This is an argument of the relevance of Modernism in Contemporary Photography.  Post-modern art theory states modernism is no longer relevant for three basic reasons: Photographic purity is not achievable, art must be a discussion, and art must be socially responsible.  I will address each issue individually and lay out my argument on a point-by-point basis.

           To understand the argument, one must first gain a basic understanding of Modernism as it relates to photography.  This requires a brief history and definition of modernism. 

           When photography was first introduced to the public in 1839, the potential for scientific applications was seen immediately.  Photographs of biological samples that contained more detail than hand drawings became easy to produce.  Documentation of war was very graphic and destroyed the romantic ideals that the public held through the efforts of Matthew Brady (fig.1).  The U.S. Geological Survey expeditions of the American Southwest brought new images to the east by the work of Timothy o’ Sullivan (fig. 2).

           The potential for using photography as a means of making art was seen early on.  The only question was how to define it.  It was commonly agreed that sharp photographs were best suited for documentary work, but destroyed the

illusion that was considered necessary for artistic impression.[1]  To achieve this “artistic impression”, several techniques were employed to emulate painting, such as soft focus, manipulation of the print with paints and pigments, and printing through gauze.  Typical subject matter consisted of classical nudes and scenes from Victorian society.  What became central to the ideas of Pictorialism was the emphasis on subject matter and showing the artist’s hand.  The artist was required to show the truth of nature.[2]  Peter Henry Emerson felt that the sharp photograph was a falsification of nature, and the print must be “…just as sharp as the eye sees it and no sharper”.[3]

           In the early 20^th century, a new vision in photography began.  Artists such as Paul Strand and Alfred Steiglitz felt that pictorialism was a distortion of nature that imitated painting and turned away from photography’s true potential.[4]  Straight photography was strongly endorsed as a viable means of artistic expression.  Modernism came into photography when the emphasis moved away from the subject matter being photographed to the photograph itself as the subject matter.  These ideas of print consideration and objectivity set modernism apart from pictorialism in new ways.  Each artist had his or her own take on this sense of objectivity.  Edward Weston felt it important to show the expression of the form, Ansel Adams was interested in showing the truest form through objective viewpoint, and Aaron Siskand attempted to show the altogether new object.[5]  While a few photographers felt that pure objectivity was the goal of modernist art, others, such as Edward Weston, were much less dogmatic.  He understood the plastic nature of the medium and that the core values of modernism were not dependent on objectivity when he said, “…I just think-today-that there is nothing so beautiful as a sharp, long scale, glossy photograph.  But tomorrow?”[6]

           Modernism in photography is an expression of form.  It replaces the former concept of subject as art with art as subject.  The photographic print is the primary concern.  Through the print, aesthetic transcendence of form is expressed to the viewer.  As Weston put it, ”…to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock” (fig.3).[7]  There is an attempt to emphasize form and texture as a means of emotional response.  Two basic schools of modernism came out of the early 20^th century: the school of abstraction and form, such as Weston (fig.4) and the school of illustration, as seen in Ansel Adams (fig. 5).  The difference between these two artists is seen immediately, but serves to show the flexibility of modernism.

           This moves us on to Post-modernism in photography.  Post-modernism came about in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s when a return to pictorialist ideals of subjectivism became prominent.   The ideas behind the photograph were emphasized, even at the expense of craft.  While some artist’s work in craft is evident, such as Jerry Uelsmann (fig. 6), other artists did not even take their own photographs at all, but employed a photographer to realize their concept (fig.7).  In extreme examples, as with the work of Thomas Joshua Cooper, the photograph is incidental to the art.  While one looks at his seascapes (fig. 8), the viewer is unaware that the art itself was the journey the artist took in getting to the location and experiencing the feelings of excitement of the old Nordic explorers as they set off to the Undiscovered Country.[8]  In fact, he sacrifices craft altogether by ignoring exposure and development technique, even pointing out his darkroom only as an afterthought in a tour of his studio.[9]

           Where modernism is about the print itself as subject matter, post-modernism asserts the importance of a message behind the print to address an issue.

           As post-modernism grew to dominance in the art world critics began attacking modernism and it’s legitimacy as an expression.  There are three basic claims to this attack:  modernism’s sense of photographic purity is unattainable, art must be a discussion, and art must be socially responsible.  The rest of this essay will address each of these claims in turn in defense of modernism.

           The first issue is photographic purity or objectivity.  Post-modernists state that we as artists are interacting with our subjects.  This interaction eliminates any objectivity.  We cannot photograph something with the intent of evoking an emotional response without being subjective to the object or place.  I do not disagree.  However, I do argue that this is a fallacious attack on modernism.  The artist must be affected by the subject to have the emotional reaction that is necessary for a successful photograph.  Modernists use sharp focus in their work for one basic reason: the entire print is the subject, thus every square millimeter is just as important as another.  By using sharp focus, every inch of the print is utilized to its fullest extent.  This overall sharp print gives the illusion of objectivity. Adams, for example, was a chair member of the Sierra Club and often gave club sponsored tours.  He visited Yosemite Valley at least once a year throughout his entire life.[10]  His passion for the outdoors came across clearly through his photographs.  His favorite quote was a paraphrase of Alfred Steigltz that states he photographed, “what I saw and felt”.[11]  He was obviously not removed objectively from what he photographed.

           On October 31, 2004 I conducted an interview with Michael A. Smith, a photographer from Eastern Pennsylvania who has been making and exhibiting his work for the last 35 years (fig. 9,10).  Smith considers himself an “unapologetic modernist”, and had this to say on the subject of photographic purity:

 

Davis: What is your definition of modernism as it relates to photography?

Smith: Modernism, as I think of it, relates to all art media equally. Modernism is concerned with the primacy of the picture itself, not what is pictured--not the "message." From my understanding, Modernism began when Cezanne painted a still life and in the foreground the line of the edge of the table on one side of the cloth cutting that edge did not line up with the line of the edge of the table on the other side. By doing this, Cezanne was saying the picture itself was more important than the representation of what was pictured. This breakthrough quickly led to Cubism, Non-Objective art and the whole Modernist sensibility.

I have defined art as "Expression contained within a form." It is the form that makes it art. I have explained this in other writings--see "Letter to a Young Photographer" and "On Teaching Photography."[12] The "form" includes the art object itself, as well as its context. The achievement of Modernism was to recognize the importance of the form. To give an example: Edward Weston was a Modernist photographer--it ultimately did not matter to Weston if he photographed a pepper or a shell, trees or rocks.

Davis: The Group F/64 stated the importance of "straight" or "pure" photography.  Is this different than modernism, in your view?

Smith: It is not different from Modernism, but it did not encompass all that modernism encompasses.

Davis: Strand and Adams argued that photography must be "pure", that is, defined only by it's own qualities.  Was, or is, this achievable?  Is this the real concern of modernism?

Smith: Well, part of modernism, is a concern with using the medium, any medium, for what it does best. Adams, Weston, Strand, argued that what photography did best, what its essential nature was, was to be sharp and clear and "objective." Opposed to their view, but no less a modernist was Moholy Nagy who defined photography as something that was light derived. His photographs are clearly modernist.  The answer turns on one's definition of what are photography's essential qualities.

Davis: Can a mixed media piece be modernist, then, if the photography is clearly definable as a photograph?

Smith: Yes.  For me, the difference between Modernism and Post-Modernism is that Modernist works are primarily about aesthetic pleasure (which is not a superficial thing, but is something very, very deep), while Post-Modernist works are about what is pictured--the message conveyed. In this, to me, they are retrograde, harking back to art from the pre-Modernist era.

Davis: So "purity" in photography was a concern of individuals, not modernism per se?

Smith:  Yes. Go back to my response about Weston and Moholy

Nagy and "Purism".  They both were "pure" photographers according to their own definitions.

To re-emphasize this point, modernism is concerned with using photography to its fullest capability.  Modernism searches for what constitutes the core essence of photography, the attributes that define it and how to use those attributes to their fullest potential.  The pictorialists tried to copy the traditions of painting rather than use photography for what it does best: create sharp, detailed images of the world around us.  It was more important to show the hand of the artist rather than allow photography to define itself.  Post-modernism is not concerned the essence of photography, but with telling the message, using photography only as translator.

           The second claim of post-modernism is the need for art to be a discussion.  It is my argument that modernists were not interested in discussing topics through their work, but were concerned only with addressing aesthetic issues.  When asked if art can have non-verbal meanings, and if aesthetics are enough to sustain art as legitimate, Smith had this to say:

Sure art has non-verbal meanings. To quote Sir Herbert Read: "If one has an idea [message] to express, the proper medium is language. Visual art is concerned with feeling." The point of aesthetic pleasure is to produce feelings. As e.e. cummings wrote, " Since feelings are first . . ." And I believe it was Goethe was said, "Better to think than to do, better to feel than to think, but best of all is to just look."

As stated earlier, Adams wanted to convey through the print what he saw and felt at the time he took the photograph.  The photograph is a means of expressing emotion to the viewer.  It is a visual language dealing with the aesthetic.  When people have ideas to communicate to each other, we speak.  When we have an aesthetic to share, we create music.  Art is the visual equivalent of music.  Adams has mentioned this analogy several times in his writings.[13]  Smith has stated that his early work is simple in composition, similar to the melodic music of Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and others, but his later work is much more complex.  These new photographs are analogous to the compositions of Bartók and other contemporary classical composers, which use dense, often interwoven melodies and harmonies.[14]  Aesthetics are deeply rooted in the hearts of mankind.  Art was used to express the world around us before written language came about (fig. 11). 

           The discussion in modernist work is intended to be internal, as a reflection of the viewer’s own emotional reactions to the print.  The discussion in post-modernist work is to be voiced externally.  Daniel Joseph Martinez boasts of a discussion he overheard in a Laundromat about his piece Quality of Life (fig. 12).  He states his art is not successful until ordinary viewers have argued the meaning and validity of his work.[15]

           The third claim made by post-modern critics is that art must be socially responsible.  To make their argument, they point to Weston’s peppers and nudes (fig. 13, 14) and state that they did nothing to address the Depression of the 1930’s.[16]  When asked if this was a valid argument on the part of post-modernism, Smith had this to say:

Smith: The question is what is socially responsible. One's answer has to do with the nature of man and human functioning. I cannot think of one social change that was done by a social system or a political party that has made life better and deeper. We have had a lot of social changes through political means in the 20th century--the most notable one being communism. It made life far worse, not better. If there is to be social change, it can only happen one individual at a time, not by a political agenda. If Weston's peppers and nudes made someone more aware of and more sensitive to the world around them, then those so touched will (hopefully) live deeper lives. Those they come into contact with will, through that contact, live deeper and truer lives. If everyone led deeper and truer lives (and what that means exactly is too long to explain here), then social change would be a function of those lives and not anything imposed by someone else.

       Those who want social change by the government are the worst kinds of fascists, whether they are from the right or the left.

       William Blake wrote, “He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars.  General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, & flatterer”.

Davis: So one could argue that modernism addresses the aesthetic needs of society, then?

Smith: Yes. And the aesthetic needs are a very deep and important thing. And ultimately engender more useful, rather than destructive, social change. Aesthetic needs must be very deep. Why else would the largest buildings in many communities be museums?

Davis: This could explain the popularity of artists such as Thomas Kinkaide.

Smith: But his work is not very deep. It is not beautiful; it is merely pretty. Art is expression contained within a form. If the expression is not deep the work is not deep. "Pretty" is not deep. Also, Kinkade's art is not modernist--he is concerned with the prettiness of what is pictured, not with the picture itself. How could anyone concerned with the integrity of the picture itself allow anyone else to change a color to go with their living room? 

The integrity of the picture itself: Cezanne story.  It has been said that if you took a small piece out of a painting by Renoir you would have a hole, but if you took a small piece out of a painting by Cezanne you would have nothing at all. In this context, a story about Cezanne is perhaps instructive. He was painting the portrait of the art dealer, Ambrose Vollard. After 117 sittings, Vollard said to Cezanne, "Cezanne, I hate to disturb you, but on the back of my wrist there are a few spots where the bare canvas shows through. Did you forget those?”  Cezanne replied, "I did not forget, but I don't know what to put there, and if I should put the wrong thing I would have to start all over again." (The finished painting has bare canvas spots on the back of the wrist.)  That's integrity of the picture itself!              All of the Post Modernists have a political agenda. (Hearken back to the Herbert Read quote to see how off base they are as artists.)

Davis: In regards to the same argument in the political sphere, does the fact that Adams convinced Congress to make several National Parks by the beauty of his work negate the post-modern argument?[17]

Smith: Art can be used that way, but the question of whether it is made for the sake of the picture or for the sake of an agenda is really the determining factor regarding whether it is a modernist work or not.

           It should be noted that Adams did not photograph for the sake of environmental activism, but did use his position as Board Member of the Sierra Club to travel to Washington to lobby, through his photographs, for the preservation of National Parks.  As stated earlier, his artistic intent was to show what he saw and felt.  What this demonstrates, however, is that modernism can achieve social responsibility on the post-modernist’s terms, if necessary.

           Modernism itself deals with the need in society for aesthetics.  Post-modern art has sacrificed aesthetics the same way they have sacrificed craft.  The message is more important than the print itself.  Where modernism differs is its treatment of the print’s aesthetics as the key to the emotional response.  The stronger the composition and aesthetic considerations in the print, the stronger the emotional response of the viewer will be. 

           Post-modernism expects art to create change on a large scale through bringing issues to the public awareness.  One example is Martinez’s piece Museum Tags: Second Movement (fig. 15). In this piece, museum patrons, who were predominantly white, were required to put on tags as they entered the museum.  When they lined up in the proper order, the tags read, “I can’t ever imagine wanting to be white”.  Martinez feels it necessary to make inflammatory statements to raise social issues, which he feels need a broad, and immediate social change.  Modernism attempts, conversely, to change the perspective of the individual by making them aware of the world around them that they were previously blind to.  While superficially modernism may only seem to be “pretty” pictures, the attempt to reach the emotional level of the viewer in such a deep manner is hardly superficial at all.  It is at this level, I feel, that we change our biases.

           To summarize, modernism came as a response to the “painterly” photographs of Victorian era pictorialism.  As the shift from subject-laden images to “photograph as subject” occurred, modernism became the dominant force in photographic art.  A new effort to expand the viewer’s awareness of the world around him by showing new perspective on the seemingly mundane occurred.  The rejection of this formal style and a rebirth of interest in subject heavy photography brought post-modernism to the forefront.  Modernism was cast aside as an elitist, irresponsible methodology.  Claims were made that photographic purity is unattainable, art must be a discussion, and art must be socially responsible.  I argue, however, that modernism is relevant today because concern for purity was only concern for using the medium at its core essence.  The discussion in art is a personal one for the viewer as it relates to their emotional response to the photograph, which is of primary concern to modernism.  And finally, social change is best accomplished through the individual by raising their awareness of the world through the aesthetic needs that make us who we are.

 

 

Bibliography

Adams, Ansel. Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs. New York Graphic

Society/Little, Brown and Co. Boston, MA. 1983.

Alinder, James.  “Ansel Adams, American Artist.”  Ansel Adams: Classic Images.

Ed. James Alinder and John Szarkowski.  Boston: Little, Brown and Co.  1985.

Barber, Karen. “Joy Before the Object: Expressions of Modernism from

UCR/CMP Collections”.  absolutearts.com. California Museum of

Photography. Nov. 5, 2004.

http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2001/01/25/27992.html

 

Bratnober, John.  “A Visual Journey.”  Michael A. Smith: A Visual Journey.  Ed.

Michael A. Smith. Revere, PA: Lodima Press 1992.

Eisinger, Joel.  Trace and Transformation.  Albequerque, NM: University of New

Mexico Press.  1995.

Emerson, Peter Henry. Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art. 1889.

Reprint, New York: Arno Press.  1973.

Fulton, Marianne, ed. Pictorialism into Modernism.  New York: Rizzoli.  1996.

Gernsheim, Helmut and Alison Gernsheim.  L. J. M. Daguerre.  New York: Dover

Publications.  1968.

Hight, Ealeanor M.  Picturing Modernism: Moholy-Nagy and Photography in

Weimar Germany. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  1995.

Horan, James D.  Timothy o’Sullivan: America’s Forgotten Photographer.  New

York: Bonanza Books.  1966.

Smith, Michael A.  AOL Instant Messager™ interview.  Oct. 31, 2004.

Stange, Maren, ed.  Paul Strand: Essays On His Life and Work.  New York:

Aperature.  N.D.

Stebbins, Theodore E., Jr., Karen Quinn and Leslie Furth.  Edward Weston:

Photography and Modernism.  Boston: Bulfinch Press/ Little, Brown and

Co.  1999.

Weintraub, Linda.  In The Making.  New York: Distributed Art Publishers, Inc.

N.D.

Weston, Edward. The Daybooks of Edward Weston. 2 vols.  Ed. Nancy Newhall.

Millerton, NY: Aperture. 1973.