|
 Because there's no other thread that seems appropriate, and since they're all great photos: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, examinations of defining photographs of George W. Bush during his presidency. Reading it, the most fascinating thing they point out is Bush's awareness of his portrayel in photographs, and the degree of importance he assigns to it. As someone who completely reconstructed his persona (east coast old money to texas cowboy), this must be something he has spent a lot of time with, so it's interesting to see just how important the image is to defining public personalities.SANTIAGO LYON posted:: There were the “Turf Builders,” photographers who accompanied the White House advance teams in the Reagan era, sending one photographer to reconnoiter the photo opportunities on foreign presidential travel. They visited the scenes where the president was going to be photographed and took notes on the locations and distances to assist the photographers who would later travel with the president. They produced a guide that told you what lens to use and what the light was going to be. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jan 11, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Alessandra Sanguinetti    All of the images were taken from the gallery link on her website.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:The BBC (mostly via BBC4) have done a reasonable number of Photography related documentaries in recent years. Last month there was the Rankin fronted America in Pictures - The Story of Life Magazine (available here) (BBC4 and Rankin have previously teamed up for Seven Photographs that Changed Fashion, and South Africa in Pictures) That was a great documentary, at least the subject matter was. I just can't stand Rankin as a person, especially when he is trying to bond with old school photojournalists or worse interviewing them while he is wearing sunglasses indoors. Wanker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Alessandra Sanguinetti Okay these are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
dukeku posted:One thing to remember about the old color 'art' photos is that they're not usually nostalgic - how can you be nostalgic about the present? This seems like an obvious point but I'm not so sure. I think there is something in the color and/or compositions of Meyerowitz and say, Shore, that evokes if not quite nostalgia then a very definite experience of the time. Whatever this something is, I've never encountered it in, for instance, Eggleston, even when he was shooting virtually identical subject matter during the same time period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Okay these are awesome. Okay these are not awesome. (In seriousness I'd like to have a discussion for every link that is posted about the merits of the photos so that we could see what kind of critique we could give to these photographers)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Here are some quotes from Stephen Shore interviews where he addresses the nostalgia point:quote:AS: Walker Evans would often say that he wanted to “photograph the present as it would be seen as the past”. But at the same time, when he got into his older age, and people would say, “I love your pictures. I remember those old Model T’s!” and so on, that it would drive him up the wall, because he didn’t want his pictures to be seen as kitchy or old fashioned; he saw them as very modern, relevant, contemporary images. And I know that this work evokes similar responses today. People say, “Awe, the ‘70s. Look at those great classic cars, look at those shag carpets, look at the great old signs, and all the bright colors!” Does that ever frustrate you, that people see this work as, in a sense, “kitchy” or “retro”? quote:RJ: To me, if we look at the photos in the first edition of “Uncommon Places”, they really make me feel very nostalgic, even though the color is dated. They really remind me of the so-called “good old days” in 1970s. But the ones I saw at ICP may have a fresh look when you saw them, they really look very contemporary. He's clearly aware that he's dating his images by including cars (which do seem to be a big point of nostalgia for people), but that the nostalgia is only a result of time passing, not of intent at the time of the shutter moving. Look at this image on La Brea/Beverly Blvd in LA, 1975:  Imagine standing on the corner, framing the shot. What in that photo is nostalgic? There's modern gas stations, modern cars, modern advertising. It's the present. Nothing about the framing is nostalgic, nothing about the colors are nostalgic. It's nostalgic now because we see a normal picture of the past - all of these things are gone now. I guess I just don't see how someone could have enough forethought to think "this image I'm taking now is nostalgic, but we won't know it for 20 years."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:Okay these are not awesome. Why don't you say what you don't like about them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
OOPRCT posted:Okay these are not awesome. Then... feel free to start?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
I feel bad basically copying these from ASX (they're not on the artist's website) but it's a good read especially if you already like "art". Here are some non-awesome images that are sure to be terrible and shouldn't be posted in the thread Allison Sexton    
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
It's interesting that some of those photos were taken with intent on being contemporary. While a feeling of nostalgia isn't something I strive for when I take pictures, I do actively avoid dating them with the inclusion of anything modern, especially cars. I've 'missed' plenty shots due to unfortunately parked hyrbrids or someone talking on their cellphone. It's as if their inclusion would deconstruct the reality that I wish my photographs existed in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I look at this, and wonder why the street/parking lot was interesting enough to cut off the front of the blue car. Or what he was avoiding to cut the car off. So it got a response from me, is that what makes it "art"? Also, now I want pancakes. dukeku posted:These definitely get a response from me, assuming they are meant to be viewed together, obviously distressed woman with a landscape. I automatically put the two together and try to figure out what the story is that involves the two of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
I've seen his photographs all over the internet but I never knew who he is. Now I can finally put a name to these images. Awesome stuff. His portraits are awesome and his landscapes are equally awesome.      Nadav Kander http://www.wefolk.com/photography/3-nadav-kander/categories bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Some classy old ones from Andrew Bush. These may have been posted before, but they deserve to be shown again.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Those are really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Those were my first exposure to photography "as art" and I've always wanted to do my own version. But when it's been done so well once before...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
How are they lit? Just naturally? There seems to be so much light in the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
I think he had a flash taped to the side of his car for fill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I think he had a flash taped to the side of his car for fill. Looks like it, based off the reflections in the last two shots
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Is that even legal? I'd think you could easily distract someone with a strong flash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Is that even legal? I'd think you could easily distract someone with a strong flash. Does that matter? Plenty of photographers trespass to take their photos. But yeah it is definitely illegal (now, these photos were from the 60s). Source: http://www.defend-me.com/california-vehicle-code/california-vehicle-code-section-25250-25282.asp
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
JeongMee Yoon   
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Joel Sternfeld  
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Carrie M. Becker   
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
After staring at those photos, I now cannot stop myself from fiddling with my zippo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Some k-rad landscapes from Daniel Gustav Cramer   
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Carrie M. Becker When did goon rooms become art or even awesome?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Maybe click the link.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:Maybe click the link.  That is bloody incredible. Missed the link as I scrolled down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
The first photo is amazing! http://lightbox.time.com/2012/01/17/happy-birthday-muhammad-ali-70-iconic-images-for-70-years/ Click for full screen, it's even better. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
I really enjoyed Hiroyuki Ito: Lost and Alone Under Tokyo's Red Rain
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Some classy old ones from Andrew Bush. These may have been posted before, but they deserve to be shown again. I've always wanted to try something like this. Well, now I know it's been done.  At least it's done really well 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
These are from a series called An American Index of the Hidden and Unfamiliar by Taryn Simon. I highly suggest you click through and read the captions, these are spectacular:   
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Some k-rad landscapes from Daniel Gustav Cramer I'm just going to pretend these are one picture. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I liked this one until I saw the people behind the one-way mirror. Then I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I liked this one until I saw the people behind the one-way mirror. Then I loved it. Holy poo poo, I need to pay more attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
That picture is messing with my head. It seems like such a boring subject, there's nothing going on, I can't find any reason for it to be awesome. Yet it's totally compelling. How the gently caress does that work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That picture is messing with my head. It seems like such a boring subject, there's nothing going on, I can't find any reason for it to be awesome. If that seems like a boring subject with nothing going on to you, then I probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the mindblowing excitement in what you photograph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
I think there's a really interesting conversation in this thread that we're not having. What defines something as a "snapshot" and what defines something as "great"? Does one necessarily preclude the other? It seems that a lot of people get caught up in this sort of "my kid (or I) could take that shot" attitude. Personally, I believe that photography is about capturing a specific moment, a specific attitude or feeling. You can capture this in a persons gaze, or you can capture this in a snapshot or a planned photo. It's all about catching something that catches you. For me it seems like photos should twist your perception somewhat. They should take you out of the moment, and change the way you look at the world. They should cause you to bend your head, to do some mental work, to process something differently. Basically, I think the argument of "snapshot" vs "great" is silly. Photography, in a certain sense, is about seeing the world. The world exists all around us, and it's silly to say that something taken off the cuff, on the run, from the hip, without planning is disqualified from being a great photo. Other questions: Are photographs inextricably nostalgic? What does it mean to grab the moment in a photograph? Beyond that, is this a positive action? I've been reading Sontag, who says no, it's not really positive in anyway, but I stubbornly refuse to believe that. Anyway, sorry for the mish mash up there. I'm hung over and it's a Sunday morning but I've been thinking a lot about photography as a concept and I'd love to have this conversation with Dorkroomers. I wanted to start it somehow, even if it is just word vomit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Well first off, people here use the term snapshot to mean a boring photo, regardless of how it was taken. That said, a true snapshot can make a great photo. Being in the right place at the right time is a big part of photography. Ansel Adams famously said "You don't take a photograph, you make it", but I'm inclined to disagree. You can both take a photograph or make one. Photojournalism for example, is all about being in an environment, reading the story of a people/place, and capturing it. I consider this taking a photo, and as such a "snapshot" can be amazing. On the other hand, photos that are created, either with posing, staging, lighting, setup, etc can be amazing as well. One is not better than the other, and capturing a photo on a whim does not preclude it from being great, or else half of our art would be worthless on the base of it being snapshots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 18:45
|
|
