Post awesome photos from other photographers

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post awesome photos from other photographers

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Twenties Superstar posted:

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

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

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

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

You said it. It's a bad scan. This image, on my computer screen, fails. Maybe the print is spectacular, but here, it's just boring.

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?

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?

Banal art photography is pretty big. 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.

"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 :words:

.. 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).

The fact that it would take quite a while is kind of silly. I could BS about the existential nature of almost any photo, and I'm sure someone out there would buy it, but I would still be talking out of my rear end (I am good at this, though)

quote:

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

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

But this is all very true and how I feel about the whole thing...

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.

But he should have to prove it. Arguments without reasons are silly, even in art...

dreggory posted:

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

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

I like whatever that is.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 04:34

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

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?

I thought it was just some dude at first, and I totally related

# ¿ Dec 7, 2009 15:09

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

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

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

quazi posted:

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

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

..which you apply to "amateur photographers".

Interesting and Banal are not mutually exclusive, and something that is banal can be beautiful.

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

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

brad industry posted:

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

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

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

Eggelston's stuff kind of excites me, this years Yale stuff is interesting, and I think it's good, but it doesn't give me that punch in the gut (so far).***

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 :confused:

***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

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

spog posted:

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

Or he used film?

# ¿ Dec 13, 2009 19:45

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Well that's the bar I guess... jesus

# ¿ Apr 27, 2010 04:32

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

buyable posted:

haha sorry to bring up something from like 5 months ago but scrolling down this one caught my eye right away. I thought it was interesting how it caught the most flak. some work that struck me last year along the same vibe:

by Melissa Catanese

I was in a group mini-show recently, there was a guy with somewhat large prints that remind me of the one Twenties posted, they were very much underwhelming, and I actually liked them better. He was also a prick.

That photo you posted is pretty cool, though...

# ¿ May 9, 2010 20:22

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

The detail at 30x40 on a photo like that should also be pretty amazing.

# ¿ May 21, 2010 14:18

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Greybone posted:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utrolige-historier/artikkel.php?artid=10007099 has a fantastic bullfighting picture, though it's more about the subject matter than the photography?

Still I wanted to post it somewhere..

This was on the cover of the Daily News :cry:

Actually a close up crop :cry:

# ¿ Jun 1, 2010 05:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 04:34

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Pompous Rhombus posted:

Worst of all, I can't see her rear end.

This right here adds another layer to the image, but I don't know Shore's intent...

What people are missing is that this photo was taken when photos like that were new and awesome... Hooray exciting banality - in color!

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 22:17

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post awesome photos from other photographers