Lewis Baltz: Artist Profile

Lewis Baltz’s photographs are not about beauty in the conventional sense. They are about the stark realities of the contemporary landscape, the overlooked corners, the banal architectures, the spaces in between. They are about the quiet unease of the post-industrial world, the subtle violence of urban sprawl, the creeping anonymity of late capitalism. Baltz’s work, one could argue, is a kind of forensic examination of the built environment, a meticulous cataloguing of the often-unseen structures that shape our lives. As he himself stated, “I am a describer. I describe things as accurately as I can.” It’s this commitment to description, this almost clinical detachment, that makes his work so powerful. He wasn’t interested in the picturesque, the sublime views that had defined landscape photography for so long. As he explained, “I was living in Monterey, a place where the classic photographers—the Westons, Wynn Bullock, and Ansel Adams—came for a privileged view of nature. But my daily life very rarely took me to Point Lobos or Yosemite; it took me to shopping centres and gas stations and all the other unhealthy growth that flourished beside the highway. It was a landscape that no one else had much interest in looking at.”

Born in Newport Beach, California, Baltz’s own journey through this overlooked landscape began with studies at the San Francisco Art Institute before receiving his MFA from Claremont Graduate University. His subsequent career, marked by his involvement in the seminal 1975 “New Topographics” exhibition, solidified his position as a key figure in redefining landscape photography. Alongside Robert Adams, Stephen Shore, and Bernd and Hilla Becher, Baltz presented a new vision, one that focused on the “man-altered landscape,” the often-unassuming spaces of tract housing, office parking lots, and industrial parks. As William Jenkins, the curator of the "New Topographics" exhibition, noted, the photographers shared a “stylistic anonymity,” which he linked to the detached point of view employed by Ed Ruscha.

Baltz’s influences are complex and not always immediately apparent. He admired the work of Walker Evans, particularly his documentary photographs of the American South during the Great Depression, but Baltz’s approach was fundamentally different. Evans’s images, while often stark and unadorned, possess a certain humanism, a sense of empathy for his subjects. Baltz’s photographs, on the other hand, are more detached, more focused on the structures themselves, the way they impose themselves on the landscape. He also acknowledged the influence of the New Topographics exhibition itself, a landmark show that provided a crucial context for understanding his work and that of his contemporaries. As he said, “I never saw myself as a photographer. I never liked photography very well. I never felt any allegiance to its so-called history … I made photographs because photography was the simplest, most direct way of recording something.”

His early work, particularly his series The New Industrial Parks near Irvine, California (1974), established his distinctive style. These photographs, taken in the newly developed industrial parks of Southern California, depict rows of identical warehouses, anonymous office buildings, and vast expanses of empty parking lots. They are images of a world without people, or rather, a world where human presence is reduced to a mere trace, a fleeting shadow. As he explained about this series, “I was interested in the idea of a kind of tabula rasa, a place where everything was possible, but in fact, nothing much was happening.” This sense of emptiness, this feeling of potential unfulfilled, is a recurring theme in his work. As he recalled, growing up in Southern California, “You could watch the changes taking place and it was astonishing. A new world was being born … this new homogenised American environment that was marching across the land. And it seemed no one wanted to confront this; it was invisible.”

Baltz’s photographs are not always easy to look at. They can be monotonous, even depressing. But they are also strangely compelling. They force us to confront the often-unseen realities of the world we inhabit, the structures that shape our lives, the forces that drive our society. He had a knack for finding the extraordinary in the ordinary, for revealing the hidden beauty, or perhaps the hidden ugliness, of the everyday. His minimalism, as seen in his influential photobooks like The New Industrial Parks Near Irvine, California, San Quentin Point, and Candlestick Point, possessed a stark, geometric beauty, making visible this “new homogenised America” in a way that echoed – and criticised – the soullessness of urban planning and the corporate rationale behind it.

Lewis Baltz in Jean Nouvel's Amat hotel. Image Slavica Perkovic

Lewis Baltz in Jean Nouvel's Amat hotel. Image: Slavica Perkovic

The New Industrial Parks near Irvine, California, published in 1975, quickly became a seminal work in the history of photography. It established Baltz as a leading figure in the New Topographics movement and helped to redefine the way we think about landscape photography. The book itself, with its minimalist design and its stark, unadorned images, mirrored the aesthetic of the photographs themselves.

Later in his career, particularly in the late 1980s after moving to Europe, Baltz’s work underwent a significant shift. He moved away from the modestly scaled black-and-white photographs that had defined his early work and began to produce large-scale colour prints. He was interested, he said, in representing “the generic European city.” This change in format and medium allowed him to capture the “massive hermetic spaces” of hi-tech and government research facilities in France and Japan with a new level of detail and intensity. He also became fascinated with digital technology and its uses, particularly in surveillance and control, as seen in his monumental 1992 installation Ronde de Nuit at the Pompidou Centre in Paris.

Baltz’s work fits into a broader context of 20th-century art that explored the themes of alienation, industrialisation, and the changing nature of the landscape. His photographs share a certain kinship with the work of artists like Edward Hopper, whose paintings depict the isolation and loneliness of modern life. They also resonate with the work of photographers like Bernd and Hilla Becher, who documented the industrial architecture of Germany with a similarly detached and objective eye.

Baltz’s influence on subsequent generations of photographers is undeniable. His work has paved the way for a more conceptual and critical approach to photography, one that questions the traditional notions of beauty and landscape. Photographers who explore the built environment, who examine the impact of human activity on the land, owe a debt to Baltz’s pioneering vision.

Lewis Baltz’s legacy is complex and multifaceted. He is remembered as a photographer who challenged our notions of landscape, who revealed the hidden structures of our world, and who explored the quiet unease of the contemporary condition. His photographs continue to fascinate, to disturb, and to inspire. They are a testament to the power of photography to illuminate the often-unseen forces that shape our lives and to remind us of the beauty, or perhaps the strangeness, of the everyday. As he himself said, “I certainly wanted my work to look like anyone could do it. I didn’t want to have a style. I wanted it to look as mute and as distant as to appear to be as objective as possible, but of course it’s not objective.” Therein lies its enduring power.

Diane Arbus: Artist Profile

Diane Arbus’s photographs are not for the faint of heart. They are unsettling, often disturbing, yet undeniably compelling. They are portraits of the marginalised, the eccentric, the “freaks” as they were often labelled, but also of the seemingly ordinary – the suburban housewife, the child in its Sunday best. Arbus’s lens doesn't simply record; it probes, it questions, it forces us to confront our own preconceptions about normality and otherness. Her work, one could argue, is a kind of visual anthropology of the American condition, a sometimes brutal, sometimes tender, but always unflinching examination of the human psyche. As Susan Sontag wrote, “Arbus’s photographs are… about the secret life of America.” They are, to my mind, less about the what and more about the why – why we look, why we categorise, why we recoil or connect with the figures in her frames. As Arbus herself said, “I don’t press the shutter. The image does, and it’s like being gently clobbered.” It's a powerful description of her process, the sense of being overtaken by the image itself.

Arbus’s influences are complex and not always easily discernible. She studied with Berenice Abbott, Alexey Brodovitch, and Lisette Model, formative experiences that undoubtedly shaped her approach to photography. She encountered the works of Mathew Brady, Paul Strand, and Eugène Atget early on, visits made with her then-husband, Allan Arbus. These early encounters undoubtedly shaped her understanding of photography’s potential. While she admired the work of Weegee, the tabloid photographer known for his graphic images of crime scenes and urban life, her approach was fundamentally different. Weegee’s photographs are often sensational, focused on the dramatic moment. Arbus, on the other hand, was interested in the quieter, more subtle aspects of human experience. She sought to capture the inner lives of her subjects, their vulnerabilities, their anxieties, their hidden selves. “A photograph is a secret about a secret,” Arbus once said. “The more it tells you the less you know.” This sense of mystery, this feeling of something unsaid, is a hallmark of her work.

Her early work, including her commercial work with her husband, honed her technical skills and her eye for composition, but it was her personal work, her exploration of the city and its inhabitants, that truly defined her. She photographed circus performers, transvestites, and other individuals who lived on the fringes of society. These early images, while already displaying her distinctive style, are often more straightforwardly descriptive. Later, her work became more introspective, more focused on the psychological dimensions of her subjects. She began to use a Rolleiflex camera, which allowed her to get closer to her subjects and to capture their expressions with greater intimacy. This shift in technique coincided with a deepening of her artistic vision. She moved beyond simply documenting the “other” and began to explore the ways in which we all perform our identities, the masks we wear to navigate the world. “I really believe there are things nobody would see if I didn't photograph them,” she asserted. It's not just about the subject, but the relationship between photographer and subject, the implicit contract of looking. As she further noted, “For me the subject of the picture is always more important than the picture. And more complicated.”

Arbus’s photographs are not always comfortable to look at. They can be disturbing, even shocking. But they are also deeply human. They remind us of our own vulnerabilities, our own anxieties, our own sense of being different. She had a knack for capturing the awkwardness, the fragility, the sheer strangeness of human existence. “I’m always interested in people who represent themselves in a certain way,” she explained. “It’s like a mask that they put on. It’s a way of dealing with the world.” And it is these masks, these carefully constructed personas, that Arbus’s camera penetrates, revealing the humanity beneath.

Her inclusion in the Museum of Modern Art’s “New Documents” exhibition in 1967, alongside Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander, marked a turning point in her career, though her work was already evolving in this direction. This exhibition, which highlighted a new generation of photographers who were challenging traditional notions of documentary photography, placed Arbus’s work in a broader context and helped to solidify her reputation as a significant artist. Her two Guggenheim Fellowships in the 1960s also provided crucial support for her work.

Her 1972 retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, a year after her death by suicide, cemented her place in the history of photography. It was a controversial exhibition, with some critics accusing her of exploitation and voyeurism. But it was also a hugely influential exhibition, introducing her work to a wider audience and sparking a debate about the nature of photography and its relationship to reality. Her work was also shown at the Venice Biennale, a rare honour for a photographer. Since then, numerous exhibitions, including major retrospectives like “Diane Arbus Revelations” and “in the beginning,” have further explored and contextualised her work, revealing the depth and breadth of her artistic vision.

Arbus’s book, Diane Arbus: An Aperture Monograph, published posthumously, has become a classic of photographic literature. It features many of her most iconic images, accompanied by her own writings and reflections on her work. The book offers a glimpse into her creative process, her motivations, and her unique way of seeing the world. The acquisition of her complete archive by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2007 has ensured that her work will continue to be studied and appreciated for generations to come. The ongoing publication of books and catalogues, such as Diane Arbus Documents, further demonstrates the continuing fascination with her work and its evolving interpretation.

Arbus’s work fits into a broader context of 20th-century art that explored the themes of alienation, identity, and the human condition. Her photographs share a certain kinship with the work of artists like Edward Hopper, whose paintings depict the isolation and loneliness of modern life. They also resonate with the work of photographers like Robert Frank, whose book The Americans offered a similarly unflinching portrait of American society. “My favourite thing is to go where I’ve never been,” Arbus declared. And it is this spirit of exploration, this willingness to venture into the unknown, that defines her art.

Arbus’s influence on subsequent generations of photographers is undeniable. Her work has paved the way for a more subjective and personal approach to photography, one that embraces the complexities and contradictions of human experience. Photographers like Nan Goldin, Sally Mann, and Joel-Peter Witkin, each in their own way, owe a debt to Arbus’s pioneering vision.

Diane Arbus’s legacy is complex and multifaceted. She is remembered as a photographer who dared to look where others wouldn't, who challenged our notions of beauty and normality, and who revealed the hidden truths of the human heart. Her photographs continue to fascinate, to disturb, and to inspire. They are a testament to the power of photography to illuminate the darkest corners of the human psyche and to remind us of our shared humanity, even in our most vulnerable and imperfect moments. As Janet Malcolm wrote, "Arbus's photographs are not about freaks. They are about us." And it is this unflinching self-portrait, this unflinching look at ourselves through the lens of Diane Arbus, that constitutes her enduring legacy.