When will the tyranny of flat lighting be over?
When will the tyranny of artificial vignetting be over?
When will the tyranny of desaturated colour be over?
The advertiser will always want control, and will always want to depart as far from the truth as possible.
The advertiser will never want to lead the market. they will always want to follow. Let someone else do the heavy lifting.
If you look at the evolution of advertising it is like a watching out the rear window of a speeding spacecraft as the world grows steadily smaller and smaller.
The impulse in advertising photography is always to limit, replace, or recreate reality in the belief that it is too messy, incomplete or lacking. However, reality is always unlimited, irreplaceable, and continually creative.
This is obvious when you see the rare example of advertising where they have transcended the medium and created art. Then everyone points to this and says, see, it can be good. But what has happened is the reverse, it is not advertising that has won, it is art. Ads that are so creative and interesting that they become something else were never ads in the first place. Usually the product is hardly seen, sometimes it is felt, but only in a way that points to life and to the product by secondary association. These things rarely get made because the process is designed to make this the last thing you would want.
Richard prince was prescient: in his rephotography of advertising we see him pointing at the Marlboro Man and saying, here is beauty, here is truth, and yet it is advertising. No one thought those ads were art, but when you see advertising from the 60’s and 70’s, or when you look at films from the 70’s, what is shocking now is you see the “actuality” of what a camera saw. There is something genuine there. That is the basis of art.
Prince’s Art was the staking of a kind of authorship over a territory that he felt was going unclaimed. He was saying, “no, look at this. There is something here that transcends itself.” If you look at the same kinds of ads today, reality is entirely plastic, there is barely a glimmer of actual photography in most ads, it is essentially illustration. The reason Prince succeeded was because the distance he had to traverse to stake his claim was not as far as we thought. That was the “surprise” of his method. Now we see the gap being so much wider, I wonder how art could reclaim that space? There is “virtually” nothing to reclaim.
In media, the plasticity has become so extreme you can’t relate anymore. You can’t “feel” what is going on, mainly because nothing is “actually” going on. Or what you feel is drummed into you by an overuse of the elements like I mentioned at the top. Like music in films, it tells you “You Must Feel This.” But this is the ideology of advertising at work.
Digress: I recently bought some Star Trek episodes from iTunes and made the mistake of purchasing some “remastered” versions of the original. Evidently someone, (insert studio executive) thought the kids would be bored by all the 60’s matte screen special effects and digitally remastered the images of the Enterprise flying around alien planets. I was aghast, my memories were being stripped from me! But more than that, the entire aesthetic of the show was being changed. A great deal of the charm is precisely because of the limitations. I like the styrofoam rocks! I like it that the ship seems pegged to a stick in the ground when it turns…because it was.
You think of the generations that grew up viewing live theatre and vaudeville. Their sensitivities were calibrated against live performances by live actors. When television arrived, the early days were dominated still by live performances filmed in front of live audiences. In film, special effects started to get really sophisticated in 1968 with 2001, although Superman in the 70’s still had a live-action feel to it. It was not so sophisticated that you did not think, he is on a wire in a studio with a windmachine.
Ever since then the capabilities have increased. Digital effects are now practically seamless, if unseemly. Audiences now have none of that calibration, the live performance is forgotten. You see a yearning for something real, something visceral, which is all too often exploited in “reality” TV. Audiences are looking for truth, the actual, the authentic, and not finding it.
Audiences are not consumers.
Eventually the tyranny of flat lighting will be over.
Sorry if I just quote from books I read, Keith Sawyer’s book “Explaining Creativity” has a chapter on sociology. From page 124 if you will.
” Csikszentmihalyi used the term FIELD to refer to a group of intermediaries that determine what’s accepted and what’s diseminiated.”cont.
“These influential gate keepers determine not only which created products are published, but also what types of created work will receive funding.”cont.
“French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s (1993) influential theory of cultural production emphasizes that the field is constituted by economic and power relations among subgroups, and analyzes creativity as sort of market transaction between producers and consumers.”cont pg. 125, ” To become a member of the field, a person has to first learn everything about the domain. That’s why every successful creative career starts out with long training and preparation.”
I personally think the lack of control or ability to restrain the colossal amount of samples of digitally produced medium and the flood of participants producing this new volume of work has put a strain on the conventional approaches of review. Instantly at low res the producer of any work can place the work in the market without any of the previous established constrains to consider. Sub groups like Flikr have allowed amateurs to become their own intermediaries and thus elevate their position in the field. Here is what Dr. Sawyer goes on to explain at the bottom of page 132:”Children are socialized to learn that certain forms of art are associated with certain group identities, and expressing a preference for those forms are a way of expressing their identity as a member of that group.”
I think until there is alternative option via the web to present work that can separate works based on quality standards, that are currently submissive to the low res delivery of the web, there really is no way for the average viewer to become elevated in their aesthetic conditioning. the only way to get people to grow aesthetically is to give them something to compare it to. this is quite a daunting task with so many obstacles to overcome. One that comes of the top is convenience and volume. You can’t just beat You-tube. How can we get people to go to a gallery to see 3 dimensional objects if they never want to leave their computer? I don’t have any answers other than start educating children earlier and reinforce within our own community of intermediaries time tested quality standards that exist currently. Slow and painful as it may seem we have to start somewhere.
Thanks for your time and space Robert.
I like the gas you are pumping. I think you would agree that at any time, whether it be the turn of the last century or the turn of this century, it has been up to the individual to educate themselves and cultivate their own aesthetic chops.
Digress: I watched “This Old House” last night of all things and they were in New Orleans where Harry Connick and others had partnered with Habitat for Humanity to fund and construct a “musicians village” of shotgun-style dwellings specifically for musicians to occupy. Connick and Marsallis wanted to see music come back to NO and felt housing was the starting point. All the houses had porches, where typically musicians have and would gather to make music. The history of jazz in NO is maintained by older musicians taking younger musicians under their wing if they feel the individual is serious and has some chops. They pass down the forms which are both preserved and evolved through each new generation. It is largely an oral tradition. Recorded music also plays a part, many musicians learn from old recordings too.
Photography is somewhat similar. The apprentice tradition in commercial photography is strong. Also for some, book are the primary entrance into what photography can look like. I remember a teacher telling me that at first, he tried to make his prints look like what he saw in books because that is all he had to go by, until he got older and could travel to see work in bigger cities. So photography is a lot like jazz. It is dependent on older practitioners to pass down the knowledge.
As you point out, digital has altered the “power relations” between the subgroups. It is trivial to make a reasonably good print now. The “how did you do that” part of art is now not so much about the beauty of the physical print, and entirely about what is going on in the photograph. This can be good or bad. There is a picture floating around the net of Elliot Erwitt wearing a t-shirt that says “digital kills photography” or something like that. This true and false at the same time. I don’t think it has to, but it often does. Currently the flood of new images is creating a strain as you point out.
I think this is a time where we need the FIELD more than ever. And we should be aware of those novices bootstrapping themselves into the field without real experience. Those old timers on the porch in NO are what we need.
When I fell in love with advertising photography it was real photography. I know that sounds redundant, maybe even curmudgeonly, but the images were powerful and real and even though ‘ad work’ still good images that could stand alone.
Bert Stern flew halfway around the world to shoot a martini glass at sunrise with the pyramids behind it. Art Kane did work that looked like art. Turner, Penn… I know, I know… sounds like I long for the “good ol’ days.” Not really.
Just a different aesthetic today. Everything is over the top. “Kill Bill” fight scenes and FedX ads have so much in common. Total fantasy tried to be passed off as reality. I find it, personally, boring.
I used to buy $50 worth of magazines (and in ‘75 that was a hell of a stack…) and pore over the ads. Dissecting not only the lighting and the composition, but the message and how it tied. Wouldn’t do it today. I haven’t been knocked out by an ad since early 90’s. Well, maybe a dozen or so… but not like the Turner ads for Kohler. Not by a long shot.
Homogenization of viewpoint in the ad world is amazing and horrifying. Almost nothing stands out. And I am talking print… TV? You kidding me? Most of it is total crap, and it continues to deliver crap as “something special.”
I dropped my subscription to ‘Archive’ a few years ago due to finding the same thing over and over. Not literally… figuratively.
Bright moments are when you run across an ad in a mag at the bookstand at Barnes and Noble and get a smile. It happens now and then and it is exciting. But for me personally, it is usually a real picture with a great idea. Not a photoshopped version of something I would see in a “Matrix” flik. (Don’t get me wrong, I love Photoshop… and I use it.)
The heavy use of digital may run its course. And zigging when all others are zagging can be a good strategy. I really think that there will be more and more opportunities for real art and imagery that tells a story that is real.
Full disclosure: I was creative director at a very fast rising AD agency from 97-02 and some of the crap we pushed out was because we couldn’t get around the client expectations of their crap looking like their competitors crap. I know… sounds like a cop-out, but it was what it was.
“Full disclosure: I was creative director at a very fast rising AD agency from 97-02 and some of the crap we pushed out was because we couldn’t get around the client expectations of their crap looking like their competitors crap. I know… sounds like a cop-out, but it was what it was.”
“The advertiser will never want to lead the market. they will always want to follow. Let someone else do the heavy lifting.”
And it is necessary that their crap outsell their competitors or they will be out of a job. The funny thing is that consumers can always spot the fake, the imitator, the B-brand.
I use Lightroom to do my RAW conversions and they have these presets you can download for various effects, and as you roll over the list of effects the preview changes to show how it looks. It is kind of like flipping through the pages of Communication Arts…
I think Penn is a good example, also he has a show at the NY Library currently. When you look at his work you see perfection in imperfection if you know what I mean. The still life’s of food, cigarette butts, etc. Even a human face. When I see that photoshop technique of desat-high radius sharpening applied I really don’t get it, I mean, I know what the “idea” is that they are trying to convey. And Avedon’s faces are completely manipulated darkroom inventions. Yet there is something different between the technical perfection achievable in digital and in photo-chemical. What it tends to make me want to do is just let digital be digital, to “print the neg” so to speak. That is why I have shied away from Canon, it is too predictable.
I shoot still life but I started in this business shooting fashion. Assisted a top guy, met the right people, had the access. I remember a few years into my shooting days working for a catalogue company shooting this model holding a handbag. It was such a pain in the ass and I didn’t give 2 shits that there was a model there. I thought to myself that I would be much more into this if it were only the handbag. I could at least make it a nice lighting project. That began a transition that took a few years to make and I’m the happier for it. When I shoot people now I want to shoot people that I don’t have to use as a commodity. What is the point of this story? We aid in the selling of products. Products rule. Clients rule. Whatever works is what sells. What we feel is only important insofar as we feel like buying. The agencies and the advertisers get their inspiration from us – our editorial and/or personal work. That work of Penn and Avedon was either shot for a magazine or for themselves. How often do you see their advertising work hanging in a museum? Do you have the same connection to Penn’s work for Clinique or Avedon’s for Versace?
It is up to us to keep alive the tactile connection to the work. No matter how much the advertisers try to distance us from it or devalue it, whether intentionally or not, we need human connection and interaction. Everyone is playing with their new computer toys now so it is ubiquitous but it is already getting boring. We photographers are feeling it because we are close to it but the (buying) public will follow shortly. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Cohen Bros. had no music in the soundtrack in No Country for Old Men. They recognized the manipulation and went back to good old school story telling. I was with my daughter this weekend and she was watching the Disney Channel and there was this promo for the Jonas Brothers. It was shot in B&W – made to look like the Beatles Let it Be…. It was so lame (obviously) . The sad part is that she was being fed a visual reference that was real but replaced with something that is a fabrication – the Jonas Bros. This , I think, is why a lot of kids are looking back to the 60’s and 70’s for their inspiration because it was real. We should not regurgitate the past but use our experience to just keep it real. The tools have changed, the vocabulary is always changing but the need for a connection never changes. If we establish a link to people with our images then advertisers will see that and want to exploit it.
Why do photographers keep using the same desaturated, hyper illustrative look? Because it sells, and wins awards in mags like PDN, CA, Archive, Print, etc. Every year it’s the same damn thing. I stopped looking at them very closely a few years back. There are a variety of styles, four actually, and if you want to win an award, you better fit into one of the styles.
I agree that there are gatekeepers to creativity, whether for music, painting, or photography. I don’t however think we need more of them. They are, after all, the ones who jury the awards for the magazines, or are CAs at agencies who want to win awards or whatever. Maybe instead, we need less gatekeepers, but more historians. People who keep track of and disseminate information about the history of the art or craft of photography, rather than people who will decide what’s good or bad. After all, what has mostly been mentioned above, was a deep distaste for what’s out there. And what’s out there is out there because it’s picked up and passed around by the “right” people, or gatekeepers of creativity.
It’s easier to be successful with imitation than with blazing your own trail. What’s the market leader doing? Do the same thing. Only a few will head the other way. In the long run, those who do their own thing have a better chance of standing out, but in the short term those who imitate have a better chance at profiting.
Personally I’ve found flickr to be somewhat refreshing. Sure there’s a tidal wave of garbage, but also some incredibly interesting stuff. And more importantly, it’s obvious that the stuff that’s been winning so many awards simply because of a few PS layers isn’t so ground breaking. Please, it’s time to move on. Maybe it’s time for cross processing again…