Topography & Typology

Topography traditionally refers to the arrangements and details of a particular area, usually involving contours and maps. Typology could be called 'a study of types' and/or the categorisation of certian objects tha share similar charectistics. Needless to say, typology is a term that can be found across a broad spectrum of disciplines, such as archaeology, psychology and the social sciences (basically, any study where the grouping of subjects/objects based on shared criteria can be beneficial to the understanding of the group as a whole).

In photography, typology is exploited visually, in that artists and photographers practising the craft create images of the same 'type' of 'thing' many times, resulting in a methodical grid of images showing all of the things in that particular group. This is a concept that more than satisfies both my curiosity in the development of photography and the terrains it seeks to explore, and also my obsessive nature; the almost masculine need to 'collect', 'arrange' and 'pull things together'.

Historically, this style of photography was started as a reaction against expressions of more traditional notions of beauty, such as landscapes of natural scenes. It was the work of Hilla and Bernd Becher, and what became known as the Dusseldorf School, that started the 'trend' of photographing 'things' completely objectively, without "opinion, without comment or personality" (1). They carried-out photographic studies of water towers, mining sites and coal bunkers among other things, using large 8x10" format cameras, always from the same vantage point and distance from subject. One of their main works can be viewed below:

Spherical Gas Tanks, 1993

The Bechers are known for influencing many other photographers, such as Ed Ruscha, Stephen Shore and Lewis Baltz, each of which completed photographic studies of everyday commercial and industrial centres, from shops to petrol stations. What strikes me (and also intrigues me) about this type of work is it's banality. Of course, the whole point is to strip the subject of all personality, thus rendering it an 'object' rather than a 'subject', but my major reservation with this practice is that it seems anyone can do it. Or more to the point: it fails to impress me because I feel I am more than capable of producing work in a similar vein. I think this opinion is based more on stylistics than the practice employed in the creation of the images themselves, but I suppose the separation of the dancer from the dance is intrinsic to objectivity on offer in the work itself. To demonstrate what I mean here, below are two images form Louis Baltz.

Construction detail, East Wall, Xerox, 1821 Dyer Road, Santa Ana, from The new Industrial Parks near Irvine, California. (©Lewis Baltz/Courtesy of Steidl).

There is something going on stylistically here. It is more than just a typically industrial scene for me. Something more is going-on. There's a geometry to it, which I identify as immediately appealing based upon what I know of composition. The bricks suggests something is in the process of being built. The paint on the walls gives a very, well, 'painterly' effect. Its almost a mixed media piece, but because we know the medium to be photography, we know it is not: it is a mockery or a skit upon mixed media. And this is without mentioning the half-opened door, which adds a narrative to the picture.

‘Mission Viejo’, 1968, Gelatin silver print, The Art Institute of Chicago, Gift of Lewis Baltz, 1972.219, © Lewis Baltz.

The above shot impresses me. This one, I feel, is pushing the conceptual to the point of the ridiculous. My opinion.

What I have done above is express an opinion of a work that sets out to be objective. I'm not sure whether it attempts to transcend the subjective in this way, but the idea itself leaves me feeling a little uneasy. After all, everything that initially sets it's stall out as 'art' immediately inhabits a realm where everything exudes its own sense of affectation. 

1) Professional Photographer, 18th January 2011