I have been in Cornwall for a few days with a group of landscape photographers lead by Joe Cornish and David Ward. It was great to get out into the landscape and meet some passionate landscape photographers…. a refreshing change from my lonely London perambulations… I had the opportunity to work with my Phase One camera in low light conditions. Great practice for my East End work as low light photography is a key element of this project.
I decided to experiment with the idea of representing Cornwall’s association with tin mining by using the metaphor of darkness. In the short time available I produced two diptychs which juxtapose images of the dark spaces associated with mining alongside ones showing with the lightness of the place with its coastline and the sea. These are meant to represent the place itself and its industrial heritage. Here are the two diptychs.
Diptych 1, Cornwall December 2013
©Keith Greenough 2013
Diptych 2, Cornwall December 2013
©Keith Greenough 2013
I also had an opportunity to shoot some landscapes in a more ‘Romantic’ style.
Making the photograph below I had a real sense of the Sublime – the situation was very threatening. I felt the awesome power of the sea and how dangerous it can be, but at the same time I did not believe I was at risk standing there behind my tripod/camera….
Kynance Cove, Cornwall December 2013
This second image has a more tranquil mood…..it is not picturesque nor is it sublime, perhaps beautiful is the right description….
St. Michaels Mount, Marazion Cornwall December 2013
©Keith Greenough 2013
The last two images are dedicated to my fellow OCA student and friend John Umney with whom I have been having a long running discussion about the role of beautiful images in contemporary art photography.
There seems to be little room for this kind of aesthetic in today’s art world… Beautiful images run the risk of being read critically as needless idealisations. But some artists/photographers do continue produce work which both echoes the Romantic and has been acknowledged as ‘art’ (as evidenced by its display on the walls of major galleries) – Simon Norfolk, Richard Misrach, Edward Burtinsky to name just three.
So what is the place for such work. I think this depends critically on the conceptual basis for and contextualisation of the work. All of the above three photographers make their ‘beautiful/sublime’ images within a clearly articulated and contextualised framework. Elger Esser is another photographer who produces ‘beautiful/sublime’ work. He is one of the Dusseldorf School photographers whose work centres on the landscape…. Here is one of his images. I need to look more closely at his work.
©Elger Esser
Eddy Lerp
December 14, 2013
As per usual Keith your images are extremely well made and great to look at. Secretly I am one of those romantics who still believes that the beautiful and sublime has a place in the art canon of photography, but after having my head blown-up on more than one occasion regarding this when I’v put my head above the parapet I now keep quiet about it …. mostly.
I find it interesting that just as you bring this sort of work to the fore, I went to the talk at University of Westminster with the OCA a couple of weeks ago. James Evans was one of the speakers, whom I disliked really, but he was also espousing the dearth of beautiful images within the photographic art world and has built a website to present one new beautiful image every day. Sorry I can’t remember the name of it, but I’m sure John, Catherine or Eileen will.
jsumb
December 14, 2013
Beautiful images Keith, and the dedication is gratefully received. The “nice” reference that Eddy refers to are included in this post I wrote here http://umneydoc.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/today-i-made-some-nice-images/ which by the way I thought as the most interesting of the four lectures on the day, nearly matched by the Burgin show downstairs – here http://umneydoc.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/more-on-words-and-pictures-study-visit-to-westminster-university/
The role of beauty in art and perhaps more especially in photographic art is for me quite complex. Tom Hunter uses it as a means to engage, as he explained in Hackney, similar I suspect to Fiona Yaron-Field , so I do think it has a place, but it still concerns me when it is used for any other purpose but to look beautiful, where it’s depth can be measured in terms of the patina of ink on the page. The craft of creating beautiful images isn’t a simple craft and should not be dismissed lightly, but artisanal imagery should not be confused with art. They are lovely images though.
Keith Greenough
December 14, 2013
Thanks John. I personally subscribe to the Tom Hunter school…. I think to draw in the viewer the images need to be visually compelliing…this may not mean beautiful per se. I find the Becher’s grids fascinating as documents and as ‘almost’ abstract art, but I would not describe them as beautiful…. thanks for the link. Might be worth trying to stimulate a larger debate on this issue at one of our student gatherings….
Eddy Lerp
December 14, 2013
I’ll make a note of that future debating point Keith. If I knew when you were definitely going to be able to make a workshop I coud schedule it for then.
jsumb
December 14, 2013
Good idea Keith about the discussion. No, I wouldn’t describe Becher’s images as beautiful either, not sure how I would describe them either!
Vicki Loader
December 14, 2013
Okay—I’m the odd one out here on the Bechers. When I first saw them in the flesh at V&A I was mesmerised—there was a hypnotic beauty that drew me in. After watching their Contacts video and seeing them in Arles—in locus as to say—I was struck by some sort of hypnotic, reverential beauty inherent in the images—but that beauty is different from the beauty in Keith’s Cornwall images
jsumb
December 15, 2013
Becher’s images I find are more about ‘process over purpose’. I think that any series of images connected by the twin aspects of careful processing – to ensure consistency of the projected image perspective – and sufficient numbers to develop a question regarding intent. I can think of quite a few in that vein: Blossfeldt, Walker Evans – street signs (or any number of types he made:) ) Weston’s vegetables, breasts, sand dunes …. Their (Becher) place in the canon is assured and I think their images are revered as much because of that as for any other reason.
vickiuvc
December 14, 2013
Jason’s site is dailynice.com—but I don’t see them as beautiful images…!
Love the fact you dedicated them to John—now he will smack you! Your comments about contextualisation of the romantic or sublime within a conceptual framework are spot on. But, I still think there is room in this world for images that are just ‘beautiful’ in their own right.
Eddy Lerp
December 14, 2013
“I still think there is room in this world for images that are just ‘beautiful’ in their own right” that could be a direct quote from Evans as he said either those words or something so similar to make no difference when hen spoke at the meeting.
Keith Greenough
December 14, 2013
Hi again Eddie. At the moment I can make all the meetings for 2014 other than the first two….
Eddy
December 14, 2013
Let’s shoot for May then
Keith Greenough
December 14, 2013
Thanks Eddie/Vicki…it is a debate that the students at the OCA seem to stay away from….people perhaps think that they may be criticised for such work. I think what is really important is to be able to contextualise one’s work. You need to have a clear reason for the aesthetic decisions within one’s work, whether beautiful or not….thanks to the link to the daily nice. I will follow up on that.
jsumb
December 15, 2013
Trying to reply to both Eddy and Keith here. If you remember Sharon suggested we have an debate and I think we should do it (I can’t make the next meeting either but so far am able to make all the rest this year – so I think May sounds about right). I would like to debate this subject, as you know it’s been a constant issue of mine! I’m prepared to debate this from either side, though I suggest we should decide on the specific words for the debate no earlier than a couple of weeks beforehand?
Keith Greenough
December 15, 2013
Yes a debate sounds like a good idea…I would be up for presenting one side of the argument. Traditionally there would be a proposer and seconder for each side of the proposition….as you say John we would need to draft the exact wording. The debate might be followed by a question and answer session involving everyone…probably need to discuss the idea with a few more folk. Maybe at the next meeting although Eddie it looks like neither John nor I will be there.
Eddy Lerp
December 15, 2013
Got to be honest Keith, the most erudite people are Catherine, you and John, so I’d look to you three to perhaps act as the debate leaders. I think I’d like to be a seconder for your side Keith as I feel pretty strongly on that side of the issue.
Keith Greenough
December 16, 2013
John do you have any thoughts on the proposition. It might be something along the lines of
“Is there a role for aesthetic beauty in art photography?”
The arguments FOR might centre on Hunter/Norfolk’s ideas about the need for compelling images to grab the viewer’s attention. The arguments AGAINST might be around the idea that aesthetic beauty is merely eye candy and diverts from the critical questioning of the art work.
I think we should allow each side to argue their case using a set number of images as props and to an agreed timeframe, so we would need a largish screen (the screen that Eddie has used at the table at other meetings would be fine).
I would suggest we agree proposers and seconders beforehand. On the day we should divide into two groups. The order of events would be:
Proposer For. (10-15 mins)
Proposer Against.(10-15 mins)
Seconder For.(5 mins)
Seconder Against.(5 mins)
Adjournment into groups to discuss rebuttal argument. (15 mins)
Rebuttal by ‘For’ team. (5 mins)
Rebuttal by ‘Against’ team. (5 mins)
The Vote!!
In total with some pauses between each stage would take about 1 hour 30 mins. Just right I think for an afternoon session. Proposers and seconders would be agreed beforehand and would co-ordinate their arguments. It might be fun to ask everyone to write down their views prior to the debate and put them in a sealed envelope. We can then see if the arguments has swayed opinion….
Keith Greenough
December 15, 2013
Sounds good to me Eddie….maybe you could sound the others out at the next meeting. Cheers. Keith.
Carol Street
December 15, 2013
A debate sounds like a great idea to me. I think I’m currently on the ‘there is room in this world for images that are just ‘beautiful’ in their own right’ side of the fence, but it will interesting for me to see if this changes as I progress though the course.
losingfaithinwords
December 16, 2013
I suppose there might be a problem with definition? I don’t really find some of the above ‘beautiful’ in the way I’m meant to. I think the word is very problematic as its so tied up with ‘taste’.
As I’ve studied more I’ve got to know what kind of things work for me and what don’t – for me I find a kind of “beauty” in art that is ‘right’ for what it’s doing, so that beauty for its own sake and the pursuit of that became totally empty and meaningless.
For me Lanyon’s painting has some ‘beauty’ (maybe I mean that in the sense of beauty being truth and truth beauty!) partly because its about some of the terribleness of being drowned underground when the sea inundated a tin mine, that heritage that’s in that landscape and the collective memories of people who live there. I also like that I can look at it and see Lanyon in it, his embodied experience and love of the place he lived in, those particularities of it rather than just see (an)aestheticizing tendency 😀
losingfaithinwords
December 16, 2013
(I’m going to go into hiding now (:-))
Keith Greenough
December 16, 2013
Thanks Anne. I am sure you’re right about the problematic nature of the word beauty.
Burke refers to beauty as ‘a social quality; for where women and men, and not only they, but when other animals give us a sense of joy and pleasure in beholding them, (and there are many that do so) they inspire us with the sentiments of tenderness and affection towards their persons…’ This is widely defined and what gives ‘joy and pleasure in beholding’ and inspires ‘tenderness and affection’ will doubtless differ from person to person….
Perhaps if we have our debate it might be best to preface the proposition with a definition of beauty maybe Burke’s, so at least we have a fighting chance of arguing over the common ground!
Please don’t go into hiding!! Your comments are very valuable and thoughtful!!
losingfaithinwords
December 16, 2013
I think my default is more of a Kantian perspective of beauty and the sublime, I don’t get on with Burke, don’t ask me why! Burke seems to crop up in photography more often, but I’m used to Kant from art….he thought beauty and good were equated, and that pleasant feelings were different from beauty. He thought it subjective too. I’ve an idea Kant is to blame for it becoming associated with connoisseurship aka elitism in art history before it collapsed and we got postmodernism and art histories with many more than one perspective allowed!
I’ve an idea many people don’t like to use the word as its got that baggage, I wouldn’t use it myself.
There was a weareoca thing about drawing which touched on it. http://www.weareoca.com/fine_art/11792/
Eddy Lerp
December 16, 2013
That’s opened up the dabate really well hasn’t it?
Keith Greenough
December 16, 2013
I think we need to think very carefully Eddie how we present the proposition to make sure we have a clear question to debate.
Another possible way to tackle this might be to take a particular photographer’s work and pose a proposition around his/her aesthetic approach. We could use a proposition such as
“Edward Burtynsky generally renders his subjects through photographs which are rich in colour, detail and expressive light. This highly aestheticised approach undermines the value of his work as art.”
By the way this is not my actual proposal, just an example of an approach we might take.
jsumb
December 16, 2013
Replying here as it seems to be the only place to respond to your question above Keith.
Like Anne, I am concerned with the broad definition of beauty, and especially when conflated with aesthetics, a particular philosophical set of theories in themselves. However I think I know where you are going and am in broad agreement, but would like to narrow the definition, so as to have a more specific debate?
I am also cautious about suggesting the main arguments that might be used by the protagonists, although I think there may be merit in doing so in order to keep the locus of the debate within the medium. So perhaps a short discussion here to agree the format? I emphasise the term caution, I am not wedded to any proposal.
So, how about… “The aesthetics of beauty in the photographic medium is only legitimate as a subversive element underpinning the essence of the narrative?”
Keith Greenough
December 16, 2013
Not sure if I am correctly understanding your term ‘subversive element’. If it means what I think it means then I would find it hard to argue against this proposition….he he!!
Further I think we are talking about art photography not photography in general.
Just goes to show this is a complex subject…..
Keith Greenough
December 16, 2013
Thanks again Anne. Will follow up on the link and research Kant…
jsumb
December 16, 2013
Replying again with nowhere else to position this. I think Kant’s perspective – at least one of them – would serve this debate quite nicely i.e. that beauty is an end in itself, the conclusion of a state of creation; to be made, or to be a perfect (or near) rendering of what it is supposed or designed to be. Having nothing to do with being able to attract or allure the viewer other than being able to be said about it that it is beautiful, a perfect form of the thing that it portrays/depicts/is? I may not like sunsets, or have any fascination in the depiction of sunsets, but I can say, with disinterest, that a sunset is beautiful, because it perfectly displays the form of a sunset – in all those iridescent colours :)? Of course I may have got Kant all wrong
However we would still need to frame a proposition to debate…..
jsumb
December 17, 2013
This might inform our debate https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=681353165243522&set=a.223513341027509.61424.187433581302152&type=1&theater we could tag it onto the 18th?
Keith Greenough
December 18, 2013
Yes if we get a chance we should discuss this on the 18th…very difficult to do these things over an online blog!!