Assignment 4 finalised

I have finally strengthened my essay in response to Simon’s comments. In particular I’ve added some detail to explain what I see as the natural relationship between the various series that make up much of Hatakeyama’s work, added some further discussion on how it relates to the New Topographics concept and some illustrations to show the relationships to Friedrich’s sublime.

I have previously addressed the level to which he can be considered influential in a post on this blog, and in a separate resource page which covers a range of references over and above those cited in the essay.

Naoya Hatakeyama Resources

Given the level of effort I put into researching Hatakeyama, his work, influences and influence, I thought I would compile the website links into a single page  for the benefit of anyone else interested in his work.

I don’t think I realised quite how big this post was going to be. As a result I’ve moved it to a permanent page – see tabs above – to avoid it becoming too dominant among all the posts associated with Assignment 4.

The sublime

Probably a bit late in the course to start thinking about the sublime, but my interest was piqued by the research I’ve done on Hatakeyama, and by chapter 6 of Martin Andrews’ Landscape and Western Art. I’ve added Burke’s Philosophical Enquiry to my Kindle for a later day.

My rather genteel piece of rural Cumbria is generally lacking in the sublime as covered by Burke – it does not, as a rule convey “power, obscurity, privation, vastness, infinity difficulty and magnificence.” (Andrews p134) although I am sure there are view in the Lake District itself which, even in this day and age, can convey many of these ideas. Central to this view of the sublime is the idea that we are unable to control the forces in play, coupled with the sense that in the face of this lack of control and the power present, we are still not in mortal danger. Like these perhaps - from Dettifoss in northern Iceland which I visited in 2009:

 

These three seem to me reminiscent of Phillipe de Loutherbourg’s Avalanche, which Andrews discusses in some depth. What they lack is the “horrified” onlookers. I can testify that this was a pretty dramatic spectacle, but as can be seen from these shots there were plenty of people willing to get very close. Personally I think the middle shot is the most “sublime” as the viewpoint is clearly quite close to the edge, and the irregular nature of the rocks and fractures they contain add to the sense of raw power. The mist also adds a sense of the unknown to the height of the falls which is lost in the first image, and to my mind less apparent in the third.

Another aspect of the sublime is loneliness – a sense of isolation in the face of immense force – and again Iceland comes to the rescue – this time Skogafoss.

This lacks the overwhelming loneliness we find in Friedrich’s “Monk by the Sea” but I think the inclusion of the small figure adds something other than just scale. They are alone against the power of nature – we sense their apparent risk from the comfort of our armchairs.

To be honest I’m not quite sure where this post is going, except that it’s helping me crystallise some thought about improvements to my Assignment 4 essay in response to my tutors comments and some subsequent research which has a bearing on the content.

Assignment 4 feedback – Influence?

As well as the expected feedback on the content of my essay, Simon has raised the point that I have not fully addressed anywhere whether Hatakeyama actually meets the criteria for “influential”. I have had a good chat with Simon and exchanged a couple of e-mails. Thankfully, he is not saying that Hatakeyama doesn’t meet the criteria, just that I have not – yet - explained why I think he does. The following is a synthesis of the additional research I have carried out since I received my feedback, addressing both Simon’s point and the points raised by Eileen in her comment and is a significant re-edit of my original post.
A first question ought perhaps to be “What do we mean by influential?” Simon suggested: “Something or someone that has an effect on the character, behaviour and or development of something or someone.” and this feels about right to me, although at least some dictionaries would insert the word ‘great’ before effect. Not sure I agree with that as it is possible, as I understand it, to have degrees of influence, so I’m sticking with my tutors proposed definition for the moment.
At a very shallow level it could simply mean “producing lots of imitators” – if lots of people on Flickr, in magazines or at camera club exhibitions produce shots in an artists style. This seems wrong on a number of levels. For starters I think it would exclude Fay Godwin, and it would almost certainly rank the influence of say Robert Adams below landscapers such as Cornish or Waite who have a rather more popular style. At the risk of appearing rather judgemental I would suggest that “popular” and “influential” are not the same in this context – a photographer does not need to be popular to be influential. Hatakeyama clearly has a particular challenge in the sense that Japanese photographers have a relatively low profile in the West, however, in this context I have identified a number of photographers and photography students who claimed to be inspired or influenced by aspects of Hatakeyama’s work: for example Olaf Otto Becker, Thom Hudson, Emilia Scmidt, Ieva Gelezinyte and Rosie Squires. He is also described as “..the inspiration of a kindred spirit..” by Heidi Straube who describes herself as a photographer (she appears to have some reputation) and contemplative psychotherapist.
I would expect this to become more obvious as time progresses as I have found a number of examples of tertiary education resources which reference his works: e.g. this course from the UCA, or his participation in the visiting artists programme at California College of the Arts – which in their words provides “ invaluable personal contact with some of the most talented and influential artists currently working in the medium.” His name also crops up in material for the 17-18 age range in e.g. this Canadian grade 9-12 material (pdf) or this UK AS level photography curriculum (.doc file)
This leads to a second measure of influence - effectively an appeal to authority – do established experts and critics value aspects of the artists work? For Hatakeyama this is a resounding yes. In the catalogue of An Incomplete World, Art Gallery of New South Wales 2007 he is described as having achieved “…international acclaim as one of several influential contemporary Japanese photographers whose work — particularly over the past decade — has redefined a style of documentary narrative, and revealed aspects of everyday experience to be simultaneously mundane and extra-ordinary, culturally specific yet able to strike a universal chord.”
He is clearly considered significant in art photography circles – appearing in collections and exhibiting across the world – including the V&A in London. He has been identified by the Art Museum of Tokyo as one of 38 photographers chosen to represent Japanese photography in their collection; he has been included in exhibitions of “influential” Japanese photography at, for example Studio Equis, which has an aim to bring Japanese photography to the attention of the west; and, he has been accorded a retrospective at SFMoMA – no mean feat in itself. He is also referenced in a number of books and academic texts on photography, appears in debates and discussions with luminaries such as Charlotte Cotton and Chris Wainwright, has won a number of prestigious photography prizes in his native Japan, and has been shortlisted for the Prix Pictet. Finally in this context he is frequently referred to as a leader among contemporary Japanese photographers.
The final strand of my ‘argument’ is about who is influenced. I know this is a photography degree but to restrict influence – whatever it means – simply to a measure of impact on other photographers seems very narrow. Ansel Adams was hugely influential for his technical approach to photography, but his influence extended to the field of conservation as well. In a similar vein I would suggest that being chosen as a representative of an organisation or a country is a sign of influence as well – because to achieve that you have to influence politicians or heads of organisations to see you as a role model or an exemplar. You might also influence other artists – whether photographic or in some other medium altogether.
Hatakeyama has been chosen to represent Japan at exhibitions in Paris and Vienna, and as an example of his broader influence, he was part of an award winning team lead by architect Toyo Ito designing houses to replace those lost in the Tohoku tsunami. In the linked article Ito specifically states “…it was his (Hatakeyama’s) photographs of the city taken immediately after the quake and tsunami that inspired and led us to build the Rikuzentakata "Home-for-All".” His work has also been cited as impacting the way we view cities and architecture
Other creatives also claim Hatakeyama as a favourite photographer e.g. Yuichiro Tamura or describe his work as inspirational e.g. Witold Riedel and this writer who blogs under the pseudonym Peter Proffit. The writer of EyeCurious also describes himself as a fan.
Conclusion
Few photographers are afforded the status of Adams (either) or Weston, but their are many somewhat less influential photographers who make a significant contribution to the development of photography. I believe that Hatakeyama falls into that category as a result of his existing, and growing, international standing, his status as a representative of the best of Japanese photography and his increasingly regular inclusion in major exhibitions, academic works and critical interviews and reviews. Early signs of his direct influence can be found in the work of a number of young photographers and other creatives. On this basis I feel that the final criteria for his inclusion as a suitable subject for Assignment 4 has been fully met.
And finally finally – for those who are not yet familiar with his work – here’s a short video produced around the time of his show at SF MoMA.

And the chosen photographer is…

…somewhat predictably perhaps – Naoya Hatakeyama – for a number of reasons.

• First and foremost I like his use of the sublime, it’s not something I’ve really had a chance to investigate and I think that in choosing I need to have an eye to Assignment 5.
• Next up is the rather detached, investigative approach he adopts. I’m not really a campaigner – intellectuals with big expensive cameras complaining about environmental impact always seem a little hypocritical to me – I’m more of an investigator.
• I’m intrigued by his take man–nature interactions and the way he establishes links between the things we build and the things we inevitably have to destroy in the process.
• Last, but definitely not least, the idea of investigating someone slightly less well-known appeals.

So all I need now is another 2000 words. Eeek!!

Naoya Hatakeyama: A Short Summary

Born in 1958, Naoya Hatakeyama is one of a relatively small number of Japanese photographers to make a significant impact in the West. Sample biographies, such as the one associated with the Prix Pictet, suggest that he made his mark in Europe before making much impression in the US.

In common with the other photographers on my short-list for Assignment 4 Hatakeyama has a clear interest in the interaction between humanity and its environment. Unlike Godwin/Misrach this does not seem to be based in environmental protest, although I do see some similarities with the approach of Adams – who turned a landscape tradition on its head. Some commentators have suggested that Japan does not have a tradition of the sublime – much of Hatakeyama on the other hand clearly invokes exactly that.

His early works concentrate on the extraction of limestone from quarries all over Japan – initially the excavations themselves, and subsequently the factories as well. Lime Works – published in 1996 - brings together these two strands into a single work which, without the inclusion of a single human figure manages to convey the sheer scale of the operations. Blast – close-up shots of quarrying detonations continue the invocation of the sublime.

His work divides into a number of series which, seen together as in the LA Galerie website, clearly interweave in their ideas.  In the foreword to Lime Works Hatakeyama talks of the idea of the quarries being in some senses a negative of the cities built from the excavated material, so his progression to detailed images of cities seems almost inevitable. His Ciel Tombe series, and similar shots taken in underground locations can be seen as an extension of his interest in Limestone quarrying – and excavations in general – while his Rivers series focuses on the idea of taming nature with the use of concrete. The bleak formality of this series, with its vertical panorama format and central horizon line, emphasises  the idea of nature under control. In nature limestone formations are frequently shaped and moulded by water – I’m not clear if Hatakeyama intended this but there is a strong sense of irony in the idea that we have dug the limestone out and used it to shape and mould rivers.

Assessing his legacy is more difficult. He is certainly at the forefront of Japanese photographers in terms of recognition, but in a market/art that seems to be dominated by western imagery his place is uncertain. As far as I can tell he was adopted by European galleries significantly before his first shows in America. Part of the issue, I believe is that his photography, like so much Japanese photography appears to be about “understanding” rather than “campaigning”. His works does not have the obvious eco-political leanings of Misrach and Godwin, nor the myth-debunking status of Adams. For me this is a major attraction – but for the western art world as a whole I’m not sure that’s true.

References

LA Galerie: http://www.lagalerie.de/hatakeyama.html accessed 14 March 2013

Art IT Asia: http://www.art-it.asia/u/admin_ed_feature_e/8ZSVrwuvFzis4cA3t6Cq/ accessed 14 March 2013

Lisa Sutcliffe on Naoya Hatakeyama: http://blog.sfmoma.org/2012/10/a-bird-a-blast/ accessed 14 March 2013

Lime Works: Naoya Hatakeyama: Amus Arts Press, 2002

Fay Godwin: A Short Summary

In many ways I have found this the most difficult of the four summaries I am writing. Godwin’s style is hard to define, she was not the progenitor of any major change in photographic practise and she does not seem to have spawned an army of Godwin-abees. And yet, her work is clearly held in very high regard.

Born in 1931, into a diplomatic family she did not settle into photography until she was in her late-thirties, and even then it was as a portrait photographer of writers. Following her recovery from a diagnosis of cancer in the mid ‘70s however her outlook changed. She is reported as telling the South Bank Show in 1986: “In a sense, all the natural things became incredibly important.”

Whatever the reason she threw herself into landscape photography with zeal and produced her first landscape book: “The Oldest Roads – An Exploration of the Ridgeway” in 1975. In the same year Bill Brandt selected some of her work for his exhibition “The Land” and her reputation as a landscape photographer of note was cemented. She has been represented as a “classical pictorialist” (Wells) and presumably as a Romantic, because she specifically repudiated that description as making her seem “slushy”.Indeed later in life she even repudiated the term “landscape photographer” preferring to be described as a documentary photographer.

In truth the two books I have read, Land and Forbidden Land, do show a clear shift in that direction. The first contains a range of images which in musical terms might be described as “easy listening” although without the pejorative overtones that has come to carry. She clearly had a natural sense for composition and was apparently prepared to display the patience required to catch the right light. The introduction, by Ian Jeffrey, talks of capturing the contrast between wilderness and habitation, but I see rather a contrast between old and modern – a sense of the time that has passed between, for example, the standing stones in the background and the hay bale in the foregound. I was especially struck by the thought that the sheep in one of her pictures could have been stood in exactly the same place thousands of years before.

Just a few years later however, her enviro-political leanings came to the fore in Forbidden Land – a photo essay making the case against some of the abuses of the UK landscape that she perceived – perhaps as a result of her time as Chair of the Ramblers Association. While I sympathise with large parts of its core message it seems to me to be somewhat overstated, with the images often straining to represent the message they’re being asked to carry.

And so, to conclude this short summary, her work is something of an enigma. The early works are classically attractive, and represent a detailed snap-shot of a Britain rapidly fading into memory. They seem to me almost carelessly well crafted – no showiness, just a clear empathy with the British landscape. By contrast the samples of her later work that I have seen appear to have lost their innocence and, despite her apparent sincerity, they appear to me to have been asked to perform a task which they were ill-equipped to deliver.

References
Land, Fay Godwin:
Forbidden Land, Fay Godwin
Land Matters, Liz Wells (Chap 4), Tauris 2011
Fay Godwin: Master Photographer https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/01/master-photographer-fay-godwin/ :retrieved 10 March 2013
Fay Godwin at the National Media Museum; Margaret Drabble in The Guardian; http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/08/margaret-drabble-fay-godwin :retrieved 10 March 2013

Robert Adams: A Short Summary

Adams can reasonably stake a claim to being one of the great figures in the history of photography. Born in 1937 he first attracted attention in the mid-1970s with his book The New West (1974) and, perhaps more significantly, for his place in the exhibition New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape (1975) which helped re-shape the photographic approach to American landscape in particular and landscape photography in general. He is primarily recognised for his landscape work in the American West, which he has been photographing for more than 40 years, but retrospective collections such as What Can We Believe Where?: Photographs of the American West, 1965-2005 (Yale Art Gallery) show that his imagery has a very human side to it.

Compared to the dramatic – perhaps even overblown – presentation of his namesake, Ansel Adams, Robert Adam’s photo’s are pale – sometimes even high key – slices of ordinariness. The very banality of much of their content sets them in opposition to the romanticism of much landscape photography up to the mid-70s. Adams’ (R) is concerned with an alternative view of the west – one in which the hand of man is visible everywhere and is probably not a benign presence. Compared with Misrach it is a more obvious, yet perhaps more subtle, more nuanced environmental concern that shines through – there are no grand statements here – just image after image catching the tedium of 70s/80s/90s developments and malls and casual environmental desecration. And yet, for all that, his people pictures suggest a real affection and concern for the inhabitants of theses areas: See here for example.

In the opening to “What can we believe” Adams says that he started photographing because he wanted to collect evidence of hope, but that in doing so he also found evidence to the contrary, and felt that too should be captured. This goes a long way to explaining his approach.

Adams is also a skilled write – although rather amusingly he decries his own ability in an essay on Writing in "Why People Photograph: “I remember once working through more than a hundred drafts of a four-paragraph statement for a catalog, all to find something that would just keep out of the way of the pictures.” Indeed the whole of this essay reflects quite interestingly on some of the discussions on the student forums on the subject of “Art English”. Reading the artists statements in his Wikipedia entry is a joy – if he really wrote a hundred drafts the end result was worth the effort.

It seems difficult to understate his legacy – the photographic style that emerged from the New Topographic exhibition, and which he played a huge part in shaping, is still relevant today. His quiet understated photos ask questions about truthfulness and challenge us to look past what we would like to see, to what we actually see. For that reason they will probably be less popular than images interested solely in light or aesthetics, but ultimately prove more important.

References

What Can We Believe Where?: Photographs of the American West, 1965-2005 (Yale Art Gallery)
Review of “The New West”: Ahorn Magazine: http://www.ahornmagazine.com/issue_2/review5_shea_adams/review_shea_adams.html - retrieved 05 March 2013
Writing: Cited in Thinking about Art: http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2008/02/writing-by-robe.html - retrieved 05 March 2013
Sean O’Hagan: Robert Adams: A photographer with a profound sense of place: The Guardian 16 Feb 2012: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/feb/16/robert-adams-photographer-sense-place – retrieved 05 March 2013
Robert Adams: the place we live - http://artgallery.yale.edu/adams/landing.php – retrieved 05 March 2013

Richard Misrach: A short summary

Richard Misrach was born in LA in 1949. Although he started with black and white photos  he moved to colour in the late ‘60s and is very well known for his large, richly coloured landscape work. These are generally grouped in series – the most famous of which, Desert Cantos, concentrates on man’s interaction with the world – or more specifically the South western deserts of the USA. Other series have similar themes – for example Cancer Alley is a study of the industrial complexes along the Mississippi valley. The subject matter chimes with his environmental activism. Often the impact of man is only hinted at.

Although quite political his images are financially very successful. However, some critics note a potential for accusations of sanctimony, and offer criticism of his decision to make money from his art. Underlying this is the proposal that his photos are too beautiful for the message they are intended to carry – that they undercut there own authority. A lecturer I heard recently might be tempted to sneer at them as gallery art, in much the same way as she did Burtinsky. This feels to me to be a sad mis-reading. What is the value of a message no-one hears? No one can doubt his single mindedness in some of these series, and that is probably the way they should be seen – as a series, not as single images.

In an interview with Spot magazine, Misrach admits to “an ambivalent relationship to words and photographs”, sometimes feeling that images should stand alone, and other times feeling that they need text to anchor their meaning. I suspect that this is related to the fact that many of the environmental ills he addresses are not visible in images as such – in interview about Cancer Alley for example he regularly references smells and sounds and feelings in the nose and throat. He has also worked with Kate Orff a graphic artist/designer to extend his images in Petrochemica America.

In discussions about his collection, Chronologies – which sets out his work in the order photographed, rather than in its individual series – he says that all photographs are about time., which is another angle to his work which chimes with my interests, and yet, looking at his images I’m not sure I see it. of course, they record moments – moments that are significant to him, or to the communities he is photographing – but is that the same as saying they are about time, or are they simply (merely?) recording a time. For me the two are different.

What is Misrach’s legacy? It’s probably to early to say – he is certainly not the only photographer interested in mans environmental impact, although he is certainly one of the most financially successful. His work sits in opposition to the Ansel Adams school of majestic unsullied landscape works, and for that reason I think they do not sit easily with mainstream ‘landscapers’ interested in a pretty picture, and yet they have a sometimes slightly sinister beauty of their own. The issues he raises are important to all of us – so perhaps his ultimate legacy will be evidence that it is possible to have a conscience and not need to be po-faced about it. His work rewards a look past the beauty to the message behind.

References:

Time Lightbox: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/06/01/richard-misrach/#1 – accessed 03/03/2013

Seesaw magazine: Chronologies: http://seesawmagazine.com/misrachpages/misrach_interview.html – accessed 03/03/2013

Gerry Badger: In Photographica Deserta: http://www.gerrybadger.com/in-photographica-deserta-the-desert-cantos-of-richard-misrach/ – accessed 03/03/2013

Spot: Spring 2011: http://spot.hcponline.org/pages/richard_misrach_with_peter_brown_488.asp – accessed 03/03/2013

Aperture: Petrochemica America: http://www.aperture.org/2012/09/richard-misrach-and-kate-orff-in-conversation/2/ – accessed 03/03/2013

Thinking about Assignment 4

Have received my feedback from Assignment 3 – more of which in another post – so time to start planning for Assignment 4, which requires me to write a critical review of around 2500 words on one of 5 photographers – or a different one if they meet the criteria. The criteria are that their work should be of major standing, be sufficiently accessible to research through the Net or the library and be influential.

An interesting set of criteria but what do these terms actually mean?

Major standing – presumably this means sufficiently well-known among photographers that most would have heard of them as I doubt that the average individual could name any of the suggested photographers. In fact – there was one photographer on their list who I had not heard of – in spite of many years subscriptions to various photo hobby mags, so major standing is obviously a bit flexible.

Sufficiently accessible – to my mind this requires a lot more than just plenty of shots on Google Image search. To meaningfully review a photographers work I am going to need to reference their background and hopefully produce some direct source evidence (interview transcripts, video, writing) of their intent and influences. In truth this is the easy criteria. If i can’t find sufficient material on a given photographer they’re off the list.

Influential – again this seems a bit of a vague term. Do they mean helped steer photography in a new direction (and what if the direction was ultimately a bit of a dead end)? Or inspired lots of imitators? Or somewhere in between? How influential? And how do we measure influence?

There is also another, unspoken criteria implicit in the notes, which emerges from Assignment 5, which requires me to take 12 shots in the style of my chosen photographer. So they have to interest me sufficiently to want to engage fully with that assignment as well.

Anyway – the course notes suggest five photographers:

• Ansel Adams: seems to hit all three criteria squarely on the head, but producing images in an Adams style seems something of a cliché, not least because his style is so intimately linked with a particular approach to landscape.
• Robert Adams: again hits all three listed criteria, although he is clearly less well known outside of the photo-art community than his namesake above.His photo series seem interesting and provocative – investigating Man’s connectedness with, and impact on, his environment, which is something that interests me.
• Fay Godwin: the only British photographer on the list. I’ve borrowed the two book under her name on the reading list. I feel she has elements of fukei in her work. I didn’t initially take to her work – in particular I felt that Forbidden Land was marked by naive politicising, but the more I think about the pictures (rather than the philosophy) the more I enjoy them. There is a sense of time flowing – fukei – in her images  Beyond saying it was square format B&W of rural scenes in the UK I am currently struggling to define her style, but if I can overcome that barrier there is plenty of potential material within easy reach for Assignment 5.
• Edward Weston: Unlike the others not a “pure” landscaper. I have the Aperture monograph from the reading list and I can see that much of his work was quite exploratory and radical at the time – especially in his use of landscapes and cloudscapes as semi-abstracts. I can’t help feeling however that the theme of his work was simply photography which feels a little introverted.
• Galen Rowell: “Who?”was my first question! His photos are undoubtedly beautiful in their use of light and colour, but I’m at a loss as to why he was included and not, say, Joe Cornish. His influence is seen in photo magazines all over the world with their encouragement to take long exposure, highly saturated,  strangely colour balanced landscapes. I’m not immune to evening and morning light, but it holds no special interest for me and I can’t imagine wanting to do a whole portfolio in that style.

I can’t help the observation that all bar one of these is dead. I find this a little odd – obviously not that they’re dead, but that there are no genuinely contemporary photographers in this list. I understand that it is important to engage with the history of photography – it feeds back to Joshua Reynolds point about understanding what has gone before to avoid  following the on old trail in the accidental belief that you’re going somewhere new. However, the tutors on the private forums regularly encourage us not to repeat the works of past masters – no matter how great. With this in mind I have identified another five  photographers that interest me enough to be considered for the assignment.

• Hiroshi Sugimoto: not truly a landscaper – at least in the classic sense. His seascapes use landscape photography to investigate some quite deep philosophical points about time and his presentation sometimes draws on Buddhist metaphysics, which interests me. However I have followed my thoughts on this aspect of his work through assignment 3, and I’m not sure it is wise to become to fixated at this stage. I have also struggled to find much which talks about his photographic style beyond the inevitable exhibition catalogues, which all basically say the same thing. He remains a firm favourite photographer, but I’m going to try someone else.
• Richard Misrach: On an initial reading Misrach seems, to me at least, to tread some of the same ground as Robert Adams – he is clearly concerned about the impact of man on nature. His work is more classically beautiful than Adams’, and I suspect that in some quarters it would be sneered at as “gallery photography” although he is clearly no friend of the industrial complex. He chooses to group his works in to “Cantos” which has a significance I don’t fully understand
• Naoya Hatakeyama: like Robert Adams, Hatakeyama appears interested in the interaction between man and his environment. Among other things his Lime Works series presents the idea of the cities of Japan being the positive from the negative hole in the ground left by limestone extraction. This seems to offer opportunities for investigation through the relic mines of the Lake District. there is also a good range of research material available. The only question would be his current level of influence – although, on the basis of several exhibition in high profile galleries (SFMoMA for example) and being nominated in the Prix Pictet, he is clearly being taken seriously by the photo community.
• Michael Kenna: I need to do a little more research on Kenna. He clearly has a reputation for exquisite printing technique, and is clearly quite popular/influential in the Landscape scene. My initial reaction however that his photos could be challenged in the same way as AA - that they are beautiful and sterile. His black and whites of Japan look remarkably like ink paintings – not clear if that was his intent or not at this stage. Whatever, I think they fall short of the beauty and insight of such works because they are too crafted and perfect.
• Stephen Shore: suggested by my tutor in light of my interest in road images. This has waned a bit recently as I’ve been chasing up rather more abstract concepts such as time and perspective. As a result I’ve not really followed up on this lead beyond purchasing and reading The Nature of Photographs – I don’t imagine I’m the first to be a bit surprised to find that most of the photos are not by Shore

Where is all this leading?  Well in the first instance I think I’ve narrowed my choice to one of three – Hatakeyama, Robert Adams and Misrach, with Godwin as a possible outlier. So – time for some more research.