I read this and had some thoughts. Then I happened on an older piece by Noah Waldeck (Subjectively Objective) about that "New Topographies: show. Some tidbits I found interesting was the Jenkins (the curator) basically invented the term and curated the show based on the photos being "stylistically anonymous" and that the show was widely panned (even hated).
But on to the meatier bits.
One of the things everybody seems to get hung up on is the objectivity of the images. What strikes me is that there is an obvious parallel with memory. Memory is *never* objective and eye-witness reports are usually terrible at establishing facts. Every witness sees the event through the accumulated experiences of their lives and that goes for those New Topographies photographers. Every one of those photographs meant making conscious decisions among many possibilities and those decisions stemmed from the photographers' lived experiences.
I kind of love the fact that Elliot was coming around to the very thesis of "The Intentional Fallacy" (which has to be one of the best titles ever) which claims that once release, the art work exists on it's own, cleaved from its originator; that is has meaning apart from any original intent. I've got thoughts swirling without form regarding that but feel like I'll bring it back around to your comments about Adams and metaphor.
I like the idea of dialectic, where two competing ideas can hold truth simultaneously. You said that people contradict themselves all the time. I rather think that people want to see things objectively but because of basic human nature are incapable. Adams is exactly correct in photography as metaphor -- an ostensibly objective form that is continuously interpreted.
I have worked for a long time as a witness in criminal and civil cases. I can assure you, memory is almost always reconstituted stuff, hopefully like orange juice and not Tang.
Another really engaging piece of writing - thanks. You have a great way of letting us follow the path of your thoughts as you try to work something out.
For myself, I've always had a nagging doubt about the claims of objectivity proposed by The New Topographics photographers and others. It stems from my feeling that every photograph, even a CCTV security image has an intention behind it that is there before it is made. Most obviously, framing and timing will be the result of a personal process, even if the equipment performs its task with absolute disinterest.
Walker Evans, for example, documented his world but clearly made subjective decisions about what he wanted to put in his dossier. Robert Adams chose where to stand and what to include in his frame and what to leave out. These are not objective actions.
Although none of these people sought metaphor or grand, extrapolated meaning in their images, it was inevitable that, once out in the world, such things would be attached to them.
It's a sort of curse of the medium, that a photograph is expected to have a reason to exist, a reason why the photographer made it. That's probably a legacy of its primary role as a means of communicating information, but it does tend to mean that when people look at a photograph, they want it to mean something and if the photographer hasn't signalled any particular meaning, the viewer will very likely imply their own.
I don’t think, in any way, this is about absolutes. It’s about direction, how you are approaching something. A goal, but not something we are going to necessarily achieve. The quality in one’s work on strives for.
Interesting article. To me all these photographs show the moment just before some change happens - the calf is wakened, the land is tamed, the past reformed. Time capsules in waiting but also the breath held in anticipation - to see (imagine) what happens next. RA was good at noticing that moment.
I’m not too sure how you see these as the land is tamed or the past reformed? Adam’s was concerned with the environmental destruction the houses and cutting down of forests were causing.
By tamed I meant the destruction of the wild natural landscape. I should have perhaps said replaced rather than reformed and was imagining what would happen next in your house images - the original decor likely about to be swept away, replaced with a more conforming"greige".
I'm partway through reading 'American Silence' - "photography is inherently fragmentary, and I base my faith on perfect moments".
If a picture is trying to "say" something (even "what a beautiful color palette!) I understand how to evaluate its quality. But what criteria do you (personally) use to come to the conclusion that these Robert Adams pictures are extraordinary examples of their kind?
I got lost somewhere between Barthes and T.S. Eliot myself but in a sense, the response to you, Monica, is hidden in the title. To fully appreciate Suchness and Objectivism, as cleverly presented here, I think the response lies in each one’s perspective and subjectivity, ironically. For me, Jim’s approach totally made sense thanks to the parallel to those haikus, but above all with two of his own photographs of houses. They brought me back when I lived in almost the same Ranch style house in the Denver suburbs, and had a fireplace with that exact stone surround. No metaphor needed. Just recognition. This is when my own subjectivity helped me see true Objectivism.
Thanks Sylvie. As a student, I keep wanting to apply an analytical framework to understand, but really its just all about the strength and purity of the feeling the picture evokes, like plucking the exact string of something deep inside us.
I would start here: look this up: But Beautiful - The photographs of Robert Adams, and then I would watch a video on a photo book called The Pond, by Gossage. I can’t paste links in a conversation on Substack, so you need to search yourself. Both of these are by the same photographer/painter.
Thanks for your help. I already love Gossage. Great video to help me understand Adams and your take on metaphor, which I agree with. I had fun doing a deep dive on Adams through YouTube!
A fascinating topic. As other commenters wisely wrote here, the notion of objectivity really needs to fade from the lexicon of contemporary photography. Simply the act of framing a specific composition makes it a subjective act. Not to mention deciding what to photograph and where to, which time of day, direction and position of camera, etc. All of these small and large decisions make the photograph an act of specificity, not dry objectivity.
I’ve loved reading your recent pieces on Substack—so much so that I decided to subscribe. You have a way of putting into words some of my own thoughts about photography. I often find it hard to express those ideas myself, so reading your work has been refreshing.
I read this and had some thoughts. Then I happened on an older piece by Noah Waldeck (Subjectively Objective) about that "New Topographies: show. Some tidbits I found interesting was the Jenkins (the curator) basically invented the term and curated the show based on the photos being "stylistically anonymous" and that the show was widely panned (even hated).
But on to the meatier bits.
One of the things everybody seems to get hung up on is the objectivity of the images. What strikes me is that there is an obvious parallel with memory. Memory is *never* objective and eye-witness reports are usually terrible at establishing facts. Every witness sees the event through the accumulated experiences of their lives and that goes for those New Topographies photographers. Every one of those photographs meant making conscious decisions among many possibilities and those decisions stemmed from the photographers' lived experiences.
I kind of love the fact that Elliot was coming around to the very thesis of "The Intentional Fallacy" (which has to be one of the best titles ever) which claims that once release, the art work exists on it's own, cleaved from its originator; that is has meaning apart from any original intent. I've got thoughts swirling without form regarding that but feel like I'll bring it back around to your comments about Adams and metaphor.
I like the idea of dialectic, where two competing ideas can hold truth simultaneously. You said that people contradict themselves all the time. I rather think that people want to see things objectively but because of basic human nature are incapable. Adams is exactly correct in photography as metaphor -- an ostensibly objective form that is continuously interpreted.
I have worked for a long time as a witness in criminal and civil cases. I can assure you, memory is almost always reconstituted stuff, hopefully like orange juice and not Tang.
Another really engaging piece of writing - thanks. You have a great way of letting us follow the path of your thoughts as you try to work something out.
For myself, I've always had a nagging doubt about the claims of objectivity proposed by The New Topographics photographers and others. It stems from my feeling that every photograph, even a CCTV security image has an intention behind it that is there before it is made. Most obviously, framing and timing will be the result of a personal process, even if the equipment performs its task with absolute disinterest.
Walker Evans, for example, documented his world but clearly made subjective decisions about what he wanted to put in his dossier. Robert Adams chose where to stand and what to include in his frame and what to leave out. These are not objective actions.
Although none of these people sought metaphor or grand, extrapolated meaning in their images, it was inevitable that, once out in the world, such things would be attached to them.
It's a sort of curse of the medium, that a photograph is expected to have a reason to exist, a reason why the photographer made it. That's probably a legacy of its primary role as a means of communicating information, but it does tend to mean that when people look at a photograph, they want it to mean something and if the photographer hasn't signalled any particular meaning, the viewer will very likely imply their own.
It's certainly a can of worms!
I don’t think, in any way, this is about absolutes. It’s about direction, how you are approaching something. A goal, but not something we are going to necessarily achieve. The quality in one’s work on strives for.
Fair point.
Interesting article. To me all these photographs show the moment just before some change happens - the calf is wakened, the land is tamed, the past reformed. Time capsules in waiting but also the breath held in anticipation - to see (imagine) what happens next. RA was good at noticing that moment.
I’m not too sure how you see these as the land is tamed or the past reformed? Adam’s was concerned with the environmental destruction the houses and cutting down of forests were causing.
By tamed I meant the destruction of the wild natural landscape. I should have perhaps said replaced rather than reformed and was imagining what would happen next in your house images - the original decor likely about to be swept away, replaced with a more conforming"greige".
I'm partway through reading 'American Silence' - "photography is inherently fragmentary, and I base my faith on perfect moments".
If a picture is trying to "say" something (even "what a beautiful color palette!) I understand how to evaluate its quality. But what criteria do you (personally) use to come to the conclusion that these Robert Adams pictures are extraordinary examples of their kind?
I got lost somewhere between Barthes and T.S. Eliot myself but in a sense, the response to you, Monica, is hidden in the title. To fully appreciate Suchness and Objectivism, as cleverly presented here, I think the response lies in each one’s perspective and subjectivity, ironically. For me, Jim’s approach totally made sense thanks to the parallel to those haikus, but above all with two of his own photographs of houses. They brought me back when I lived in almost the same Ranch style house in the Denver suburbs, and had a fireplace with that exact stone surround. No metaphor needed. Just recognition. This is when my own subjectivity helped me see true Objectivism.
Thanks for those thoughts. A good poem tries to be perfect, but seldom is, the goal is to just stay on the path the best you can.
Thanks Sylvie. As a student, I keep wanting to apply an analytical framework to understand, but really its just all about the strength and purity of the feeling the picture evokes, like plucking the exact string of something deep inside us.
I’m wondering from your question, do you assume I am the only one who thinks that? Are you familiar with his work?
I’m a student and trying to learn. You seem very smart, knowledgeable and articulate.
I would start here: look this up: But Beautiful - The photographs of Robert Adams, and then I would watch a video on a photo book called The Pond, by Gossage. I can’t paste links in a conversation on Substack, so you need to search yourself. Both of these are by the same photographer/painter.
Thanks for your help. I already love Gossage. Great video to help me understand Adams and your take on metaphor, which I agree with. I had fun doing a deep dive on Adams through YouTube!
Glad to help, the videos are so easy to understand, this guy is a painter for the most part.
So sorry he is no longer making videos. Each one is a gem. Thanks for introducing him to me.
A fascinating topic. As other commenters wisely wrote here, the notion of objectivity really needs to fade from the lexicon of contemporary photography. Simply the act of framing a specific composition makes it a subjective act. Not to mention deciding what to photograph and where to, which time of day, direction and position of camera, etc. All of these small and large decisions make the photograph an act of specificity, not dry objectivity.
Well, i hope you enjoyed the read at least. : )
I absolutely did!
I’ve loved reading your recent pieces on Substack—so much so that I decided to subscribe. You have a way of putting into words some of my own thoughts about photography. I often find it hard to express those ideas myself, so reading your work has been refreshing.
Thanks for your kind words and support.