ASSIGNMENT 4: CRITICAL REVIEW (with revisions)

Well, I have completed my critical review and have submitted it to my tutor. I have been nervous about completing this assignment as I am not an academic person but I'm hoping that the essay is good enough. The brief was as follows:

"Write a 2000 - word (excluding any quotes) on one of the areas of landscape practise you have encountered during this course so far."

Whilst the academic side terrified me, I can understand that your opinion and argument develops the more you research something and this was certainly the case for me. But the main factor, as usual, was time and I was afraid that I would not have enough time to gain sufficient research into my chosen subject.

I have tried to keep the writing critical and to keep away from too much narration except where necessary. I have also tried to bring together what I have learned about my subject as well as other photographers during this course to create a varied argument. I have not put my full review on my blog at this stage as it has been sent as a document to my tutor but I will include the link to the essay when I post the tutor feedback.

Edit: July 27th 2014 - Here is the link to my original submission (via Dropbox) and below is my final submission with revisions:

Photography 2: Landscape

Assignment 4: Critical Review

How well do images produced through Google Street Maps conform to conventional landscapes and at what point do they become landscapes?

Amanda Kingston-Lynch

507285

Following on from my own project re-photographing Google Streetview images for my second OCA assignment, I would like to examine the work of three photographers working with Google Streetview, asking the question: is this landscape photography? In this digital age, a new type of landscape photography is being born to new photographers who are making use of this modern technology. People are creating new styles and techniques to express themselves and with the ease of a pocket camera now available as standard on most mobile phones, it is easy to see why. Jon Rafman, a photographer based in Montreal, was one of the first to use the internet and a completely new technique, in a unique and somewhat controversial way, to create this new style of photography. Alongside Rafman, we also have the work of other photographers, such as Michael Wolf and Doug Rickard. But are these new wave styles actually considered to be landscapes? And at what point so they become landscape photography?

To be able to attempt to find an answer to those questions, I intend to look at landscape photography to discover how it compares with these new ideas. Landscape is defined by the Oxford dictionary as

“ all of the visible features of an area of land often considered in terms of their aesthetic appeal” ( 2014 )

This statement itself has a very general approach. Who considers what features are aesthetically appealing? I would guess that it means the viewer. However, the initial viewer would be the photographer yet the final viewers would be the public. So wouldn't that mean it is a personal opinion? What could appeal to one person may not appeal to another. Yet we will find that the preconceived idea of a landscape photograph will normally consist of the same features, whoever we question. The ‘norm’ would be an image inclusive of hills, meadows, trees and rivers, with or without the inclusion of people, which is the formulation of the 'picturesque'. This is what history and experience of art and imaging has drilled into us. Aesthetic is a primary word here. The Liz Wells Reader defines aesthetic as “Pertaining to the senses, and, by extention, to the appreciation or criticism of beauty; or of art....{the} criteria primarily include formal conventions (composition, tonal balance, and so on) (2009). Aesthetic can mean different things to different people but it is what one can perceive to be attractive to their own eye or 'senses'.

Look at postcards for example. All postcards will effectively be an attempt to advertise places. Showing the viewer these beautiful photographs of the more visually appealing areas of the place they are advertising, drawing the viewers in to hopefully entice them to visiting the areas themselves or at least wishing they could.

In the 18th and 19th centuries when landscape photography was first being introduced, photographers would attempt to conform to these idealist landscapes that had originally been views painted by artists. Even today, photographers will conform to these ancient outlines when creating their work, as these conventions are so common that they are considered the ‘norm’. But as with anything, photography evolves. The evolution of landscape photography started with photographers such as Carlton Watkins (1829-1916) and Timothy O’Sullivan (1840-82). Both these photographers changed the way landscapes were seen. Watkins, although commissioned to document industrial work, produced images that conveyed the landscape and the industry that was within it. His work depicted the landscape as developing and industrial as opposed to aesthetically beautiful, such as his 'Trestle on Central Pacific Railroad' (1868-1870) image or his image at 'Cape Horn, Columbia River' (1867). O’Sullivan’s work was undeniably landscape but as a contrast to Watkins, O’Sullivan showed the landscape as barren and wasteland, areas that could not be inhabited, such as 'Ancient Ruins in the Canon de Chelle, New Mexico' (1873), but yet again, not the conventional images that people were used to. This brought controversy to landscape photography. Over time, technology has progressed and so have photographers. It is now considered the ‘norm’ to create images that are more controversial , as Watkins and O’Sullivan did, and to produce images that are more outlandish and unique. It's not just about the aesthetically beautiful scenery anymore, it's about adding something extra to make the images different to what has been created before. In 'Of Mice & Marlboro Men' Deborah Bright proposed that “intuition and expression were central issues, not visual style.” (1985) and personally I can understand this statement. In order to create a project, whether traditional or controversial, it was the ideas of what you want to produce mixed in with the way you choose to present it, meaning that you needed to think about the final outcome of your idea, how you would want your own personal view of your subject seen through your work. This can allow you to produce your project however you see fit. But is it actually going to be considered as landscape photography?

In 2007, Google had a unique idea to create virtual maps of a select few US cities and has since expanded the project to most accessible public roads worldwide. Jon Rafman uses this technology to create a new and controversial titled “The Nine Eyes of Google Street View” or “9-Eyes”, so named after the original cameras used by Google to create Street View. Google used nine cameras in a spherical shape, which were mounted on the roof of a specially adapted car which would then capture detail of the surroundings in still photographs. These photographs were then digitally stitched together to create a 360 degree panoramic view. 9-Eyes is the ongoing collection of hours spent by Rafman exploring this new “world” from the comfort of his computer. His photographic eye would choose the view, then he would crop/process and then screenshot the selection to make a final image.

“To a certain extent, the aesthetic considerations that form the basis of my choices in different collections vary. For example, some selections are influenced by my knowledge of photographic history and allude to older photographic styles.” (Rafman. 2009)

This shows us that Rafman is aware and familiar with the preconceptions of the norm. His images of a reindeer in the road at Rv888, Norway, 2010 and the image of the woman attempting to capture her horse could both conform to the style of aesthetically beautiful scenery and be considered landscapes. But Rafman appears to like the loneliness and the disconnection between the cameras and the subjects they catch. You cannot feel admiration or awe of the scene through the images, like a landscape photographer would try to convey. You can almost sense the curiosity and the discomfort of the subjects in the images as well as the humour of Rafman in the choice of candid shots. The reindeer is a prime example. It appears to be spooked by the car and in an attempt to run away as the camera took the image, it appears slightly off balance and at an odd angle. The project includes many views of individuals or scenes that are not what you would normally see on your average day, creating a less than natural feel to them. At first glance, I would have argued that these were not photography at all. The process of capturing the images was completely unconventional. How can you be a photographer if you didn't personally photograph your subject? Surely, you can't. This is where the controversy begins. Many critics could argue that this technique is not photography. As a viewer, we don't visualise what the artists aesthetics are, we can only judge from our own aesthetics.

I would like to compare Rafman’s work to that of other photographers using the same principle. Michael Wolf, a German born photographer now based in Hong Kong, produces work which is a lot more street based, focussing on the mishaps of people caught unawares by the Google cameras. Very similar to that of Rafman with the choice of subject and humour, but less isolated. His images feel more in the midst of the action as opposed to a bystander. Geoff Dyer made an interesting comparison in his 2012 article; “arranged in series,Wolf’s work retains something of the systematic nature of his search, while sharing Wolf’s fondness for certain things”, then “the style of 30-year-old Rafman seems far more aleatory” which is alongside my own views, that Rafman seems to completely detach subjects from the camera. He keeps the angles wide to appear to look in from the outside specifically as a viewer and not zooming in too much as this would connect with the subjects.

Another photographer working with Google Streetview is Doug Rickard, from California, who, although uses a similar technique, creates images of a far more conventional nature. In a report by Paul Moakley in 'Time Lightbox' (2012) he says; “The prevalence of Google’s imagery and technology is already permeating the aesthetic of more traditional photography”.

I have to agree here. These photographs have started a new abstract style to landscape photography, which is being duplicated by many other photographers today. Rickard has used a slightly different process to that of Rafman. He chooses to remove the tell tale Google navigational icon and create much more traditional landscape images. He will screen shot the chosen view, process it and then photograph the screenshot. Traditional style but an uncommon processing as in classic photography, the ‘photographing’ comes first. But as they are more aesthetic and the tell tale Google icons have been removed, how would we know how the images had been created? Rickard’s work can more easily be accepted as landscape photography. However, Rafman appears to want to be different. He chooses to retain the tell tale navigational icons on his images;

“For me, this frankness about how the scenes are captured enhances, rather than destroys the thrill of the present instant projected on the image” (Rafman, 2009)

Whilst I am not sure that I agree with this statement, I can appreciate it. He has created something new and reinvented photography through his own aesthetic view. He wants to be unconventional and must see these signs as a souvenir of the process he has undertaken to create them. Rafman also says (2009) “I can choose to be a landscape photographer and meditate on the multitude of visual possibilities” , so I think he just chooses whatever genre he feels and can photograph whatever he wants, it’s a personal choice.

Joan Fontcuberta’s project “Landscapes without Memory” (2005) is a collection of strikingly beautiful landscapes that would have no problem being identified as a landscape, until you learn that the images are created by data input into 3D imaging software. So not actually real landscapes at all. But i think the main factor of the debate really boils down to the image, not the process. Yet the process between photographers such as Rafman and Wolf are not that dissimilar to that of a conventional photographer. A photographer will look about to find a scene that attracts their eye and mixed with experience and technique will produce an image. That image will then be put through a stage of processing, to remove flaws or improve visual appearance. Rafman's process includes hundreds of man hours trawling pages upon pages of images and scenes to find something that attracts his eye. He will then process and screen shot to create his image. Each process will have the same outcome. A photograph.

“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer” (Ansel Adams, 1902-84)

Adams makes that important statement, photographs contain two ideas, the one the photographer is putting across and the one of the viewer is imaging himself. Rafman said (2009) “the viewer interprets the image”. The universal view on this subject is, of course it’s part of the artistic view of the photographer themselves but ultimately the viewer will decide for themselves how they will interpret the image. As unique as the eye of the photographer is another uniqueness in the eye of the viewer. No one can deny the expression of the artist the same as no one can influence the opinion of the viewers. Our view is our own but it goes back to the discussion of what aesthetic is and what it means to each person. Each individual will have their own preconceived idea of what a landscape should look like, whether it be from paintings they have seen or from literature or advertising. And the differences between each individual's influences will form the differences between each individuals opinion. Both Rafman and Rickard have had their collections shown in museums while Wolf was given an honourable mention in Daily LIfe in the 2011 World Press Photo competition. I think this solidifies the fact that each of these artists are recognised as photographers. Are they considered landscape photographers?

Is this new abstract art a new, reinvented strand of landscape photography? I would be inclined to say yes. I am looking at a landscape, however unconventional. There are certain traits that do conform to traditional landscape photography but they have a slightly modern twist, whether that twist is a terrified animal or a nav icon. If photography has evolved to incorporate the means of creating images of this style, then surely we have to evolve our minds and way of thinking to move ever so slightly away from the norm and the traditional and accept the aesthetic views of some, slightly uncommon, modern photographers. There was no written rule to state that to be considered landscape photography, all images must conform the the same scenes, techniques and processes that have been duplicated over and over again. So we should not be so easy to dismiss the unconventional. I believe that anyone can consider themselves a landscape photographer and that is fine. Rafman can believe he is a landscape photographer, street photographer maybe even a portrait photographer. If theses images are his aesthetic views on each of these genres then who are we to question it. However, as I have stated, I also believe that it is ultimately the viewers decision. Although, what may be beautiful and picturesque to one viewer may not be to another viewer so it’s the same scenario viewer to viewer as it is artist to viewer.

I don't think that there will ever be a right or wrong answer to this question. Personally, I am happy to qualify Google Street Maps images as landscape photography, but for every fan, there will always be a critic. Photography is a visual expression of the photographer and enjoyed through the expressive depiction of its viewer. Only the viewer will really decide if this style of photography is or can become landscape photography. Most new photographers will continue to conform to the age old picturesque views in their images but there will always be people who will take the risk and do something completely new. Without these new 'new wave' photographers, like Watkins, O’Sullivan and Rafman before them, the genre of landscape photography would not be able to evolve. As a photographer, this new style of photography has inspired my own work. It has encouraged me to step outside my comfort zone and to not be afraid to take risks within the landscape genre, as by working in this way, it will not only challenge myself but will also be more challenging to the viewers of my work.

Amanda Kingston-Lynch, July 2014

References:

DEBORAH BRIGHT. (1985) Of Mice and Marlboro Men. [online] available from http://www.deborahbright.net/PDF/Bright-Marlboro.pdf. [accessed 10^th July 2014]

DOUG RICKARD: Doug Rickard Bio [online] available at: http://www.dougrickard.com/bio/ [accessed 27^th July 2014]

GEOFF DYER. (2012) How Google Street View is inspiring new photography. [online] available from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/jul/14/google-street-view-new-photography?intcmp=239. [accessed 11^th July 2014]

JOAN FONTCUBERTA. (2005) Landscapes Without Memory [online] available at: http://aperture.org/shop/books/landscapes-without-memory [accessed 27^th July 2014]

JON RAFMAN. (2009) IMG MGMT: The Nine Eyes of Google Street View. [online] available from: http://artfcity.com/2009/08/12/img-mgmt-the-nine-eyes-of-google-street-view/ [accessed 10^th July 2014]

LIZ WELLS (ed): Photography, A Critical Introduction (4^th ed.), Routledge (2009) p.345.

MICHAEL WOLF: Michael Wolf Biography [online] available at: http://photomichaelwolf.com/#biography [ accessed 27^th July 2014]

OXFORD DICTIONARIES, (2014) Oxford dictionaries. [online] available from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/landscape?q=Landscape [accessed 27^th July 2014]

PAUL MOAKLEY. (2012) Street View and Beyond: Google's Influence on Photography. [online] available at: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/24/street-view-and-beyond-googles-influence-on-photography/#1 [accessed 12^th July 2014)

THE J.PAUL GETTY MUSEUM (2014) Artists: Carlton E. Watkins [online] available at: http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1989&page=8 [accessed 27^th July 2014]

THE J.PAUL GETTY MUSEUM (2014) Artists: Timothy H. O'Sullivan [online] available at: http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=46709 [accessed 27^th July 2014]

word count (including quotations): 2576

word count (without quotations): 2319