|
dreggory posted:For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this: Disclaimer: I know very little about art besides photography I'm with bottom liner on this one. I think there's a divide between photography and other types of art because inherently in photography you are limited by capturing something that is real (even if you edit it a lot or whatever), so the the way in which you portray emotions, meanings, or themes in photography are inherently understood by pretty much anyone because its things that they can conceivably see or, most of the time, things that they have seen. On the other hand, with art sometimes its esoteric and for that reason I don't think I really "get" some art. That said, I think its interesting and it would make an interesting print to add some flair to a room but in terms of deeper emotions and feelings, I don't really see much in it.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 02:30 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:53 |
|
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. Part of what made photography serious in the art world was magnitude, it's epic nature, the size, the print... 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? "Boring" photos being widely accepted might have to do with photos like this being commentary on the futile nature of this pointless life blah blah blah .. The good ones are often serene and are easily connected with... Twenties Superstar does a way better job of explaining this... Unfortunately, the popularity of such photos makes them kind of trendy, and because of that, poo poo gets through, and you'll see banal photos in galleries all the time simply because they are boring and the photos cohesive. 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. 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: I love Araki, he took a bunch of photos of the sky after his wife died, they were totally uninteresting. I bet someone liked them. They are liked enough to be published... tl;dr we're judging a single web image hat was probably presented as a print with other photos that were cohesive. that's dumb. i dont know what my point is besides "everyone is a little wrong" ANYWAY part two I am taking some photo classes for darkroom access, to raise my GPA and to be forced to take some photos. Eric Weeks is the color photography teacher, I like some of his stuff. sorta kinda NWS And these are by Katie Murray. I took her before, I'm taking her again, she is constantly calling me out on everything I say. I am intimidated be very much yes Anyway part three, Twenties Superstar made some really good points about internet photography. Yyou don't see much stuff like the above in any of the threads for some reason, but I wish I did.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 08:25 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 08:32 |
|
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 appreciated your essay, and I see what you are trying to say. Most banal photographs still don't appeal to me, but I realize that's a personal aesthetics thing.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 08:38 |
|
notlodar posted:
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 14:26 |
|
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? Get out of my head, you.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 14:32 |
|
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?
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:09 |
|
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.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:10 |
|
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. Photos of celebrities, especially in "normal" situations, are the worst.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:22 |
|
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 think the idea of stripping celebrities and well known people of power and mystery is interesting. In Platon's World Leader project, one of the comments was that he would adjust a leader's shirt or a stray hair- even if they didn't need it- to remind these powerful leaders that they are just people and he is taking their picture. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the work seems so human and relateable. http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:23 |
|
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. The satire would be that you would gussy up the "normal" picture with all the conventional set up that celebrity photo shoots entail. I do agree with you for the most part though. The attempts to show "real" celebrities are just mediocre at best and contrived at worst. I like when photographers do try something different with celebrities - exactly like Platon did. It just seems that everyone is trying to do that recently, which devalues any attempt to capture the "real" celebrity.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:32 |
|
She took the photo the same way she takes photos of her family. Remove celebrity from the equation for a second.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:44 |
|
dreggory posted:For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this: It looks like something you'd see hanging in a high school art room.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:57 |
|
If we assume that photography is visual communication, then it shouldn't matter that celebrities make better subjects. They are inherently interesting subjects because of their fame and exposure. As a photographer you can choose to put them in any setting or clothing you want as long as it creates the message you are going for. We shouldn't discount the photograph simply because there is a celebrity in it. Think of a corollary in landscape photography, do you automatically hate a well lit tree line on a lake because the sun is just rising? Personally, if I find myself thinking things like: "I could do better, that picture is boring" or "If I took pictures of Brad Pitt, of course my photo would be famous" then its a reflection of my shortcomings and apprehension. I say these things to make myself feel better, and I want to steep away from that kind of thinking and just work on my images. I think we all look for excuses for validation. 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?
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 15:58 |
|
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).
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 17:04 |
|
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. Photos of interesting places can also be banal. also i agree with AIIAZNSK8ER. I used to think that way about everything back when I was a lazy little poo poo (I am no longer little poo poo, I am big poo poo HAHA I am funny)
|
# ? Dec 7, 2009 18:12 |
|
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.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2009 02:00 |
|
I just googled a Nat Geo photographer who shot for an article in the new Dec 09 issue. Martin Schoeller. What I found was pretty drat interesting.. he's another "no frills, no glamour" portrait photographer, but does it oh so well.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2009 02:08 |
|
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
|
# ? Dec 9, 2009 05:34 |
|
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. That is so awesome.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2009 05:55 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2009 06:50 |
|
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. Those 4x5 point-and-shoots are semi-popular (for a custom-made large format camera), mostly paired with something like a 90mm Super-Angulon. I don't know that I've seen an 8x10 before though. I was thinking of building my own 4x5 or 8x10 TLR eventually but apparently I've been beaten. edit: my other idea is an ultra large format camera disguised to look like a hot dog cart, perfect for street photography. A bit like that camera-van guy that a Dorkroom goon interviewed not too long ago. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Dec 9, 2009 |
# ? Dec 9, 2009 07:38 |
|
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 think banal might be the wrong word, which is more synonymous with cliche, but it's more of a...dull, blah aesthetic- which I like. The photos I posted were from Yale MFA graduates and they share the... feeling(?) that I see (saw) with Yale right now. (seriously, like 2 months ago) I actually got into a discussion with some Chicago Institute of Art photo undergrads and they were bashing the poo poo out of Yale's current crop of MFA students, but I am still not sure why ***This is based on what I was looking at a few months ago, right now I am pretty impressed and intimidated.
|
# ? Dec 9, 2009 10:12 |
|
I just got back from Hamburg where I saw an amazing exhibition of Paul Himmel and Lillian Bassman at Deichtorhallen. If you ever happen to find yourself in Hamburg, set aside a few hours to check it out, every exhibition i've seen there has been great. There was a lot more than these but they were all I could find online. Paul Himmel Lillian Bassman zusammen unixbeard fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 11, 2009 |
# ? Dec 11, 2009 01:38 |
|
Well, gonna go kill myself now Those are awesome.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2009 01:46 |
|
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
|
# ? Dec 11, 2009 19:54 |
|
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 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.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2009 20:01 |
|
Paragon8 posted:Incredible. 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.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2009 20:14 |
|
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. I'm terrified I'm going to end up holding my breath too long at 20m taking pictures of an awesome wreck I think I might end up getting an S90 and the canon housing, because it seems stupid not to especially if I advance my diving anymore. I remember your awesome battleship thread! It's a pity the scuba a/t died.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2009 20:27 |
|
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 Those are pretty rad, I've been wanting to do a shoot in a pool or something because water does such interesting things to light. Jill Greenberg did a pretty sweet editorial for Radar with synchronized swimmers about a year ago. http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/06/floaters-jill-greenberg-for-radar.html 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.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2009 21:07 |
|
Joseph A. Holmes posted:
http://portfolio.streetnine.com/workspace+/ This series speaks to me because I've always been interested in work spaces for many years, especially now that I work in a place that has a very griddy and fascinating machine shop upstairs, which has been in use since the 1920's and has a lot of character to it. One day I'll go up there and do some proper photos of it.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2009 23:51 |
|
Mannequin posted:One day I'll go up there and do some proper photos of it.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 00:27 |
|
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. these are still too abstract for me to understand. Where does the color come from?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 06:29 |
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:these are still too abstract for me to understand. Where does the color come from? Coloured light? Where does colour come from in a regular photograph?
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 06:39 |
|
oh good point, for some reason i just automatically think of black and white when I see 'darkroom'. im just not creative at all
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 06:48 |
|
I didn't see this posted. Apparently, you can get an original print for $900. 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. Also, to beat a dead horse, I wish I were as lucky (unlucky?) as the guy who took this:
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 09:43 |
|
Eros Hoagland is the best working conflict photographer in the world
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 10:44 |
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Eros Hoagland is the best working conflict photographer in the world god, so much vignetting
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 12:00 |
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Eros Hoagland is the best working conflict photographer in the world His stuff has kind of an "I just got lightroom, look what I can do" look to it too me. Its a real shame because I think I would really like some of it otherwise.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 14:42 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:53 |
|
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. I am guessing expose for the sky, then a big light rig set up high to expose the foreground. Kind of ironic to do all that and have it end up looking like a photoshop HDR hack-job
|
# ? Dec 13, 2009 15:23 |