Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Isaac on July 15, 2014, 12:16:06 pm
-
Garry Winogrand (1928-1984) was nothing more nor less than still photography’s version of “MonkeyCam”: a restless, anxious primate with camera attached, constantly scanning — unaware of, unresponsible for and uninterested in the results (http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/).
-
What this article says is what anybody familiar with Winogrand's work already knows: He was a hell of a photographer but a lousy editor. I consider myself fortunate to have a copy of Winogrand, Figments From the Real World, the catalog from the 1988 retrospective at MoMA, in which Szarkowski, who was a very good editor, showed how good Garry really was. I think he went off the deep end toward the end of his life, but even then there were treasures in those undeveloped rolls that continue to show up.
-
If Szarkowski edited MonkeyCam would that make the monkey "a hell of a photographer"?
-
What are you trying to say, Isaac? That Winogrand had the eye of a monkey? Or are you saying that the average monkey is as good a photographer as Winogrand? Don't beat around the bush. Just say what you mean.
-
Finally someone to put street photographers in their place :P
P.S. A tongue-in-cheek retaliation for constant bashing of landscape photographers
-
It's not that landscape photographers are bad photographers, Slobodan. It's just that they don't quite understand what photography really is for. Painting is for landscapes; photography is for people.
-
... Painting is for landscapes; photography is for people.
Which apparently any monkey with a camera could do :P
-
Oh, come on, Slobodan, your work isn't that bad.
-
....photography is for people.
Ok, now this ^ is a fascinating statement. Are you suggesting that you have a preference (as a producer or consumer...or both) for photographs that contain or are about people, or are you suggesting that people are the only appropriate (legitimate?) subjects for photography?
-
I took RSL's comment as being tongue-in-cheek.
Now the notion of Winogrand being unaware of, unresponsible for and uninterested in the results of his work...that strikes me as assinine when applied to his entire body of work. But count me among those folks who feel his obsession with taking photos deteriorated into mere compulsion during the final decade or so of his life.
-Dave-
-
“You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else–and whichever is better you print.”
-
Right. The key phrase, Isaac, is "You see something happening. . ." What's implied in that phrase is that the photographer understands what "something" means. Monkeys don't understand that. Far too many photographers don't understand that. Happily for them, landscape photographers don't need to understand that because what they're looking at isn't "happening." It's just lying there.
-
... landscape photographers don't need to understand that because what they're looking at isn't "happening." It's just lying there.
Indeed, Russ. For those "landscape photographers" who snap it mid-day, fair weather, from a parking lot, it indeed might be "just lying there". For the rest of us, rare moments when that landscape looks quite different might be just as fleeting as your street.
-
In other words, when it's lying there in different light.
-
The key phrase…
In a group of people there's always something happening, that's why in a studio audience “MonkeyCam” works.
-
I don't recall that Garry's work was confined to studio audiences. Maybe you can give me a reference to that, Isaac.
-
I don't recall that Garry's work was confined to studio audiences. Maybe you can give me a reference to that, Isaac.
We can all see the words "In a group of people…" -- ignoring what was written doesn't make it invisible to others.
-
Oh. Okay. So Garry only shot groups of people? Again, I need a reference. Googled it, but simply couldn't find it.
-
Again, we can all see that what was actually written isn't the same as your tendentious rewrite.
-
Right. The key phrase…
The key phrase: "…or you get something else… (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91678.msg746005#msg746005)".
-
Bye, Isaac
-
"… one might venture that he photographed whether or not he had anything to photograph, and that he photographed most when he had no subject, in the hope that the act of photographing might lead him to one."
John Szarkowski, The Work of Garry Winogrand
-
Regardless of the ire here, I can recommend this experiment:
Go to an urban environment, with many active people doing different things in different groupings. Now shoot as randomly as you can. Don't frame, don't pause, don't think, just burn 1000 exposures pointing the camera roughly at people randomly. You might try stuff up for dinner focus. Black and white. Or not.
Then go home and see what you got.
-
... Then go home and see what you got.
I can guarantee you got something. ;)
-
I can guarantee you got something. ;)
Who knows maybe some might even be in focus! Where something is happening..... ;D
Peter
-
What you probably got was knocked on the head!
-
Who knows maybe some might even be in focus!
1/50th f8
-
If you haven't done it, then mocking it is easy.
-
1/50th f8
At least the f/8 is right. Show us some of your work using this formula, Isaac.
-
... Show us some of your work using this formula, Isaac.
I think it is time to retire this request. We all asked for that at one time or another, some of us repeatedly, with no apparent result (other than thread closing). At this point, I can only assume there is a good reason for his reluctance. As a minimum, I've come to see it as a free will (to post or not to post) that should be left alone as such.
-
Go to an urban environment, with many active people doing different things in different groupings. Now shoot as randomly as you can. Don't frame, don't pause, don't think, just burn 1000 exposures pointing the camera roughly at people randomly.
Then go home and see what you got.
I've done this sort of thing—zone focusing, f/8, auto ISO, click click click at near random—and my takeaway is that there's enough going on in such locales that you can't help but every so often stumble into an interesting photo. I get little enjoyment from doing it, though, since for me seeing the interesting scene and responding to it is where the fun is. The resulting photo isn't unimportant but it's not primary either.
-Dave-
-
It's not that I recommend doing it as a method. I don't. It will teach you something about the nature of photography.
-
I think it is time to retire this request. We all asked for that at one time or another, some of us repeatedly, with no apparent result (other than thread closing). At this point, I can only assume there is a good reason for his reluctance. As a minimum, I've come to see it as a free will (to post or not to post) that should be left alone as such.
I agree with you, Slobodan. It's up to Isaac whether or not he wants to post pictures, and I've given up trying to get him to do that. My only problem is that I find it off-putting when somebody offers advice about street photography without demonstrating he's actually done it. Critiquing without demonstrating a talent for what you're criticizing is okay. All sorts of armchair critics do it, and most, but not all, art critics couldn't so much as draw a nose or a leg. But criticism is one thing; instruction is another.
-
... It will teach you something about the nature of photography.
Like what? Care to elaborate? Or is it just another confirmation of the statement (paraphrased): "I photograph to see how things look like when photographed," in which case it doesn't really matter who, what or how.
-
At least the f/8 is right.
With IBIS the 1/50th can be right too.
-
As a minimum, I've come to see it as a free will (to post or not to post)
That's exactly the point.
-
The lesson or lessons to be learned are best learned, rather than talked about.
Still, there are things you can say about the relationship between shooting and editing. One can trade care in shooting for care in editing later. This is obvious but the extent to which it is true is pretty surprising.
This has obvious implications for the work of Winogrand and Maier, at least. What appears to be skill in shooting is, one can learn via my experiment, actually skill in editing. Again, obvious except for the degree to which it is true.
-
It's not that landscape photographers are bad photographers, Slobodan. It's just that they don't quite understand what photography really is for. Painting is for landscapes; photography is for people.
I know you are only kidding Russ, but,
Wasn't the first recorded negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Latticed_window_at_lacock_abbey_1835.jpg) taken of a landscape through a window?
Wasn't the first book on photography "The Pencil of Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pencil_of_Nature.jpg)" predominantly about landscapes and landscape images?
Isn't the most expensive photograph ever sold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II), a landscape image?
Isn't the most famous photographer of all time (Ansel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ansel_Adams_and_camera.jpg)) a landscape photographer?
Just sayin... ;D
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
The first photograph was made by Nicephore Niepce in 1825 on a pewter plate coated with an asphalt derivative and it was a picture of his neighbor's rooftops. The shutter speed was something like 8 hours.
Fox Talbot's Pencil of Nature included some landscape, but it also included a bunch of pictures of people and their houses and yards.
I'm not sure what Rhein II actually has to do with serious photography, but if money is your guide to what's great, you're thrashing about in the wrong genre. Paintings are a lot more expensive.
In terms of 20th century photography, Ansel is a footnote. Henri Cartier-Bresson was by far the most influential photographer of that century.
Just sayin. . .
-
In terms of 20th century photography, Ansel is a footnote. Henri Cartier-Bresson was by far the most influential photographer of that century.
Just sayin. . .
No Russ, I said famous not influential ;)
Dave
-
... In terms of 20th century photography, Ansel is a footnote. Henri Cartier-Bresson was by far the most influential photographer of that century.
Ok... influential... on what? For whom? A bunch of street photographers in a genre that can be, as this thread has so amply demonstrated, be done by any MonkeyCam?
What was his influence on the world beyond his faithful? Has anyone put his image on a wall? Has he touched people's hearts and minds? The way Doisneau's couple kissing in Paris (http://agonistica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/doisneau_4.jpeg), or Eisenstaedt's sailor kissing a girl in NY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V–J_day_in_Times_Square) did? If there is one photographer who touched other people's lives, it would be Sebastiao Salgado with his refugees or gold-mine workers series (which, coincidentally, branched into pure landscapes recently). Who's life was influenced by a guy jumping over a puddle!?
Enter Adams.
Maybe presidential medals of freedom mean nothing to you, but it is not the medal itself that matters, it is what it was for:
"Drawn to the beauty of nature's monuments, he is regarded by environmentalists as a monument himself, and by photographers as a national institution. It is through his foresight and fortitude that so much of America has been saved for future Americans."
With the Sierra Club, he advocated in 1936 for the establishment of Kings Canyon as a national park. His images of the Kings and Kern rivers were used effectively in Washington D.C. during Congressional discussions that ultimately yeilded the 1940 legislation founding Kings Canyon National Park.
Adams' influence on people and history goes beyond landscapes:
In 1943, Adams boldly photo-documented Manzanar, a Japanese-American internment camp at his own expense, refusing government funding.
THAT is being influential, my friend. Not impressing art critics and the faithfuls.
-
No Russ, I said famous not influential ;)
Dave
Depends on what you consider fame, Dave. For decades HCB published widely both in Europe and the U.S. I remember HCB photographs in Life magazine time after time when I was growing up. He also published book after book: The Decisive Moment, A Propos de Paris, The Europeans, The Face of Asia, The People of Moscow, etc., etc., etc. He had books and articles written about him. Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art was one. In the meantime, Ansel was making prints that banks and other institutions could hang on their walls and writing books about photographic processes. I read all of Ansel's books, by the way, and for years I had a copy of Moonrise Over Hernandez hanging on my office wall. But to say that Ansel was more famous than Henri is more than a bit of a stretch. Ansel was famous mostly within a small community of photographers. Henri was famous around the world.
-
Hi Slobodan,
If you think street photography can be done by any MonkeyCam, let's see a few of your best street shots. Street photography is the most difficult genre of all. By comparison, landscape is an afternoon tea party.
What was Henri's influence beyond his faithful? Are you serious? Do you know anything at all about the history of photography? He was a prime mover in the establishment of Magnum, which continues to be one of the finest photo agencies in the world. But more importantly he influenced a whole generation of photographers who showed us what people around the world were like: Chim, Doisneau, Ronis, Evans, Erwitt, Riboud, Levitt, Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander, Koudelka, to name just a few of the contemporaries who admit his influence on their work.
A couple generations of street photographers have followed those contemporaries. Steve McCurry is one member of those later generations, and all have been influenced by Henri's work. It's neat that Ansel has gotten medals and has "advocated" for things like Kings Canyon. But you know damned well I'm talking about artistic influence, not political influence.
I think Ansel was a great technician. I read all his books and, at one point in my film days, even cooked up some one-of-a-kind developers based on what I learned from him. But post-processing isn't art. The art takes place at the moment that shutter clicks. It's interesting that Ansel's most famous photograph is Moonrise, and that that one happened by pure chance. When he stopped his van and got his stuff on top for the shot, forgetting his light meter and having to guess at the exposure, that whole situation was very close to what happens in street photography. And it was the best thing he ever did.
-
Street photography is the most difficult genre of all. By comparison, landscape is an afternoon tea party.
I hope you are still kidding me Russ and even though I do realise how this discussion could so easily have us all disappearing up our own arses, or reverting to child like arguments such as my dad is better than your dad etc, but I do have to say I find that statement a little OTT. I mean come on, more difficult in what way? More difficult than flying to the moon and taking a shot of the earth rising above the eclipsing shadow of the moon? – a landscape shot if ever I saw one and probably the most famous single image of all time.
I am no good at street photography I will happily admit that, I tried it and I just don’t get it, it didn’t move me emotionally, but this doesn’t mean I think it is more difficult than landscape, just that I am rubbish at it. But from my experience of the genre, I can conclude that street is a submissive type of photography, you just wait or wander around aimlessly in the hope that something happens or comes towards you and that you notice it in time to capture it, a bit like fishing. Landscape on the other hand is the complete opposite, you have to go out and hunt down your quarry, it is an active type of photography where the results are totally up to you and your abilities, your eye and your skill. Good landscapes shots do not walk into your frame, you have to actively seek them out and know what you are doing (usually in a blur of heart pumping activity) when you find something meaningful to extract from everything else that surrounds it, because it is you and only you that makes and designs the picture and everything you choose to include or exclude within it. Street on the other hand is happening right now and right outside your front door, and every image you take is based on happenstance, in fact you don’t even really know what you have until you scroll through your images later.
But let us argue no further Russ, HCB was as good as it gets in his genre and will probably never be rivalled and so was AA in his, each one head and shoulders above everyone else in their field and I think we would both be very happy indeed if we were even half as good. ;)
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
I think part of the problem we're having is the need to define what you're after in your photographs. Certainly flying to the moon is difficult, but making a shot of the earth once you're on the moon isn't. The result is technically interesting, and if that's what you're after in your photographs then you've succeeded. But if technically interesting were my objective in my photographs I'd get a job making dental x-rays.
I'm sorry you don't understand street. It's a problem a lot of people have. Even Brooks Jensen, who publishes LensWork, admits he doesn't understand street. That's a shame because the printing in his magazine is exceptionally fine, and Brooks's blind spot results in page after page of meaningless abstractions intermixed with sometimes quite good landscape and an occasional study of some interesting faces.
I don't think you can evaluate the relative difficulty of street versus landscape unless you do both. Good street shots don't "walk into your frame," as you put it. You have actively to seek them out and to know what you're doing when you find something meaningful to extract from everything else that surrounds it, because it is you and only you that makes the framing that grabs the people and the geometry which, together, make a picture that captures the peculiarity of life. The main difference between street and landscape in that respect is time. In landscape you usually have virtually all day to decide where to set up, how to frame the shot, what to include and what to leave out. You have time to think. In street, your response has to be intuitive. Usually you have a second or less to make the shot. If you depend on your conscious mind to make decisions, you'll lose the picture.
I don't have a beef with Ansel. I learned a great deal from the man, but what I learned was technical procedure. What I learned from Henri was a kind of esthetics perfectly fitted to the camera. There were a few painters who attempted street and did a fair job of it, but when the Leica came along they had to give it up. There were many painters doing landscape, and when the camera came along they laughed and carried on.
-
... Good street shots don't "walk into your frame," as you put it. You have actively to seek them out...
The only guy who would fit that description is that New York photographer who startles his subjects by getting into their faces with a flash.
-
Good [street] shots don't "walk into your frame," as you put it. You have actively to seek them out and to know what you're doing when you find something meaningful to extract from everything else that surrounds it, because it is you and only you that makes the framing that grabs the people and the geometry which, together, make a picture that captures [the peculiarity something] of [the world].
Fixed that for you.
-
OK Russ, I think we will have to agree to disagree, because it has now become obvious, that I don't understand street just as much as you don't understand landscape.
Now you can't say fairer than that can you ;)
Dave
-
The only guy who would fit that description is that New York photographer who startles his subjects by getting into their faces with a flash.
If you've read my "On Street Photography" article (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.html), Slobodan, you know I agree with you about Bruce Gilden. But to say that good street shots walk into your frame, you'd then have to agree that the same thing happens with landscape. In one case you're walking in a populated area with a camera in your hand looking for a picture. In the other case you're driving or moving around on horseback or on muleback or on jackassback with a ton of equipment looking for a picture. The real difference is that in the first case you'd better be ready to shoot. In the second case you have to unload all that crap, set up, and wait for the light to improve.
-
OK Russ, I think we will have to agree to disagree, because it has now become obvious, that I don't understand street just as much as you don't understand landscape.
Now you can't say fairer than that can you ;)
Dave
Hi Dave, I not only think we have to disagree, I'm sure we have to disagree. But before you conclude that I don't understand landscape, better take a look at my webs. Maybe your definition of landscape excludes the hand of man. If so you need to check out Constable and Turner, among many others, in your art history books.
-
The reasons landscape photographers do not get or like street are the same reasons that attracted us to it in the first place: to get away, as far as possible, from the crowds. What landscape photographers are running away from, street shooters rush into. For the former, crowds are terrifying, for the latter, terrific. We search solitude, splendid isolation, inner piece, far away from the crowds and their misery, vanity, greed, stupidity... you are fascinated by it. We are choking in crowds, you get adrenalin rush. It is not that we do not get the " the peculiarity of life," or human conditions, it is that we get it only too well and thus want to find a refuge from it. Different folks, different strokes.
-
Okay, Slobodan. I can agree with all of that. But I don't think the one thing excludes the other. I enjoy living near people and being able to walk down a street where there's action, but I also love going up into the mountains and enjoying the solitude and the hand of God on those hills. In my summers, when I was a high-schooler I sometimes used to take a bedroll and a rifle and go off for a couple days in the northern Michigan woods. The delicious sound of wind in the high pines has never left me.
-
My experiments with random shooting of large numbers of frames suggest to me that you can produce fake Winogrands (of certain eras, not all) by spraying the exposures around wildly, and that you cannot produce fake Cartier-Bressons with the same method.
They're both street but otherwise totally different. Different ideas, different methods, different motivations, different aesthetics, and different results.
-
I agree with you, Andrew. For one thing, Garry didn't have Henri's grasp of geometry, which he'd learned from André Lhote, who reportedly was a real nitpicker. For another, toward the end of his life and his career, I think Garry's work deteriorated badly. I don't doubt that a lot of the stuff he produced during this period could be replicated with random shooting because I think he began to shoot randomly. But even during that final period, Garry occasionally produced a gem. It was a sad denouement for a man who'd been a very fine artist.
-
I'm not sure what Rhein II actually has to do with serious photography, but if money is your guide to what's great, you're thrashing about in the wrong genre. Paintings are a lot more expensive.
£3million is serious money regardless of art genre. Besides how do you make out that Gursky's isn't serious? What is serious photography anyway, does it taste different or something and should I try it?
-
If you think street photography can be done by any MonkeyCam, let's see a few of your best street shots. Street photography is the most difficult genre of all. By comparison, landscape is an afternoon tea party.
I do not see any difference in difficulty, both require patience, careful observation and the ability to place camera in the right place, not to mention a lot of walking around. But above all they, as do all genres of photography require a good eye for your subject and if you haven't got one then it isn't difficult, but actually near impossible.
Besides if you are good at something then it is easy to do, not that difficulty in producing a shot should have any bearing on something's artistic worth.
I think Ansel was a great technician. I read all his books and, at one point in my film days, even cooked up some one-of-a-kind developers based on what I learned from him. But post-processing isn't art. The art takes place at the moment that shutter clicks.
Utter, utter nonsense.
The click of the shutter is only the first stage in the creative process, unless shooting on slide and processing normally at the lab. Or these days shooting jpeg and not altering it afterwards.
Sometimes what I shoot is just a sketch or starting point for the end result, sometimes it's near as dammit the finished product. The creativity or art is there at all points until the finished product is arrived at.
-
The reasons landscape photographers do not get or like street are the same reasons that attracted us to it in the first place: to get away, as far as possible, from the crowds. What landscape photographers are running away from, street shooters rush into. For the former, crowds are terrifying, for the latter, terrific. We search solitude, splendid isolation, inner piece, far away from the crowds and their misery, vanity, greed, stupidity... you are fascinated by it. We are choking in crowds, you get adrenalin rush. It is not that we do not get the " the peculiarity of life," or human conditions, it is that we get it only too well and thus want to find a refuge from it. Different folks, different strokes.
You may be generalising from yourself to all other landscape photographers and I'm sure they are pretty varied in their natures. I'm equally happy doing both genres.
-
... I'm equally happy doing both genres.
Jack all trades, master of none?
-
Jack all trades, master of none?
Broader interests?
-
Jack all trades, master of none?
Not at all, I find I can shoot most genres as I'm adaptable/good at photography and not just a one trick pony. I also have a background in science, arts and sports, so generally not so narrowly focused as those who cloister themselves in one area.
Having an open mind is a good thing, I recommend trying it sometime. :P
-
Broader interests?
Indeed.
-
…not that difficulty in producing a shot should have any bearing on something's artistic worth.
If "difficulty" had any relevance it might be the difficulty of making a picture that interests other people; and plainly, as social creatures, we're wired to recognize faces and posture, and detect relationships and status.
Rocks and trees? How do you make those interesting? ;-)
-
Hi Jeremy, Good to see you back. If you go back and read the posts carefully you'll see that I agree with you on the question of being a one-trick pony. Like you, I do it all. I prefer street over all other genres, but not to exclusion of the rest of the world. I do stand by what I said about relative difficulties.
-
£3million is serious money regardless of art genre. Besides how do you make out that Gursky's isn't serious? What is serious photography anyway, does it taste different or something and should I try it?
As I said, if money is your guide to what's great you're in the wrong line of work. Try learning to paint. Gursky may be "serious," and three mil is serious money, but is Rhein II serious art? Seems to me there's the world of serious art and then there's the world of art auctions. They're two different things. As an example, check http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91241.0.
-
I suspect Gursky is a cynical piss taker...but I don't claim to know this. I could be attributing his commercial success to cool calculation when maybe it mostly just happened to him.
-Dave-
-
“Roughly speaking, you have three big trends. The first, and most important one, the one that gets eighty percent of the subsidies, whose pieces go for the most money, is gore in general: amputations, cannibalism, enucleation, etc. All the collaboration work done with serial killers, for example. The second is the one that uses humor: there’s irony directed at the art market, à la Ben; or at finer things, à la Broodthaers, where it’s all about provoking uneasiness and shame in the spectator, the artist, or in both, by presenting a pitiful, mediocre spectacle that leaves you constantly doubting whether it has the slightest artistic value; then there’s all the work on kitsch, which draws you in, which you come close to, and can empathize with, on the condition that you signal by means of a meta-narration that you’re not fooled by it. Finally, there is a third trend, this is the virtual: it’s usually young artists, influenced by manga and by heroic fantasies; many of them start like that, then fall back to the first trend once they realize they can’t make their living on the Internet...There is a famous phrase that divides artists into two categories: revolutionaries and decorators…The revolutionaries are those who are capable of coming to terms with the brutality of the world, and of responding to it with increased brutality…Before Duchamp, the artist had as his ultimate goal a worldview that was at once personal and accurate, that is to say moving; it was already a huge ambition. Since Duchamp, the artist no longer contents himself with putting forward a worldview, he seeks to create his own world; he is very precisely the rival of God."
— Michel Houellebecq, The Possibility of an Island
-
I suspect Gursky is a cynical piss taker...but I don't claim to know this. I could be attributing his commercial success to cool calculation when maybe it mostly just happened to him.
I suspect such derogatory remarks are based on little more than the fact that Gursky has been successful. (In the same way that there are always those who feel the need to make-small Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson and…)
-
Broader interests?
I have very broad interests too. I have interest in steaks and interest in vine. Neither makes me a cook, let alone a chef, nor enologist. I have interests in Eric Satie and Metallica, neither of which makes me a classic pianist, nor rocker.
Having interest in photography or any of its genres doest not make anyone a photographer, let alone a good one, as I am sure you perfectly understand.
-
With context -- being equally happy doing both landscape and street photography does not make one a "Jack all trades, master of none", as I am sure you perfectly understand.
-
With context -- being equally happy doing both landscape and street photography does not make one a "Jack all trades, master of none", as I am sure you perfectly understand.
It does make them an "equally happy master of none" though.
-
Even if I was interested in third-party name-calling, that's no more than pathetic.
-
Ansel Adams at his best made technically excellent photos of compelling subject matter. Henri Cartier-Bresson at his best made often mundane subject matter compelling via composition & timing. Creative vision plus craft in both cases IMO. With Gursky I don't see anything more than mundane facsimiles of the mundane. Is he, in his own inner self, doing creative work? Or is he merely addressing a lucrative market? I suppose he could be doing both. I suppose he could see himself as a creative who got lucky. Or as a creative who deserved success. I have my take on him...but I'm willing to be informed by further evidence & analysis.
-Dave-
-
It does make them an "equally happy master of none" though.
Why don't come right out and say my photography is crap then Slobodan? As that what you are repeatedly implying.
The big problem with your childish insults is that I'm actually pretty good at a whole host of things and that includes many genres of photography. I call myself a photographer, not a landscape photographer or street photographer or portrait photographer for a reason.
-
Hi Jeremy, Good to see you back. If you go back and read the posts carefully you'll see that I agree with you on the question of being a one-trick pony. Like you, I do it all. I prefer street over all other genres, but not to exclusion of the rest of the world. I do stand by what I said about relative difficulties.
Been really busy with house renovation of late which hopefully soon will mean not only will guests be able to stay again, but I will have a decent sized photo studio at home. ;D So only time for the occasional post on LuL of late.
I think something's difficulty is relative to how good you are at that task. Some may find street harder than landscape and vice versa.
-
If "difficulty" had any relevance it might be the difficulty of making a picture that interests other people; and plainly, as social creatures, we're wired to recognize faces and posture, and detect relationships and status.
Rocks and trees? How do you make those interesting? ;-)
There's two types of difficulty with photography. How tricky it was to get that shot, waiting up a tree for two weeks to catch a glimpse of a snow leopard and then as you mention the difficulty of making easy to capture something look good. I was talking more about the former.
-
I suspect Gursky is a cynical piss taker...but I don't claim to know this. I could be attributing his commercial success to cool calculation when maybe it mostly just happened to him.
Ansel Adams at his best made technically excellent photos of compelling subject matter. Henri Cartier-Bresson at his best made often mundane subject matter compelling via composition & timing. Creative vision plus craft in both cases IMO. With Gursky I don't see anything more than mundane facsimiles of the mundane. Is he, in his own inner self, doing creative work? Or is he merely addressing a lucrative market? I suppose he could be doing both. I suppose he could see himself as a creative who got lucky. Or as a creative who deserved success. I have my take on him...but I'm willing to be informed by further evidence & analysis.
I'd say Gursky was the same as the two you mention i.e. Creative vision plus craft in both cases , closer to Adams though in work.
I've seen his stuff in the flesh, which is the only way to appreciate it as scale matters, but I also saw a BBC or Channel 4 documentary on him a few years back which was quite interesting. He certainly didn't come across as a cynic but simply an artist who for whatever reason had become a success.
-
...Gursky may be "serious," and three mil is serious money, but is Rhein II serious art? Seems to me there's the world of serious art and then there's the world of art auctions.
But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.
If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.
The fact that Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.
Dave
-
Why don't come right out and say my photography is crap then Slobodan?
Fine, if you insist: your photography is crap.
...I'm actually pretty good at a whole host of things and that includes many genres of photography...
I think there is a technical term for that level of modesty: "pretentious jerk", perhaps?
... I call myself a photographer, not a landscape photographer or street photographer or portrait photographer for a reason.
Exactly. Then why are you so offended with "Jack of all trades, master of none" when you just confirmed it yourself? Why did you then offer yourself as an example in the debate "true landscape photographers vs. true street photographers" when you are neither by your own admission?
-
I have very broad interests too. I have interest in steaks and interest in vine. Neither makes me a cook, let alone a chef, nor enologist. I have interests in Eric Satie and Metallica, neither of which makes me a classic pianist, nor rocker.
Sorry, just a little wander off topic for a moment if I may...
That's good to know Slobodan, we have similar tastes it seems. Have you watched Metallica at Glastonbury 2014 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGBWPtl6658) yet? It is rather good - if not, then get this patched into your big screen TV, with your headphones cranked up and a good bottle of plonk and enjoy..
Dave
-
Fine, since you are insisting: your photography is crap.
I think there is a technical term for that level of modesty: "pretentious jerk", perhaps?
Exactly. Than why are you so offended with "Jack of all trades, master of none" when you just confirmed it yourself? Why did you then offer yourself as an example in the debate true landscape photographers vs. true street photographers when you are neither by your own admission?
Wow such bile, misinterpretation and ignorance! You are really going out of your way to be nasty and unpleasant I see. So well done on mastering that useful skillset, your Mum would be so proud.
-
But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.
If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.
The fact that a Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.
Dave
Nicely put.
-
But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.
If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.
The fact that Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Actually, believe it or not, it's not envy. I'm not pursuing Gursky's variety of art passionately; in fact I'm not pursuing it at all. I look at the incredible hassle in the art auction scene and think: At my age (84) to try to do the kind of thing Gursky's doing just wouldn't be worth the hassle.
I really don't think the art auction world has much to do with art. It has more to do with money and investment. Most people who buy art from major art auctions are a lot like stamp collectors or coin collectors. What really matters isn't the kind of transcendental experience one gets from truly fine art, but the price of the objects they buy and the chance that the "value" of the "art" will increase. In the world of money, Gursky certainly has succeeded. Beyond that, I don't find anything particularly artistic about Rhein II.
On the other hand, money aside, I always enjoyed selling my work. What I enjoyed about it was the boost to my ego. Nowadays I don't even care about that. What I continue to care about is how the stuff feels to me.
-
I really don't think the art auction world has much to do with art. It has more to do with money and investment. Most people who buy art from major art auctions are a lot like stamp collectors or coin collectors. What really matters isn't the kind of transcendental experience one gets from truly fine art, but the price of the objects they buy and the chance that the "value" of the "art" will increase. In the world of money, Gursky certainly has succeeded. Beyond that, I don't find anything particularly artistic about Rhein II.
Maybe that says more about your taste then Gursky's art. I've seen one of his works that may have been Rhein II or another in that set and it really stuck in my mind, there was something quite captivating about it. Would I pay £3 million for it, certainly not, I've make sure my local cat charity and hospice got the money instead.
What you said about art and investment can be true, but also most people who buy art at that or any level do so because they really like it. If simply making money was the goal, there are better investments than modern art.
-
I'd be quick to concede that you may be right, Jeremy, but that still doesn't make be appreciate Rhein II any more profoundly than before.
-
I don't expect it would.
But I think before one judges any art, you have to see it in person, because reproductions rarely do any art justice. I recall seeing a war photo in a the Manchester Art Gallery a few years back, one that I'd seen it several times in magazines before that, but didn't do that much for me. But seeing the actual print with it's rich tonality gave the photo a depth than was missing before and it was now a powerful and quite moving image. So go see some Gursky in the flesh, so at least then you can dislike it accurately. ;)
-
With Gursky I don't see anything more than mundane facsimiles of the mundane.
A mundane facsimile of the mundane? (http://www.geh.org/taschen/htmlsrc15/m197400520097_ful.html#topofimage) (So easy to say.)
Or "All of Stieglitz is here (http://books.google.com/books?ei=gNXeU6boCsj6igLr14GIBQ&id=TthTAAAAMAAJ&dq=Truth+and+photography&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22All+of+Stieglitz+is+here.%22). His will, his masterful ability, his artistic sophistication, his gloomy Romanticism, his age, his heroic refusal to give in to the inevitable -- all are in this picture."
-
The works of Gursky and some other German photographers belong to what's called the Dusseldorf School of Photography, which was an artistic innovation of 1970s in Germany in response to concerns of the New Topographics. Perhaps this book (http://www.amazon.com/Dusseldorf-School-Photography-Stefan-Gronert/dp/1597111368/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408580439&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Dusseldorf+School+of+Photography) can help a little bit.
-
"Understanding" a photograph, unless it's an advertisement or a newspaper column, is meaningless. Either the photograph gives you a transcendental experience or it doesn't. Like any art, a photograph has to stand on its own two feet. If it doesn't then it's a flop. Books have nothing at all to do with the situation.
-
"Understanding" a photograph, unless it's an advertisement or a newspaper column, is meaningless. Either the photograph gives you a transcendental experience or it doesn't. Like any art, a photograph has to stand on its own two feet. If it doesn't then it's a flop. Books have nothing at all to do with the situation.
Actually knowing about art can change your perception of it. Looking at old paintings can be much more rewarding when you know the context or maybe the hidden [to us] symbolism contained within. Some art requires effort or understanding to grok it, because it is not always just a 'pretty' picture.
With photographs sometimes a simple caption is what makes it.
-
It's not that landscape photographers are bad photographers, Slobodan. It's just that they don't quite understand what photography really is for. Painting is for landscapes; photography is for people.
If that was the case we would be missing lots of fantastic landscapes that the painters don't record. Photos are for anything and everything that one wants to record.
-
Actually knowing about art can change your perception of it. Looking at old paintings can be much more rewarding when you know the context or maybe the hidden [to us] symbolism contained within. Some art requires effort or understanding to grok it, because it is not always just a 'pretty' picture.
With photographs sometimes a simple caption is what makes it.
It's a good argument, Jeremy, and I've enjoyed a lot of art history courses which have helped me understand the history of art and the histories of artists, but the only "perception" that matters is what a work of art says to your soul. As far as "hidden symbolism," is concerned, if the symbolism is so hidden that you need reference to something other than the work itself, then the work has failed.
And regarding simple captions making a picture, consider HCB's "The Lock at Bougival." You can't find a caption simpler than that, and it does tell us where he was when he snapped the picture. But without the caption would anything change? It's a affecting picture that tells you something important about humanity, and the caption has nothing whatever to do with the effect it has on you.
-
It's a good argument, Jeremy, and I've enjoyed a lot of art history courses which have helped me understand the history of art and the histories of artists, but the only "perception" that matters is what a work of art says to your soul. As far as "hidden symbolism," is concerned, if the symbolism is so hidden that you need reference to something other than the work itself, then the work has failed.
I said "the hidden [to us] symbolism" meaning that in it's time [or place] it was understood, but nowadays the language of art has changed so we need it explaining. Same goes when looking at paintings from say China, some context helps you to understand and maybe appreciate the work better.
And regarding simple captions making a picture, consider HCB's "The Lock at Bougival." You can't find a caption simpler than that, and it does tell us where he was when he snapped the picture. But without the caption would anything change? It's a affecting picture that tells you something important about humanity, and the caption has nothing whatever to do with the effect it has on you.
By simple I do not necessarily mean mundane captions, but ones which help with understanding or add something to the image. I saw a recent exhibition of images from around Everest and after looking at a few I suddenly twigged what the captions/titles referenced. They were all songs by the very influential British band Joy Division/New Order [they changed name when original singer died] and this gave an added layer to the photos as the titles were well chosen to match the images. I then went back and looked at the images afresh with the captions in mind and it made me smile and like the exhibition more.
-
. . . nowadays the language of art has changed so we need it explain[ed].
So the Mona Lisa needs explaining?
I think that if you're talking about language -- poetry in particular -- you're right. Almost twenty years ago I wrote an essay on Archibald MacLeish's Poetry and Experience. (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/acrisisofsoul.html):
-----------------------------------------
T.S. Eliot pointed out in “Four Quartets” that: “. . . Words strain, / Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, / Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, / Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, / Will not stay still. . .”
And of course words don’t stay still. Consider this poem from the thirteenth century, set down in The Norton Anthology of Poetry
Nou goth sonne under wode—
Me reweth, Marie, thi faire rode.
Nou goth sonne under tre—
Me reweth, Marie, thi sone and the.
Translation:
Now goes the sun under the wood—
I pity, Mary, thy fair face.
Now goes the sun under the tree—
I pity, Mary, thy son and thee.
The problem isn’t just with the denotations of words. The milieu in which the words mean changes and the words’ connotations change along with it. When this poem was written wood and tree not only had their modern meanings but also meant the cross."
------------------------------------------
But I don't think the same thing applies to visual art. Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago, and Mona Lisa is still Mona Lisa.
Same goes when looking at paintings from say China, some context helps you to understand and maybe appreciate the work better.
It's certainly true that your background and culture have powerful significance for how you react to a work of art. In the case of Asia, I know from my own three years there that just becoming familiar with that world helps you to understand what's happening in Asian art. Nevertheless, I think you have to be born and brought up there to really grasp its significance.
I then went back and looked at the images afresh with the captions in mind and it made me smile and like the exhibition more.
That was a case of "understanding" the photographs. But that's not the same thing as the reaction you have to a work of art that grabs your heart and shakes it.
-
Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago…
Not exactly even 10 years ago (http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/rockfall.htm).
-
So the Mona Lisa needs explaining?
I think that if you're talking about language -- poetry in particular -- you're right.
I wasn't talking about poetry, but the language in art and paintings.
The milieu in which the words mean changes and the words’ connotations change along with it. When this poem was written wood and tree not only had their modern meanings but also meant the cross."
But I don't think the same thing applies to visual art. Ansel's Half Dome was exactly the same a thousand years ago, and Mona Lisa is still Mona Lisa.
Except it does apply.
Here's a explanation (http://www.schoolsliaison.org.uk/aliens/access/signsSym/signsSym.htm) [for kids - but it's simply the first useful link I found] that explains subtle aspects of a painting that are not obvious to us later folks. It may not make you like it more, but you may appreciate it better.
BTW Ansel wasn't doing photography a thousand years back. :P
-
BTW Ansel wasn't doing photography a thousand years back. :P
But there's no way to know that from his landscapes. ;D
-
I have seen a Gursky in person, multiple times. It still reminds me of the adage from first year photography in college..."if you can't make it good, make it big. If that doesn't work, frame it."
-
“Of course, you know the adage, if you can’t make it good, make it big (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/arts/design/03GEFT.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0). If you can’t make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.”
-
Quote from: Dave (Isle of Skye) on July 31, 2014, 04:36:16 PM
But isn’t that just envy? .. and don’t worry, I suffer from it too.
If someone succeeds in an art that we are pursuing passionately and yet we have not, no matter how long or hard we have been trying, it is pointless to compare whether we are more accomplished (but who is to judge) than they or visa versa and is ultimately irrelevant. Because whatever we think of their work, they have the luxury of looking down on us from the position of having ‘made it’ and gaining the stamp of approval through commercial success and subsequent recognition.
The fact that a Gursky had a photograph sell for 3,000,000, is a winning argument that none of us here can counter, so no amount of us decrying what he has done will undermine the success of that work. Whether we like it or not he has succeeded and we have not and to put down his work based on nothing more than an unqualified presumption that we know better, can therefore only be regarded as envy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well spoken post!
Jealousy is a big issue with the artist and the photog. Take a look at one of Cartier-Bresson's little known masterpieces called Tehran 1950 from his landmark 1952 book The Decisive Moment.
http://blogsearchtest.tumblr.com/image/110263740956
It is a room in the Shah of Iran's palace with bits of mirror embedded in the wall. I posted discussion on a photo forum for the photo.
Here is what the 'critics' had to say...
"Looks pretty marginal to me. Do you want me to bow down to him?"
"I found it more obnoxious than anything else."
'What makes it so great? The crooked horizon? The poor composition? The distracting background? The blown out chandelier? The blown out black-blob of a curtain? The distracting bright triangle from the area beyond the curtain? The poor use of bokeh to make it hard to tell the wall is a mosaic of mirrors? The pushed-too-far contrast to remove any details."
The problem with online critics or any critics is they can't do you art for you nor are many of them in the position to know what is going on in your head. We are all on different wavelengths.
When I looked at the work of these critics it was nothing, absolutely nothing. The critic that said "Looks pretty marginal to me. Do you want me to bow down to him?" was an absolutely shitty photog. The other ones were nothing as well. As a whole they could not shoot their way out of a paper bag if their cams had razor blades glued on it. Yet...they all know how bad Cartier-Bresson is and they can out shoot the old master.
I've learned to not get my self-worth for my photography from online reviews. Photogs can be a jealous bunch. Lots of hatred within many of them. Our work defines us and is an extension of ourselves. But deep down inside many know their work will never amount to anything. Photogs as well as artists are stressed out trying to get attention for their work. All the while the market is polluted with so many images no one person could possibly look through even a fraction of them in a lifetime.
Bottom line...all this stress can put the photog / artist in a bad mood. But if freezing time or art is in your blood, you must produce and keep producing...whether there have an outlet for ones art or not. Personally, I've learned to forget looking for approval online. It can cause more harm than good.
-
So you alone are qualified to judge? Apparently you know what's in other people's heads, or whatever is necessary to judge their work. But they can't judge your work or anyone else's.
Interesting.
-
I enjoy and respect much of HCB's work but would hardly call "Tehran 1950" one of his "masterpieces". One of his least impressive published works IMHO. But that's just an amateur speaking...
-
No matter how hard one works at freezing time there are no guarantees. Yes it can be soul crushing. Flickr Commons said they had 200+ million photos for free back in 2011. I don't know where they are at now, but who could even look through 200 million pix?
Your best bet is to do it for love. If you have expectations you most likely will be disappointed. Expectation are preplanned resentments. If you do photography for love you can find happiness.
-
... Expectations are preplanned resentments. ...
Wow, as a student of both human behavior and philosophy, I'm stealing this little gem and carving it in stone for my students! Thanks!
Original?
Rand
-
... Expectations are preplanned resentments ...
Wow, as a student of both human behavior and philosophy, I'm stealing this little gem and carving it in stone for my students! Thanks!
Original?
A quick search with Google would suggest not. I also like it, nevertheless.
Jeremy
-
The problem is his work really sucked ;D
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/04/you-suck-me-too.html
-
One measure of success is how successful you are at irritating art critics.
-
"I look at the pictures I have done up to now, and they make me feel that who we are and how we feel and what is to become of us just doesn’t matter. Our aspirations and successes have become cheap and petty. I read the newspapers, the columnists, some books. They all deal in illusions and fantasies. I can only conclude that we have lost ourselves, and that the bomb may finish the job permanently, and it just doesn’t matter, we have not loved life… I cannot accept my conclusions, and so I must continue this photographic investigation further and deeper. This is my project."
— Garry Winogrand
-
You do not have to be good at something to decide whether you like it or not.
But for your critique to be taken seriously, you need to at least show knowledge of the subject. Being very good at the subject gives you extra heft to any thoughts you may have on something.