Having read O’Hagan’s Guardian article I have decided to focus on the work of Stephen Shore in Uncommon Places for the simple reason is that this is the work mentioned that I have in my library. It has actually been sitting in the pile of books in my study waiting to be looked at that never seems to get any smaller! This exercise gives me the perfect excuse – encouragement – to look at it in more detail.
The first thing that strikes me about it, and which I immediately find appealing, it that although there is an over-arching typology to the collected work – views of ordinary but as a result overlooked, hence “uncommon” places – there are a number of sub-categories within it, for example: motels, inside and out; street intersections; shops and shop windows; downtown, business areas; automobiles everywhere; portraits. This gives the work an openness and a freedom to the viewer to construct and collect their own sets from within the whole. Much as, for example, I admire the work of the Bechers, I find it can get a little overwhelming sometimes looking at examples of the same type of structure over and over again. In Shore’s work there is more relief, more fluidity, and as a result a greater richness through variety. It is also interesting to note, and make fresh, juxtapositions between different sub-sets of subjects and yet still see how they fit into the overarching typology.
The Lewis Baltz interview I also found interesting as it chimes with some of the thoughts I have already had for myself about typological approaches. A few things he says particularly caught my attention. He concentrates on looking at and recording the “overlooked”, very much what Shore has done. In my response to Exercise 2.2 exploring a road I settled on precisely this sort of approach, concentrating mostly on the overlooked road hardware, overlooked often for the simple reason we are standing on it! (https://markrobinsonocalandscape.photo.blog/2019/11/28/exercise-2-2-explore-a-road-2-photos/)
Interest in the pictures comes from something in the work with which to engage. I think it is precisely the depiction of, the drawing attention to, the overlooked that does this. There is so much in our environments that we take for granted and do not notice, that is in fact worth some attention. The very fact this stuff is ubiquitous but unseen is itself interesting enough to make the exercise of making and looking at typologies worth it.
Waltz’s concern is not beauty and art is interesting to think about rather than look at. This is I suppose just a different way of saying the point above. A picture of one water-tower is not in itself that interesting, but a collection of numerous of them is definitely something that gets you thinking, and looking more attentively. I would though not necessarily rule out entirely the role of, or simply room for, beauty within a typology. Some of Shore’s work, for example, has a beauty of its own that stands scrutiny when looked at alone and outside the context of the book as a whole. Though I dare say it myself, some of the individuals in my road exercise are not without some aesthetic attraction.
Looking back over some of my own work for this degree course, right from the early days of EYV, I am surprised to see how often some sort of typological approach has made an appearance.
Now I come to think about the issue it seems to me typologies are everywhere and infinitely flexible but themselves easy to overlook unless presented in the sort of rigorous, almost scientific way the Bechers used. Is this in a sense the result of the primacy of the photo-book? Putting together a themed collection and assemblage of work is I think almost inevitably going to result in the generation of some typologies, even if they are more or less loose. Just looking across the bookshelves in my study there are a significant number that indulge to an extent in creating typologies, some more than others. A few examples, in no particular order: Mitch Epstein, Guidi Guidi, Ute and Werner Mahler, Alys Thomlinson, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Ragnar Axelsson, Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen, Martin Parr, Vanessa Winship. If nothing else this suggests that the typological approaches offer rich veins of material for exploration and experimentation.
Lastly, as if to confirm my last point, while working on this I came across the work of Antoine D’Agatas on the Magnum website, and which coincidentally links back to Donovan Wylie’s work at the Maze. Thesis an interesting example of how a number of typologies, working together, can help to bring out in greater detail and richness a portrait of a place, in this case Belfast, that is not simply geographical or topological, but also social and historical.
Axelsson,R, (2019). Faces of the North. Reykjavik: Qerndu
Guidi, G, (2019). In Sardegna: 1974, 2011. London: MACK
Guidi, G, (2019). In Veneto, 1984-89. London: MACK
Guidi, G, (2018). Per Strada. London: MACK
Konttinen, S-L, (1989). Step by Step. Newcastle upon Tyne: Bloodaxe Books
Parr, M, (2013). The Non-Conformists. New York: Aperture
Mahler, U, & Mahler, W, 2018. Kleinstadt. Stuttgart: Hartmann Books
Shore, S, (2014). Uncommon Places. London: Thames & Hudson
Sugimoto, H, (2019). Seascapes. Bologna: Damiani Editore
Tomlinson, A, (2019). Ex-Voto. London: GOST Books
Winship, V, (2018). And Time Folds. London: MACK
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/lewis-baltz-5373/lewis-baltz-industrial-suburban-landscape
Mark Robinson's OCA Landscape, Place & Environment Blog 