|
Sorry this is long as gently caress I just really like looking at/talking about photos.quote:Sarah Stolfa: The Regulars That is a cool project. Simple idea but good subject matter done well. If you are interested in portrait typology's kind of along those lines you should check out Thomas Ruff's early work (which I actually can't find any good images of online unfortunately, but this one is from it):  http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phdu/ho_1999.210.htm He was a student of Bernd & Hilla Becher at the Dusseldorf school (along with Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, and some other awesome photographers). The Bechers are known for obsessively cataloguing water towers, among other things. I am sort of obsessed with the Bechers:  This is only tangentially related, but I just bought this the other day: http://www.beikey.net/mrs-deane/?p=2942 Apparently "becher" is the German word for container so someone did a Becher-style typology of yogurt containers  quote:If it means anything to you, I can see his influence on your photos. I hadn't heard of him until recently but I think we both are both prolly drawing from the same source, and by the same source I mean Gregory Crewdson. (Can't help posting this, dude is my all time favorite photographer). his one and only commercial commission to date (since someone already posted the Sopranos)  From his book 'Twilight':   Those are some lovely scans I highly recommend checking out the book in person. Cyberbob posted:TBH I think most of his stuff is too little photographic skill, too much "how well can we mix photos together in photoshop" You kind of missed the point, which is unfortunate because that photo is really intelligent and pretty fascinating no matter what your opinion of highly stylized/constructed images is. Here's some context (plus Edward Muybridge owns hard):  
brad industry fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Nov 24, 2009 |
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Cyberbob posted:TBH I think most of his stuff is too little photographic skill, too much "how well can we mix photos together in photoshop" I agree. Just because it is made of photographs doesn't make it a photograph. I'm not gunna argue about it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 06:38
|
|
|
brad industry posted:
I saw some huge Crewdson prints at the North Carolina Museum of Art, they are so much more awe-inspiring at tremendous size.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 07:23
|
|
|
Stregone posted:I agree. Just because it is made of photographs doesn't make it a photograph. I'm not gunna argue about it though. Good, because you'd be wrong, and most likely have no good reasoning for your viewpoint other than gut feeling. To me I don't like it because I feel like it's unsuccessful blending, the horses at least. Maybe it's because I get into retouching and compositing myself, but it just feels a bit off, mostly in the lighting of the center horse and the bottom right dog. It's a great photo, it just isn't as seamless to me as I'd like. And those Crewdson photos rule. My favorite is Leibovitz. When her photos have too many subjects I tend to dislike them, but 2 or less and I'm almost always in love.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 09:02
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I hadn't heard of him until recently but I think we both are both prolly drawing from the same source, and by the same source I mean Gregory Crewdson. (Can't help posting this, dude is my all time favorite photographer). You mentioned his one-and-only commercial photo for Six Feet Under, so I've got to ask: where's the money come from? I mean he's got some serious poo poo going on when he puts a photo together; he's got a crew that looks to be around 20 strong, he's closing down streets, etc. Do his prints sell for millions or something? jackpot fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 15:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:
has anyone seen a print of this up close? I'd really like a better look of the back of the lcd screen on the womans point and shoot in the corner, is it a replica of the scene in front of her from her angle, or is it a snapshot of how horses actually gallop in real life and not how they float through the air? this image rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 16:09
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Good, because you'd be wrong, and most likely have no good reasoning for your viewpoint other than gut feeling. Wow you got all that without even knowing what my reasoning is. You are amazing. You should be on tv or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 17:10
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:this image rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
Andrew Zimmerman, king of bird photographers. The close-up portraits I can fathom, but the in-flight photos, jesus christ.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
I watched the behind the scenes videos for the in flight shots. watching them fly back and forth in this room past a seamless is pretty boss. Im amazed at how sharp they come out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 20:01
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Good, because you'd be wrong, and most likely have no good reasoning for your viewpoint other than gut feeling. A mixed composition or reconstruction in any other medium is referred to as such (ex. matte painting, collage, mixed media).  edit: Here are some photos I've really been enjoying recently.  Herbert Ponting. An Iceberg in Midsummer, Antarctica, 1910-13.  Dunmore and Critcherson (of J. W. Black, Boston, U.S.A.) Between the Iceberg and field-ice. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Wow you got all that without even knowing what my reasoning is. You are amazing. You should be on tv or something. There is no reasoning, that's why it's so easy. Twenties Superstar posted:A mixed composition or reconstruction in any other medium is referred to as such (ex. matte painting, collage, mixed media). And yet, we don't in photography. How many times to painters paint a subject in their studio into a background they made up, or a background from another location that wasn't present? How many painters paint things together that never occur, or make special changes outside reality? It's basically giant baby photographers who think there is some kind of photographic purism that try to make some kind of distinction when there isn't one. I find it's often people lacking content of their own, making up some kind of rule set that photographers with better bodies of work than their own somehow "don't count". Annie Leibovitz entertains and communicates to millions of people with her work, but my holga snaps of my hipster friends is more legit art because she composites. Also why does there even need to be a distinction? Why does it matter if it was captured in one shot on film and developed with no pushing/pulling or dodging and burning? Is it because that's arguably harder, and somehow worth more? Why can't the final image stand up for how well it communicates? If it's a crappy composite, that's ripping people out of the image, and sinks it in the same way that an all in one photo with bad composition or crappy subject matter will do. The photographers vision is what creates the content in the medium of photography, and that can be arrived at in any number of ways. Photographers, artists, and art historians far far more knowledgeable, well-read, and intelligent than anyone in this thread have already arrived at this conclusion. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
TBH, I'd feel more honest calling a composite just that, but I don't understand how it detracts from whatever artistic quality it's got in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
I cant find the images on the web so go here http://www.makiphoto.com/ then navigate: Portfolios >> comic makirama >> #18-21. Its just so wild that it makes me want to think about crazy uses of color. I love how it has a 2D look to it, i like seeing these alternatives to extreme depth of field and thinking that you dont always have to create a three dimensional space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 21:36
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I saw some huge Crewdson prints at the North Carolina Museum of Art, they are so much more awe-inspiring at tremendous size. I couldn't find a mention of it on their site, is it still up? Or is it part of their permanent collection? I'm going to be in Charlotte next month, might have to make a road trip to Raleigh - I've never seen those prints in person. jackpot posted:You mentioned his one-and-only commercial photo for Six Feet Under, so I've got to ask: where's the money come from? I mean he's got some serious poo poo going on when he puts a photo together; he's got a crew that looks to be around 20 strong, he's closing down streets, etc. Do his prints sell for millions or something? 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. It's really interesting to me how 'Twilight' is basically a frame-for-frame ripoff of Spieldberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', and now there are all these young photographers who grew up watching those 80s movies and are making these narrative, produced photographs influenced by him: Ryan Schude:  Sorry that image is huge, there's so many little details you miss in a small JPEG. http://fashionindie.com/ryan-schude-photography/ This guy Gerald Edwards was one of Crewdson's assistants, the influence is pretty obvious:   http://www.booooooom.com/2009/10/29/gerald-edwards-iii-photographer/ Adam Rankin, Canadian guy I am really into:  http://www.adamrankin.com/ quote:A mixed composition or reconstruction in any other medium is referred to as such (ex. matte painting, collage, mixed media). Yes but no one sits around talking about whether Picasso's collages or Rauschenberg's combines do or do not qualify as painting. Painting is now more of a tradition of image making than it is about actual paint on canvas, basically anything that anyone says is a painting now falls under the painting umbrella. They don't have these dumb discussions of what techniques are or aren't painting because it's irrelevant. I prefer to think about photography as a medium in the same way. It is it's own tradition of image making, which is undergoing pretty radical changes right now. Photography is a pretty broad medium, and whether someone develops their film in their own urine, makes photograms, or builds scenes object by object in Photoshop isn't particularly interesting or relevant to me except maybe as historical context. I don't care what is or isn't "real photography" because there's no such thing, photography has always been in flux. That is part of the reason why photography is so awesome, and why photography in particular is a really interesting medium right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
Pretty sure Crewdson original LF prints go for 75k+. At 10 of those per shoot, I can't imagine shooting budget being that problematic of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 23:03
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I couldn't find a mention of it on their site, is it still up? Or is it part of their permanent collection? I'm going to be in Charlotte next month, might have to make a road trip to Raleigh - I've never seen those prints in person. Hmm, I'm not sure-- it's been a few years since I was there-- it wasn't many prints, just maybe two or three, I think. It may well have been a rotating/traveling exhibit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:And yet, we don't in photography. Actually lot's of people refer to it as digital or analogue collage/composition. And because a photograph is a captured image or scene. If you use multiple photographs (remember a captured image or scene) to make a composite image it's just that. Burning, dodging, pushing, and pulling are completely separate to what I'm talking about. And the distinction doesn't need to be made because "OH DISHONEST PEOPLE MIGHT TRY TO TRICK YOU" or any dumb purity thing, it needs to be made because they are just separate mediums and since they are both relatively new forms of media the precedent hasn't been set and they've become needlessly (and confusingly) conflated. You say "we in photography" but that's absolutely absurd, photography is only a piece of the creative process that you describe, you can be a photographer as well as someone whose primary form of artistic expression is composition. This is so hotly contested academically simply for the fact that there is no precedent to base this on but as both mediums evolve and become more disparate it is going to become more and more important to draw the line between them. Andreas Gursky    
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Call me uncultured, but I'm not seeing anything special here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
Which project is that one from? I don't think I've seen it before. I think this is probably my favorite Gursky photo  and all of ya'll have seen this I'm sure, most expensive photo print ever sold ($3.something million I think?)  quote:My favorite is Leibovitz. When her photos have too many subjects I tend to dislike them, but 2 or less and I'm almost always in love. I think I'm like the only person who really loves her group portraits. brad industry fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
I don't believe that it was from a project. It's titled Krefeld and was taken in 1989 and is one of my favourite photographs by Gursky. The cable is an interesting symbol to me, the way it cuts into the frame so boldly and seems to define the geometry of the entire photo and the way it sinks into the dark under brush before it completely bisects the frame. Unfortunately that was the only image I could find online and it isn't a very good rendering of the print so it's not quite a treat as seeing it in a book or in a gallery is but there is still lot to see there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
One of my all time favourite shoots of a celebrity has been the recent one of Brad Pitt in Wired, shot by Dan Winters. Love his stuff.    Click here for the full 525x605 image. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Nov 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 09:27
|
|
|
brad industry posted:and all of ya'll have seen this I'm sure, most expensive photo print ever sold ($3.something million I think?) What's pretty staggering is the fact that people reportedly paid $4M+ for the brangelina offspring photos. Kinda puts things in a twisted perspective. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Nov 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 11:05
|
|
|
With all the talk of what is a photo, what manipulation is "acceptable", and the role photoshop plays in all of this, I think a really interesting artist to look at is Jerry Uelsmann. His work is some of my favorite.   It's amazing that he did all of these in the darkroom, often working on up to 9 enlargers at the same time. Check out his website https://www.uelsmann.com And a question for the photo purists, if you make a panorama, is that then not a photo? Or how about bracketing the same scene and then combining for an increased dynamic range? Cloning or healing? What if it's just a dust spot? Or what about images that were taken without a camera at all? Stuff like Walter Chappells work with plants?  Or a more recent take on the idea, Robert Buelteman's work:  Click here for the full 650x516 image.  I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it's tough to draw a line between photos and collage work, and if you do, it's gotta be a pretty fuzzy line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
Aaron Hobson - Cenemascapes is one of my current favorites. I really love the way he combines landscapes and portraits, strengthening both with the inclusion of the other. His color palettes also really stick out to me in a good way, and I basically just love his whole style. http://aaronhobson.com/2007.html  Click here for the full 640x384 image.  Click here for the full 1015x500 image.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:One of my all time favourite shoots of a celebrity has been the recent one of Brad Pitt in Wired, shot by Dan Winters. Love his stuff. Not sure if you've seen it, but here's a behind the scenes post about the shoot: http://www.whatsthejackanory.com/2009/07/wired-to-the-new-rules/ For content: Karin Apollonia Muller's "Angels In Falls" work:   edit: looking at the two photos now, they looked a lot better printed in the book. I also love this shot, it was in one of the recent Wired issues: 
Defecting to Nine fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Dec 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Andreas Gursky Lots of great photos in this thread, but this one... if it was posted in the photo-a-day threads it would get poo poo on so bad. If it was hung in a gallery with no artist label, it would get poo poo on so bad. The only thing that makes this 'good' is knowing that the photographer actually knows what he's doing in other cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:Lots of great photos in this thread, but this one... if it was posted in the photo-a-day threads it would get poo poo on so bad. If it was hung in a gallery with no artist label, it would get poo poo on so bad. The only thing that makes this 'good' is knowing that the photographer actually knows what he's doing in other cases. Would it actually? How would you critique it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 20:59
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Would it actually? How would you critique it? It's a shot of some brush and trees with some kind of line, probably a telephone pole guidewire, intersecting it. It's uninteresting. The exposure isn't great as the highlights seem blown out. There's nothing really going on - there is no particular style to the growth of the trees, it's just... random roadside brush. The wire doesn't really lead to anything - my eye doesn't settle on any particular part of the image. This is probably related to the conversion from film to a digital image but there is a rectangle of correct-looking shadow areas in the upper right, while all the shadow areas outside of the rectangle have an ugly green cast. It's complete nothingness that is considered good because of the artist's reputation. But what can you do... that's the way the art world is. If Picasso accidentally spilled some coffee on a blank canvas and decided on a lark to sign it, that 'piece' would be extremely highly valued because of the artist's other work and resulting fame. That is exactly the case with this photo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:It's a shot of some brush and trees with some kind of line, probably a telephone pole guidewire, intersecting it. It's uninteresting. The exposure isn't great as the highlights seem blown out. There's nothing really going on - there is no particular style to the growth of the trees, it's just... random roadside brush. The wire doesn't really lead to anything - my eye doesn't settle on any particular part of the image. This is probably related to the conversion from film to a digital image but there is a rectangle of correct-looking shadow areas in the upper right, while all the shadow areas outside of the rectangle have an ugly green cast. It's complete nothingness that is considered good because of the artist's reputation. But what can you do... that's the way the art world is. If Picasso accidentally spilled some coffee on a blank canvas and decided on a lark to sign it, that 'piece' would be extremely highly valued because of the artist's other work and resulting fame. That is exactly the case with this photo. 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?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted: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"? I didn't mean to imply that Gursky didn't think he knew he was doing when taking the photo in question... just that whatever he was trying to convey does not come across as obviously or eloquently as his other work. He must have found this subject and composition interesting or he wouldn't have taken the shot. He didn't simply forget what made a photo interesting, he just failed to do so in this particular photo. Not every photograph that Gursky or Leibovitz or Ansel Adams or anyone in this thread takes is at the same level of greatness. In my opinion, the photo in question is not an example of good banality - it's just boring. But most art critics can't say "Sorry Gursky, we don't like this one. Maybe next time." It's a Gursky! They would look stupid! So, in the end, what makes this photo acceptable to the art world is the fact that the artist's other work is exceptional, so this must be too. Gursky (acceptable):  Some fictional guy on Flickr who likes taking photos of roadside brush (unacceptable):  Edit: I orginally linked to this image, trying to find a Flickr account with something as similar as possible, but I think the point is better made just using the two images above. I'll stop editing this now, sorry The greatest/worst thing about art critique is every argument can be won by saying "Well obviously you don't get it". I'm done discussing this photo so lets just both agree that the other person doesn't get it. Or you can reply with "MORE CAPITAL LETTERS". Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 00:13
|
|
|
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). 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
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? 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. poopinmymouth posted:It's a shot of some foliage and a wire. This is dangerous thinking, IMO. If it's just a shot of some foliage and a wire, what is your photography to other people? If all we do is say "oh, it's nothing special it's just ______ ", then we're closing our minds and not being fully receptive to what it could be. Gambl0r posted:whatever he was trying to convey does not come across as obviously or eloquently as his other work. I think it's just subjective, and to some people it speaks louder than others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
Gambl0r posted:I didn't mean to imply that Gursky didn't think he knew he was doing when taking the photo in question... just that whatever he was trying to convey does not come across as obviously or eloquently as his other work. He must have found this subject and composition interesting or he wouldn't have taken the shot. He didn't simply forget what made a photo interesting, he just failed to do so in this particular photo. I'm sorry I'm not going to reply fully to this, I have to go to work. I'm just going to say that maybe you aren't cut out for this whole art thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm sorry I'm not going to reply fully to this, I have to go to work. I'm just going to say that maybe you aren't cut out for this whole art thing. Uh, seriously? I read your above essay and I agree with what you're saying, but you're still wrong about that picture. It's terribly boring. In fact, I usually click through the last read on all the photo threads I read and I had seen this earlier and assumed it was in the "snapshot-a-day" thread, until the discussion went further and I realized I was in the "post awesome photos from other photographers" thread. I know exactly what you mean about banality, and I've taken banal photos that are very intimate solely due to the fact that they are ordinary objects that express some sort of emotion or feeling, but that photo is not banality. It's just goddamn boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
You should be able to say it's good for qualities you can't appreciate and leave it at that. You should also trust that, because the photographer knows what he's doing, there is merit to it that you don't see or don't care for. This is also perfectly acceptable. Regardless of who took it or who thinks it's great, you don't have to like it and that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 01:29
|
|
|
Fbi2thegrave posted:I know exactly what you mean about banality, and I've taken banal photos that are very intimate solely due to the fact that they are ordinary objects that express some sort of emotion or feeling, but that photo is not banality. It's just goddamn boring. For those of you who think that photo is 'goddamn boring' I'm curious what your opinions are of work like this: .jpg){kind=spacer} Not trying to jump into this argument in any way, I'm genuinely curious what your reactions are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm sorry I'm not going to reply fully to this, I have to go to work. I'm just going to say that maybe you aren't cut out for this whole art thing. 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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
As someone with no art background, to me paintings (that is a painting right?) like that remind me of color test photos. Technically nice, but I don't see the point. I can appreciate the weight and values, but it just seems technical and without any context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 01:51
|
|