Other photographers pictures

[Stuart M]

That's the whole point of the image. If you look at the image in context it's actually an extremely interesting photograph.
Worth millions? Depends on what you mean by "worth". If I had millions I wouldn't spend £3m on any photograph. But I can see the monetary value to a gallery of having a very interesting photograph that people would want to come and see in situ. I can see why a private investor might want to invest in the art and make money from selling it on in the future.

In the context of what exactly?

 

[ghoti]

they arent bad things per se if something else gives the picture interest - but imo in the picture in question there isnt any point of interest apart from the very basic linear construction , which doesnt hold my attention for more than a few seconds.

The linear construction is very neat and tidy and is a nice understated composition but the main point of interest for me - and I expect for others who would defend the photo - is the context and the theme.

 

[dean messenger]

See, all the criteria you mentioned above are, in my opinion, a recipe for a dull photograph if that's all there is to it. Why are lifeless colours, no foreground interest, and, most amusingly of all, not observing the rule of thirds necessarily bad things? You're criticising the photo on an unsophisticated, painting-by-numbers level. Anyone who "pans and bins" an amateur solely and rigidly on those criteria is an idiot.
What the photo is about is a feature of a natural landscape - a river - which has in reality been transformed by industry and urbanisation, returned by the artist to its natural state - just a peaceful river. Maybe you need to spend the effort at looking at it in context before dismissing it as "crap".

lol sorry but theres nothing natural about it. its been photoshopped.
ive yet to actually here one postive comment on the actual photo or name any redeeming quality about it. instead the same argument comes up all relating to "art" and the person who took it rather than the actual quality of the photo itself.
googling around you wil find exactly the same debates all over the net. clearly its a marmite image and i'll say no more.. but none of that justifies the personal attack on me. and as stated if this photo had been done by Joe nobody and uploaded to facebook would you still be defending it.?

 

[Ed Sutton]

maybe im just to working class and just look at it with photographers eyes rather than be stuck in the art world mindset

Your class has nothing to do with it, but looking at pictures from a narrow 'photographer's' perspective does, just as does 'being stuck in the art world mindset'.

We're back at what you like and how you judge the quality of a picture not being the same thing which has been argued over here a few times.

Also with regard to the need to "explain" art - if a photo (or other artistic installation) require a paragraph of text to explain it then imo the artist has failed, because if he was "really saying something" with his art, hthe message should come over through the medium concerned

In contemporary art the explanation can be an integral part of the thing it explains.

... there isnt any point of interest apart from the very basic linear construction , which doesnt hold my attention for more than a few seconds.

Yet that is lack of a point of interests that does hold my attention.

 

[big soft moose]

. In my eyes its criminal when they charge people money. I could never bring myself to charge money for something I wouldn't accept myself. .

end of the day most of the artists under discussion arent guilty of that , as they do genuinely think their 'art' is worthy of the prices it commands - I'm not aware of any who are cynically ripping people off while privately sayong "great I've sold another mug some out of focus rubbish"

At the end of the day other people are going to do what other people do - I can't get too bent out of shape over it - my opinion of a lot of 'art' photography is broadly the same as yours, but , I generally don't buy it, and flip past it if its not of interest to me. My advice would be to find some photographers who's work you do like and take inspiration from there.

 

[ghoti]

In the context of what exactly?

In the context of the series it came from and the theme being explored.

 

[big soft moose]

What the photo is about is a feature of a natural landscape - a river - which has in reality been transformed by industry and urbanisation, returned by the artist to its natural state - just a peaceful river. ".

As i said before if it has to be explained then the artist hasnt succeded in comunicating the ethos

Also from a purely practical point of view that scene isnt natural - natural rivers arent straight, they arent canalised, they don't have mown grass on both sides, and they arent accompanied by surfaced riverside paths. There are some great photos that capture the very essence of a natural river ,but that isnt one of them

I would say that this by ansel adams capturesthat essence far more powerfully, and in my opinion is a better photograph and something i'd be happy to have on my wall - it also speaks to its viewer of what Adams was trying to capture without needing an explanation

 

[ghoti]

lol sorry but theres nothing natural about it. its been photoshopped.
ive yet to actually here one postive comment on the actual photo or name any redeeming quality about it. instead the same argument comes up all relating to "art" and the person who took it rather than the actual quality of the photo itself.
googling around you wil find exactly the same debates all over the net. clearly its a marmite image and i'll say no more.. but none of that justifies the personal attack on me. and as stated if this photo had been done by Joe nobody and uploaded to facebook would you still be defending it.?

There are lots of redeeming qualities about it. You've just dismissed them because they don't fit into your myopic definition of what "photography" is.
And it doesn't matter that it has been photoshopped. The point was to show a heavily urbanised and industrialised natural landscape stripped of it's urbanisation and industry.

 

[Ed Sutton]

 

[Byker28i]

It came in for a lot of criticism - not entirely unfair criticism, in my opinion - for the fact that Parr was a very middle class photographer condescending to a working class world and documenting his subjects almost as a source of droll entertainment. They're certainly nice photographs that document a time and a place, but the criticism rings a little too true for me to be entirely comfortable with the work. It does seem a little like he is poking fun at his subjects, or at least that is certainly a way the work can be read.

But as a documentary piece don't you think they are interesting? Certainly the implications of white trash add to the interest
http://mediastore2.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/f/f/b/f/LON6979.jpg
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchDetail&VBID=2K1HZSU5LHEAG&PN=27&IID=2S5RYDYP85O1

 

[big soft moose]

In contemporary art the explanation can be an integral part of the thing it explains.

If its given by the artist fair enough - though I would say that photography is about communicating without words, so if you have to include a paragraph of context maybe the photo isnt powerful enough. However the explanation given above is a third parties interpretation of what the photo means which can quickly degenerate into "emporors new clothes" something that is substantiated by the reaction when anyone dares to suggest the emporor might be naked.

 

[Byker28i]

Well, the argument from a social justice perspective would be that he wasn't exploiting the rich because the rich are a privileged class. The power balance between Parr and the working class and Parr and the very wealthy is completely different. He can't, almost by definition, condescend to the rich, even if he is making fun of them. Condescension in its most technical definition means to cynically involve yourself with a group of people less privileged, less fortunate than you are.
I don't actually know if I agree with the criticism of Parr but I agree that it's a fair point to raise and that his work could be read as condescending.

Actually I though he applied the same humour (or disdain) towards both classes, but both sets were interesting images.

 

[big soft moose]

. The point was to show a heavily urbanised and industrialised natural landscape stripped of it's urbanisation and industry.

but it hasnt suceeded in that as simply photoshopping out the factory has not removed the urbanisation

 

[big soft moose]

There are lots of redeeming qualities about it. You've just dismissed them because they don't fit into your myopic definition of what "photography" is.
.

Such as ? (oh and btw just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt make their opinion myopic)

 

[ghoti]

As i said before if it has to be explained then the artist hasnt succeded in comunicating the ethos

Also from a purely practical point of view that scene isnt natural - natural rivers arent straight, they arent canalised, they don't have mown grass on both sides, and they arent accompanied by surfaced riverside paths. There are some great photos that capture the very essence of a natural river ,but that isnt one of them

I would say that this by ansel adams capturesthat essence far more powerfully, and in my opinion is a better photograph and something i'd be happy to have on my wall - it also speaks to its viewer of what Adams was trying to capture without needing an explanation

I also think Adams' picture is powerful but the Gursky photo is powerful in different ways.
Snake river isn't familiar to most people as an industrialised landscape in the way this part of the Rhine is. So seeing it rendered as "just a river" is powerful.

 

[Byker28i]

maybe im just to working class and just look at it with photographers eyes rather than be stuck in the art world mindset

Why is it the british are so obsessed with the class system?

There's an interesting study by itself (coming full circle back to Parr?)

 

[big soft moose]

I also think Adams' picture is powerful but the Gursky photo is powerful in different ways.
Snake river isn't familiar to most people as an industrialised landscape in the way this part of the Rhine is. So seeing it rendered as "just a river" is powerful.

I agre that the concept could be powerful - I disagree that this execution of it has suceeded in being as purely removing the factory has not rendered it as a natural river ...

 

[Byker28i]

Following on from comments about some of Parr's work above, it may be hard to determine when a photographer is being exploitative. Perhaps photography can be partially exploitative and there can be a hybrid condition. If you point your camera at someone, are you objectifying them? If at a bird, are you objectifying it?

Ah the Myth of Objectivity.
Allan Sekula, On the Invention of Photographic Meaning, 1997, p.454

“If we accept the fundamental premise that information is the outcome of a culturally determined relationship, then we can no longer ascribe an intrinsic or universal meaning to the photographic image.”

 

[big soft moose]

Why is it the british are so obsessed with the class system?

It was that damn norman conquest - the saxon ruling class have never got used to being reduced to 'middle class' by the incoming ruling elite

 

[ghoti]

Such as ? (oh and btw just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt make their opinion myopic)

Of course it doesn't. But they said that nobody had offered any redeeming qualities, there are redeeming qualities in theme and concept. But that has been overlooked because this person seems blind to such things as photographic considerations. By all means disagree intelligently (as you have done above) that these considerations redeem the work, but complete dismissal of that aspect of photography is what is myopic.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...I would say that photography is about communicating without words, so if you have to include a paragraph of context maybe the photo isnt powerful enough.

This is all tied up with the notion which prevails among certain groups of photographers that pictures can only exist as single, stand alone, images which have to have immediate impact. It comes, possibly, from the photo-club and magazine competition mentality which has spread to sharing sites and forums It's all about making an impact to get the image noticed so it will be liked and given instant approval.

It is possible for a photograph to be really good without being immediate powerful. The slow burn effect where it grows on you through contemplation. It is possible for a photograph to be weak seen on its own, but to for part of a powerful collection - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts effect.

Photography isn't one amorphous medium of expression, it is multiple and varied.

 

[big soft moose]

This is all tied up with the notion which prevails among certain groups of photographers that pictures can only exist as single, stand alone, images which have to have immediate impact. It comes, possibly, from the photo-club and magazine competition mentality which has spread to sharing sites and forums It's all about making an impact to get the image noticed so it will be liked and given instant approval.

It is possible for a photograph to be really good without being immediate powerful. The slow burn effect where it grows on you through contemplation. It is possible for a photograph to be weak seen on its own, but to for part of a powerful collection - the whole being greater than the sum of its parts effect.

Photography isn't one amorphous medium of expression, it is multiple and varied.

I agree that photography can both develop as a slow burn on multiple viewings, and that images of low individual impact can have a greater impact presented in sets. However i'd still say that the way in which a photo should communicate its 'message' is through the viewer looking at the photo, not by a paragraph or more of interpretation being provided by the artists, or more often by a critic


granted in the gurzky shot , what he was trying to acheive is more apparent when viewed as a set (although i still don't think he's acheived it effectively because the images are not an effective representation of who the scene would loook if industry etc was removed) - however if some has to be told in words what a photo is 'about' then the photo has failed to comunicate its meaning.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm not sure photographs have intrinsic and universally understood meanings. I think we impose our own interpretations on them.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not sure photographs have intrinsic and universally understood meanings. I think we impose our own interpretations on them.

I don't entirely disagree - but if thats true it means it was incorrect to state as fact what the Gurzky shot was "about" - rather it may have that meaning for ghoti , but equally a different/or no meaning for someone else.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I don't entirely disagree - but if thats true it means it was incorrect to state as fact what the Gurzky shot was "about" - rather it may have that meaning for ghoti , but equally a different/or no meaning for someone else.

But if that was a meaning stated by Gursky that alters the matter somewhat.

 

[Byker28i]

 

[Blasted]

end of the day most of the artists under discussion arent guilty of that , as they do genuinely think their 'art' is worthy of the prices it commands - I'm not aware of any who are cynically ripping people off while privately sayong "great I've sold another mug some out of focus rubbish"

At the end of the day other people are going to do what other people do - I can't get too bent out of shape over it - my opinion of a lot of 'art' photography is broadly the same as yours, but , I generally don't buy it, and flip past it if its not of interest to me. My advice would be to find some photographers who's work you do like and take inspiration from there.

Yes, but the original point made at the beginning of the thread was that I had just seen some of the worst photography ever, by a (pro) on facebook and I just needed to blow off some steam. Others have taken the thread onto the more artistic stuff. The guy I'm referring to is really bad and he charges money for it, something I could never do. Given the chance I will charge for my own stuff, but only the bits I feel are worthy of being sold.

 

[big soft moose]

But if that was a meaning stated by Gursky that alters the matter somewhat.

Indeed - but you can't have it both ways for a given piece of art, it either has a definitive meaning determined by the artist, or the meaning is projected by the viewer, it can't be both

 

[big soft moose]

Yes, but the original point made at the beginning of the thread was that I had just seen some of the worst photography ever, by a (pro) on facebook and I just needed to blow off some steam. Others have taken the thread onto the more artistic stuff. The guy I'm referring to is really bad and he charges money for it, something I could never do. Given the chance I will charge for my own stuff, but only the bits I feel are worthy of being sold.

Even there i can't get too excited about it - theres hundreds if not thousands of crap photographers out there - many of whom are alledgedly proffesionals, I can't get too excited about it as either their clients will be happy with them - in whuch case no harm no foul, or they won't in which case they'll dsapear from the scene when they get theur arse sued ... either way they arent a concern to me in the mean time as i'm notin competition for the bottom of the market , and at mid market prices i'd aim to compete on quality rather than price

 

[Carlh]

Interesting thread, though the guy/girl is selling the $4 million image, might take offence to someone saying "its rubbish" and then retort with a question of "and how much is your most expensive photograph?" in which case, every single person in TP, no matter how good they think or actually are, would turn around and walk away.

I like Ansel Adams photographs, though I dont think they're a touch on some of today's photographers. If we're talking about it being a long time ago, then fair enough, he was good "then" and has lead the pack for a long time, inspiring others to attain his photography skill, but there are far better landscape photographers on TP than Mr Adams.

If you put up a good black and white conversion of the top TP landscape photographer and pulled out mr.adams photograph, put them side by side and went to Joe Public in the street (who has never heard of mr.adams, or the TP landscape photographer) and ask "which one is better". I wonder which one they would choose. It probably wouldnt be mr.adams, they would most likely got for the cleaner-looking image, with a cracking range of tones etc..

The whole point of "art" is that it is subjective. To be moaning about someone else's photographs, if they are making money from it, good on them. If they're making more money than you, then I sense a hint of jealously and poor salesmanship - and I'm a crap salesman and in no way compare myself to be better, or worse than anyone else on this planet. Even those who have never picked up a camera, because those people could be amazing.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Indeed - but you can't have it both ways for a given piece of art, it either has a definitive meaning determined by the artist, or the meaning is projected by the viewer, it can't be both

Ah, but it can, and it is, because the artist's applied meaning isn't definitive.

 

[Steve]

I'm playing photography art discussion cliche bingo.

I've got 'Tracy Emin's bed', 'Emperor's new clothes' and 'could have been done by a child/monkey'.

Just need 'Brian Sewell' for a line.

 

[big soft moose]

Interesting thread, though the guy/girl is selling the $4 million image, might take offence to someone saying "its rubbish" and then retort with a question of "and how much is your most expensive photograph?" in which case, every single person in TP, no matter how good they think or actually are, would turn around and walk away.
.

The most ive ever got for a single print was £120 , but thats not really germane - i'm not stating that his picture is rubbish - fact, i'm saying that in my opinion I don't rate it that highly.

Also something being sold for loadsamoney doesnt necessarily mean its good... if I could find a buyer who'd pay £4M for a bag of dog poo ("its art dude, it explores the paradox of our societal obsession with fecal matter being something undiscussed whilst also being something that we encounter habitually , and also the deeper complexities of the man/canine relationship " ) it would still be a bag of dog crap

 

[Blasted]

Even there i can't get too excited about it - theres hundreds if not thousands of crap photographers out there - many of whom are alledgedly proffesionals, I can't get too excited about it as either their clients will be happy with them - in whuch case no harm no foul, or they won't in which case they'll dsapear from the scene when they get theur arse sued ... either way they arent a concern to me in the mean time as i'm notin competition for the bottom of the market , and at mid market prices i'd aim to compete on quality rather than price

99 times out of a hundred I don't let it bother me, however his or hers consistent level of rubbish pushed me over the edge. I might go back for another look, make sure I wasn't dreaming it ;-)

 

[Blasted]

Corrected

Also something being sold for loadsamoney doesn't necessarily mean its good... if I could find a buyer who'd pay £4M for a bag of dog poo ("its white dog poo dude, mega rare " ) it would still be a bag of dog crap

 

[ianp5a]

not this blatant ignorance from the luddites again.

Why luddite? I guess you know what luddites are. I wouldn't pay anything for it. Would that make me a luddite then? In fact, luddites might like it.

 

[AshleyC]

I'm playing photography art discussion cliche bingo.

I've got 'Tracy Emin's bed', 'Emperor's new clothes' and 'could have been done by a child/monkey'.

Just need 'Brian Sewell' for a line.

Funilly enough im just reading his "Naked Emperors" book. He's always pretty entertaining and reading him rip into modern artists and the arts council is making the commute worthwhile at the moment.

 

[big soft moose]

Why luddite? I guess you know what luddites are. I wouldn't pay anything for it. Would that make me a luddite then? In fact, luddites might like it.

I did think that myself, Eric Ludd might have liked Gursky's vision of an industrialess landscape .. although Ludd's oposition to the industrial revolution sprang more from his concern that it would destroy the rural cottage industry economy (which indeed it did) than a concern for the environmental impact

 

[Pookeyhead]

The modern usage of the word is to describe those who are slow or unwilling to incorporate the new into their lives, and prefer traditionalist ideas. I'm hardly going to be using in the context of 19th century disgruntled workers am I?

 

[viv1969]

The modern usage still applies to those unwilling to accept modern technology / machinery. It's not a catch-all.