Photograophy Article: Emotive!!!

I love this bit

Something horrible tends to happen to people when they suddenly realize that the camera they hold can produce things that are pretty in and of themselves. They suddenly stop making interesting pictures — the pictures that fill their albums, tell stories, evoke emotions, preserve memories. They go into a rictus of squeezing out endless flower macros and portraits of ducks. Eventually, as they progress in what they think of the art of photography, they may graduate to gauzy soft-focus portraits of simpering women (clothing optional), black-and-white figure studies of carefully sanitized, moodily lit nudes with perfect bodies on a black backdrop, eagles taking wing in zoos or wildlife sanctuaries, motorbikes speeding through the curves on a track, “golden hour” landscapes with mountains and water, or macros of bugs. Eventually some of them may realize the futility of it all and go into a rebellious mode and shoot off an angry series of poorly exposed grainy and blurry pictures of nothing in particular, or dress the simpering ladies in vinyl and slather lots of make-up on them and call it “fetish photography.” Log on to Photosig and you’re guaranteed to see a ton of these pictures on both the “Featured Photos” and “Photos” page. And, of course, open up any DPReview forum, and it’s virtually certain that there’ll be at least one thread with flower macros on the first page. Bubble gum for the eyes.

That bit is Sooooo true! :D
 
I think it is a very negative article with a hugely valid point :) What I read into it is this. You will eventually get to a stage, where you question what you are shooting and why. You will go through the question of self worth, and weather or not your photos are worth jack. You might hit a wall, and need to find inspiration.

I have had that feeling a few times. Each time I ended up doing something bizarre! For example, I buried my step dad in the back garden. I dressed my mum as the joker. And eventually, I spent an entire week trying to nail street.

I eventually slipped back into landscape territory, where I remain. I am enjoying it, but I know I will eventually say "What the heck, why???"...

Looking forward to seeing what happens when the feeling hits :D

Gary.
 
interesting article :) thanks,...may muse over it for a day or so before commenting though:)
 
To reiterate what I said in IRC, the article has a point, granted. I do however think it's wrong to damn everyone who isn't a world class photographer as "Boring", and indeed urge them to rush to the junction of finding that "thing" or not, and ultimately giving up. Considering also that the photos produced by the author are by no means anything special, the article seems rather hypocritical.

I personally am better than I used to be. That said, I am also nothing special in the grand scheme of things; that is to say, I have no misconception about how good I am compared to others, and I certainly do not consider myself a photographic genius. I like the subject material I take photos of and I enjoy taking it. The article has the tone of, if you carry on in photography, you will arrive at a crossroads. If you don't find that extra something, then you'll probably give up, and makes you feel as though there is no point if you doubt your ability of finding that extra something. I think that I love what I do and am happy to improve at the rate that I am currently.

The article has a point, yes, but I don't believe people should be damned before reaching that cross roads of their own accord. After all, what is the opposite of "Boring", as the definition of "boring" in that article seems vague? Further, seeing as everything has been done before, how will anyone hope to be original, and indeed, "unboring"?
 
EdinburghGary said:
I can see the point
Click to expand...

And herein lies the problems we have seen and have been discussing very recently on these forums and IRC.
You have a great ability to see the point of views of others (which is great :thumbs: ), and understand that other people have equally valid opinions that differ from your own. You respect that when engaging in a discussion.

Some people evidently do not share this ability. ;)
 
Woodsy said:
Further, seeing as everything has been done before, how will anyone hope to be original, and indeed, "unboring"?
Click to expand...

I think that's the key. I do honestly think it is possible to be original and different. I think if you can tap into that, it would help you feel inspired, SHOULD you feel like you are at a dead end.

Gary.
 
I think it's all well and good this guy sitting in his bedroom making commentary on what's boring and what isn't in photography. However, people generally take photos of what makes them happy. If it makes someone happy to take macro flower shots, then who is this guy to chastise them for taking "boring photographs"? The same with golden hour landscape shots. The time I spent up in Scotland with Gary, Woodsy etc. was a fantastic time in some incredible scenery. Being in the middle of nowhere in beautiful surroundings and capturing those moments is what makes me happy. And it's as much about the occasion as the actual process of taking a photo. It's quite possible that in 5 years time, maybe more, maybe less, I might feel that I've done as much as I can with landscape photography and will want to move on.

I think this guy is writing a lot but not actually saying anything, to be honest.
 
ignoring the writers very negative tone... I do agree with him one one point, that photography is the most accsesilbe art form...aside photography, im a classical guitarist... and i couldnt imagen someone picking up a guitar, and automaticly presuming they will create fantastic music, like some do when they pick up a camera...
however...
unlike the author, i view this as a good thing... photography is great fun, and being so accsessable makes it easier for people who say, have jobs and dont have hours to put into it. It means its easy for an amature to enjoy a hoby without putting hours of work in, which is a good thing...
those who are really passionate about it, can put alot of time and effort, but the accsesibility means that an average person (unlike in alot of other art forms) can create a something they fill happy with, even if they are busy and dont have alot of time...

... just my thoughts about one of his points
(if you can make it out through my many spelling/gramatical errors)
 
fallen_mathi said:
ignoring the writers very negative tone... I do agree with him one one point, that photography is the most accsesilbe art form...aside photography, im a classical guitarist... and i couldnt imagen someone picking up a guitar, and automaticly presuming they will create fantastic music, like some do when they pick up a camera...
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with him on photography being the most accessible art form. What's cheaper, a camera or a brush and some paint? Someone with no knowledge of photography can no more take a "great" photo than someone who's never picked up a paintbrush before can paint a masterpiece.

2.jpg


These are not great photographs. They're snap shots. That's not to say they're boring (although to me, they're not that interesting either), they're just not great photographs.

kids_art_painting2.gif


This is not a great painting but it's not "boring".

I keep reading the article in question to see if I can fathom out what he's trying to say, but no. I'll stick with my previous assertion that the gums are flapping but he's not actually saying anything.
 
Martin Parr put the book together, he's also done a Brit version.

Why would someone do that if the images were truly boring ?
Figures it'll sell on his name alone ?

The auther is really just describing his own thoughts and motivational experiences, it's just opinion he thinks could be fact.

I do think there are some parallels to be drawn between the gearhead mentality and the idea that there is a standard, a pre-defined measure of technical perfection everybody should be trying to achieve in their photographs, so that it can be measured with rules, colour targets and 100% crops.
 
joxby said:
Martin Parr put the book together, he's also done a Brit version.

Why would someone do that if the images were truly boring ?
Figures it'll sell on his name alone ?

The auther is really just describing his own thoughts and motivational experiences, it's just opinion he thinks could be fact.

I do think there are some parallels to be drawn between the gearhead mentality and the idea that there is a standard, a pre-defined measure of technical perfection everybody should be trying to achieve in their photographs, so that it can be measured with rules, colour targets and 100% crops.
Click to expand...

Ahh....Martin Parr. His work puzzles me a bit, I remember reading an article about him in Amateur Photographer and it was illustrated with some of his work. Shots of menus from Tenerife and others that looked like no more than holiday snaps, yet here they were published in a book.

Same with some of those "art" photography magazines that the likes of Borders sell, most of the pictures would pass by uncommented-on, if they were posted on Flickr.

Whilst I may not particularly like or "get" some forms of the photographic art (snap shots included), I don't find any of it boring.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Ahh....Martin Parr. His work puzzles me a bit, I remember reading an article about him in Amateur Photographer and it was illustrated with some of his work. Shots of menus from Tenerife and others that looked like no more than holiday snaps, yet here they were published in a book.

Same with some of those "art" photography magazines that the likes of Borders sell, most of the pictures would pass by uncommented-on, if they were posted on Flickr.

Whilst I may not particularly like or "get" some forms of the photographic art (snap shots included), I don't find any of it boring.
Click to expand...

I really like Martin Parr's photos. I went to a talk with him earlier on this year and he gave some good insights into his photography. They're a lot more clever than they first look and you have to look at the whole picture to see what he's getting at, although some of them are pretty hilarious from the off.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Whilst I may not particularly like or "get" some forms of the photographic art (snap shots included), I don't find any of it boring.
Click to expand...


Kinda like Terry wotsisface......Richardson, I don't get half of his stuff either, but I can appreciate it, well, most of it
Maybe it can't possibly be boring, if you can appreciate it to some degree, even if you don't get it. :shrug:
 
Martin Parr's work is hit and miss with a lot of people. I like some of it but think sometimes too much unintended narrative is read into his work by the fine art "luvvies". There's a Time's article here about hima nd his work for anyone interested.
 
welly said:
Someone with no knowledge of photography can no more take a "great" photo than someone who's never picked up a paintbrush before can paint a masterpiece.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they can! To paint requires a basic understanding of technique, but with today's modern cameras if someone is pointing the camera in the right direction and has a vague idea of what they are trying to achieve, they just might get lucky.

And (maybe) therein lies the point. It doesn't matter if the "great" picture has been taken on a Nikkon D 6 litre turbo esprit using a Canon LLL IS 0.5 prime or a snappy snaps box camera - it is the picture that is important. It is just that it seems unfair to us that have mortgaged the kids to buy just THAT lens.

Are we, in fact, being accused of being snobbish? And is he right?
 
I feel I 'know' the author a little, Petteri Sulonen. He contributes to the DPR forums and we traded some emails a year or so back. He's a very clever chap, very interesting, sometimes deliberately provocative.

Basically, I think he thinks too much. I really don't have his issues about cliched, old hat images and genres. There is so much old hat and cliched photography that I/me/personally have not done to anything like a decent standard, that I will be happily occupied for the rest of my days. And the same goes for everybody frankly, even Petteri.

We all get fed up from time to time, with all sorts of things. It passes.
 
HoppyUK said:
I feel I 'know' the author a little, Petteri Sulonen. He contributes to the DPR forums and we traded some emails a year or so back. He's a very clever chap, very interesting, sometimes deliberately provocative.

Basically, I think he thinks too much. I really don't have his issues about cliched, old hat images and genres. There is so much old hat and cliched photography that I/me/personally have not done to anything like a decent standard, that I will be happily occupied for the rest of my days. And the same goes for everybody frankly, even Petteri.

We all get fed up from time to time, with all sorts of things. It passes.
Click to expand...

I had a peek at his web site, I will try and find the link again. The entire site looks like bait for trolls, it is designed to cause arguments, it was actually hilarious.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I had a peek at his web site, I will try and find the link again. The entire site looks like bait for trolls, it is designed to cause arguments, it was actually hilarious.

Gary.
Click to expand...

He's Leica fan. Always a dangerous characteristic in my experience ;)
 
When I visited Banksy's exhibition in Bristol recently, his famous stencil of "this is not a photographic opportunity" covered an inoffensive, warmly lit scene. I think he summed up what I feel sometimes, that more and more I find golden hour landscape scenes with overcooked skies and even street photography with a message you're supposed to 'get', as just mundane and dull. But sometimes you see a shot which falls into these categories and it makes you stop and look and even a bit of wow! thrown in. So I try myself but inevitably I fall into the mundane, exactly what I hate.

It's very easy to take mundane shots, it requires no effort...to paint at least you have to have a little bit of talent to spark the motivation to get off your backside. But then there are some really carp painters I don't know why they think they have to bother.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the disillusioned and also that some people really do think we're interested in their dull pictures.
 
Garry79 said:
Martin Parr's work is hit and miss with a lot of people. I like some of it but think sometimes too much unintended narrative is read into his work by the fine art "luvvies". There's a Time's article here about hima nd his work for anyone interested.
Click to expand...

Have a look at his slideshow - I don't really see anything "special" about any of these shots, what am I missing?
 
So, anybody watch the William Egglestone docu tonight, and change their mind about "boring".
Gawd, he can shoot mundane and make it look interesting...:shrug:
 
This guy seems to be pretty cynical but I think maybe it is just an act.

Although I have struggled when looking through albums of other peoples holiday photos I find the variety of shots on TP forums, including macros of flowers and insects, very interesting and inspiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top