For this chapter Soutter tackles the deadpan and banal image and how they have become involved in post modernism. She starts by concentrating on the deadpan image and by printing them large so they overwhelm the viewer and have a similar effect to the genre of history painting.

She also charts the changing interpretation of objectivity, of how it went from modernism with using realism to promote beauty and form to produce an idealistic interpretation to post modernism where objectivity has become a more personal manifestation and incorporates ambiguity. Indeed it’s like having objectivity with a subjective twist and subjectivity coming before objectivity. As she goes on to claim:

Thus in the context of American photography, objectivity refers to a styleless style that may – or may not – allow aspects of subjective vision (P34)

She then moves on to discuss the Bechers and how they reinterpreted objectivity through using a deadpan style. When they were photographing their series of water towers they were shot in the same lighting conditions – overcast and grey – from the middle distance and at eye level. By using this technique they were able to create a topology of form, but also with a perceived minimum of subjectivity. She raises the point that even though the images are shot with an intentional lack of subjectivity and rely on objectivity, Soutter also asserts that the images would be of little or no use to builders or architects wanting to recreate the water towers and so limits their objectivity. This I think is a good point because it then points towards the function of the series and shows what the intention is.

However there is another point that Soutter makes, which for me, is at the heart of the problem for the deadpan image. At the end of the section on the Becher’s she asserts:

The absence of a consensus about how best to appreciate deadpan photography has not hindered its dominance. For many young photographers, particularly on BA and MA courses in the 2000s, the set of variables modelled by Dusseldorf photographers appears to be a foolproof formula; simply choose a subject (preferably something that comes in many variations) and shoot a taxonomy using a uniform composition and immaculate technique. Instant art! (P42)

The deadpan has become so dominant, especially in portraiture, that it is becoming predictable and boring. I do not feel that there is anything creative about photographing someone staring into space and then printing the image large enough to dwarf the viewer. Even I could do it, and I am nowhere near being a good portrait photographer. It is lazy art.

The other aesthetic Soutter touched on, and goes well with the deadpan technique, is banality. This is the bland repetition of a series of photographs that can be used to produce a sense of the ordinary and mundane that could be reflected in everyday life or experiences.

Again, I can see the logic and how it I attached to deadpan styles, but I do also see it as being boring and uninspiring. The conclusion that I am left with for these two styles, is that they are elitist, as they require an understanding to be able to interpret them. Consequently, because of the elitism, they are elevated to the genre of art photography and they also fulfil another function which is the academic gaze.

However, even though I do not personally like deadpan or banality, I can see how they have influenced the development of photography. Both are firmly entrenched within the art world and both styles form important aspects of post modernism. It is just unfortunate that the style has been used so much that I now find them cliché and uninspiring.