They were the only Germans in the show, maybe due to good relations between the US-American and West German art worlds.
If you looked at the German scene at that time, photography had almost no role in the art world.
Also, for everything that might be less or not familiar for non-German readers there are brief explanations, again in parentheses.
Jörg Colberg: If you were to believe what is being reported a lot, German photography can be equated with the “deadpan” style.
Today, as everybody appears to have “been there, seen that”, photography often demands more interpretation, questioning and doubting from the viewer.As I recently indicated, discussions about German photography are usually very narrowly focused on a single aesthetic (“deadpan”) and on a small group of photographers. single kontaktanzeigen Trier In order to change this a little bit, I decided to approach German photographers to talk to them about photography.Take an example: everyone would probably agree that Elliott Erwitt’s photograph of his wife, newborn daughter and cat is an “emotional” photograph.It brings emotion to the viewer, and it evokes warm feelings in us.
Axel hesse single
Even back then, when there were only few “art” photographers out there, there was a much wider range of “styles”.As for the feel of the Düsseldorf school photography I think that for me personally it is not so much about the presentation of evidence, and much of it has moved very far away from the idea of typologies.To borrow Mark Curran’s words: “I can’t tell you the truth - only what I know.” Somehow, strangely, we still imply subconsciously - willingly or not - that photographs tell us just that: a truth, or even worse: the truth.So while up until the 70s we only had to look at photographs (and the world, as to explore and appropriate it), we now really have to try hard to interpret, understand and question photographs.Erwitt’s image - don’t get me wrong here, I like Erwitt a lot!
- is just there - wrapped in a perfect aesthetic- and formal arrangement -, stating: “this is what is”.To me, it seems to create “representations”, something entirely different from photojournalism á la Henri Cartier-Bresson.Instead of delivering an image as an opinion it forces the viewer to incorporate his/her own ideas, understanding and knowledge into the reading of the photograph.Of course, that is a more unstable ground, but it has nothing to do with being cool or rigid or typifying (to understand typifying look at Karl Blossfeld’s images of plants, or August Sander’s photographs of people - but then again: “it’s the context, stupid!”, which transfers mere photographs into being a tool of characterizing or typifying) or necessarily documentary for that matter, even if it looks like it.