dreggory posted:

For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this:


Not trying to jump into this argument in any way, I'm genuinely curious what your reactions are.

Twenties Superstar posted:

I think you are stepping beyond a critique of the piece too much and actually trying to form a critique of art criticism and reception in general using the piece as evidence. That is a little misguided, I think, because you haven't really been able to satisfactorily tell me why the image is not a good one in the first place.

You are right the image is overexposed, it was scanned incorrectly, generally it is printed to be more "correct" as you might think of it. Personally I wouldn't have posted it in this thread in the first place if I thought that the exposure of the image mattered at all in this instance. In fact, most of your critique of the image is based on irrelevant technical details.

Formally you complain that the image is uninteresting but really I think that you mean it is banal in the sense that it is of something seemingly commonplace but I don't really see how that is a drawback to it. There are entire schools of photography (surprise, there are people that exclusively take images like this one and they very frequently appear in galleries without "getting poo poo on") that are devoted to capturing the interesting side of banalities. You mention how there is no particular style to the growth of the trees but why does that make the image bad? A question you might want to ask yourself is "why are these trees so unstylized?" and additionally how is the natural chaos of the trees paralleled, informed, and contextualized by the manufactured cable that runs through the scene. Clearly there is no lack of form and design in the image and clearly there IS something in this image even though you said that it was "complete nothingness." Also when you mention the cable you remark that it doesn't lead to anything which I don't agree with at all, it leads right into the bushes where it disappears, that is pretty plain to see. I've already posted a brief discussion on that aspect of the image above so I'm not going to reiterate it.

To be honest I don't think your critique of "THE ART WORLD" is really needed in this thread. Why would you assume that Gursky doesn't know what he is doing with this image even though you admit that he does at other times? Do you think that maybe he took this image as a big joke on the art world or that he simply forgot what made a photo interesting and everyone else conveniently did too because "welp he's an artist and art is weird"? Don't you think that outlook is really pessimistic? Do you maybe think you should try to learn more about what you are talking about before you denounce it as "INDICATIVE OF EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE ART WORLD"? Is your next response going to be that your five your old nephew could take this image or are you not going to stoop so low as every GBS art critic in every "COOL AND CRAZY ART" thread that's ever been posted?

poopinmymouth posted:

What separates this "good banality" from the thousands of banal and uninteresting shots you can find on flickr and in shoeboxes of amateur snaps of nothing the world over?

I'm not saying you don't like it, clearly you do, and I'm aware there is a whole following and reverence in certain circles for these banal shots. I've even seen a few that appeal to me as well, but this one is not one. It's a shot of some foliage and a wire. What about it speaks to you? You mentioned earlier a cursory idea, but I could probably make a praising critique like that of any lovely shot on flickr. You said, "there is a lot to see there". Ok, elaborate. There is the wire leading in.. and?

Twenties Superstar posted:

I've been very careful to omit certain detailed exposition of my analysis in the discussion of the image, often I will leave an open question instead. The reason I do this is because it isn't my concern to validate that image itself or even my analysis and opinion of it to you but to promote people to think in a about it, and really just photography in general, in different way. There seems to be a general trend with internet photographers to fall in line with "interestingness" and styles that don't fall under that umbrella are considered bad based entirely on a superficial biases and other artificial constructions of "rules of photography." To do a full and proper analysis of that Gursky image would take me quite a while and I don't think it would be very productive use of my time because I doubt anyone would learn much from it. That's why I recommend avenues for thought and discussion in my posts because there are lots of ways that you can look at a photo like that, as a purely aesthetic piece and also one that is highly symbolic (ex. human construct v. nature).

quote:

The thing with banality is exactly that it is banal. That's a sentence that sounds really stupid but stick with me for a second. Most amateur photographers generally try to do a couple different things: 1. Going to interesting places and taking pictures of interesting things or 2. Taking photos that appeal to basic senses (ex. attractive young woman doing attractive young woman things and fuzzy kitties and stuff). The reason I personally like banalities so much is because it's extremely regional and also extremely personal. Everybody with senses experiences banalities by it's definition. There are a couple elements that may distinguish good banalities from bad ones, this is by no means an exhaustive. Generally a good photograph will cause the viewer to look at there world they live in in a different way. From an aesthetic standpoint a photographer can use photographic techniques to expose the beauty in scenes that are seen everyday. A scene that you may pass on your bike on the way to work that you don't even think about could be photographed such to expose the balance and simplistic geometry that underlies it. A good photograph of banalities can capture animation and life in what most people think is static. A good photograph can show banal the contrasts of urban living or from a symbolic standpoint expose the conflict between humanity and the natural world that we inhabit. A photographic frame can take a three dimensional object and reduce it to something seemingly flat and non-representational. It takes a certain eye and way of thinking, something that maybe could be called talent, to decide on the proper framing, exposure, composition, etc... to properly deconstruct a scene from everyday life, the design, the surroundings, and how everything interacts on a basic geometric and symbolic level, to create something meaningful deliberately.

These lines are fuzzy however, it's very possible that someone could witlessly take a great photograph of banalities without realizing it, but to reproduce that consistently is what separates "good" from "bad". That said there are many different approaches to answering you question, mine only answers it to the best of my experience that is informed greatly by my own appreciation of photography. To get a holistic view of it would require a fair bit of study and talking to quite a few people about what it is they are going for when they have a million boring pictures of traffic cones in their photostream. Most of them, myself included, will just say that they take pictures of things they see that they like and that is basically my point from the beginning.

Mannequin posted:

He shouldn't have to prove to you why it's good, though. You're free to dislike it regardless of whatever he thinks makes it stand out.

dreggory posted:

For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this:


Not trying to jump into this argument in any way, I'm genuinely curious what your reactions are.

Bread Zeppelin posted:

I think he has some very fair criticisms about that image and I agree. Your attitude of "I'm not going to defend this work because none of you would understand" sucks.

Twenties Superstar posted:

If it came across that way I'm sorry, I was honestly hoping to go for an attitude more along the lines of teach a man to fish. If I wrote you an essay, I'm sure similar essays already exist for that specific photo, then you could read it and you would know everything that I know and think about the picture but that's where it ends.

I know it's probably terribly pretentious of me to assume that I had something to teach you but honestly that is all I wished to do. Sorry, again, for the misunderstanding.

notlodar posted:

Bread Zeppelin posted:

A parallel to work being considered good on the merits of the photographer's name is pictures of famous people considered good just because of the subject. Every year in the Communication Arts photography annual there are at least 3-4 snapshots of celebrities. If the subject was anyone else it wouldn't even get good comments on flickr. Other than judges' response of "Oooh celebrities!" can anyone explain why this is?

Bread Zeppelin posted:

A parallel to work being considered good on the merits of the photographer's name is pictures of famous people considered good just because of the subject. Every year in the Communication Arts photography annual there are at least 3-4 snapshots of celebrities. If the subject was anyone else it wouldn't even get good comments on flickr. Other than judges' response of "Oooh celebrities!" can anyone explain why this is?

Paragon8 posted:

I think what you're talking about is photographers capturing the voyeuristic tendency people have with celebrities - people would love to see a snapshot of Jessica Alba doing mundane poo poo like eat cereal. Just to see the celebrity stripped from all the trappings that accompany them everywhere else. It's that fantasy of seeing celebrities as they really are.

I would love to see a photographer satirize this trend and have well directed shots of Brad Pitt on the sofa eating KFC, or Megan Fox waiting for a bus.

I feel like the prevalence of invasive paparazzi and the willingness for modern celebrities to be a lot more open with their lives has ruined the intimacy that these behind the scenes celebrity snapshots had.

Paragon8 posted:

I think what you're talking about is photographers capturing the voyeuristic tendency people have with celebrities - people would love to see a snapshot of Jessica Alba doing mundane poo poo like eat cereal. Just to see the celebrity stripped from all the trappings that accompany them everywhere else. It's that fantasy of seeing celebrities as they really are.

I would love to see a photographer satirize this trend and have well directed shots of Brad Pitt on the sofa eating KFC, or Megan Fox waiting for a bus.

I feel like the prevalence of invasive paparazzi and the willingness for modern celebrities to be a lot more open with their lives has ruined the intimacy that these behind the scenes celebrity snapshots had.

Interrupting Moss posted:

I don't think that would be satire. It's the same thing. The photos are interesting only because of celebrity. Celebrity ACTORS no less, so it becomes even more difficult to ascertain any specific character quality.

Photos of celebrities, especially in "normal" situations, are the worst.

dreggory posted:

For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this:


Not trying to jump into this argument in any way, I'm genuinely curious what your reactions are.

AIIAZNSK8ER posted:

If you could fill galleries taking pictures of wires and trees and Tom Hanks shaving in the morning, would you? And what is stopping you?

Twenties Superstar posted:

Generally a good photograph will cause the viewer to look at there world they live in in a different way. From an aesthetic standpoint a photographer can use photographic techniques to expose the beauty in scenes that are seen everyday.

quote:

1. Going to interesting places and taking pictures of interesting things or 2. Taking photos that appeal to basic senses (ex. attractive young woman doing attractive young woman things and fuzzy kitties and stuff).

quazi posted:

I would feel tremendously guilty if I took pictures of things that I had no interest in, and just did it for the money.

If it's beautiful and interesting, then it's not banal anymore, right? That means your hypothetical "good" photographer is actually doing this:

..which you apply to "amateur photographers".

brad industry posted:

I really don't know, I imagine he gets a lot of grants. I have a feeling his crew is a lot of student volunteers (he teaches graduate level photo at Yale). Maybe he does fund-raising like indie filmmakers do.

Mannequin posted:

What's awesome about Schoeller is he uses a custom-built large format camera that has been converted into something he can sling over his shoulder and carry with him. Hence the incredible detail, shallow depth of his portraits.

http://www.popphoto.com/Features/How-to/Build-Your-Own-4x5-Point-and-Shoot
http://www.kippwettstein.com/camera/cameraproject.htm

notlodar posted:

It seems that the Yale School of Art's photo program just teaches it's students to be banal, at least that's what I see in their work now, and in the work of all those photo professors that went to and teach at Yale.

Mannequin posted:

What's awesome about Schoeller is he uses a custom-built large format camera that has been converted into something he can sling over his shoulder and carry with him. Hence the incredible detail, shallow depth of his portraits.

http://www.popphoto.com/Features/How-to/Build-Your-Own-4x5-Point-and-Shoot
http://www.kippwettstein.com/camera/cameraproject.htm

brad industry posted:

I actually think it's kind of strange you say that, because to me the "Yale aesthetic" is the opposite of the banal, Eggleston-esque "snapshot". I associate Yale with staged photography in general, not a specific look (a good example, who's name excuses me right now, is the guy who just won the Conscientious blog grant thingie).

I am not particularly a fan of much "banal" work, there are people who are doing really, really great images who are drawing from that tradition. I think I already posted the Swedish school that is currently ruling hard - Thobias Faldt, Klara Kallstrom, Paul Herbst, etc. - I love that poo poo and bought all those books, but there is also a lot of crap with people mimicking the aesthetic part and missing the other half of it.

I think some people are looking for a "gotcha" explanation of that work, like there's some kind of trick to do it. If you think about images in terms of visual vocabulary - why did someone choose that aesthetic, that subject matter, that way of making images, that context - it makes more sense. No one has trouble reading an advertising image, because that is a vocabulary we all understand. Or Flickr Interestingness, that is it's own aesthetic and way of visually describing things. "Banal" work is just using a different visual language and some people just only read "crappy snapshot / anyone could do it" from it.

ZoCrowes posted:

One of my biggest interests is Underwater Photography and Norbert Wu just published some photos that he took of his diving in the Antarctic. I've taken some good shots with what I have but this just makes me just want to give it up because I doubt I will ever be this good

Paragon8 posted:

Incredible.

Underwater photography is the intersection of my two favorite hobbies, but I have no money to get started on it. I'm not sure I'd find either as fun if I did them at the same time.

ZoCrowes posted:

I teach scuba diving for a living and if I'm not teaching and in the water I have a camera in my hand. I would kick myself if I ran across a whale shark or something like that and did not have my camera in my hands.

ZoCrowes posted:

One of my biggest interests is Underwater Photography and Norbert Wu just published some photos that he took of his diving in the Antarctic. I've taken some good shots with what I have but this just makes me just want to give it up because I doubt I will ever be this good

Joseph A. Holmes posted:

The Workspace project is my ongoing attempt to examine the quasi-private spaces people carve out of their public work lives. Such spaces represent a tug of war between personal expression and comfort on the one hand and the unyielding demands of work on the other. The long-term accumulation of the tokens of that struggle, over years or even decades, can be formally beautiful in a very human and touching way. The project is part of a larger series in which I ask friends and strangers to open up private spaces to my camera.

Because I document a space exactly as I find it, never arranged for the camera, the Workspace project is necessarily a spontaneous process. I can't, for example, call ahead and explain what I'm after without inviting the destruction of what I hope to capture. Lately I've been finding workspaces by walking in off the street with camera and tripod and simply asking (though "simply asking" doesn't quite convey the complex dance of explanation, skepticism, persuasion, and fascination that goes back and forth). What I end up capturing, then, turns out to be the work that was interrupted to answer the door.

_{(January 2007)}

Mannequin posted:

One day I'll go up there and do some proper photos of it.

brad industry posted:

The Whitney 2010 Biennial was just announced and one of four photographers in it is Josh Brand who I'm a pretty big fan of. He doesn't use a camera, and instead just paints directly with light onto photo paper in a darkroom.

AIIAZNSK8ER posted:

these are still too abstract for me to understand. Where does the color come from?

Fart Car '97 posted:

Eros Hoagland is the best working conflict photographer in the world

Fart Car '97 posted:

Eros Hoagland is the best working conflict photographer in the world

plaguedoctor posted:

He says he did all that in-camera, but... gently caress. How? The only thing I can think of is a shitload of lighting so that he could get the sky like that.