Recently, I have been looking at pictures made by The Masters and I must admit that much of their work is not that great today. When these photographs were made, the reference was probably studio portraits and when someone suddenly took a photograph of a man in the street or another every day motif, it became great photography because it was new. This was back in the early 20th century but who are The Masters today and where can I find their work? Yes, I know that you are The Masters and that your work can be found here at 1x :-) But seriously, who are the world famous photographers of today?

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Ozymandias
Percy Bysshe Shelley

hm, masters for me are people like paolo pellegrin (magnum) or remo rufer (magnum) :D
i think one of the most famous photographer of today is Andreas Gursky or Martin Parr, Meyrowitz, James Nachtwey....

One of my great favorites :-)

Meyerowitz is so 1980's.

I couldn't find you on Magnum, Remo, must be something wrong with the website :-) James Nachtweys images are absolutely from a master. So strong and so important. Thanks for the names.

yes they always have problem with their website! :D

oh i did forget sebastiao salgado, or i love matt stuart's humour (www.in-public.com).

I don't think there are any famous photographers. Not properly famous. They are famous among other photographers but that's not really fame.

Sorry to be a bit thick but who are "The Masters" you refer to?

Erwin Olaf, Marcel van der Lugt, Jill Greenberg, Jim Fiscus.

Well, I'm not too knowledged about this but Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Diane Arbus, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier Breson to name a few.

Jan Saudek

Isn't the phrase The Masters referring to: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/

A photographer I admire is Stephan Vanfleteren.
http://www.stephanvanfleteren.com

Roland, without those Masters, photography today would not be the same.

You may like to think that their images are not so great, but to me often they are still unsurpassed.

Anyhow, I guess one of the most successful today is Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Wherever I go I find some of his photos displayed or books for sale on display.

http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/v2/yab_us.htm

I'm not a big fan of YAB, I think his talent somehow lies more in marketing than in photography...

Someone whose work and philosophy I deeply admire and who hasn't been cited here yet is Galen Rowell. He's a real mountaineer, and it shows!

Have to agree with Alexandre about Galen Rowel. His book "Mountain light' kick started my interest in photography, particularly as it gave some insights into his thinking about the photos.

Thanks all for your sugestions. I have been looking at all of them and some I like and some not.


I fully agree. I guess they are masters because they dared to chalenge the photographic standards of their time. I was just curious about who are challenging the the photographic standards of today.

Look at Weegee look at O Winston Link just two names but both pioneers & thats the key word they were pioneers & thus masters in their own field. Like I don't think comes into it because its a judgment of course you are entitled to your preferences but can I suggest you suspend judgment & consider what they had in terms of equipment & then appreciate their art from that perspective & admire their tenacity their belief their doggedness their sense of adventure. Compare how relatively easy it is today & consider the obstacles that they had to hurdle. I admire these pioneers & am in awe of their achievements. It was these people that inspired me.

The King is dead long live the King!

One of my favourite masters is Arthur Leipzig with his NY pictures - saw an exhibition end of last year in our town Aachen - very fascinating !
See here :
http://www.arthur-leipzig.de/index_eng.html

i still look at cartier bresson (amazing sence for composition) rene burri, leonard freed or werner bischof as great masters! i really love this documentary street photography they made. also avedon made great portraits. ansel adams is not my taste but for sure he was technically great.

Bruce Testones. He's the Master of masters

Yes and an inspiration to many! :)
I have met at least one of his pupils: a friend of mine who was a pro fashion photographer. He once told me that he was more interested in all those models than photography! He eventually married one of them and quit photography! A true story!

Franco Fontana, anyone?
OK, not quite an emerging one, I know, and yet a truly innovative photographer.

Some who I regard as Modern Masters.

Cindy Sherman.

Bill Henson.

Starn Twins.

Shirin Neshat.

Rosemary Laing.

And Nan Goldin. has been a huge influence on thousands of budding photographers. One of the giants of the late 20th century.

I think a lot of the Modern Masters are hard at work in countries like China, Iran, India, Indonesia etc etc. They are using the media to effect change to their society and we have not had the privilege yet to see their work.

As much as I love the work here and much I see from the Western World, so much of it is tired and somewhat decadent. Landscapes, street photography, architectural, flowers.... all very nice and some stunning work to see here and elsewhere but we have seen it all before and our aim isn't to push boundaries or change the world, we do it because we enjoy it.

Photographers on this site such as King and Mark Kitaoka, who I hold in high regard, are the past, photographers like Daria are the future.

Digital is the next stage of photography and those that embrace it and explore its potentials are the future. Film will no doubt have a role to play for many years to come but it won't be central to the future of photography. Digital is the egalatarian evolution of our chosen medium.

As much as I loathe camera phones, there will be more images captured on such devices that will change the world than there will be caught on film and on cameras such as the D3. The revolution will be televised and it will be caught on a camera phone.

True Jeremy

Fully agree, Jeremy !
Nevertheless, new ways of photography can be seen here :
http://seen.by/photography
A community where a good part are students of photography that are publishing.
Unusual views, very interresting !

But I just bought (another) view camera! Past, indeed. Wanna arm wrestle? [But Daria's work is wonderful, isn't it?]

Fully agree, Jeremy !
Nevertheless, new ways of photography can be seen here :
http://seen.by/photography
A community where a good part are students of photography that are publishing.
Unusual views, very interresting !

An interesting site. I have bookmarked it and will have a closer look at it later, I have a few street pictures to make first.

I always respect every opinion but mine one is that if you find those masters works 'not that great today' perhaps you are underestimating them. I used to think so similar until I started to study photography very seriously. Both Ansel Adams or Edward Weston works were never my cup of tea -in fact they are far from being considered as my favorites- but I clearly remember how amazed I got when I first saw a couple of pictures of them hanging on a gallery wall. I suggest you to take a look at original copies of those masters instead of looking tiny scanned versions in both books and online exhibitions, maybe you would change your mind.

Tastes are continuously changing and it's clearly noticeable that we don't talk, think or act the way our grand parents did. Photography is not different from that but regardless the tendencies, those masters from the past would be great today if they remained active, even greater since they would have access to technology they even didn't dream of. Talent is an universal timeless value. Just to mention one, Cartier Bresson pieces are great and they will always be

PS. Nobody mentioned Crewdson yet. I think he is one of the greatest nowadays.

Jeremy - I may be asking a question that ends up starting another long debate and in no way whatsoever should what I'm about to say be taken as an insult to Daria because I absolutely love her work and she knows it - but should Daria's work be viewed as being closer to that of a painting as opposed to photography. Clearly, her work has wonderful messages and her ideas and concepts are very well expressed in her pictures - but is that because she has the skills to manipulate and "draw" those ideas onto a photo? Are you, perhaps, comparing apples and oranges? BTW - I haven't personally formulated an answer to my question, it's just when you posted your comment I started to ask myself that question.

It sure is. A rising star, no doubt about that.

I use Daria, King (yourself) and Mark's work as examples of two important facets of photography.

Imagination and Observation.

King and Daria are two very good examples of the use of Imagination in photography. The image exists in their head, using the tools available they create something from their imagination. Be it analogue in the case of King, subject, sets, lights, camera and darkroom work or for Daria, subject, sets, lights, camera and Photoshop, the genius lies not in the techniques employed but in the use of their imagination to see the image before it exists on film or a computer screen.

For myself, that is what makes a great photographer, Imagination. I think how the image is created, analogue or digital, is irrelevant.

King represents the past, a giant amongst us, who is a master technician with the tools of our trade. Daria represents the future. Two sides of the same coin. Their real skill is not in their mastery of their tools but in their Imagination.

Having given some more thought to the idea of what Mark represents, the Observation facet of photography, Mark represents the past as well as to an extent the future of photography. As an approach it will always be with us and will always play an important part, not just to photographers but in its wider role in society. But, perhaps the glory days of how it changed the world are gone. The impact that Brady, Riss, Bresson, Lange and Arbus etc had upon the world would be hard to repeat. With Flickr, camera phones and Facebook we have become blase towards the power of the image, we are all photographers and we can all record history.

To be honest I find it hard to see the real impact that digital has upon the Observational facet of photography. It will obviously not go away, most photography is based upon the idea of observe and shoot, but I think that power it had has gone.

In many ways me too.

When discussing art, it is the question and not the answer that is important.

King expresses approval by clapping with one hand.

That opinion is actually quite laughable (no offense intended). Take any number of crafts, for example, the art of Japanese sword making. You see those swords in the museum and say, "Those were great in their time, but they're not that great today." But try to make one.

Or, as Dorothy Parker wrote of Hemingway, "...Hemingway stands a genius because Hemingway has an unerring sense of selection. He discards details with a magnificent lavishness; he keeps his words to their short path. His is, as any reader knows, a dangerous influence. The simple thing he does looks so easy to do. But look at the boys who try to do it."

The things I learned from another master over 40 years ago are relevant today and translate easily to digital photography.
-Craftsmanship is relevant
-Knowledge is relevant
-Experience is relevant
-Pre-visualization is relevant
-Simple is good

The masters are called that not because they stumbled upon a scene with an auto-focus, image-stabilized, automatic white-balance digital machine but because they were sometimes intrepid, courageous, brilliant, hard-working and visionary artists who knew what they wanted and set about to make it happen. Then made it happen again and again and again.

I'm thinking of light sabers, of course--digital light sabers.

I agree wholeheartedly with all the above!

I agree with all what you say. I know that the old masters were/are great, visionary, skilled artists and I know that many of their pictures are great even today and will probably be great in the future as well but, come on, you can't say that all their pictures are masterpieces. Some are but not all. The following, for instance, are they great photographic art?

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/evans/evans_city_lunch_counter_full.html
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/callahan/callahan_lake_michigan_full.html
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/F/fenton/fenton_cloud_full.html

You will probably say they are and yell at me for being such a fool. But anyway, that was actually not the question to start with, the question was who are the masters of today and I have got many names I will take a closer look at. Thank you all.

Of course one can't. Nor do one or a few relatively weak photos invalidate their status as masters. I don't think much of the Harry Callahan photo you provide the link to, but Harry Callahan taught many photographers how to see what was in plain sight around them and to appreciate beauty in a broader scope.

I'm not going to yell at you Roland. :>)
I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, yet you express yourself very well.
It is a good thing to for one's ideas.

Thank you King, I'm flattered :-), English is not my first language.

Here are some links to a few personal contemporary favorites:

http://www.tomchambersphoto.com/
http://www.maggietaylor.com/
http://www.julieblackmon.com/
http://www.lorettalux.de/
http://www.lovisaringborg.se/
http://www.cynthiagreig.com/
http://www.ritabernstein.com/
http://www.ericpercher.com/
http://andyfreebergphotoart.com/

All time faves
http://www.keithcarterphotographs.com/
http://www.photoinsider.com/pages/michals/michals.html
http://www.arnorafaelminkkinen.org/
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/mann_sally.html

Beautiful and timeless

I think all the artists I listed above go deep and narrow- instead of wide and broad and that is the point IMO

So monogamists rather than polygamists - Angela, I think you just created a new criteria to be a Master - hehe :-))

please explain? :)

just a joke

deep and narrow = monogamy, devoted relationship - one at a time

wide and broad = polygamy, wide ranging relationship - more than one at a time

to be a Master must be monogamist

ok - maybe it was just a bad joke!!

oh! duh!
I get it!
need to go deeper! :)))))))))))))))))

There are loads of talent among them. I didn't know Julie Blackmon and I find her work just great

Thanks for sharing that

II am sure that if Ernst Haas and Cartier Bresson or submitted in ONEXPOSURE with fictitious name would be rejected, hehehehe

I doubt it.

Wow, this will take me a while to look through. Thank you for sharing.

The photographer I admire the most: http://ghetie.ro/ .

Having run my own photo gallery project on a website I manage, I have discovered some wonderful contemporary photographers.

A few of my favourites include:

Mitch Dobrowner
Thomas Michael Alleman
Hiroshi Watanabe
William Lesch
Rodney Smith
Roger Ballen
Alexey Titarenko
Aaron Ruell
Boogie
Matt Stuart
David Maisel
Erdal Kinaci
Brett Walker
Josef Hoflehner
Lydia Panas
Ami Vitale
Erik Refner
Tom Stoddart

I totally agree with Jill Greenberg too, she is amazing.

Love Roger Ballen and Brett Walker, looks great!

I must admit I have very few knowledge in photography. My photo "culture" (hmmm..) comes more from picking things here an here. Now if I am asked to mention specific photographers there will be 2 names that would pop up immediately : André Kertesz and Michael Kenna (I am afraid I'm a little out-of-date...)

I find it amusing... and predictable that NOBODY names themselves as master of there own style.
Why does everyone else look to someone else as a master that they whorship and attempt to emulate.

I look at the *masters*... the people at whom so many would grovel and drool at their feet like they are some kind of God.
But they are people... just like us.
I consider myself not a master... but a man who is comfortable and satisfied with MY work in that I dont seek constantly to emulate or approach the quality of these "masters".
People are always quoting this master and that master. And yes I am continually learning. I am learning to become comfortable and satisfied with my own style and approach to a VERY subjective process.

I suppose if people want to whorship other ordinary poeople as Gods whom we would NEVER question... there is nothing I can do to stop them.

I consider a master.. as someone who has mastered a technique and style... and I start looking, NOT where everyone else does... but at the 16 year old down the street who has an astonishing vision... who may not be technically perfect.
I look at the elderly man who retired and picked up a camera for the first time in his life ... whose vision is equally fascinating.

These are people who are true masters... because they dont care about knowing the gods... quoting them... they dont care... they have their own unique and fascinating vision.... and I know this becuase they are the people I seek out... to learn from.