Photographs/ Photographers that make it

[Cathus]

I think there is an awful lot of 'Emperor's new clothes' about art & photography. It sometimes feels that people should stand in awe at some work just because of the subject matter or the person who took it. This is particularly true of modern British art but also lots of photography.

People sometimes don't have the balls to say, actually, it is a pretty rubbish/average photo. Take the winning shot of the wife with her legs open in whatever comp it was discussed on here a few months back.

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by F11

Have to agree with Geoff Wessex on this one. How many of us have taken images that perhaps are not tehnically of quality yet are pleasing but we dismiss them for their imperfection?

Done that loads of times :-)

Karen

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by Drew Smith

This week I popped in to the Quad at Derby to look at the Format 'street photography' exhibition being held there. In my opinion ... (*takes a deep breath) .. it was mostly poorly executed uninteresting snap shots mascarading as photography. In my opinion of course.

What makes me say this? Well, one or two of the photographers had produced some really clever and engaging work but many of the others had simply produced 'snap' shots tied losely together by some supposed 'theme'.

For example; a 'panel' of 10 pictures or so held prominent place on one wall; the first picture I looked at was of a man bending down to pick up some litter next to a waste bin in some city precinct. The one next to it was of a women with a plastic bottle in her hand next to (you guessed it) a waste bin in a shopping mall or some-such place. And so this went on with all the pictures in this series shot at a distance featuring unremarkable people in unremarkable locations. If the photographer had set out to portrait life as 'unremarkable and repetitive' then they succeeded.

Or am I missing something?

I quite liked most of the still photographs at format but got a bit confused with some of the videos - like one where it was just people walking up and down a dirt track, not doing anything particularly interesting. I think there is a big difference between work shown at fesitivals and exhibitions and work shown in photo magazines unless you subcribe to Aperture, hot shoe or British journal of photography. I was talking to a guy yesterday when I was photographing on a demolition site who looked like a pro. He had 2-3 cameras with him and seemed to know what he was doing. We got chatting and I asked him who were his favourite photographers and influences and he didn't name a single one.

Dare I say there are two photography camps?

One being people who love their photography and go out regularly, take some shots and subscribe to a photo magazine and learn new techniques etc... But maybe they don't look at contemporary photography.

Two being people who also love photography but also look at the work of others, attend festivals often and maybe try to do more than just take a snap shot or technically perfect photograph?

I am not saying any one group is better than the other, but maybe one is more art-orientated than the other.

Karen

[tomdinning]

yes, you are missing a whole lot, Drew. But don't worry about it. There are as many perspectives on photography as there are perspectives in taking them. I could write forever on the subject and a lot of people have. For starters, might I suggest having a look at 'Criticizing Photographs' by Terry Barrett, 'How to Read a Photograph' by Ian Jeffrey and 'Looking at Photographs' by John Szarkowski fo starters. They will each provide you with different perspectives on the function of photographs as well as an insight into the development of photographic composition.
To give you a head start, when you look at a photograph for the first time, the photograph belongs to you, not the photographer. It is your interpretation that matters at that point and there is nothing any of us can do about that. Yo may have some incling as to the photographers purpose but that is only a mere consideration. You bring with your perspective a vast history of social and historical culture, personal feelings and preferences and an array of experiences, knowledge and skills that infuence your view. That's a very personal and particular thing you have. But it changes. As you know more, have different experiences, develop new skills, your perspective changes. You may very well return to that same image in years to come and have a differnt view of it. Allow that to happen. That's call growth.
A lot of photrography is basic recording of what we see. Sometimes we endeavour to include in that image another layer of aethetics, evaluation and interpretation. As we develop our skills we experiment with different ways of doing this. One way of testing the product is to show others, as we do. We watch their reactions. Is it the one we sought? No? Try again. Maybe the photographer you mentioned wanted you to feel that way about the images and their content. Not every image has to appeal to your sense of beauty; sometimes it is targeted at what you aluded to here; you sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong', even in a photograph.
The history of photography is thick on the ground with people who have experimented. Some have succeeded and others have failed. Its also thick on the ground with critics. Some have got the point and some have not. Irrespective of which is which, photography would not be where it is today if it were not for the experimenters and the critics.
Every image ever taken is astonishing for the fact that we can do it. Imagine a world where you couldn't go down to a gallery and look at photos of people putting rubbish in a bin and feel disappointed when you left.

[MattUK]

Originally Posted by tomdinning

yes, you are missing a whole lot, Drew. But don't worry about it. There are as many perspectives on photography as there are perspectives in taking them. I could write forever on the subject and a lot of people have. For starters, might I suggest having a look at 'Criticizing Photographs' by Terry Barrett, 'How to Read a Photograph' by Ian Jeffrey and 'Looking at Photographs' by John Szarkowski fo starters. They will each provide you with different perspectives on the function of photographs as well as an insight into the development of photographic composition.

I wasn't aware that in order to view & understand a photograph, you needed to read a few instruction books first?

[Drew Smith]

Originally Posted by tomdinning

yes, you are missing a whole lot, Drew. But don't worry about it. .... For starters, might I suggest having a look at 'Criticizing Photographs' by Terry Barrett, 'How to Read a Photograph' by Ian Jeffrey and 'Looking at Photographs' by John Szarkowski for starters. They will each provide you with different perspectives on the function of photographs as well as an insight into the development of photographic composition.

To give you a head start, when you look at a photograph for the first time, ......

Imagine a world where you couldn't go down to a gallery and look at photos of people putting rubbish in a bin and feel disappointed when you left.

Thank you Tom, can you tell me where I can get a hold of the book on 'Patronizing' to which you seem to have access?

As for your last paragraph; I didn't need to imagine it, I was there. It irks me that there are genuinely creative photographers out there who cannot get a break and yet these seemingly talentless people have their work in an exhibition (although admittedly most likely only once).

[Cathus]

Originally Posted by tomdinning

Imagine a world where you couldn't go down to a gallery and look at photos of people putting rubbish in a bin and feel disappointed when you left.

I imagine it would be a world of less wasted time

[karenoliver]

Here is a link to the Sky arts website where there is a short video and other small videos they shot while at the Format festival :-)

http://video.sky.com/skyarts/related...t-photography/


Karen

[KeithT]

If you look at some early b/w shots, you will see many areas open for improvement. I don't think the technical aspect with some subjects - documentary/street photography/photojournalism - is always the most important aspect of the genre. Telling a story, squeezing out the last drop of atmosphere, is far more important. Sometimes the the odd foible gives the image its charm and it is that which draws us to it. This isn't an excuse, howeve, for poor composition, and bad photography, in my view. You should only break the rules when you understand the rules you are breaking.

It's good that you are thinking like this Karen. It shows that you have a real interest in making a memorable picture and looking for ways beyond the mundane. Experiment as much as you like. It doesn't cost anything these days to do so. Unlike thos old film days.

[F11]

No I think you have hit the nail on the head Drew its almost like some horror movie directed by someone who has made a name for themselves (and everything therefore is great) when in reality it is pretty poor. Body language tells so much so if the punters were perplexed and didn't show much interest, your opinion of it being rubbish probably applied to many of the other viewers.