|
William T. Hornaday posted:That's fine. But a lot of other people read and post in this thread and most of them probably aren't concerning themselves with catering to what you (or anyone else) specifically want to see. At least someone gets it. I dont want this thread to turn into a back and forth every time someone posts something that appeals to them. Some people dont find editorial photography interesting, why piss in their cheerios when they post that? A lot of people like Brooke Shadens work, and because the photography police on this forum hate it isnt going to change those opinions. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, im done discussing this.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
You're right. Let's not discuss photos in a discussion forum for discussing photos - only post photos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Or discuss them like civilized people who are ostensibly functional adults. I know it's the internet and all but still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:At least someone gets it. I dont want this thread to turn into a back and forth every time someone posts something that appeals to them. Some people dont find editorial photography interesting, why piss in their cheerios when they post that? A lot of people like Brooke Shadens work, and because the photography police on this forum hate it isnt going to change those opinions. The art-is-pretentious police are constantly out in full force. What's the point in having a discussion forum if discussion is discouraged?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
What does a photo police badge look like? Does it have a photo of Reichstag on it? To Protect and Serve? idgi. As a Photo Swat Team member i can clearly say that brooke is over and all that surreal twee poo poo is played out thanks to tumblr/flickr.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Some dumb pretentious art by some idiot who can't even host a workshop: Eirik Johnson     
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:At least someone gets it. I dont want this thread to turn into a back and forth every time someone posts something that appeals to them. Some people dont find editorial photography interesting, why piss in their cheerios when they post that? A lot of people like Brooke Shadens work, and because the photography police on this forum hate it isnt going to change those opinions. I think that as long as people explain why they think something isn't good it's fine. I should have been quicker to do that, and been more in-depth about it. If a bunch of people explain their opinion on something it's possible that it could change your opinion. Since he hasn't been mentioned with accompanying photos in a long time, I am going to reintroduce Gregory Crewdson to the thread. I think a lot (if not most) of his photos could be described as surreal, and yet I think his work is amazing.      If you are interested, there is a great documentary on him up on Netflix: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70251860?strkid=310411174_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70251860 The main reason I think his photos are leaps and bounds above the 'flickr superstar surrealist photographers' or whatever you want to call them is content. His photos invite you to fully explore the work, to just stare at it and get lost in the moment. There are usually cues that let your mind fill in the blanks on what has happened, and/or what is about to happen. You immediately make up stories in your head about these characters which, for me, can call forth a surprising range of emotions. Of the photos that were posted earlier, especially Brooke Shaden's, I don't think they elicit any positive response beyond "that looks pretty cool." Normally I don't have any sort of problem with photographers making pictures that look cool, but since this is a rather popular 'photographic movement' it's showing up everywhere and it is really starting to get repetitive. Frankly I am fairly impressed that she isn't bored of her own work yet. How many square-cropped centered-subject images of a woman in despair in a dreamlike setting does it take to get to the center of a total artistic burnout / psychotic loving meltdown? Who knows, she's done at least 300 thematically similar images and apparently she is still going strong. I guess I probably would be too if people were paying me money to show them how I do it... it beats an office job. The cherry on top is how much momentum this style is getting which is really starting to make obvious just how similar all of these are. How many different artists are doing something thematically and stylistically similar and beating our loving heads in with it? I could make a bingo card with different elements that all of these photos contain (a strange contorted pose, long flowing fabric, hair blowing in the wind, floating, books, floating books, mirrors, a pack of birds, sinking into something, the use of flour in some nonsensical fashion) and get a loving bingo every. single. time. TL;DR I think these photos aren't awesome because they are all style and no substance, which gets old after a while. I could probably make a car analogy if that would help, or maybe an analogy about marrying someone just for their looks. Somnambulist, earlier you asked me to tell you with a straight face that this isn't a good photo.  the falling of autumn darkness by brookeshaden, on Flickr My challenge to you is to tell me why it is a good photo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Since he hasn't been mentioned with accompanying photos in a long time, I am going to reintroduce Gregory Crewdson to the thread. I think a lot (if not most) of his photos could be described as surreal, and yet I think his work is amazing. This is the same dude that has ridiculously elaborate setups for a single shot that rival those of a full-scale major motion picture, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:This is the same dude that has ridiculously elaborate setups for a single shot that rival those of a full-scale major motion picture, right? Yeah, he uses a movie lighting crew too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
I'd rather kill myself before looking at Fernando Brito's "Your Steps Were Lost in the Landscape"  
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:This is the same dude that has ridiculously elaborate setups for a single shot that rival those of a full-scale major motion picture, right? Yeah that is correct, I don't recall where I read it but I'm thinking that average production cost is something like $40K.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Some more cliquish garbage from Robert Adams, who has only been admired because of his fantastic ability to take poo poo photos for idiots:    All from the series A Question of Hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Crewdson's approach is kind of neat and while I respect the dedication he has to his vision, the final pieces just feel like emotionally vacant versions of Hopper paintings. I think Di Corcia executed this sort of stuff throughout his career far, far better and without Crewdson's budgets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Crewdson's approach is kind of neat and while I respect the dedication he has to his vision, the final pieces just feel like emotionally vacant versions of Hopper paintings. I think Di Corcia executed this sort of stuff throughout his career far, far better and without Crewdson's budgets. I see what you mean, but imo they aren't very similar to Hopper at all. Hopper's scenes were invariably normal, oppressively so, whereas Crewdson's scenes are alien and strange. The similarity I see is the perspective, without the presence of the photographer, as well as a bit of the light-work. I think that's only because we associate those casts and shadows with hopper's dominating mastery of light being adopted into popular visual language in the states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Some more cliquish garbage from Robert Adams, who has only been admired because of his fantastic ability to take poo poo photos for idiots:
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Crewdson's approach is kind of neat and while I respect the dedication he has to his vision, the final pieces just feel like emotionally vacant versions of Hopper paintings. I think Di Corcia executed this sort of stuff throughout his career far, far better and without Crewdson's budgets. I think Di Corcia did awesome work for sure but I also think that his photos, while visually similar to Crewdson's work, are on a much different (smaller) scale which makes direct comparisons a bit tricky. I do think the amount of money that Crewdson spends is insane, but he has a much more perfectionist attitude than myself so I am not really willing criticize that. Edit: I am curious to hear why you think the pieces are emotionally vacant though. Are you basing that on the subject's expression, or other things as well? RangerScum fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I am genuinely interested in hearing why you find these awesome. Could you please explain what these photos mean to you personally? I'm not particularly good at writing analysis so I'll take a quote from an article about the original installation: quote:Half of the exhibition’s pictures depict the tree stumps and carcasses shorn on the hillsides of the Coast Range by the logging industry’s giant mechanical snippers and bulldozers. Rendered in grimly exacting grays, the images quite knowingly recall the human carnage documented by battlefield photographers such as Timothy O’Sullivan (the Civil War) and W. Eugene Smith (World War II). To describe the challenge of photographing a clearcut, in fact, Adams invokes a pledge he once heard from Smith, regarding images of the corpse-strewn beaches of the Pacific theater: “I vowed I would not make patterns.” Adams’s photographs project a similar gravity of despair and purpose. As an exhibit and as a book I quite honestly enjoy being presented with harrowing images of human destruction leading into simple, pure images of the nearby coastlines that pave a hopeful path away from the morbid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:I see what you mean, but imo they aren't very similar to Hopper at all. Hopper's scenes were invariably normal, oppressively so, whereas Crewdson's scenes are alien and strange. The similarity I see is the perspective, without the presence of the photographer, as well as a bit of the light-work. I think that's only because we associate those casts and shadows with hopper's dominating mastery of light being adopted into popular visual language in the states. I've admittedly never really read anything about Hopper or his intent, but to me I always felt the normality of his scenes ruminated a crushing sense of dissociation and detachment with the world. I might just be projecting my own emotions onto their work, but I get a lot of that out of Di Corcia (and Crewdson to a lesser extent).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I've admittedly never really read anything about Hopper or his intent, but to me I always felt the normality of his scenes ruminated a crushing sense of dissociation and detachment with the world. I might just be projecting my own emotions onto their work, but I get a lot of that out of Di Corcia (and Crewdson to a lesser extent). To me, Hopper has always felt much more voyeuristic and attached.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Despite the earlier clusterfuck, this thread is now actually what I always hoped it could be - people talking earnestly about why they like the art they like and how it makes them feel. Group hug everyone! This is Anna and Bernhard Blume, who I found in a 20th Century Photography book. I like it because it's completely loving mental and they look like they're having a lot of fun doing it.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
Before I get into why I think its a good photo, I want to say I dont find Brooke Shaden to be the glorious beam of greatness that you might think. I can name dozens of photographers off the top of my head that I find to be much better then her. However, I do find her work awesome in that she has an appreciation for details, color theory, and composition that a lot of these flickr knockoffs seem to lack. Her ideas are pretty creative sometimes, and she often makes little stories that go along with them (she majored in writing and not photography) and I like the narrative and seeing concepts come to life. Are some of them awful? Yes. Are some of them cheesy? For sure. Are some of them very good (to me)? Yup. I love some of them, including that fall leaves one. The picture you're asking me to defend has beautiful tones, a story, and attention to detail. The dress is coming off her shoulder, she pays attention to things like that. It reminds me of a Del Toro film and its the kind of surrealism I gravitate towards. I dont find the images of her pulling on a rope underwater with fake bubbles coming up to be interesting either, but she just likes to experiment. Sometimes its successful, sometimes its not. The Gregory Crewdson work you're showing me is more interesting to me too, but it's apples and oranges. Completely different styles, and it actually bothers me that people point the finger at Brooke Shaden because she's teaching classes on how to be inspired and creative. Her workshop wasnt "hey lets make this chick fly! Floating people are so cool!" She isnt teaching her bag of tricks in an attempt at having everyone copy her style, she is just teaching you how to think for yourself and to go into a scene while asking questions on making things interesting. "Should her arm be bent this way?" "Should we move the fabric to draw interest?" Sure, a lot of people go to those workshops because they have no creativity and want to pay hundreds of dollars to make a picture that gets a lot of likes on flickr. That isn't Brookes fault. I'm not going to call Monet a lovely impressionist because some people call themselves painters and make lovely work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:The picture you're asking me to defend has beautiful tones, a story, and attention to detail. The dress is coming off her shoulder, she pays attention to things like that. It reminds me of a Del Toro film and its the kind of surrealism I gravitate towards. You didn't really touch on why you think it's a good photo, though. Is it just that it vaguely reminds you of other things you like? Is it only the craft of it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I swear I'm not trolling and genuinely want to know, but isn't the only real requirement of art to invoke emotion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I swear I'm not trolling and genuinely want to know, but isn't the only real requirement of art to invoke emotion? No, it is to be presented as art. You and a few other people are either wildly misunderstanding or misrepresenting opinions as being about whether or not something is art. This is never in question, the merit and/or interestingness of a thing is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:You didn't really touch on why you think it's a good photo, though. Is it just that it vaguely reminds you of other things you like? Is it only the craft of it? I....dont know how to answer your question. She said she made this photo when she moved and was going through a lot of changes, so the leaves changing colors represented that change, thats a really cool concept to me. It's literal, but it looks beautiful. I like the position of her arms, I like how the dress drapes off her shoulder. I like the tones and mood of it. I already mentioned it reminds me of a del toro film and the kind of thing you'd see in a dream. The floor draws interest and leads my eye around the frame. What else do I really need to say? I could see something like this at a gallery printed large and it would probably look really neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:No, it is to be presented as art. You and a few other people are either wildly misunderstanding or misrepresenting opinions as being about whether or not something is art. This is never in question, the merit and/or interestingness of a thing is. So what? Art is art? It's not supposed to do anything? There is no purpose other than someone felt like making it? The more I ask, the less I understand. I always thought the one thing that always defined art between all medias was the emotion involved, whether it be from the artist or the observer. Whether it is intentional or just a means to express the way one is feeling, emotion always seemed to be associated rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I mean I get it to some degree. I understand how someone like brooke shaden would be targeted because people associate images like this to her Untitled by Kyle.Thompson, on Flickr I understand how silly it gets. But I do feel like Brooke puts out some great work too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:So what? Art is art? It's not supposed to do anything? I could be way off-base and a bad art-person but I'd say... yeah. It's up to you, the viewer, to make something out of it for yourself. The artist is just presenting you with the materials to do that. Art appreciation (bear in mind I'm not saying you don't appreciate art) is not a passive thing, you have to engage a bit and work out why you feel the way you do about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I swear I'm not trolling and genuinely want to know, but isn't the only real requirement of art to invoke emotion? I think one of the fundamental problems with this thread is people assuming that a challenge to the quality of a photo is a challenge to the status as 'art'. Something can be garbage and art. They aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
To interject, Brooke Shaden seems to be a fairly proficient photographer with an eye for fanciful compositions. Not my thing personally, but I can see the appeal. This picture though, is it even a photo anymore? I'm not entirely certain the woman is real. It almost looks like a painting. The excessive dodging around the hands makes the dress looked photoshopped onto the body and the ends aren't draping naturally on the ground. It's more a composite than a photograph. So it could still be art, but it's not photography. I like portraiture so I'll contribute Jason Travis and his Persona series. He's good at color and composition and making people look good on paper. It's not quiet street photography, but it doesn't feel like Olan Mills either. Documentarium Posing?   
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:It's more a composite than a photograph. So it could still be art, but it's not photography. Oh no you didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I think one of the fundamental problems with this thread is people assuming that a challenge to the quality of a photo is a challenge to the status as 'art'. Something can be garbage and art. They aren't mutually exclusive. Or you know, it's art they don't like. Though when that happens I tend to just shut my mouth but we all know how restraint works on the internet. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Or you know, it's art they don't like. While I think explaining why you like a work of art is hard to do, I also find it really interesting to read why people like different types of art, so you shouldn't shut your mouth. There have been plenty of times where I didn't appreciate a certain photograph or painting, but after reading someone else's explanation of the work, and what it meant to them, I found myself enjoying it and similar works to a much greater degree. David Pratt posted:Oh no you didn't. Word, I don't know how effective trying to define "what a photograph is" is going to be here since it's such a murky grey area of objectives and subjectives. For the purpose of this thread it's probably best to just leave it at "images that were produced using photographic equipment and software" or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:While I think explaining why you like a work of art is hard to do, I also find it really interesting to read why people like different types of art, so you shouldn't shut your mouth. There have been plenty of times where I didn't appreciate a certain photograph or painting, but after reading someone else's explanation of the work, and what it meant to them, I found myself enjoying it and similar works to a much greater degree. In principle I agree, but it doesn't work on a forum because it turns in to that disaster we had to deal with over the last couple pages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Or you know, it's art they don't like. Nothing wrong with that. xzzy posted:In principle I agree, but it doesn't work on a forum because it turns in to that disaster we had to deal with over the last couple pages. Active discussion is a "disaster?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Nothing wrong with that. Only when you dont agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Active discussion is a "disaster?" Are we not reading the same thread?  Nothing that happened yesterday was discussion. It was goons being goons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:It's not quiet street photography, but it doesn't feel like Olan Mills either. Documentarium Posing? It's not 'quiet' or 'at all' street photography, those are portrait diptychs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Are we not reading the same thread? The fact that you don't see it as discussion is a symptom of the same thing that caused the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Posting more bad photos from the art world circlejerk that can't actually produce anything good in my favorite thread. Austin Granger      
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:27
|
|