More photography has been created for the gallery walls in the last decade than any other period of the medium's history. And the most prominent, and probably the most frequently used, style has been that of the deadpan aesthetic: a cool, detatched and keenly sharp type of photography. Here the reader is at the mercy of the leveling out that occurs when photographs are reproduced in a book. The monumental scale and breathtaking visual clarity that predominate when one experiences the photographic print need to be kept in mind. But what can still be seen in a glance if one looks through the images in this chapter is the seeming emotional detachment and command an the part of the photographers. The adoption of the deadpan aesthetic moves art photography outside of the hyperbolic, sentimental and subjective. These pictures may engage us with emotive subjects, but our sense of what the photographer's emotions might be is not the obvious guide to understanding the meaning of the images. The emphasis, then, is on photography as a way of mapping the extent of the forces, invisible from a single human standpoint, that govern the man-made and the natural world. Deadpan photography may be highly specific in its description of its subjects, but its seeming neutrality and tonality of vision is of epic proportions.
Oxford Tire Pile #8 Westley, California, 1999
Edward Burtynsky's photography is a prime example of what Cotton describes as the "deadpan" aesthetic.
From his artitst's statement-
Nature transformed through industry is a predominant theme in my work. I set course to intersect with a contemporary view of the great ages of man; from stone, to minerals, oil, transportation, silicon, and so on. To make these ideas visible I search for subjects that are rich in detail and scale yet open in their meaning. Recycling yards, mine tailings, quarries and refineries are all places that are outside of our normal experience, yet we partake of their output on a daily basis.
These images are meant as metaphors to the dilemma of our modern existence; they search for a dialogue between attraction and repulsion, seduction and fear. We are drawn by desire - a chance at good living, yet we are consciously or unconsciously aware that the world is suffering for our success. Our dependence on nature to provide the materials for our consumption and our concern for the health of our planet sets us into an uneasy contradiction. For me, these images function as reflecting pools of our times.
Shipbreaking #5, Chittagong, Bangladesh, 2000
Shipbreaking #12 Chittagong, Bangladesh 2000
Shipbreaking #21 Chittagong, Bangladesh 2000
Shipbreaking #1 Chittagong, Bangladesh 2000
Deda Chicken Processing Plant, Dehui City, Jilin Province, 2005
Questions on Burtynsky's work-
1. After reading Burtynsky's statement and seeing some photographs, how do you think his work fits into Cotton's definition of the "deadpan" aesthetic?
2. How would you compare Burtynsky's work to a more traditonal landscape phtotographer, like Ansel Adams?
3. How do you think Burtynsky's photographs create, as he says, a "dialogue between attraction and repulsion, seduction and fear."
10 comments:
It's interesting to compare Burtynsky to Ansel Adams because I think their styles are so different. Adams took landscape photos to showcase nature and its beauty, and Burtynsky is taking these images to show a landscape that is not very beautiful and overrun by man. The photographs that Adams took resemble white landscape paintings. They feel and look like art while Burtynsky's do not. One thing that I think is similar in their work is that everything in the images is sharp and in focus so that no details are left out. It seems as though both men wanted you to get every single possible piece of information and detail out of the photographs as possible. They wanted you to see what they saw.
Moving along, Cotton said that "deadpan photography has a great capacity for capturing the wonder of the man-made world in an elegiac manner" and this holds very true for Burtynsky's images(Cotton 93). When referring to Burtynsky's photos, it is almost as if there is a feeling of mourning for the world and what is becoming of it. We are slowly destroying our earth and we realise this, yet nothing is being done about it. Burtynsky is simply capturing images of shipbreaking yards, dumps, factories, etc., and while he does not explicitly give any reasons behind the photographs we still feel all of these emotions and concerns when viewing them. Burtynsky mentions that "we partake of their output on a daily basis", yet we never see the activities going on behind-the-scenes so to speak that bring us necessities that we feel we need in today's society. The sad part is that we most likely would not give up these items that we feel we need, myself included, that are contributing to the deterioration of earth.
These images are emotional, but you wouldn't think they should be. They deal with subjects that we would otherwise find boring, but because Burtynsky has captured the images and activities we now have the opportunity to think about them more deeply. When I look at the state of the land in the photos of the shipbreaking yard it makes me sad to see the state of things. The land is so desolate and in ruin, and it is so because of the large machines taking up the vast majority of focus in the pictures. I don't even know what they do, but I can't help but have a feeling is dislike towards them.
This brings up another point about attraction and replusion. Personally I am drawn to the images because I do not understand the subjects in them. There are these big pieces of metal and machines, and I do not know how they work or exactly even what they do despite the titles of the images. After that initial attraction to the unknown I find myself repulsed by that which I do know, and that is the state of the land. In Shipbreaking #1 the colours and composition are so nice, but it seems as though you are in this wasteland. It's interesting how that all works together.
And finally, this is not so much an intelligent comment, but the last photograph makes me not want to eat chicken for some reason.
Well, after reading the text about Burtynsky and viewing some of his works, I agree with Holly on that Burtynsky's works have well fitted into Cotton's "Deadpan" aesthetic. The key words here are recording of "Man-made world" and the emotion it creates independent of the artists. Of all these pictures, none of them depict the pure nature of the world. Everything is made possible by mankind. And it does create many feelings (rather the scene itself than the artist)
These subjects presented in the pictures are created by us (for example, the ship breaking, waste yard, factories...) as oppose to the nature. We are familiar with them especially with the high-tech society we are living in today. Just think about the chemical waste and pollution we are contributing to the nature everyday. However, one can say he or she has only created a very small deterioration to the world. That is when such pictures come in place and function as an objective report to us on how mankinds have changed the nature dramatically. There is no need to discover the feeling of artists, the images speak for themselves. And most likely, many viewers become sad and concern.
When I look at these pictures, I feel very disappointed yet sad. For me, I wish these things that I see in the photograph do not exist. I am repulsed by these pictures, nevertheless, no matter what feelings or emotions ones may have, the truth is the truth and we cannot deny it. Again, we've come back to the core definition of "Deadpan": "a completely expressionless face"(from dictionary)
i have to disagree with holly when she mentions that "The photographs that Adams took resemble white landscape paintings. They feel and look like art while Burtynsky's do not." Burtynsky's photos are art, they are of the not so beautiful, but there are many many occurances of art where it does not have to be beautiful, and it certainly doesnt have to be what you expect. Art contstantly questions our expectations of things. it has a way of changing what we see to be asthetically pleasing or changing beautiful things to appauling. When i look at these photos i at first saw them as very beautiful. as i looked closer i realized what they were and still regardless of their subject ( the dingyness, grime, and statement he is making) i still find them attractive. Also going along with what holly said, and of our society in general ( not that i dissagree, i often feel this way as well) but it seems there is a very negative view of technology and robotics in our society. We see them as cold unloving objects and thus something that shouldnt be admired. It appears this artist feels the same. However, in countries like Japan, where technology is the forefront of their culture, and they see robots as "friendly helpers." There, machines are depicted differently,Robotic pets originated there and were sucessful. a man's best friend is his dog or his cyborg puppy. Whereas here, the push for that sort of toy failed miserably. With the chicken factory we can look at it two ways. one, is we are a terrible people for exploiting the earth's resources and this animal, or we can look at it as a way of providing for the hungry, the factory is a care giver, sending its nourishment around the world.
i think the pictures are extremly well composed, through the use not only of color, and subject matter, but also repitition. in all of the photos the subjects are repititious and that strengthens the work.
Burtynsky’s statement and seeing his photographs I think it fits very well in the definition of deadpan. Just by looking at the pictures it shows and tells me how the pictures feel hollow and no emotion. Very interesting pictures it is like life is beginning or ending. It brings another question how would I compare Burtynsky’s work to a more traditional landscape photographer, like Ansel adams. Well I think that Burtynsky’s pictures are meaningful in my opinion. In others I think he is telling us something about the environment. By showing pictures it is more stronger than saying it (seeing is believing). Burtynsky’s pictures show a lot of lifeless, motionless, survival, dead, dull, and etc. When it comes to Ansel Adams, his pictures are more alive, energetic, breathing, active, full of life and free. This is the way I would compare by looking at the picture and say how I feel about it and think about it. Last but not least question how do I think Burtynsky’s photgraphs. Well it brings me to attraction and repulsion. The reason is because the pictures have a good depth of field, objects, colors, and composition. Its like it takes me in the environment where the picture was taking that what makes it attractive. And for repulsive I hope the world won’t end up like deadpan, or lifeless. Life is so precious we don’t want it go to waste.
These images are very intriguing because they deal with the process that takes place once something is "dead" or used. The discarded piles of tires, the ship and the chicken have all served in one capacity and are now moving to another phase as disassembled parts. This is a constant theme through the photographs. I do agree with Holly in the way that the sharp focus is used to emphasize the details. In a way the photographs are loaded with emotion, but I wouldn't necessarily say sad emotion. The pieces of ship scrap metal will probably be recycled to make something else. The discarded tires can also be recycled to make mulch or playground equipment. Similarly, the chickens will become food for others. When I saw the images, I felt a sense of the cycle of life and rebirth.
This photographs I personally find more repulsion and create a sense of fear than seduction. Fear being the most important because all this photographs as has been said before are man-made. We as human beings are destroying little by little our own ecosystem that sooner or later we are going exhaust our resources. Burtybsky photographs the worst of our society and displays it with such normality. Overall the photographs are in focus and display the most important points of the scene.
I'm definitely loving what Edward Burtynsky is doing with his photgraphs. The tire heap, the broken ship, the factory; all these images are a part of human life and can arguably be connected to anyone.
Many times mankind likes to separate himself from the rest of nature. Unlike animals, the way we adapt is to change our environment. The photographs of the tire heap and the ship however present these objects as if they were a part of the environment just as equally as rocks and dirt. Mankind is not so much different from animals. As great as the ship may have been, now it is broken and soon it will fade away into the landscape.
The pictures are emotionless. People in them are just going about their daily lives. Where some might see this and say we are destroying the world, I see that even for all the advancements we have made, the power of nature is still over us. We are a part of the landscape and earth, just as much as any other animal.
1. After reading Burtynsky's statement and seeing some photographs, how do you think his work fits into Cotton's definition of the "deadpan" aesthetic?
It fits in how the view in every photo is so vast. So much space and material and emotions in a single photograph. It really expands your view. Rather than capturing a single moment in time, it shows years and years of deterioration in the earth and history.
2. How would you compare Burtynsky's work to a more traditonal landscape phtotographer, like Ansel Adams?
Ansel Adams work shows him trying to preserve and portray the beauty of nature, while Edward's work seems to show us destroying it. They are almost like before and after shots!
3. How do you think Burtynsky's photographs create, as he says, a "dialogue between attraction and repulsion, seduction and fear."
His photographs show how powerful and wonderful and beautiful nature is and can be, but also shows what we humans are capable of in destroying every bit of that beauty and power.
Burtynsky's style of photography has a really impacting feeling and meaning behind it. These images convey a sense of destruction and ruin to me. Burtynsky's realization of what the world is heading towards and situations such as the ones shown in his photographs are what he wants to portray to the world possibly as a sign of warning. His shipbreaking series really push the idea of a wasteland like world which can invoke all sorts of emotions in people. You can't help but be drawn towards the subjects of the images, but at the same time it may not be something you want to see as a reality, the concept of the attaction and repulsion.
I love Ansel Adams' work! I do not think Edward Burtynsky work is similar to Adams because their work and style and focus point are so different. Adams search more deeper in landscape.He is also a black and white photographer. When I look at Adams photographs I am moved by them. The texture, lighting, contrast and the who piece is so moving. I study every corner of piece that Adams taken. Now as far as Burtynsky's work. I think his form of landscape is a little different. It not nature. It more agruicultral. I guess the similarity in both of the artist is that they want you to picture the photograph from where they were at and what they saw along the way.
Post a Comment