BBC Photography Today
- Thread starter Craig1912
- Start date
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,780
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH I don't think we're seeing fear, so much as disappointment. I know that *for me personally* if I'd taken the shot of the guy upside down with his head in a waste bin it might have made it to facebook as "look at Dave tooling around" but I'd never claim artistic merit.
Maybe I'm underselling what I do, and some of the stuff that goes in the virtual bin could be talked up a bit. OTOH I can look at something like this (about which I could write quite a lot - and mean it) and be happy that some photographers are creating images I consider admirable, even if others don't see them that way.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,780
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm intrigued. If you don't mind me asking T, what is it you like about it?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course.. it says lonely, you have a huge dark totally empty room, what looks like stark walls, concrete floor, it's not inviting, well not to some, then you have the white panel, it looks and again this is just to me, like it could be a void, creep in there and escape, escape the stark room, the loneliness but is it to something better? that could be interpreted to how you look at it each day
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,780
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for that. 
Ed Sutton
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,556
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Ditto.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So what you are suggesting is that Gregory Crewdson is not a photographer, and nor is Tim Walker. You suggest that because some of the skills that make the images what they are, are not actually camera skills then they can not be attributed to the author as a photographer.
The whole argument still falls apart with landscape as well though, otherwise there would be no difference between landscape photographers. How do you explain the difference between Fay Godwin and Edward Burtinsky? They are both shooting the landscape.
The photographer is still the deciding factor when it comes to WHAT you point the camera at, and may I suggest that with landscape, that above all else decides whether it's boring or not. There's still the question of "Why?" however. Why are you taking the landscape... that also has a massive bearing on what the image communicates to the viewer. People like Godwin and Burtinsky are doing for reasons other than making pretty pictures, and it shows - the images have a power that no "craft" oriented amateur will get by merely trying to make pretty pictures. Tat doesn't mean Burtinsky has no craft skills. If you see his 2 metre wide prints for real in a gallery they'll blow you away.
I've seen landscapes by people who think it's a craft, and not an art. I don't want to see any more. They're usually crap.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Forget it.
Ed Sutton
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,556
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
It is a point of view that what people like that are doing is using photography to record a construction - in the way that photographs are used to record art installations and performance art. The difference in these examples is that the end result is always intended to be the photograph. It could be suggested that what they are doing relies more on 'craft' skills than, for example, a landscape photographer as they not only have to know how to use their camera and understand composition, but also how to control lighting and so forth.
For my part, while I can admire that sort of stuff for its technical brilliance I find it a little stale and I don't think it plays to the strength of the medium for recording what is there already. Man Ray said that he photographed what he could not paint and painted what he could not photograph. A Crewsdon set-up could be painted, and if painted badly might resemble a Vettriano!
Of course I freely admit that my taste in photography is biased in favour of documentary/straight photography when I refer you to the Paul Reas quote in my earlier post.
But this is part of why photography is so confusing. All photographs share the same 'look' no matter how they have been made or for what purpose, and so the temptation is to judge them all by the same criteria.
ianp5a
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,719
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It sounds like you dwelled on it for some time. I got a slightly different, less deep, impression from it based on less than 5 seconds viewing it. I did not feel it needed much more as it was "just an ordinary photo". I expect if you tell some people it is "special" they might dig deeper. But to me, with so many wonderful pictures around that you don't need to work hard at, where beauty just ouses out, I'll spend more time enjoying those. Even if I am told the photographer is supposed to be someone special. I don't mean to put anyone down. I just love the visual results more than the background. In a similar way to a picture of a bird in captivity compared to an identical one taken in the wild where a photographer may have put a lot of work in to track one down, set up a hide, and wait for 16 hours. As a photographer, the story of the wild is quite interesting. But when separated from the story, or for someone not interested in that, the wild picture looks no better.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't intend to dwell on it, but if i am honest i was drawn back to that one, i can't tell you why, well apart from what i felt going back to it and it could have been anyones photo, more often than not i am totally surprised at the kind of photos shown on these discussions, famous artist or back to the what is art and stuff, i looked at most of those and my first thought was if someone posted those here what on earth would the crit be... yet they are meant to speak volumes apparently..... it could well be 'just an ordinary photo' but for some reason i liked it
DBT85
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 439
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's these images and this thread that worry me a little about the TAOP course I just signed up for. I'm just not sure I'm capable of the analytical view I can see on show from others in here that I know are on or have done the course.
Context is more important for some images than for others. Some pictures you can just look at and go "wow, great picture, I wish I'd taken that" and others you look at and go "What? Something is missing, because this photograph is giving me nothing at all". That missing something is the context in which it was taken or in which it is presented.
Maybe the differences between us all aren't who likes these images and who doesn't, but instead who just says "it's crap" and those who ask "What is this, why is it being presented and what was the reason for taking it or presenting it". You can still ask those questions and think its crap or pretentious or whatever. In asking the question you've looked beyond the individual arrangement of light and dark in the image and into the story behind its capture or presentation.
Regardless, it and this thread have made me ask some questions of myself and I'll write a bit about it on my blog which probably just means I'm getting into this student lark!
When does the bar open?
Context is more important for some images than for others. Some pictures you can just look at and go "wow, great picture, I wish I'd taken that" and others you look at and go "What? Something is missing, because this photograph is giving me nothing at all". That missing something is the context in which it was taken or in which it is presented.
Maybe the differences between us all aren't who likes these images and who doesn't, but instead who just says "it's crap" and those who ask "What is this, why is it being presented and what was the reason for taking it or presenting it". You can still ask those questions and think its crap or pretentious or whatever. In asking the question you've looked beyond the individual arrangement of light and dark in the image and into the story behind its capture or presentation.
Regardless, it and this thread have made me ask some questions of myself and I'll write a bit about it on my blog which probably just means I'm getting into this student lark!
When does the bar open?
ianp5a
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,719
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Great. But then to you it is maybe not 'just an ordinary photo'. Everyone has a slightly different 'ordinary'. I was only speaking of my position. It is interesting to see the many different views.
Actually that picture does stand out, as I think many of the other pictures there are nothing to be proud of.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree it is, seeing how people view images and more so highlighted in these latest threads, the difference of opinions etc
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It is a point of view that what people like that are doing is using photography to record a construction - in the way that photographs are used to record art installations and performance art. The difference in these examples is that the end result is always intended to be the photograph. It could be suggested that what they are doing relies more on 'craft' skills than, for example, a landscape photographer as they not only have to know how to use their camera and understand composition, but also how to control lighting and so forth.
For my part, while I can admire that sort of stuff for its technical brilliance I find it a little stale and I don't think it plays to the strength of the medium for recording what is there already. Man Ray said that he photographed what he could not paint and painted what he could not photograph. A Crewsdon set-up could be painted, and if painted badly might resemble a Vettriano!
Of course I freely admit that my taste in photography is biased in favour of documentary/straight photography when I refer you to the Paul Reas quote in my earlier post.
But this is part of why photography is so confusing. All photographs share the same 'look' no matter how they have been made or for what purpose, and so the temptation is to judge them all by the same criteria.
But anything that can be recorded by a camera can also be painted, can it not?
You finding it a little stale has no bearing on the argument. You don't judge a piece of artwork's worth by how much you like it
As for judging similar genres in the same way because they look the same, I disagree strongly. I wouldn't judge Winogrand's street photography as being the same as the endless parade of old men on benches that passes for street in this forum, yet they're mainly black and white, all available light, and mainly pretty "straight". However... they're... if you'll excuse the pun.. streets apart
All photos don't have the same look at all IMO. Black and white for instance. Very few amateurs can satisfactorily recreate that straight black and white film look. Most people just over process it to death instead.
Ed Sutton
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,556
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
There is a difference between painting what the eye can see and what a camera can see. There are some things the eye cannot see. Muybridge altered the way galloping horses were depicted in paint, for example. Painters can also paint what they perceive, rather than what they see. A photograph of Van Gogh's chair wouldn't look like his painting of the chair.
You finding it a little stale has no bearing on the argument. You don't judge a piece of artwork's worth by how much you like it
Indeed.
As for judging similar genres in the same way because they look the same, I disagree strongly. I wouldn't judge Winogrand's street photography as being the same as the endless parade of old men on benches that passes for street in this forum, yet they're mainly black and white, all available light, and mainly pretty "straight". However... they're... if you'll excuse the pun.. streets apart
I wasn't thinking of people well versed in visual language, David, I was thinking of people in general. To them Winogrand's shot of the young women on a bench may well be no different to any Flickr picture of people sat on a bench.
As for photos having the same 'look' I was thinking more of the physical 'look' - be that a print or a representation on a screen - rather than the aesthetic 'look' of the image. The surface of the photograph looks the same no matter the look of the image. I doubt I'm making myself clear.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldn't worry - I also struggled but get yourself onto a few study visits and chat and discuss and you'll start to see other insights
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a photo of an installation though isn't it. The representation of the bright light from being released from prison, a representation of the white out of satellite images from the US taking all over before afganistan, white cat in a snowstorm...
I see that more of an artistic statement rather than an image
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's a photo of an installation though isn't it. The representation of the bright light from being released from prison, a representation of the white out of satellite images from the US taking all over before afganistan, white cat in a snowstorm...
I see that more of an artistic statement rather than an image
I'm not sure how many would believe me but i hadn't read the interpretation when i posted my original thoughts on the image, they still stand though even though i have since read it.. maybe it's hard to see something else in an image once you have something in your mind?
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So we're back to Berger and the Discontinuities or ambiguities of an image without the description.
With the description, the artists intentions make sense, without it you could joke about white cat in snowstorm, or just say "that's crap".
With the description, the artists intentions make sense, without it you could joke about white cat in snowstorm, or just say "that's crap".
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So we're back to Berger and the Discontinuities or ambiguities of an image without the description.
With the description, the artists intentions make sense, without it you could joke about white cat in snowstorm, or just say "that's crap".
I don't think any visually aware person would say "That's crap". Only the pretty picture crowd would do that. It's clearly considered and is clearly meant to convey meaning. Your average hobbyist wouldn't have taken it, as there's no aesthetic reason for them to do so. Even without the statement one can take an educated guess at the subject matter and what it may mean. You could well be wrong, but the intrigue is there. I don't think it's a case of read the statement, or think it's crap. That's far too polarised.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thing is though he didn't get flamed for his images - people reacted badly to the way in which he reacted to critique (and he wasn't 'driven away' he was banned for being a bell end)
leaving the intricacies of that particular event aside the relevance to this thread is if they were a set and meant to be viewed as a set then presenting them as a set would have been the way to go - likewise with most of the images in that article they need to be seen in their sets to make sense.
The other thing I'd say about the article is that 'explanations' are cringeworthy - if a photo has impact that impact should come from the photo ... if it has to be explained in order to make any sense then the photographer has failed and the photo of itself isn't powerful
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure I agree with you here. Would you say the same for all art? Imagine someone new to the wonderful word of art starts looking at paintings in galleries, and comes across Rembrandt's "Night Watch". I find it HIGHLY unlikely that they'd actually know what the painting was about without reading about it - either before, or after viewing it, yet no one would be arguing whether the painting is art or not.
As others have said, when an article like the one in the OP takes a singe image from a larger body of work, you're always going to have issues. If even one of the most famous paintings in the world needs an explanation when it was intended to be a single narrative piece, and no one says anything, why start criticising a photo taken from a larger set because it also needs an explanation? I'm sure there's just as much flowery nonsense written about the Rembrandt too.
Just the usual prejudice from the "Wouldn't want it on my wall" contingent.
Last edited: