Are most of us just p***ing about ...?

droj

droj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,069
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
I'm feeling a bit haunted by some images I discovered only recently. Some of you will already know them. They're of deformed foetuses & children, the result of America's aerial spraying of the defoliant Agent Orange (containing dioxins) during the Vietnam war. Two heads and all the rest ... the images shoot right through you.

The American government called it 'collateral damage'. A cosmetic description if ever there was one.

The photographer was the late Philip Jones Griffiths.

Are most of us just p***ing about?
 
Last edited:
Yes, most photography is for our own pleasure, some of it for others pleasure.

Not essential, but is a way of expressing or talent or lack of!! (Me I am thinking of :):))

But hey ho, there are worse ways of p****g about

Mj:olympus:
 
I'm not sure I understand the comparison? Why are we p*ssing about?
 
droj said:
It was a question, Jim. Care to answer it?
Click to expand...
I know but I don't really understand the comparison. Why are we p***ing around? I quite often have to take photos of badly mutilated bodies subjected to severe trauma at fatal collision scenes for work, but I don't even compare that to the photography I do for pleasure in my own time. It certainly doesn't make my personal images less important, quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Jim I'm not accusing anyone of anything - it was an invitation to reflect on what any one of us does, and the introduction (w/o being pompous) of a perspective. And you've just made a meaningful contribution.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty much just p***ing about with photography.

I've tried to convince myself I'm not, but the results speak for themselves.

But I enjoy it.
 
droj said:
I'm feeling a bit haunted by some images I discovered only recently. Some of you will already know them. They're of deformed foetuses & children, the result of America's aerial spraying of the defoliant Agent Orange (containing dioxins) during the Vietnam war. Two heads and all the rest ... the images shoot right through you.

The American government called it 'collateral damage'. A cosmetic description if ever there was one.

The photographer was the late Philip Jones Griffiths.

Are most of us just p***ing about?
Click to expand...


Not all great imagery has to be documenting tragedy, war, conflict etc. Obviously, it is hard hitting stuff, but what makes a great deal of such imagery poignant and lasting is the subject itself, not necessarily the photograph. I don't think anyone would say Ansel Adams was p***ing about :) Just landscape. It has cause and reason though. His work was instrumental in the foundation of protecting what are now national parks. However, they are just landscapes. Cindy Sherman was just essentially taking selfies :)... but she was making a good point, at the right time, hence the importance of the work.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's about a passion for the subject... NOT photography: That's what makes images interesting. You see it again, and again over the decades. The images that we now regard as great works are nearly always so because of the subject, and the passion the photographer has for that subject. Passion shines through, and those in a position to judge, publish and buy the work are looking for that too. THAT'S why Ansel Adams' landscapes are in MOMA and Joe Cornish's aren't. You can see the passion and dedication to the subject in Adams' landscapes. You can't in Cornish's. Cornish is just interested in making shiny things to sell books and further his career. I'm sure Adams had a weather eye on that too of course, but it's damned obvious that wasn't what drove him out into the Sierras and Yellowstone time after time after time.

Shoot what you are passionate about. It may not be appropriate for a market when you shoot it, but it's time will come when fashion and trends rotate around like they do, and then you'll have a body of work that everyone will pour over if you're lucky. Good work is shot because the author was driven to shoot it because they love the subject, not their cameras.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead pretty much sums it up for me. Just because you're not shooting deformed babies doesn't mean you're p***ing about in the context of our field. I don't understand how the photos you mentionwould even prompt you to ask that question, unless maybe you're looking to start a discussion for its own sake. It may not have been your intent but it sounds like a discussion for its own sake, started with an emotive hook that ultimately won't really serve a purpose.

Whether or not you compare anything I shoot to Vietnam war images and come to the conclusion I'm pssing about is entirely your prerogative. I'm shooting what's important to me and some of it will be important, some not. I don't worry too much if you would classify it as p***ing about to be totally honest :)

So if you want a direct answer then yes. We're born, we p*** about, we die. Applies to everything, not just photography.

I'm not sure what further value we'll get from discussing such a subjective, loosely-directed topic to be honest! It feels a little bit of a melodramatic "why the f**k should I bother" which is a bit silly IMO :)
 
Most of us are being self-indulgent with our photography and deluding ourselves it matters to anyone other than ourselves. You can accept that satisfying yourself is reason enough and carry on regardless,or jack it in feeling depressed.
 
If taking photos of deformed foetuses and children is the only way to not be peeing about, I'll stick with peeing about! Personally, I don't want to change the world with my pics, just have something pleasing to look at and/or to evoke memories.
 
Nod said:
If taking photos of deformed foetuses and children is the only way to not be peeing about, I'll stick with peeing about! Personally, I don't want to change the world with my pics, just have something pleasing to look at and/or to evoke memories.
Click to expand...

Surely this is comparing Social documentary photography to other genres. The only similarity is the medium. There will always be different levels, requirements. If you're requirement is to say document your children growing up and you achieve that, that doesn't make your photography any less worth than others, it's met your requirement.
 
That was pretty much my point.
 
99.9% of my picture taking is for my own amusement / pleasure, and I suppose can be viewed as the proverbial p***ing about.
Once in a blue moon I am called upon to take photographs for the parents of a stillborn baby....of the baby.
I hate doing it, but I have never not gone.
That 0.01% of my photos make not one jot of difference to the world at large, but they do to those parents.
 
End of the day most of us are kidding ourselves if we think our photography will 'make a difference' on a large scale - but equally thats not to say that it won't be meaningful on a small scale - a well shot wedding will be treasured by the bride and groom (okay the bride) , lifestyle portraits may be on the clients wall for years or be sent across the world as a treasured memory for a distant relative and so on

and even if we are just shooting for our own pleasure theres still the document of little johnny growing up, or the memory of that trip to xyz place...
 
Last edited:
While in the Kunst Kammer museum in St.Petersburg I visited a room full of deformed foeti in jars. Some really amazing specimens. They had nothing to do with Vietnam so didn't get the "horrified with man's inhumanity" extra bonus.

At no point did I want to take my camera out of my bag.

Let's assume there are millions of photographers doing a serious job, not p***ing about, and who do not take photos of deformed foetuses.
I'm also sure there are thousands of medical students absolutely p***ing about who take plenty of snaps of such things.
 
Theses days i take photos just for me,am i p***ing about no,just trying to keep a little bit sane :)

By the way Philip Jones Griffiths book Vietnam Inc was reissues a few years ago,very good
 
Oh also Philip Jones Griffiths thought a lot of the photographer covering the Vietnam war,were just p***ing about,he had very strong views on the subject :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not all great imagery has to be documenting tragedy, war, conflict etc. Obviously, it is hard hitting stuff, but what makes a great deal of such imagery poignant and lasting is the subject itself, not necessarily the photograph. I don't think anyone would say Ansel Adams was p***ing about :) Just landscape. It has cause and reason though. His work was instrumental in the foundation of protecting what are now national parks. However, they are just landscapes. Cindy Sherman was just essentially taking selfies :)... but she was making a good point, at the right time, hence the importance of the work.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's about a passion for the subject... NOT photography: That's what makes images interesting. You see it again, and again over the decades. The images that we now regard as great works are nearly always so because of the subject, and the passion the photographer has for that subject. Passion shines through, and those in a position to judge, publish and buy the work are looking for that too. THAT'S why Ansel Adams' landscapes are in MOMA and Joe Cornish's aren't. You can see the passion and dedication to the subject in Adams' landscapes. You can't in Cornish's. Cornish is just interested in making shiny things to sell books and further his career. I'm sure Adams had a weather eye on that too of course, but it's damned obvious that wasn't what drove him out into the Sierras and Yellowstone time after time after time.

Shoot what you are passionate about. It may not be appropriate for a market when you shoot it, but it's time will come when fashion and trends rotate around like they do, and then you'll have a body of work that everyone will pour over if you're lucky. Good work is shot because the author was driven to shoot it because they love the subject, not their cameras.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting comparison between Ansel Adams's work and Joe Cornish's. I'm sure there could be other ways of looking at it. I'm sure even you could come up with some of them!
 
jerry12953 said:
That's an interesting comparison between Ansel Adams's work and Joe Cornish's. I'm sure there could be other ways of looking at it. I'm sure even you could come up with some of them!
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
While in the Kunst Kammer museum in St.Petersburg I visited a room full of deformed foeti in jars. Some really amazing specimens. They had nothing to do with Vietnam so didn't get the "horrified with man's inhumanity" extra bonus.

At no point did I want to take my camera out of my bag.

Let's assume there are millions of photographers doing a serious job, not p***ing about, and who do not take photos of deformed foetuses.
I'm also sure there are thousands of medical students absolutely p***ing about who take plenty of snaps of such things.
Click to expand...


I think we're getting too carried away with deformed babies here. The shots were not about deformed babies really were they if you think about it. That's not why they were taken.

Philip Jones Griffiths did take more than deformed babies you know. He documented Vietnam as well as any other more famous names.
 
work
Pookeyhead said:
Such as?
Click to expand...


Ansel Adams was one of the first to go out into the wilderness and come back with images which showed the urban arts elite just what was on their doorstep. And they were open to it. The galleries bought his work then because of its quality and because they had never seen anything like it before. He was a pioneer. And because his work is now already world-renowned and already massively collectable people just can't get enough of it. It's a cultural thing. It's safe and acceptable to like Ansel Adams even if you aren't interested in landscape and know nothing about landscape photography.

Maybe 10-15 years ago there was an exhibition of Ansel Adams work at the Photogallery in London and I went down to a talk related to it. It was a long time ago but two things have lodged in my mind.

The speakers could not see Adams's work for what it was; an exploration of pure landscape. The speakers wanted to know what the social context was in what it was made; I honestly don't think it matters whether Adams was from a middle-class background or was brought up in poverty. The work stood for itself.

And secondly none of the speakers could think of one photographer who had been influenced by Ansel Adams. They pondered aloud amongst themselves. They'd heard of Jem Southam and hummed and haahed about him but decided in the end that he wasn't. What about the countless thousands (possibly millions) of photographers from all over the world who go out into the landscape, some of whom bring back images that Ansel Adams himself would have been proud of! They've taken Adams work and built on it and developed it to such an extent that Adams work now almost seems primitive. Most of them are amateurs in both your sense of the word and the real sense of the word. They do it because they love it. If that is what you mean by passion, then you're wrong.

Somehow, since Adams time, the arts elite have decided that pure landscape is just not worthy of being shown. Perhaps it's because they themselves do not appreciate the landscape, rarely experience it, and therefore cannot understand representations of it. it's just not fashionable at the moment.

I don't know why you picked Joe Cornish out for your scorn. You could probably have chosen any one of dozens of excellent landscape photographers. I'm not in Joe Cornish's league but I've experienced the same prejudice myself . I don't know him personally but he and his contemporaries just do not understand why their work is never shown in most photography galleries. But they look at what is shown there with derision and incomprehension. . You only have to visit the Photogallery or the Ffotogallery to see why. Worlds apart.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's about the quality of the seeing? Think of Cornish & his ilk as craftsmen rather than artists. They render the surface of things with a varnish, as David suggested. They don't cause you to see anew, or behind or within things. It's just materialism ...
 
I don't generally take photographs for myself (the odd holiday snapshot aside), and I certainly don't care what other photographers on the internet think of them any more - haven't for years. It's documenting something that's important to me and hopefully a few thousand other people.
 
As in almost anything there are "craftsmen" at the top of their game and those that do. Doesn't mean everyone apart from the "craftsmen" are p!ss!ng about.

We all know photography can have an impact on news etc but a lot of it is being "in the moment" by that I mean you could be the best news photographer in the world, but if you are not where the news is then you aren't contributing to the news. On the other hand "Joe public" who is where the news is can contribute with his smartphone stills or movies.
 
droj said:
Maybe it's about the quality of the seeing? Think of Cornish & his ilk as craftsmen rather than artists. They render the surface of things with a varnish, as David suggested. They don't cause you to see anew, or behind or within things. It's just materialism ...
Click to expand...

I don't see it like that myself.
 
Are we p***ing about? Many of us are getting on with life, doing the things we need to do, trying to leave the world a better place than when we came into it. Some of the time that's through hard work and sometimes through the things we do for pleasure. On that basis probably not.

If the question had been about whether my photography mattered or might help change the world then that would be different.
 
A couple of weeks ago I read in the Sunday Times some brilliant but hard hitting, quite harrowing pieces about the Paris massacres. In the evening I read 'Twelfth Night'. Was Shakespeare p*****g about? Of course not, it's simply a different, equally brilliant use of a universal medium, and it's exactly the same with photography; It can be used for anything at all with an infinite variety of results. Look at Don McCullin's war images with just a camera and an immense feel for reportage - an entire story in one picture! For some reason David Bailey's fashion images have been held in similar 'iconic' esteem and the subject spheres are worlds apart! But it's all photography, and to be honest I am just p*****g about.
 
Photography is just a medium, a tool - like writing. As Mick has suggested above, words can be used for any number of uses, from telling you the ingredients on a can of beans, to an epic novel that will move you to tears. Same for other mediums such as film, painting, etc. What makes something meaningful is the message, or idea that the medium (photograph, painting, writing, etc) contains. Of course, not every use of the medium has to have a message, or if it does, it doesn't necessarily have to be one that can only be understood by a PhD candidate.

Joe Cornish's work is pretty without a doubt. It doesn't move me though, it doesn't make me think beyond the boundaries of the frame or it's contents. It may do for some people, it may inspire them to grab their tripod and filters and head to the nearest beach to emulate him. Good for them - if it lights their fire to get out into the landscape and practice their photography then it's all good. Ansel Adam's work has a similar impact on me although if I'd viewed it when it was contemporary it would undoubtedly have had a different effect. However, as a black and white photographer, I am inspired by his vision, process and methods even if though I'm not really a landscape photographer.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Joe Cornish's work is pretty without a doubt. It doesn't move me though,
Click to expand...

on its own I agree , but its worth noting that both joe cornish and david noton have had a lot of their work published in books by other people (rather than their own books about photography or photobooks though they've done that too) where the images accompany a theme - for example both had a part in the national trust 'coast' book where the beautiful images to lend weight to the message that the coastline is worth protecting.

I also think the idea that photography or art as to move you or has to have a message is over rated , sometimes a picture of a spectacular view is just that , and may have a wow factor alll of its own (which is why both Cornish and Noton are also widely used by tourist boards etc).

The concept that its 'not worthy' or its 'just craftsmanship' or worse if it doesnt have a stated message, I find somewhat pretentious and false
 
The very idea that art has to convey a 'message' absolutely infuriates me. I deplore any kind of art that is aesthetically atrocious but is revered because of the 'message' it conveys, as I deplore an actor or musician using the stage to convey a 'message' (read opinion). There are other vehicles. Use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top