2 Jun
The Subtlety of Greatness and Today’s Loss of Appreciation
Posted in Nature, Philosophy, Photography by JimSunday night I took a few moments to look at my copy of Eliot Porter’s "In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World". For those that are unfamiliar with Eliot Porter he was one of the first photographers focusing on nature and wildlife in color versus black and white. His work has proven to be quite influential inspiring several of today’s iconic wildlife and nature photographers including Art Wolfe.
In fact it was Art who urged me to pick up a copy of "In Wildness is the Preservation of the World" and I’m really happy that he did. In viewing the photos with in this book and his other work on display in various museums across the country I’ve come to not just appreciate Porter’s fine eye , but the incredible influence technological advances have had on this genre of photography.
For most modern day photographers looking at Eliot Porter’s work it may likely be anti-climactic as many of the photos will likely seem common by todays standards. In fact over the past year, although not directed at Eliot Porter, I’ve read more than one blogger claiming that modern amateur photographers are worthy of being considered artists and their work “art” as their work is as good if not better than past photographers. Personally I find such claims to be a joke and easily discarded. Why?
What people lose track of when viewing older, historically relevant, photography regardless of genre is that the artist in question often pushed the technology of the day to its edge if not beyond. Looking at Eliot Porter’s work in “In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World” I’m reminded of this with each turn of the page. At first glance the photos will appear to be common and perhaps unfocused. Yet a closer look at the composition, lines, and arrangement of color and texture tells another story. Considering how easy it is for modern photographers to generate color images digitally or with modern film the difficulty in attaining such images 20, 30 and even 50 years ago is completely lost. Seeing as how most photographers are off the cuff shooters these days an appreciation for technique is almost nil.
Sadly in this day and age contemporary photographers assume the work of past greats was as easy to capture as it is today. Larger cameras, reliance on technical knowledge versus in camera light meters, the lack of preview, etc. are but a few factors many easily look past. When I look at each of Porter’s images I don’t just see or appreciate what has been captured, I see the challenges to how it was captured. It is that facet of appreciation that transforms an every day image into a great image.
For those making the claim many of todays modern photographers are on par with those considered photographic greats I most certainly laugh at the claim. Photographic greats whether historical or contemporary are not defined by access to audience alone, but by how well they combine aesthetics and push modern photographic technology & technique to its limit. Something to think about the next time you view a photograph from your favorite photographer.
On that note I’ll end this entry with my favorite photograph with in “In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World’.
Spruce Trees in Fog, Maine, 1954
courtesy of Off the Coast, A Landscape Chronology
Technorati Tags: Eliot Porter, nature, landscape, photography, philosophy
Ivan Makarov
on June 2 2008
Jim -
You bring up a good point. We should also remember that even 15 years ago photographers had no access to another tool that everybody else uses today - Photoshop CS3.
I tend to look at it the same way I look at Olympic sports. Just because there are thousands of high school swimmers today who can swim faster than best swimmers in the Olympics 50 years ago doesn’t mean that they are as great or should be considered in the same league. Everything evolves and ought to be evaluated within its own time frame.
D. Travis North
on June 3 2008
I’m relatively new to photography as an art form, and while I have taken a few classes…I have recently discovered that I never got much exposure to some of the great photographers of all time. For no fault but my own, I am very late in trying to study the works of past greats. So I want to thank you for introducing me to Eliot Porter. From what I’ve found online thus far, I feel that this is a photographer whose work will be very influential to me. As I’m discovering, I’m actually somewhat familiar with many of his works — just didn’t know it.
Still…I’ve been looking for influences, and I sense a few new books being added to my cart.
Thanks again.
Shutter Photo » Eliot Porter - A New Classic Influence
on June 3 2008
[...] you are interested in reading more, Jim Goldstein wrote an interesting article, titled “The Subtlety of Greatness and Today’s Loss of Appreciation“. His article deals mostly in how people so easily overlook the skill of the classic [...]
Richard Wong
on June 3 2008
Agreed. Everything needs to be put into perspective. What impact did his body of work have on the art and society? There is a reason why Eliot Porter and Ansel Adams are arguably the two most significant nature photographers of all time. Their legacy transcends the little niche of nature photography.
Trends come and go like the flavor of the week but it takes a lifetime of dedication to be something special. I think anyone who thinks in terms of “my pictures look more impressive than xxx and xxx so therefore I am a better photographer” is an immature photographer and are shooting for the wrong reasons.
Mark
on June 11 2008
Art should never be measured by the difficulty in which the producer underwent to create it. For all we know the Mona Lisa took 10 minutes to paint. It’s the idea and the execution that matters. People can shoot for whatever reason they want. I’ve seen Ansel Adams shoot, and most of the time, at least in his older years, someone was doing everything for him. He would hold up his light meter, and tell his assistant “F8 at 1/50th” etc. He then clicked the shutter. I mean, the man was a photographic and b&w printing God, but would his art have meant less if it was made today with a digital camera? Yes, he would have used one. He was talking about “computer pictures” way back in the seventies when all these “serious amateurs” much like one encounters on forums these days, were still in diapers, or not even born yet.
Jim
on June 11 2008
@Mark I suppose my thought process wasn’t to overgeneralize the importance of technology as much as the need to account for it when wondering why something that now looks average was considered ground breaking in its day. Art unto itself is technology independent, but at the same time it can weigh into its impact and historical significance. Whether we like it or not from the time the first camera was developed photography has been tied to technology. As a result there are many firsts in each generation of photographic development. To ignore the impact or significance of technology on the art of photography would omit an important part of it. In the end cameras are nothing more than a means to an end. They are tools, but tools that are stepping stones to artistic achievement. With new technology comes new artistic possibilities.