Stephen Shore is an American photographer known for his images of banal scenes and objects, and for his pioneering use of colour in art photography. Stephan Shore was one of 10 artists involved in the New Topography exhibition. these artist worked more individually rather then in a group, where all had different types of images.

Out of these 10 artist I have decided to analyse and educate myself further on his artwork as what pulled me in was his use of colour which has a big impact on the photograph and what a photograph stands for, he uses colour to his advantage when it comes to showing a meaning or story of a photograph.

Looking at his images, they often are based in street settings, looking unplanned like he is wondering around the cities inviting us on his journey and memories from these towns. His pictures are usually based in good looking weather where there is bright blue clear sky, and the sun is sharp shining from above or the side. He picks places with shop signs and includes cars in most of his work. His street photography is like a record of time, time that is constantly changing, if today a photographer wanted to recreate his pictures in the same places as Stephen did, they would look completely different. every aspect of his photo is in some way is”temporary” like cars, the signs, lamps etc. Today the shop signs would be replaced to other ones or maybe taken down, the cars would be entirely different and new technology would be included, new buildings might be built or bus stops and all these changes would create a different landscape in a different time. what Stephen shore and others on new topography wanted,was to record that change, to acknowledge the time now in a world of constant change. This might be a reason why Stephen decides to include a lot of cars in his photographs, especially moving ones, he indicates this change, time constantly moving, people getting from one place to another, and he makes a photograph that is a record of a single moment, a moment which already passed and cant be taken back, cant be repeated and replaced.

on this website https://bensmithphoto.com/asmallvoice/tag/Stephen+Shore

1. How it differs from previous book, The Nature of Photographs.
2. Artist’s superstition over discussing the creative process
3. The importance of experimentation
4. Showing and not explaining
5. Photography as a ‘generous medium’
6. Creating the book as an ‘experience’
7. Structure vs. composition
8. Inclusion vs. exclusion
9. Mastering the discipline – 3 phases
10. Does he believe in The Muse?
11. Being attentive in the midst of life
12. Working with a performance coach
13. The influence of paintings… and Walker Evans
14. The nature (and importance) of ambition
15. Getting a solo show at The Met, aged 23
16. Sustaining drive
17. His interest in drone photography… and Instagram
18. The day he realised the 8×10 camera was for him

However the answers from Stephen shore that I wanted to focus on are:

1. Artist’s superstition over discussing the creative process
2. The importance of experimentation
3. Showing and not explaining
4. Structure vs. composition
5. Inclusion vs. exclusion
6. Does he believe in The Muse?
7. The nature (and importance) of ambition
8. Sustaining drive

the questions in pink are mainly about the photographs and how he produces them, what inspires him, keeps him going and general about his work. whereas the one in green is more about his opinions and thoughts that are not only to do with photography but can be linked to other matters for different people.

what stephen has said about experimentation is that as times change and so does his teachings and it is responsive to change, the time and place, it comes natural to change and experiment with other mediums. This links to the creative process which is…

the interviewer asked an interesting question which was “photography is good at showing but bad at explaining.” to which Stephen responded with a statement ” a picture is worth a thousand words”he then said one of his favourite pictures is a picture taken by Garry Winogrand.

he said when looking at this image , analyzing each person, hhow they are sitting, what they are doing, their relation to each other, this could take a thousand words, the longer you describe it the less simultaneity which means the words could never do what the picture is doing. by this he means a photograph would evoke o lot in a person or their feeling and their perception of the photograph but it would be difficult to write about this or find the words for it. he then talk about how in childrens books if a child was reading a story of a forest, when the image is in the book this restricts childrens imagination, the picture of a forest in the book would be different to the one a child would imagine, this means that this is what the words are capable of doing and the power they have likewise to and image/photograph. both could be used a a story writing but each challenges the viewer in a different way. a photograph will have a story to it that is up to anyone imagination, but a story will encourage imagination and create these images in ones mind.

what i liked when Stephen was talking about Structure vs. composition or Inclusion vs. exclusion is his reference of painting and photography, where he said that with painting you start of with a blank canvas and build on top of it creating in image but with photography, taking pictures its the opposite, you start off with a matter, like landscape and you then build it from there, deciding from what angle to capture it, what to capture, depending on weather, different times of year etc.

he talks about a period in the 80s, when the work wasn’t coming out how he wanted it to, he said that there were times where he would ask himself of the idea of a muse, and question himself as a photographer, but as soon as one day he picked at the camera it came natural and easy, that once he got in the head space to go out and make the photographs the pictures almost came to him. This links to finding ambition and then motivation to keep going , once he was fixed on doing something it was harder to stop and how the importance of keeping this momentum is a key for sustaining drive.

The above image is one of Stephens most popular photographs, to me it is so interesting, and the more i look at it the more detail i notice that can be talked about. this image is quite fun to analyse because of the different values certain parts have. the first thing i noticed is that Stephen Shore, like Robert Adams or other photographers within the subject of new topography, he included a tiny area of a natural background that the urban one interacts with. although this area is not the biggest in the photograph, it catches my eye as the mountains in the background oppose the urban landscape. in the urban landscape there are many repetitions of straight lines or even patterns that these lines create, the pattern is repetitive and could be said is the perfect demonstration of the man-made items, where people keep the made objects simple but functional, however this looses the natural beauty. the outline of the mountains is a perfect example of the differences between man vs nature, where the line of the mountain is unpredictable, rough and untidy, whereas everything else in the first plan is the opposite of that, the lines of objects are straight, direct and certain.

This comparison gives a great value to the photograph, and the reason why Stephen decided to be in an area which will make the mountain look secondary and be as a background to the urban landscape, said a lot about humans evolution and population. To me its like Stephen is showing how the nature and natural world is going to be forgotten or at least its on it’s way of being forgotten, with lamp posts and shop signs getting in the way of seeing this mountain, like people are the cause of this natural world destruction, but also because the mountain is distant might also link to this disappearance of nature and it being secondary, unimportant and a distant dream like there is a segregation between people and nature, where the urbanised, populated areas are specifically for humans and if one wants to make this connection with the natural world it will eventually seem harder for them to do so. This photograph was taken in 1975 and since then a lot has changed, this idea of humans being segregated from nature, back them might of only been a beginning of it. However now, people are consumed with today’s social world, hardly any see the sense of freedom nature gives, as we are born, we are pressured onto a certain lifestyle, like school and job, as well with technology not many can see how far from nature we are today. With this photograph if it was taken from where the mountain was it’s meaning would be flipped, where it may seem nature is overtaking civilisation, however because it is not and because of the times and meaning of the subject of new topographics, it is unlikely that it would stand for that meaning.

Stephen was one of a couple photographers producing coloured prints at the time, this also means he was able to give more detail that would correspond to the meaning behind the image. the bright blue sky takes up the majority of the image and a lot of detail is in the bottom 1/3 of the whole image. in that space there are cars, shop signs, traffic lights, street lights and a couple buildings. what I noticed there is a lot of repetitive colours, these being blue, red and white. this might link to the American flag, and what it stands for, these colours might be repetitive because the picture is taken in the USA. I noticed these colours firstly when looking at the top part of the image, the petrol station sign.

This is the closest item to the camera and catches ones attention because of its size as well as having a plain blue sky as it’s background. the colours correspond to the one on an American flag, however what I’ve noticed is the arrow like shapes, used to market the petrol station, however it is because it is in the middle of the top 1/3 of the whole image, it look like it is pointing to the mountains or the road which is behind the station.

In this photograph there are many hints of travel, transport, and movement. There is an elongated road stretched towards the mountains, cars traveling that direction, petrol stations for these vehicles, even little hints of the light being green, allowing the cars to travel further. The location Stephen picked definitely has a purpose and to me this is him encouraging people to explore nature, to travel to it, towards it as there is ,or there shouldn’t be anything stopping someone from doing so. In my opinion he is trying to state that in a constant changing world, with new technology, buildings, more rules and laws, we shouldn’t ignore the natural world, we should explore it. He is not taking a picture of just the natural world like Ansel Adams would, where his images would be idealised in a way, Ansel would make his way to these locations to take an image , whereas Stephen, especially with this photograph does the opposite, he makes people wonder and encourage them to travel for themselves to these locations, he shows a process to it. Because he wants to show reality, reality of people, day to day time, he is showing that it is more possible, even the photograph including just a small part of the mountain may make people wonder how it looks close up, how it looks from a different angle. Stephen gives people this sense of exploration through his photographs, makes them wonder and think, with this photograph for instance is about travel to the natural world and how distant it is, and is becoming, but through many others he challenges the viewer to really spot the hidden meaning behind it.