On The Release Of Sebastiao Salgado's "Genesis" As A Book

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sischy's article is not a hatchet job: it's a serious and perceptive critique, written in 1991, in which her main thesis is that Salgdo was trying to formulate an "educational vehicle or calls to action" but that "this kind of endeavor requires an El Greco or a Goya" and that though Salgado is "treated as such a visionary regrettably he isn't."

 

The hatchet job is your dismissing her critique in a couple of one-liners. Though one may not agree with her, the article deserves serious discussion to contradict, not one-liners. It's certainly worthwhile to read and think about rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

 

—Mitch/Paris

 

I dismissed it for the reasons stated in my previous post. Reasons, not one-liners. Her review exemplifies how easy it is to tear someone down. The "thesis": he's not as good as El Greco or Goya because ... he uses symbols and emotions, and chooses strong subjects, and he has publicity, and people talk too highly of him. That sort of cheap criticism could be directed at many great artists, and it's not a bit instructive as to what Salgado should have done differently.

Edited June 2, 2013 by zlatkob

[Guest malland]

zlatkob, yes, you're merely repeating the one-liners of of your other post, which does not constitute discussion. Sischy is not engaging in "cheap criticism": she has a extended, tight reasoned, preceptive and well-sritten critique of his work, which is interesting to think about in the light of his work since 1991, and in this respect not much has changed. The key word is to think rather than to trash. [The link to Sischy's review in the New Yorker in in post #23 on page 2 of this thread.]

 

It seems to me that it's interesting to contrast Salgado's work to that of James Nachtwey, in that Nachtwey is also a "concerned photographer", and Alex Webb, chosen almost at random as I was looking at his latest book this afternoon. My feeling is that Salgado's work will not pass the test of time as well as the work of the latter two photographers, for the reasons that Sischy writes about, including the sentimentalism and the beauty of the pictures that work as packaged pathos, which is certainly not how Nachtwey pictures, or those of Webb, for that matter, work.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

You can keep repeating your praise of her review, and I can keep repeating how terribly flawed it is. But it's hard to have a serious discussion, or any discussion, when everything you write is put forth as "serious discussion" while everything that I write is dismissed as "one-liners" and "trashing".

 

Her criticism is downright silly:

 

"Still, it's tricky to unravel what is meretricious about his work, because it's all so uncompromisingly serious." So, it should be less serious? Less serious is better, right?

 

"But often there is something else in his compositions: beauty." So, beauty is bad?

 

"But beauty as a formula — and this is what it has become for Salgado — is as much of a cliche as what he's trying to avoid, and as artificial as any other blanket approach." So, he just applies some blanket beauty formula to make his photos? Oh goodness, it's that easy?

 

"A photographer can't lose with heart-wrenching subject matter like the situation in the Sahel ...." Wow, what a slacker, picking strong subjects for instant attention and praise. It's so easy!

 

"Beauty is a call to admiration, not to action." Simply wrong. Beauty has been a part of religious imagery for ages, and has inspired much action as well as admiration.

 

If one takes this critique seriously, the lesson is: be sure to make ugly photos of uninteresting subjects, while avoiding beauty, good composition and symbolism. Then, when the ugly photos have been completed, avoid promoting them. And finally, don't let anyone speak highly about your work, because that somehow counts as a negative. She even criticized the fact that the exhibit listed his awards! Yikes, what an error for a curator!

[Guest malland]

You're right, zlatkob, it's impossible to have a discussion in the sense that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and all you're doing is being sarcastic about quotes that you lift out of the context of the reasoned argument made by Sischy. But, some of the quotes you've put up for ridicule, like "But beauty as a formula — and this is what it has become for Salgado — is as much of a cliche as what he's trying to avoid, and as artificial as any other blanket approac" still allow someone who hasn't read the article to sense that there is something serious and interesting to think about with respect to Salgado's photography.

 

Readers of this thread may also recognize that there are some issues to be considered, rather than simply dismissed by ridicule, in that the New Yorker article I linked, as indicated in post 23, is to be found on the website of a photography course that considers issues faced by "concerned photographers", and which is the context for the Sischy artcile on that site.

 

I remember some years ago I attended a photo salon in Washington in which photographers brought work for critique. One young woman brought some 8x12 B&W prints of genocide in Rwanda: as I remember, these well-composed prints with good tonality showed people walking among dead bodies. The striking thing was that that the prints had a rough black border from the filed out negative carrier of the photographer's enlarger. As you may imagine the genocidal content of the photos did not work well with the filed out border of the enlarger frame. When someone pointed out that this type of border worked to aestheticize the dead bodies in the picture, the photographer did not seem to have a clue that she was being criticizes for in effect putting "curlicues" around images of murder and death. Maybe she would have done well to have taken a course in which the Sischy article was part of the reading material on this issue of concerned photographers possibly aestheticizing poverty and death.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[pico]

[...]Snip a remarkable article... [...] I remember some years ago I attended a photo salon in Washington in which photographers brought work for critique. One young woman brought some 8x12 B&W prints of genocide in Rwanda: as I remember, these well-composed prints with good tonality showed people walking among dead bodies. The striking thing was that that the prints had a rough black border from the filed out negative carrier of the photographer's enlarger. As you may imagine the genocidal content of the photos did not work well with the filed out border of the enlarger frame. [..,]

 

This is most disturbing to me.

 

When someone pointed out that this type of border worked to aestheticize the dead bodies in the picture, the photographer did not seem to have a clue that she was being criticizes for in effect putting "curlicues" around images of murder and death. Maybe she would have done well to have taken a course in which the Sischy article was part of the reading material on this issue of concerned photographers possibly aestheticizing poverty and death.

 

A most perfect example in which a detached academic sought to discourage evidence of reality by applying an entirely irrelevant scholarly metric to real photography, evidence of life as it is.

[Guest malland]

No discouragement was involved: the pictures had been taken but to show no additional effort would have been involved to print them without a fancy border that only served to trivialize, and aestheticize, the grim content.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You're right, zlatkob, it's impossible to have a discussion in the sense that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and all you're doing is being sarcastic about quotes that you lift out of the context of the reasoned argument made by Sischy.

 

I've used sarcasm to ask serious questions while poking fun at the poor reasoning in her review.

 

If "serious" is a criticism of his photography, how would being less "serious" make it better?

 

If "beauty" is a criticism of his photography, how would less beauty make it better? What is her evidence that Salgado uses "beauty as a formula" or as a "blanket approach", and what is that formula by the way?

 

If good composition and symbolism are criticisms of his work, how would his work be better if he avoided them? How would his work improve if the compositions were less powerful and less eloquent? Should his work be more poorly-crafted? Should he studiously avoid photographing symbols that exist in the world?

 

If "heart-wrenching subject matter" means a photographer "can't lose", is it a deficiency for a photographer to choose such subject matter? Should a photographer seek out un-compelling subjects? Perhaps be less observant and less discriminating?

 

What is her evidence that "Beauty is a call to admiration, not to action"? There is evidence to the contrary everywhere (commercial art, religious art).

 

If a "promotional tone" is a criticism of his work, what tone would make it better? If listing his awards is a criticism of the exhibit, how would not listing them be better? If receiving high praise is a criticism of his work, should artists try to avoid praise?

 

This is criticism that tears down anything positive by redefining it as a negative. It's sort of like criticizing a fantastic automobile for having too much "excellent engineering" or criticizing a cook for relying too much on "fresh ingredients". To withstand such criticism, an outstanding photographer ("concerned" or otherwise) would somehow have to do everything worse — be less skilled, less outstanding, make worse compositions, choose duller subjects, be more sloppy when editing, receive less recognition, etc.

Edited June 3, 2013 by zlatkob

[zlatkob]

My feeling is that Salgado's work will not pass the test of time as well as the work of the latter two photographers, for the reasons that Sischy writes about, including the sentimentalism and the beauty of the pictures that work as packaged pathos, which is certainly not how Nachtwey pictures, or those of Webb, for that matter, work.

 

The striking thing was that that the prints had a rough black border from the filed out negative carrier of the photographer's enlarger. As you may imagine the genocidal content of the photos did not work well with the filed out border of the enlarger frame. When someone pointed out that this type of border worked to aestheticize the dead bodies in the picture, the photographer did not seem to have a clue that she was being criticizes for in effect putting "curlicues" around images of murder and death.

 

I believe Nachtwey's huge 460 page masterwork, Inferno, is full of photos of such subjects — with a black border from a filed-out negative carrier. Example 1. Example 2.

[Guest malland]

Not the same thing: the border in question was filed out in such a way that it wasn't a simple black border like Nachtwey's which just frames the picture: it was a fancifully filed out one that created a decoration on the inner edge, to which someone referred as a curlicue.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[IkarusJohn]

Mitch,

 

I'm not sure that you are really taking on Zlatkob's criticism of the article.

 

Sischy puts the boot in reasonably early in her article, with her observation that the attention Salgado was getting at that time as being "exaggerated", and the Kuwaiti firefighter images being stagy without providing a narrative if what happened to Kuwait's landscape in the Gulf War. Hmmm ... The impression I get is that Sischy was selective in the Kuwait pictures she chose to base her criticism on.

 

To say that it was the promotional tone which stood out of the exhibition also grates, as it suggested an elitism common in the art world - by all means put yourself on show as an artist, but don't be too successful, and certainly don't be commercial about it. Calling his biography an after dinner speech, rather than educational is offhand and dismissive. It all reads like sour grapes for some reason, and it's hard to fathom why.

 

For example, on the second page, she observes that Salgado aspires to a group called concerned photographers, formed by Cornell Capa, but then she seems to suggest conceit on Salgado's part in thinking that his pictures might change perceptions - she calls them heavy-handed oversimplifications.

 

Similarly, her next criticism that his subjects are weighty and the evoke strong emotions, yet somehow is wrong in using his skill to produce powerful images.

 

Sischy sets the standard high when she says:

 

Meaningful photojournalism today requires an apetite for challenge, a belief in the power of the medium, and an internal alarm system against stereotyping.

 

But oddly, she then goes on to criticise the pictures for being so serious and beautiful, and for being focused on the composition of his photographs. The problem with the review is that Sischy seems more intent on Salgado's method that on the images themselves. To say beauty is a call to admiration, not to action looks like sophistry to me.

 

Don't get me wrong - there may well be some truth in much of the criticism, but its delivery I do not see as "tight" or "well reasoned". It looks more like a hatchet job to me.

 

After all the degradation of his images and his purpose, Sischy comments;

 

The photographs that have made Salgado's reputation also have punch, but it comes from the pathos of the lives of his subjects.

 

Well, if his images have the pompous (and undeserved) aim of changing our perceptions and drawing powerful attention to the plight of their subjects, shouldn't they be about the pathos of those in the images?

 

The article reminded me of one simple fact - it is way easier to be cynical and dismissive, particularly for a critic, than it is to be objective and informative. Being snide, and finishing the article with cheap references to postcards and greeting cards pretty much summed up Ms Sischy.

 

I don't feel informed by the article - I dismissed it, for the reasons outlined above.

 

Cheers

John

[Guest malland]

...Don't get me wrong - there may well be some truth in much of the criticism, but its delivery I do not see as "tight" or "well reasoned". It looks more like a hatchet job to me...

John, as you say, "there may well be some truth in much of the criticism" by Sischy there is a possibility that we agree on a small kernel or even a larger chunk of truth here. However, considering that the article was written almost 22 years ago, it certainly has had no effect on Salgado's popularity despite the force of the criticism or its polemic aspects, which you call a "hatchet job". However, Sischy's deepest criticism is of the sentimentality of much of the work which, together with the way it's publicized, has the effect of negating the truth that should be there by eliciting reactions that become mechanical. Sischy finds much of the work meretricious and, in this sense, strongly criticizes the whole approach. If this is what one is trying to say about a very popular photographer, in my view, it is necessary to criticize strongly to get the point of view across and one also would have to, as Sischy does, discuss the nature of the popular reaction to the work, which to me is not a hatchet job. Nevertheless, she does say some positive things for which she says Salgado should be praised. In any case, the link for the article is there for anyone interested to read; and I can understand that people who love the work are going to hate the article, but it will make some readers think anyway.

 

I saw the "An Uncertain Grace" exhibition at the Corcoran Gallery around the time the Sischy article was published, although I did not read it then, and was very impressed by the quality of the B&W prints. These pictures, together with Don McCullin's book of dark Somerset landscapes ("Open Skies") are what originally made me interested in B&W photography. But, as photographers, I prefer James Nachtwey and Alex Webb, as mentioned earlier.

 

Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Mitch,

 

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[zlatkob]

However, Sischy's deepest criticism is of the sentimentality of much of the work ...]

 

It's deep criticism only if the critic can't tell the difference between this:

http://www.ipsaa.it/espdid/edpace01/terra/mostra/08.jpg

and this:

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/70200_gallery/style_wedding.jpg

[Guest malland]

zlatkop, I guess a teenager's response to your statement would be, "whatever". Mine is, "I don't have a clue what you're going on about, although it's seems to be meant as some sort of putdown."

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[zlatkob]

My point is that "sentimentality" is a terribly weak criticism of Salgado's work. His work often shows a sober, cheerless reality. Just compare Salgado's drab and joyless version of a wedding photo with a sentimental wedding photo used in a recent advertisement. Both photos happen to feature two people, an automobile, flowers and some landscape. If Sischy's deepest criticism is of the "sentimentality of much of the work" (as you claim) then her notion of sentimentality must be so very broad that it fails to distinguish between these two photos. I don't know how else she could dump Salgado's work in the "sentimental" bin.

[Guest malland]

Now that strikes me as completely off the point, considering that Sischy is discussing sentimentality in the context of the type of work that Salgago does, not of a saccharine wedding picture from a schlock advertisement. Indeed, she defines clearly and at length what she means by the sentimentality often present in Salgado's work.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Edited June 5, 2013 by malland

[zlatkob]

Now that strikes me as completely off the point, considering that Sischy is discussing sentimentality in the context of the type of work that Salgago does, not of a saccharine wedding picture from a schlock advertisement. Indeed, she defines clearly and at length what she means by the sentimentality often present in Salgado's work

 

As far as I could find, the "sentimentalism" only appears in the last paragraph. She does not define it at all, unless you are referring to her frequent focus on "beauty" in his work. In that case, her critique utterly confuses beauty with sentimentalism. Her notion of "beauty" is an aesthetic quality that makes an image striking or poetic even when the subject is not beautiful. Yes, that kind of beauty is present in his work, but sentimentalism is not. Certainly not sentimentalism in the saccharine greeting-card sense.

 

The complaint about "beauty" is that Salgado is far too good at composition, and that this somehow diminishes is photographs. She is saying, quite clearly, that his subjects deserve less beautiful photographs — that photos lacking in beauty would somehow be "truly appropriate" (see the last paragraph). Complaining that a photographer is too good at his art, and that his subjects deserve less, strikes me as terribly unfair criticism. Good luck to any photographer who follows that thesis.

Edited June 5, 2013 by zlatkob

[Peter H]

............... Complaining that a photographer is too good at his art, and that his subjects deserve less, strikes me as terribly unfair criticism. Good luck to any photographer who follows that thesis.

 

But she's not saying that. She's saying they deserve better, not worse.

 

You may not agree with her, but she's making a legitimate point, that the impact of some photographs can be shifted away from the subject matter by, and to, the aesthetics. This is undoubtedly true. Whether it applies in the case of Salgado is a matter of personal opinion, but it is not a "terribly unfair" point of view, and I think you have misrepresented it.

[Guest malland]

Yes, Peter, that is the point. What Sischy states, specifically, is the following:

Salgado is too busy with the compositional aspects of his pictures - and with finding the "grace" and "beauty" in the twisted forms of his anguished subjects. And this beautification of tragedy results in pictures that ultimately reinforce our passivity toward the experience they reveal. To aestheticize tragedy is the fastest way to anaesthetise the feelings of those who are witnessing it. Beauty is a call to admiration, not to action.

As you say, one may agree or disagree — and if one does a web search one sees that there has over the years been a long discussion of the anesthetisation of tragedy and its effects on the viewer, with people taking widely different views. And Salgado is not the only photographer who's been the subject of such discussion.

 

As you've stated earlier, Sischy's criticism is very strong and she has been attacked for it in this respect, as I found when I did a web search this afternoon.

 

Mitch/Bangkok

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[azzo]

''Salgado is too busy with the compositional aspects of his pictures - and with finding the "grace" and "beauty" in the twisted forms of his anguished subjects.''

 

 

Too busy?! ... and with finding, grace and beauty ...

 

So, what exactly is wrong with that, if I may ask?