No Wow! factor in photography?

[davidc]

A recent podcast from Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork suggested that photographs do not have wow factor, unlike say paintings or sculptures. He instead says that cameras and printers do, the tools rather than the outcome.

I disagree - http://davidcandlish.photography/news/2 ... hotography

Thoughts?

[Mike Farley]

I have not yet listened to the podcast, although in the past I have found Brooks Jensen's views to be insightful. That said, I have not visited for a while as when I was a member of his website I felt ripped off when other than the electronic versions of Lenswork, it was not updated for several months. There are two membership rates and I was on the higher one which included access to everything, not just Lenswork, but Jensen was simply taking the money and ignoring his customers so far as I could see. The tagline of the site is "A membership website with content, content, content, and well, more content .....", which I found somewhat ironic in the circumstances.

Anyway, rant over. Whatever Jensen has to say, I broadly agree with your premise that photography is capable of producing stunning results, although I had to smile when thinking about some of our previous discussions concerning the importance of the camera in the photographic image making process. Today's digital cameras are indeed marvels and have definitely helped boost standards by making it easier to get great results. The consequent proliferation of images has rather cheapened photography and made it more difficult for the journeyman professional to make a living, though. I suspect that the golden times occurred between the 1960s and 1990s when electronic scanning of images became cheaper and stimulated demand from magazines, advertisers and the like, and there were relatively few people with the skills to produce quality photos.

But I digress. Jensen says that the Hindeburg shot is not impressive because anyone could have taken it. I disagree. That shot shows great skill on the part of the photographer, especially given the equipment available at the time. There is no doubt that the person who took it was fortunate to be at the right place at the right time and quite possibly with the right camera, but look at the composition of the shot. Would a casual passer by with a Box Brownie really have done equally as well?

As for art in general, there is one aspect where to be widely admired it has to stand the test of time. Certainly prices for old masters tend to be higher than those who are still alive, although there are several reasons for that of which limited availability is just one. Then there is the fact that current artists want to do something different from what has gone before to mark themselves out. Sometimes that works, sometime it doesn't. I smiled at your Rothko example. My wife and I saw the exhibition of his work at the Tate Modern and while my wife loved it, I could not see the appeal. Then there are people like Tracey Emin, for whom generally I have no time. Then, one day I saw a small print of hers at the Royal Academy summer exhibition of a bird, which consisted of just a few lines. Quite exquisite. It was expensive for what it was, espcially given that it was probably a work of a few moments, but perhaps I should still have bought it. Aesthetic appeal and the effort involved to produce a work have no particular correlation. What you are paying for is talent and skill acquired, usually over many years. And the name, of course. Would the same work by someone unknown have commanded a similar price?

Neither of us will know why Jensen has made the comment he has, especially as he makes his living mainly by reproducing photographic works. Maybe he is feeling disillusioned with it all? Maybe he is becoming a troll and will soon be joining those on the DPReview forums who argue endlessly about the merits of different types of equipment?

[Mike Farley]

I have now listened to Brook Jensen's podcast and what he says triggered it is back to back viewings of exhbitions in the Museum of Modern Art and those by Garry Winogrand and Josef Koudelka. To me, if he is not being impressed by at least some of the work by those two photographers and others, then he seems jaded and maybe out of love with photography. Yes, photography is different to other forms of art and at its lowest level, is nothing more than a mechanism for people to record their lives, not art at all. That is one of the contradictions of the medium, that simultaneously it is so easy and yet so difficult. Of course, people's tastes do change, but it must be a particular problem if that's how you are making a living. What is particularly astonishing is his assertion that much of what we see is due to the capability of the camera rather than the user, although towards the end he says that is our ability to see which matters. His is not a well thought through argument and he comes across as being conflicted.

[davidc]

I thought his message was at odds to what he has previously talked about and what he espouses in his publications. Almost like a drunken rant in some respects

He's only done one podcast since so I'll be interested to see if there is a shift in tone in future episodes.