Whilst my mind is still turning on landscape photography I thought I would document here some recent investigations I’ve made into the question of why some ‘romantic’ landscape photography has been well received by the art community, whereas most have been dismissed as needless idealisations. For the purposes of this analysis I have focused on a single photographer Elger Esser.
Esser is a member of the Dusseldorf School and trained under Bernd and Hilla Becher. His work is almost all landscapes and has been well received in the art community. His large scale prints are exhibited at major galleries throughout the world. This is despite the fact that most commentators refer to his work as ‘romantic’, recalling 19th century landscape painting.
I showed this example of his work in my previous post here. The photograph is titled Cap Antifer, Etretat, Passage de la Courtine and print number 3 of an edition of 7 was sold at auction in 2011 at Christie’s in London for £20,000. The work is part of a series entitled Cap d’Antifer-Etretat. It is a large c-print with diasec face measuring around 1×1.5 m.
©Elger Esser
So why is it that Elger’s work has been accepted in the art world and the work of others is dismissed as eye candy for the masses and misleading idealisation.
The cynic in me might suggest that it is because Esser trained under the Bechers and that this affords him artistic credibility denied others. There is something in this but it is by no means the whole story.
Esser like many other artist/photographers works on series of photographs. Cap d’Antifer-Etretat for example is a series of landscapes which reference correspondence between the writers Maupassant and Flaubert. Flaubert had asked Maupassant to provide him with information about a stretch of landscape between Le Havre and Fecamp in Normandy. He planned to use the location in his last satire Bouvard and Pecuchet. Maupassant had responded with a detailed description of the area complete with sketches. Esser used Maupassant’s reply to identify the locations for his own series. In the book Esser’s photographs are juxtaposed with Maupassant’s texts and sketches providing a strong conceptual basis, which references literary history. Esser’s other series are similarly well founded conceptually.
An overriding theme is Esser’s work is what he refers to as Eigenzeit, which means ‘own time’. He seeks to place his landscapes somewhere between the obvious present and an imaginary past. In other words when we look at his landscapes we might think that we are looking at an image from the past. However, Esser often includes small details from the present drawing the images back into the present. This conceptual play on ‘time’ runs through his work.
Another factor which seems to be important in the eyes of curators is the fact that Esser’s images are made using a 10×8 film camera and are developed and processed in the traditional manner. Esser has also recently produced exhibition prints using an almost extinct printing process called heliogravure. His use of traditional methods is mentioned without exception in the curatorial statements for exhibitions of his work and in the essays accompanying his books. Somehow this seems to add artistic status to his work. Could it be nostalgia? Could it be because film images are perceived as being indexical signs linked directly to their referent (whereas digital is not)? Could it be because there is a perceived greater level of craft and skill needed? Could it be because there is a view that art photographers use film and commercial photographers use digital? The truth is I am not sure as the commentators never explain why they believe it is relevant.
Scale is also an important factor in his work being perceived as art. Esser’s prints are very large and are often compared to landscape paintings. Indeed, when processing his work Esser often seems to add tints to his prints (blues and golds) to emulate 19th century landscape painters. (I am not sure how he does this). His work is often compared to that of Courbet.
So it seems that there are many factors at play which have lead to Esser’s work being accepted in the art world. Amongst them are:
- Artistic provenance (via the Bechers in the case of Esser)
- Work undertaken in series
- References to High Art in his work
- Clearly articulated conceptual bases for his series
- Use of traditional film and archaic printing processes
- Scale of his photographs.
I would be interested in the views of others on this subject. Just for the record, I find Esser’s work very interesting and all the more so since I have taken the time to understand his conceptual thinking.
photo-graph 
standickinson
March 21, 2014
Interesting reflections, Keith; there is, of course, the ‘postmodern’ idea that ‘if I say my work is art, it is art’, which might be extended to say ‘if I say my work is art and I take it seriously, it is serious art’. In other words, if Esser positions himself in the art world, produces work with the provenance, context & craft that you describe, and engages with that world, ‘courting’ the opinion-makers and others who engage with the market, then he creates the opportunity to be taken seriously and ‘valued’ (significantly, it seems!) by that market. If he chose to target the commercial travel market, then things might be different – and the images he makes might not be so highly valued, maybe even rejected, by that market!
I do, particularly, note one of your bullet points – regarding process. It does trouble me (as a late-coming digital-based photographer) that so much of what finds its way to the gallery wall, even the work being made by younger contemporary artists, is created with traditional analogue methods (which I know you yourself use). Whether this stems from the teachers of art photography, the curators, the buyers, or the artists themselves, I don’t know – potentially all of them, I guess. There are a few signs to the contrary – you probably saw the Wolfgang Tillmanns exhibition in Arles last year – but you’re right to observe that the art market (and I think that is what you’re referring to in your reflections) remains suspicious.
Keith Greenough
March 21, 2014
Thanks Stan. You are right that how the photographer positions his/herself is important. There are however many who present themselves as artists but are not accepted by major galleries etc.
On the question of media it is a bit of a mystery to me. I listed a number of possible reasons for why so many art photographers seem to use film. Many do but not all. Simon Norfolk (National Gallery) and Katy Grannon (Saatchi) are two I know of who have exhibited digitally created work recently. Pieter Hugo’s portrait series in Arles was also digital. I am sure that digital will become more prevalent. The move from black and white to colour was also a slow process back in the day.
Eddy Lerp
March 21, 2014
I, of course being an ignoramus, hadn’t heard of this artist before this piece by yourself Keith and it wasn’t until well into the article that you actually make mention of the fact that he’s a contemporary photographer. Now forgive me for being naive, but his work does have the resemblance of the works produced at a much earlier point in time historically than they obviously were. His process has ensured that the results are contiguous with the ‘old masters’ and I wonder if this has anything to do with the respect that they’re given by the art market. Certainly the provenance of his background appears to have played a part, and his references to well known literary masters also adds credence.
So, I can’t help thinking that a fortuitous combination of positives have coalesced for him and has made his work accepted.
Keith Greenough
March 21, 2014
Well spotted Eddy. Esser cites Gustave le Gray as one if his influences. Le Gray was an early landscape photographer. Also his photographs do have the feel of old paintings.
I think that Esser’s approach was pre-meditated rather than a happy accident. A lesson for others aspiring to be recognised as artists maybe.
Catherine
March 21, 2014
Well-argued Keith. Looks like a good formula for artistic acceptance!
Keith Greenough
March 22, 2014
Thanks Catherine….I wonder if the link to the Bechers is the most important!
Catherine
March 22, 2014
Probably!
Eddy Lerp
March 23, 2014
Although the Bechers must have had a great deal of influence, particularly with the stark discipline, I wonder if, as you allude to after my last reply, commercial reasons were stronger? I say that because many photographers were influenced by the Bechers during their student days, but few have gone into the landscape genre with a clear intent to make work ‘similar’ to a period which was commercially successful in its own time and now resurrecting it with clear commercial success?
jsumb
March 21, 2014
I’m not sure why but I suddenly remembered Martin Becka’s work – those curious collusions of the ancient and modern, neither one thing or another to my mind – not that that’s worth a lot 🙂
I then remembered that curious landscape he (Esser) had at Somerset House – large and, seemingly, over processed and I remember then how I struggled to understand that, but there was no contextual narrative, often there isn’t with group shows.
And yes, I struggle also with the Dusseldorf school, large dispassionate images – largely by men – voided of emotional connections, almost flaccid-sublime records of objects. Placid skies, placid seas (one series not sticking to the plot). It is he that conflates the connection with ‘high art’; and referencing it, either directly or indirectly, is an inspiration surely, not necessarily a collaboration? I am inspired by Dostoyevsky, but no-one will ever accuse me of being party to those levels.
I do think size matters, having the ambition to create monster prints – enabled by technology as much as artistry I think – will invoke attention the only place to see them is in Halls big enough to house them – Koons’ poodles sell for higher and higher prices the larger he makes them.
It can only be intent that distinguishes art from craft. It is art if it he decides it it. Though why he gets paid more and more for his work is part of the same mystery of all bubble markets – for surely that is what all art markets are – however once the bubble starts to inflate it is in no-ones interest to allow it to deflate; check out Hirst’s pricing.
Esser’s work is interesting for me because of the barrenness of his images, as Lady Bracknell noted, ” …full of German pragmatism”
Keith Greenough
March 22, 2014
thanks for this John….see my comments below…forgot to hit the Reply button…
Keith Greenough
March 22, 2014
Actually I rather like many of the Dusseldorf School photographers, in particular Struth, Ruff, Hofer and now Esser. Most are as you say voided of emotional connections….Esser is a standout here and has been called an heretic. I remember the Esser photograph of Egypt at Somerset House and as you say devoid of any contextual framework it was curiously beautiful but somewhat opaque.
In fact there were more women photographers in the Dusseldorf school than one might think: Hilla Becher, Candida Hofer, Petra Wunderlich, Simone Nieweg to name but four….however the big stars are all men (with the possible exception of Hofer)…this might be more of a commentary on the bias within the art history/curatorial classes. Artistic geniuses are by definition men!
You are right about Martin Becka’s work. I really enjoyed how his use of waxed paper negatives and an ultra large format plate camera really transformed the urban landscape of Dubai – the images have a real tension created by the historic feel and the ultra modern subjects.