Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Isaac on August 25, 2015, 04:33:04 pm
-
No Title (Flying Picture), 2003 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-1.jpg) -- Daniel Gordon
Men of Good Fortune, 2011 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-21.jpg) -- Richard Mosse
Forest Red, 2012 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-31.jpg) -- Alejandra Laviada
Buildings And Pines, 2011 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-41.jpg) -- Lauren Marsolier
Response to Print of Kudzu, Texas, 2010 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-51.jpg) -- Laura Plageman
Burned Over #5, 2012 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-61.jpg) -- Amelia Bauer
Hug Grand Tetons, 2011 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-71.jpg) -- Letha Wilson
Spiral, 2013 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-81.jpg) -- Amanda Arcuri
Gyptic Hill Tomb of Thuvos, 2013 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-91.jpg) -- Adam Ryder
Stonehenge, 2007 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-101.jpg) from the series "Photo Opportunities" -- Corinne Vionnet
Title Landscape 1 (from 5 Landscape Modes), 2013 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-111.jpg) -- Jason Gowans
Three Rivers, 2013 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-121.jpg) -- Sadie Marie Wechsler
Echo Tee Rock from the series The Edge Effect, Joshua Tree National Park, California, 2012 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-131.jpg) -- Daniel Kukla
And Still We Gather With Infinite Momentum, 2009 (http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-141.jpg) -- Justin James King
"14 Photos That Challenge the Definition of Landscape Photography | TIME (http://time.com/4003527/future-of-photography"/)
-
Thanks, Isaac. There's some interesting stuff in that collection. The last one is stunning.
-
Thanks, Isaac. There's some interesting stuff in that collection. The last one is stunning.
A mixed bag. I agree the last is particularly good but I confess I've not the faintest idea what the title adds to it - or even is supposed to mean.
Jeremy
-
I've not the faintest idea what the title adds to it - or even is supposed to mean.
That was my immediate thought as well. Then I got to thinking about who the readership of the Time magazine actually is - the general public whose idea of landscape photography is probably sweeping vistas like the High Plains or the Grand Canyon. Or a schoolroom stood alone against a backdrop of the Rockies. Abstracting elements of a landscape, as many of these do, is probably new to their definition of 'landscape photography'.
For photographers themselves (which this site is all about) it is pretty much old hat.
-
From a review of his work: http://portable.tv/loves/post/and-still-we-gather-with-infinite-momentum/ (http://portable.tv/loves/post/and-still-we-gather-with-infinite-momentum/)
-
I find the black background in the last one distracting. The foreground is fine but over all a better background would be a possible improvement?
-
The black background is the whole point. See Robert's link.
-
What is "the definition of Landscape photography" that these photographs challenged?
They all look like nice landscape type pictures to me.
-
The black background is the whole point. See Robert's link.
It maybe his point but possibly a black background with a gradient - fading to a very dark grey - from the top to the figure would imo be better? Or is it once we have looked at the image we accept it as it is or not at all, meaning no comment? It isn't as if I am rejecting the whole concept. :)
-
Luminous Landscape Forum > Equipment & Techniques > Landscape & Nature Photography
No sweeping vistas here :-)
which is why I added
For photographers themselves (which this site is all about) it is pretty much old hat.
:) :)
-
Wow.
Those photographs, to my estimate, challenge absolute nothing other than the rationality of the people who are claiming that they actually are.
The last one is OK, the rest are as unimaginative and pedestrian as they come.
-
Wow.
Those photographs, to my estimate, challenge absolute nothing other than the rationality of the people who are claiming that they actually are.
The last one is OK, the rest are as unimaginative and pedestrian as they come.
Agreed:
a. Spiral: Albert Watson did the same thing far, far better on Skye;
b. the last one: Patrick Lichfield did much the same thing again, far, far better with a mock-Indian maiden for Unipart.
What to say that's positive? Nuttin'.
Rob C
-
Some are pretty. I like the first one. The game of "it's important to Art because it's Original" doesn't interest me.
I'd probably say that none of them represent what I expect to see under the heading "landscape", which to me is a good thing.
-
Those photographs, to my estimate, challenge absolute nothing other than the rationality of the people who are claiming that they actually are.
The last one is OK, the rest are as unimaginative and pedestrian as they come.
Can you show us some of your imaginative work then please, so we can be inspired?
Despite others really liking the last shot, that looks more like a snapshot to me.
This is the one I found most interesting.
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/guest-curator-jon-feinstein-51.jpg)
-
Can you show us some of your imaginative work then please, so we can be inspired?
Why? This isn't about me. Click on my handle if you're looking for some of my work. If you get inspired, let me know and I'll bill you.
-
Why? This isn't about me.
No, but it so easy to slag other's work off. If you cannot do better, than best not to put others down.
Click on my handle if you're looking for some of my work. If you get inspired, let me know and I'll bill you.
I did. There are no links to you or your work.
-
It's so easy to slag other's work off.
It's so easy to slag other's work off, without contributing any insight or understanding.
-
It's so easy to slag other's work off.
It's so easy to slag other's work off, without contributing any insight or understanding.
So pointless too. Most of art/music etc that others create is not to our taste, so saying you do not like something is about the most irrelevant thing you can say.
-
I like that shot posted above although I really fail to see how it "challenges" landscape photography, a lot of the other stuff on that list just seem gimmicky and far from the best use of those gimmicks I'v seen.
-
So pointless too. Most of art/music etc that others create is not to our taste, so saying you do not like something is about the most irrelevant thing you can say.
Strange comment.
The thread was, one wold imagine, posted here precisely because people's views were being sought. Otherwise, it, the post itself, would have been 'irrelevant'.
Do only those things said, in agreement with whatever, count as 'relevant'? Perhaps, in some cases some think that is so.
Smacks of 'what I say is so; you others shut the eff up...'
But of course, I'm probably mistaken. don't quite grasp the zeitgeist.
Rob C
-
Finally, isn't "I like it" or "I don't like it" the only completely honest thing aesthetic judgement one can make? If I say one of those, I speak for me. If I say "this is a great/crap photo", I'm trying to speak for everyone, which is bound to fail.
-
Rob,
The thread was, one wold imagine, posted here precisely because people's views were being sought...
...on how 14 photos challenge the definition of landscape photography, not on their likeability.
-
Rob,
...on how 14 photos challenge the definition of landscape photography, not on their likeability.
But Rob, as they (the photos) obviously haven't changed any definition of anything, there would have been nothing left upon which to comment, would there, and poor old Isaac would have been left talking to himself; who could be so unkind?
Rob C
-
Rob,
...they (the photos) obviously haven't changed any definition of anything...
Have you experienced a landscape with a crumpled-paper background often?
-
Strange comment.
The thread was, one wold imagine, posted here precisely because people's views were being sought. Otherwise, it, the post itself, would have been 'irrelevant'.
Do only those things said, in agreement with whatever, count as 'relevant'? Perhaps, in some cases some think that is so.
Smacks of 'what I say is so; you others shut the eff up...'
But of course, I'm probably mistaken. don't quite grasp the zeitgeist.
Re the part in bold. Not at all, my simply saying I dislike something is just as irrelevant as anyone else saying the same thing. Though I try and say it's not to my taste which is actually a neutral statement reflecting on me. Rather than the usual 'It's crap' when someone comments on something not to their taste, a pointless statement about the subject instead.
The reality is that we all like a small subset of what art, music whatever is presented to us and we all like to think we have good taste. The reality is that we simply have different taste. Commenting on all the things we do not like, i.e. the majority of art is a rather negative thing. This is a separate and quite different thing from constructive criticism BTW.
As for comments that are relevant, someone who likes say Justin Bieber would be the best sort of person to review a Justin Bieber concert. Why? Because they are the customer who actually wants to go to such a gig - doesn't mean they will not be uncritical. If a film reviewer hates horror movies, are they going to give one a fair review unlike someone who does appreciate the genre? Again it doesn't mean they will not be critical of flaws.
Personally I like 'good' films regardless of genre as to my mind a good story is a good story. But that is a rare thing as people tend to like a subsection of film types. My music collection is also much more eclectic than most, as I enjoy a huge range of very disparate genres, though with a slight favouritism of minor chords and fast rhythms. A combination that can be found in most genres however.
I've done film and music reviews by the way and what I noticed was that it is so much easier to write negative reviews than positive ones. The English language seems to have a lot more variety of negative than positive words. Plus it's easier to be entertaining whilst slating someone. A colleague once admitted to writing a bad review of a band that she was actually quite impressed by, because that was the easy option.
-
Rob,
...on how 14 photos challenge the definition of landscape photography, not on their likeability.
It's a clickbait headline certainly, but your point still stands. Likeability is not really the point in question here. Though many have taken that line.
-
I'm a
-
Graham,
I'm a
...few keystrokes short of a sentence?
-
Rob,
Have you experienced a landscape with a crumpled-paper background often?
I have experienced every kind of print as a wet (or dry) crumpled up print at one stage or another: it's called self-critical discipline!
Gimmicks are not art; they are desperate calls for help in making something out of nothing.
;-)
Rob C
-
I have experienced every kind of print as a wet (or dry) crumpled up print at one stage or another: it's called self-critical discipline!
Gimmicks are not art; they are desperate calls for help in making something out of nothing.
;-)
Any technique used appropriately is not a gimmick.
-
Graham,
...few keystrokes short of a sentence?
Argh, accidentally submitted by bumping the wrong key, immediately edited but that was lost.
My intention was to ask what is the current definition of a landscape? It seems futile to discuss challenges to it without agreeing on what it is.
-
Any technique used appropriately is not a gimmick.
Just as long as it's one's own or makes an argument appear sound.
;-)
Rob C
-
Argh, accidentally submitted by bumping the wrong key, immediately edited but that was lost.
My intention was to ask what is the current definition of a landscape? It seems futile to discuss challenges to it without agreeing on what it is.
Graham, you're straying dangerously close to the point where someone, somewhere, will waken up and ask: what's the definition of art, Mum?
When that happens, this entire website might as well close right down and go home, go fishing, skiing or whatever takes its fancy, because photography will be dead.
It thrives on uncertainty, lack of buyer/viewer confidence, just like any art market. Which might pose the question with which I came in: what's art? But for the sake of my beloved LuLa I shan't ask that!
Rob C
-
My intention was to ask what is the current definition of a landscape? It seems futile to discuss challenges to it without agreeing on what it is.
One view could be...A photo of the natural outdoors - with some land in it. But may include buildings on said land or things growing on the land.
A cityscape is when subject gets more urban and the land beneath buildings tends to not be seen.
-
But Rob, as they (the photos) obviously haven't changed any definition of anything, there would have been nothing left upon which to comment, would there, and poor old Isaac would have been left talking to himself; who could be so unkind?
You are not being kind. You are being condescending.
-
You are not being kind. You are being condescending.
Oh for crissaks, lighten up and don't be so literal!
Rob C
-
Go tell someone who's standing before you, what they should do!
This isn't your personal web site.
-
ROFL
"I'm the god-damn emperor and if I say my clothes are stunning, what right do you have to tell me they're... undefined..."
-
I can understand ever more clearly the impossibility of getting through to, of communicating with someone who has absolutely no natural understanding about human nature, its subtleties and layers of expressional complexity.
Literal is the course of the machine.
Rob C
-
Not to be confused with...
http://content.ngv.vic.gov.au/retrieve.php?size=1280&type=image&vernonID=5626
-
I can understand ever more clearly the impossibility of getting through to, of communicating with someone who has absolutely no natural understanding about human nature, its subtleties and layers of expressional complexity.
It's always someone else's fault that you are so misunderstood.
-
ROFL
"I'm the god-damn emperor and if I say my clothes are stunning, what right do you have to tell me they're... undefined..."
They aren't my clothes -- say what you like about them, without making condescending remarks about me.
-
Can you show us some of your imaginative work then please, so we can be inspired?
Or as a good substitute, show us some work you find inspiring along with some explanation of why that is.
-
Or as a good substitute, show us some work you find inspiring along with some explanation of why that is.
Why is the onus on the person who is not slagging of other's work to find inspiring work?
Not a huge fan of landscape photography anyway, so I'd be the wrong person to ask to for suggestions in that area. However I did post one of the pictures in question along with what you just quoted, because I thought that was rather interesting. It wasn't just a pretty picture, which I tend to find rather anodyne.
-
I only saw the I and the II.
terrific colour rendition, snapshot detail, so-so composition.....
-
You can't just pick a picture out of it's context and say if it's good or bad. Oh well, you can of course if you like, but if the photo comes from a series in an art project I think you need to consider the art project as a whole, and how that image fits into that particular context.
In most art photography projects there is no intention to make pictures that people hang on the wall in their own homes over their fireplace. They're made to be shown as a series in an art gallery, together with a text that provides the context of the images that makes you think when you watch the images, and that's what that type of art is about. It's not about making school-book perfect compositions of all-beautiful scenes.
Take the second picture for example of Richard Mosse which I happened to recognize, it's from his Infra series shot on Kodak Aerochrome, covering the conflict in Democratic Republic of Congo. It's not just landscape, there's pictures of soldiers in war too.
-
In most art photography projects there is no intention to make pictures that people hang on the wall in their own homes over their fireplace. They're made to be shown as a series in an art gallery, together with a text that provides the context of the images that makes you think when you watch the images, and that's what that type of art is about.
Taking your comment partly out of context :)...
Does this mean that there is necessarily a schism between an artist who aspires to sell to (or just exhibit in) a museum and one who hopes to sell to private individuals through a commercial gallery? What about the notion that a museum should not be trying to define (good) art, but merely capture and preserve what is the state of Art at a given time?
Questions posed in genuine naïvété...