A Naked Emperor?

An interview with photographer Philip Jones Griffiths in the Aperture book Conversations that I read recently was entertaining and thought-provoking.  Griffiths is opinionated and eminently quotable, an old-school photojournalist launching zingers right and left:  “The art world is permeated with naked emperors.”  “By my definition ‘art photography’ fails to make the grade because it lacks content.”  “Content alone is propaganda; form alone is wallpaper.”

The latter quote brings to mind a recent discussion I had on Facebook with two other photographers.  They had opposite opinions of photographer Stephen Shore’s book Modern Instances.  One was fascinated by Shore, who is one of their favorite photographers, and the other thought his work important but complained that “Shore’s post-structuralist platitudes often sound like promo schlock.”

I chimed in: 

I am glad that I am not the only one out there who scratches his head and wonders why Shore is supposed to be so great. The book was a disappointment, except the part where he talks about hanging out at the Factory, which is more about gossip than photography. I find his work overrated, boring, unoriginal, and uninspiring.

The guy seems more like a parvenu to me, maintaining his status in the photo/artworld pantheon by connections and skillful posing as well as given the prevailing deference to authority.

The person who liked Shore responded:

Modern Instances is such an important book for me, I’ve bought it twice. Most recently, simply to get my hands on the 60-70pp in the expanded edition. And that will keep me preoccupied for the rest of the weekend.

We were being polite and civil and I wrote:

Good for you for defending your opinion of Shore. Perhaps I would feel differently if I had listened to some of his talks and so on. I guess I like work that appeals more to the heart rather than the head, as I feel Uncommon Places does. When I think about other photographers I regard as important, in the end I have a feel for what their message is: Evans, Adams, Arbus, Eggleston, etc., but I draw a blank when I think of Shore. What is his thing, what is he passionate about, what does he stand for? Not sure what to say.

He suggested the following: 

Try some of the YouTube videos. And check out his very straightforward 'The Nature of Photographs'

I watched a video of Shore commenting on a retrospective of his work at MOMA and opined:

So, yes, Shore is well spoken and articulate. But after watching I still don't understand what it is he is trying to say about the things he has photographed. He does not seem to have any special connection to them. Why this person or thing or place and not that one? The places seem arbitrary and interchangeable and unremarkable. They function as examples of his interest in ways of seeing through photography, how we perceive and represent what we see, and most other photographs also do the formal things he does in his photography. Maybe I am being difficult here, but I need something more to sustain my interest.

His response was:

On the other hand I think your original response ("parvenu", a poseur) was way too extreme.... and then you seem to take out your anger (against all theory) on this quite original and unusual book, which is a book of creative reflections and recollections. An admirably open and honest book.

The other photographer at this point joined in and provided the last comment: 

Shore's Uncommon Places constitutes an irrevocable contribution to 20th century American photography. This fact is indisputable. Modern Instances, on the other hand, reads like a literary equivalent of what used to be called easy listening programing on AM radio. "An admirably open and honest book" as you say? Perhaps, as well as self-serving with all Shore's name dropping. When you've got it flaunt it, as Mel Brooks wisely dictated. But the text also mashes up charming anecdotes with intellectual fast food for academic readers, who will scarf it all down without choking on lines like "There's a balance between formal and intuitive."

Reading this over I note that the others did not address my suggestion that Shore’s work principally deals with, to use Jones Griffiths’ distinction, form and not content, head and not heart.  They did not come up with anything out there in the real world that Shore was passionate about, anything that formed his core message.  And if they agree with me on that, do they also agree with Jones Griffiths that “form alone is wallpaper?” 

Stephen Shore – wallpaper?  Stephen Shore – art world “naked emperor?”

Those who view photography as a linear progression of new technology and techniques will reserve a place in their history books for Shore as the first art photographer to make color landscape photographs using a large-format view camera.  But those of us who value artistic accomplishments that communicate meaningful human experience might not.