs neglecting to include courses on art theory and art history; she writes that these schools fail to teach their students to ‘formulate coherent responses about what they are doing and why’ or to ‘write around their photographing.’ Bright then says that most art-photographers enter the art arena without any sense or regard for understanding what they are photographing, that these photographers are purely concerned with the formal discourse of their work.
While I was offended by this statement at first, I wanted to look at this situation from a larger perspective. Not only was this passage written two decades ago in 1985, but Bright is essentially critical of all aspects of landscape photography as she is arguing to change its course. I do not agree with Bright’s judgement of art-photography education, as I have been challenged time and again to articulate what my work is saying and doing, much more than just about the formal qualities. In fact, it is often that I am concerned with the aesthetics of an image much after I have sorted out the content and context. With that being said, I also recognize that I do not attend a school that is strictly and ‘art’ school and am not in a program that is strictly ‘photography.’ In spite of the difference in opinions, I do think that landscape photography has shifted from where it was when Bright wrote this piece, and I do believe that landscape photography can be much more than just a formalist image or an analytical tool.
1 comment:
Unfortunately, I largely agree with Bright's sentiments. I think that artists, specifically those who are creating non-commercial work, should be aware of the theory and history of their work, their trade. It is important to be critical of your own work as well as to be aware of your place among the artists that came before you. It is important for artists to take a step back and examine "their context" as they are not singular entities in the long line of history -- they are part of history, they are part of an art world, and it is important to be cognizant of that.
With that being said, it's been years since this was written, so it is possible that her words were well received, since you and our classmates are being engaged and asked to examine your work.
Post a Comment