At the original show the csatalogue said these images were... “neutral and reduced to an essentially topographic state, conveying substantial amounts of visual information but eschewing entirely the aspects of beauty, emotion, and opinion… and wondered: was it possible to make pictures without style? The exhibition’s photographers all engaged with this question and pursued it through a variety of means.”
William Jenkins may have believed that, but I think history shows him to be wrong. Not only did all the artists have recognizable styles that they continued to employ after the NT exhibition -- but their joint sense of style was so strong that even 50 years later dozens of FB groups include NT in their names. The NT style (or “approach,” “method,” or whatever) is unmistakable. The real challenge now is to do work that extends and expands on the NT work without parroting it.
I don't think being able to pick out what took what photograph is the point, I thought it was about the intent of the artists. They are called topographic because of the emphasis on documentation rather than style. Those who focus on style, and too many do, make "zombie" art. Driven by things other than the subject. The de-emphasis of style is a reason these are also called objective photographs. Although, if I remember right, Robert Adams says he doesn't want to be known as an objective photographer in the catalogue for his new show. To think that because you can recognize a Bernd and Hilla Becher image easily, and that's evidence that they have a style seems to miss then entire point of their method - to be objective and remove signs of themselves as much as possible from the artisitic process.
Interesting article. I started taking pictures of the Canadian urban landscape, not realizing this was a thing until I came across Mark Power and his work Good Morning, America. I am now fully aware of New Topographic photography as it is very popular. I will state that many of the artists taking these images seem to all post process the images in a similar way, which takes away from any personal 'style'. Also, you mentioned - “Anyone trying to take such photos ought to be able to answer ‘why did you take that photo?’” - Have you yourself answered that?
A fascinating read, Jim. I am not familiar with J. B. Jackson so will read his essay next. I am, too, attracted to geography as a profession and would love to know more about it. Recently I've been thinking a lot more about "Intent" as well as "Attention". I think a lot of the photos you are referring to in contemporary Facebook groups and other social media are done by photographers who have - and provide some attention to a specific scene but are lacking a deeper concept of intent.
Jim, a delightful essay, as always. I’d like to disagree, however, that the artists who contributed to the 1975 New Topographics show were able to make “documents without author.” The Bechers and Lewis Baltz, for example, were exploring somewhat similar subjects (industrial spaces). Their images are unmistakably theirs, however. No one could confuse a Becher 9-image grid with a Baltz picture. I’d argue that these artists had such distinctive styles that if you walked into a room where their prints were arranged on the floor you could identify every single artist. That’s style, not images “without author.”
At the original show the csatalogue said these images were... “neutral and reduced to an essentially topographic state, conveying substantial amounts of visual information but eschewing entirely the aspects of beauty, emotion, and opinion… and wondered: was it possible to make pictures without style? The exhibition’s photographers all engaged with this question and pursued it through a variety of means.”
William Jenkins may have believed that, but I think history shows him to be wrong. Not only did all the artists have recognizable styles that they continued to employ after the NT exhibition -- but their joint sense of style was so strong that even 50 years later dozens of FB groups include NT in their names. The NT style (or “approach,” “method,” or whatever) is unmistakable. The real challenge now is to do work that extends and expands on the NT work without parroting it.
I don't think being able to pick out what took what photograph is the point, I thought it was about the intent of the artists. They are called topographic because of the emphasis on documentation rather than style. Those who focus on style, and too many do, make "zombie" art. Driven by things other than the subject. The de-emphasis of style is a reason these are also called objective photographs. Although, if I remember right, Robert Adams says he doesn't want to be known as an objective photographer in the catalogue for his new show. To think that because you can recognize a Bernd and Hilla Becher image easily, and that's evidence that they have a style seems to miss then entire point of their method - to be objective and remove signs of themselves as much as possible from the artisitic process.
Interesting article. I started taking pictures of the Canadian urban landscape, not realizing this was a thing until I came across Mark Power and his work Good Morning, America. I am now fully aware of New Topographic photography as it is very popular. I will state that many of the artists taking these images seem to all post process the images in a similar way, which takes away from any personal 'style'. Also, you mentioned - “Anyone trying to take such photos ought to be able to answer ‘why did you take that photo?’” - Have you yourself answered that?
Hi Jim, I'm looking forward to reading Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values by Yi-Fu Tuan.
A fascinating read, Jim. I am not familiar with J. B. Jackson so will read his essay next. I am, too, attracted to geography as a profession and would love to know more about it. Recently I've been thinking a lot more about "Intent" as well as "Attention". I think a lot of the photos you are referring to in contemporary Facebook groups and other social media are done by photographers who have - and provide some attention to a specific scene but are lacking a deeper concept of intent.
Jim, a delightful essay, as always. I’d like to disagree, however, that the artists who contributed to the 1975 New Topographics show were able to make “documents without author.” The Bechers and Lewis Baltz, for example, were exploring somewhat similar subjects (industrial spaces). Their images are unmistakably theirs, however. No one could confuse a Becher 9-image grid with a Baltz picture. I’d argue that these artists had such distinctive styles that if you walked into a room where their prints were arranged on the floor you could identify every single artist. That’s style, not images “without author.”