Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Roadside memorials  (Read 3843 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15281
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2018, 07:03:39 pm »

Right, Kent. There's no fixed definition for it. How about a fixed definition for landscape? Can you give me one? Can anyone give me one?

No need. Everyone understands what it is.

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 789
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2018, 07:10:30 pm »

Right, Kent. There's no fixed definition for it. How about a fixed definition for landscape? Can you give me one?


No, I can't give you an objective definition for landscape photos.  However, I can tell the difference between landscapes & pornography. ;)


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15281
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2018, 07:27:52 pm »

Back to the OP.

Roadside memorials seem to span geographies, continents, and religions. My first encounter was in my father's birth place, a village in Serbia, orthodox Christianity. But somehow I always connected it with a more primitive worldview, typical for what could be labeled as a provincial mentality. Never seen them in cities.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13189
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2018, 07:46:35 pm »

No need. Everyone understands what it is.

Really? Is this landscape? If not, why not?

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15281
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2018, 07:49:12 pm »

Really? Is this landscape? If not, why not?

I was hoping we could go back to the OP.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13189
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2018, 07:50:41 pm »

Come on, Slobodan. Answer the question.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15281
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2018, 09:14:57 pm »

Come on, Slobodan. Answer the question.

It is a pigscape.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5558
    • Flicker photos
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2018, 09:18:07 pm »

Personally, I find roadside memorials out of place and an eyesore.  No disrespect to the family.  They seem to be a relatively new phenomenon.  I never saw these when I was younger. 

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2018, 02:24:46 am »


No, I can't give you an objective definition for landscape photos.  However, I can tell the difference between landscapes & pornography. ;)


Kent in SD

Regular porno, or Facebook porno.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22694
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2018, 06:32:52 am »

Regular porno, or Facebook porno.

And that's why genre is so important, and an understanding of what it signifies matters!

Porn itself is full of subdivisions that beggar belief. Every fetish has its special snappers and "artists" trying to get into the mainstream and thus into the big bucks and gallery representation. And often, they succeed. Ever wonder why Mapplethorpe managed to get representation in such a big way? Think about it. Not much to do with the Hasselblad, poor thing.

In the street department much confusion reigns because there hasn't been enough reading - sometimes - about its genesis. And that's where and why it often gets confused with reportage.

The vast majority of the early Parisian stuff was shot to order, as illustration for left-wing magazines and newspapers. As such, it wasn't street, but reportage, a story with a publication-led agenda. That's why we get so much "quaint" material shot in poor neighbourhoods full of raggedy kids, cheap cafés and depicting layabouts and people doing hard, manual labour in markets. It's supposed to contrast the nobility of the poor workers and their honesty, on the one hand, with the decadent company owners (that employ them) on the other. (Even W. Eugene Smith's essay on Pittsburgh couldn't leave out references to the super-rich and their mansions, clubs and restaurants. Why do so many photographers have this hang-up?) Many of those new migrants, mainly Jewish, had to learn the language as they worked, making life even more complex as they plied the only trade they could. It's worth noting that few got rich out of photography when they were doing it for a living; yes, some went on to greater personal comfort and fame in much later life and in a very different social atmosphere where photography and art were presumed to have met.

Perhaps the most simple way to differentiate between street and documentary is this: documantary tries to tell a story about something over a spread of associated images, whereas street exists for no other purpose than to pick up on the quirks of mankind at large.

That's  the main reason why I feel that "street art" has to be seen under a different light: it isn't to do so much with people doing things that are odd or even peole looking a bit crazy themselves, it's about a sense of graphic design as found out there in the public domain, and mainly at street level, not up in the sky as with architectural street.

Anyway, real architectural photography is another animal altogether: it's a highly skilled specialist job of itself. I sometimes wonder how such photographers feel when confronted with what is loosely defined as architectural photography here and elsewhere within the amateur world. I suspect those folks are rather concerned with genre too!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 06:38:06 am by Rob C »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13189
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2018, 07:13:36 am »

Thanks, Rob. I'd hope that explanation would have some effect, but I doubt it will. After all, if there's a street in the picture it must be street photography.

So I just posted my Vietnamese pig in Landscape Showcase. Let's see if the landscape people agree it's landscape. It's as much landscape photography as any recent stuff posted in Street Showcase is street photography.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2018, 07:31:46 am »

And that's why genre is so important, and an understanding of what it signifies matters!

Porn itself is full of subdivisions that beggar belief. Every fetish has its special snappers and "artists" trying to get into the mainstream and thus into the big bucks and gallery representation. And often, they succeed. Ever wonder why Mapplethorpe managed to get representation in such a big way? Think about it. Not much to do with the Hasselblad, poor thing.

In the street department much confusion reigns because there hasn't been enough reading - sometimes - about its genesis. And that's where and why it often gets confused with reportage.

The vast majority of the early Parisian stuff was shot to order, as illustration for left-wing magazines and newspapers. As such, it wasn't street, but reportage, a story with a publication-led agenda. That's why we get so much "quaint" material shot in poor neighbourhoods full of raggedy kids, cheap cafés and depicting layabouts and people doing hard, manual labour in markets. It's supposed to contrast the nobility of the poor workers and their honesty, on the one hand, with the decadent company owners (that employ them) on the other. (Even W. Eugene Smith's essay on Pittsburgh couldn't leave out references to the super-rich and their mansions, clubs and restaurants. Why do so many photographers have this hang-up?) Many of those new migrants, mainly Jewish, had to learn the language as they worked, making life even more complex as they plied the only trade they could. It's worth noting that few got rich out of photography when they were doing it for a living; yes, some went on to greater personal comfort and fame in much later life and in a very different social atmosphere where photography and art were presumed to have met.

Perhaps the most simple way to differentiate between street and documentary is this: documantary tries to tell a story about something over a spread of associated images, whereas street exists for no other purpose than to pick up on the quirks of mankind at large.

That's  the main reason why I feel that "street art" has to be seen under a different light: it isn't to do so much with people doing things that are odd or even peole looking a bit crazy themselves, it's about a sense of graphic design as found out there in the public domain, and mainly at street level, not up in the sky as with architectural street.

Anyway, real architectural photography is another animal altogether: it's a highly skilled specialist job of itself. I sometimes wonder how such photographers feel when confronted with what is loosely defined as architectural photography here and elsewhere within the amateur world. I suspect those folks are rather concerned with genre too!

All true and correct, Rob. This is exactly why street photography as style is merely a drop on a hot tin roof and there is so much more than street.

The big defect in street photography is the poor projection of the photographer and the even so poor projection of the viewer. Result is to often a photograph only strong in the mind. I remember a very true statement: a picture should be that good it even stands out on newspaper print, that means, stripped from all technical nitwittery.

What annoys me is the ‘you should read about the masters’ mantra. Like a photographer who moved further only do so because he is unaware. This is utterly disrespectful or a sign of stupidity because not able to look further than the nose.

The strange thing is that the peoples shouting the hardest about definitions and rules seems not able to produce something that would stay strong, even printed on a toilet paper.

It quickly turns into an attitude dangerous close to arrogance.


I would be very happy that a sub forum street provoke such a response of photographers walking over the definitions or rules. That means it’s not dead.



Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13189
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2018, 08:03:02 am »

As I said, Rob, I didn't expect your explanation would have any effect on those who don't know and aren't about to take the trouble to learn, and Ivo is right there ready to pounce and prove the point.

It's obviously hopeless, and it's past time to drop "Street Showcase."

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
    • Pictures
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2018, 08:13:49 am »

I would be very happy that a sub forum street provoke such a response of photographers walking over the definitions or rules. That means it’s not dead.

Genre-bending is fine, as long as we can all agree that nothing we have seen in the streetsubsection so far falls in that category with the possible exception of your surrealistic kid-at-the-beach picture.

For me the definition of street genre could be:
a slice of life that teaches us something about life or a comment on it.

Any significance we attach to elements need to be more or less unversal by implication. Symbolism yes, depiction no.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22694
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #54 on: August 20, 2018, 08:17:12 am »

Ivo,

Walking all over rules, as you write, isn't any guarantee of seeing better work.

Your own work as seen here is across a broad canvas, but your street stuff is still identifiable as street. I don't believe it's really a matter of rules at all; I think it's a matter of understanding where, in the grander scheme of things photographic, something fits.

We've touched on this thing before on LuLa and I honestly don't see how accepting that everything falls into some genre or the other - you just can't be original enough to avoid it - is a problem. It's principal benefit, when you accept that genre exists everywhere, is to use it so that it allows things to be posted into spaces that some might choose to look into, whereas others (spaces) do not press your buttons enough to make the detour worthwhile. I almost never look at any landscape work. It was just a fluke that I saw the great sun/landscape shot that has been arousing some people's doubts because it isn't straight - whatever anything straight means today. Perhaps if landscape, too, had a separate section for manipulated imagery it would make sense, and I, for one, might find an interest in it.

None of this is an attempt at elitism, at pretending expertise where it does not exist, and neither does it mean that people are not permitted to shoot in any way that they see fit; it's just a wish for some easy cataloging of the photographs - it happens after the event.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 08:20:45 am by Rob C »
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3097
    • Pictures
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #55 on: August 20, 2018, 08:19:39 am »

Back to the OP.

Roadside memorials seem to span geographies, continents, and religions. My first encounter was in my father's birth place, a village in Serbia, orthodox Christianity. But somehow I always connected it with a more primitive worldview, typical for what could be labeled as a provincial mentality. Never seen them in cities.

I've seen memorials in the city, but more fleeting: flowers at a lamppost, sometimes a drawing, sometimes a toy. They are probably not meant as durable reminders though.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22694
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #56 on: August 20, 2018, 08:24:26 am »

I've seen memorials in the city, but more fleeting: flowers at a lamppost, sometimes a drawing, sometimes a toy. They are probably not meant as durable reminders though.

There used to be quite a few here in Mallorca some decades ago, usually flowers at crash sites. Maybe the better cars and more experienced drivers of today have reduced the toll - or folks are no longer that way inclined, what with the dropping away of religion.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Roadside memorials
« Reply #57 on: August 20, 2018, 08:31:51 am »

As I said, Rob, I didn't expect your explanation would have any effect on those who don't know and aren't about to take the trouble to learn, and Ivo is right there ready to pounce and prove the point.

It's obviously hopeless, and it's past time to drop "Street Showcase."

Again this arrogans.

I had my lectures and did my readings and I continued at the point you fell asleep.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 08:40:47 am by Ivophoto »
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #58 on: August 20, 2018, 08:40:22 am »



For me the definition of street genre could be:
a slice of life that teaches us something about life or a comment on it.



Ja, agree. But this leaves it to the viewers perception and then, practically all what was posted here is according you definition proposal. (I like)
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Roadside memorials
« Reply #59 on: August 20, 2018, 08:47:22 am »

Ivo,

Walking all over rules, as you write, isn't any guarantee of seeing better work.

Your own work as seen here is across a broad canvas, but your street stuff is still identifiable as street. I don't believe it's really a matter of rules at all; I think it's a matter of understanding where, in the grander scheme of things photographic, something fits.

We've touched on this thing before on LuLa and I honestly don't see how accepting that everything falls into some genre or the other - you just can't be original enough to avoid it - is a problem. It's principal benefit, when you accept that genre exists everywhere, is to use it so that it allows things to be posted into spaces that some might choose to look into, whereas others (spaces) do not press your buttons enough to make the detour worthwhile. I almost never look at any landscape work. It was just a fluke that I saw the great sun/landscape shot that has been arousing some people's doubts because it isn't straight - whatever anything straight means today. Perhaps if landscape, too, had a separate section for manipulated imagery it would make sense, and I, for one, might find an interest in it.

None of this is an attempt at elitism, at pretending expertise where it does not exist, and neither does it mean that people are not permitted to shoot in any way that they see fit; it's just a wish for some easy cataloging of the photographs - it happens after the event.

Rob

I agree with most of your point of view, Rob. ( if not I agree fully) you don’t exhibit the little finger to other minded Lulaneers.

Eric Berne would love LuLa.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up