Clock of Jean-Claude Lemagny

[32BT]

Is believe a precursor to understanding? Or is understanding a precursor to believe?

I do agree with Keith, the streetsection simply hasn't become a very welcoming place to post. I do believe now that the initial enthousiasme has dried, there is room for more thoughtful and possibly more applicable entries there. On the other hand, LuLa doesn't seem to be comprised of enough active contributors any longer to guarantee fresh blood in any thread except possibly those allowing cats and pets.

[KLaban]

Rob, Travel Atmospherics? Reads like something from the promotional literature of a 1960s stock agency.

If you want to pigeonhole the work I do on my travels then please, at least have the decency to drop the atmospherics bit. In return I will try to remember not to classify your calendar work as Glamour which in turn has overtones of 1950s Tit & Bum.

But really, why do you need to put my work into any kind of pigeonhole?

[elliot_n]

See:

Jean Claude Lemagny

Jean Claude Lemagny developed this 'clock' as a startpoint to discuss photo's.

There are other interesting approaches, such as the six categories of Terry Barret

Is there any interest at Lula to use such a tool to have a startpoint to openly discuss and eventually better understand photo work?

I'm intrigued by this 'clock', but I can't make much sense of it.

The linked text isn't very helpful.

Is there a better explanation?

[RSL]

I disagree, Keith.

Its problem as I see it, was that few do steet of any kind, beyond espousing the belief that if it's shot in a street, then, by definition, it's street. Which is akin to believing that if you make a selfie on a cruise boat you're doing marine photography, a concept that would drive any boat broker into his grave. You see the point and the problem.

The filing cabinets are as fresh or otherwise as the material within them. If LuLa readers are unable or not interested enough (a real consideration and possibility) to supply relevant material, then that's not the fault of others. The hoped for types of material are easy to place: there is the one where people can place "street art" which is best explained by reference to Leiter, "Street street" which you can reference by looking at a zillion people like Winogrand, Arbus (to an extent), Joel Meyerowitz and on and on. Anyone able to post here is able to look those people up via Dr Google and understand what street, the genre, actually is. It's not some arbitrary decision made up here on LuLa: it predates most of us.

Of course, if it makes anyone happy, there is nothing to preclude a section of street that fits the "if on a street, then it's street" concept. Somebody's pet pooch peeing against a lamp post would be just dandy.

;-)

Well said, Rob. The unfortunate part of the street genre is its name. People see "street photography," and instantly are sure they know what it is. After all, it MUST involve a street. As I pointed out in https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/, an awful lot -- perhaps most -- of street photography takes place far from a street.

But it's no use... and I, for one, would be happy to see LuLa's Street Showcase disappear, simply because I think it confuses people who aren't willing to take the trouble to learn what street photography is all about. Their opinions appear over and over again on LuLa, and other people, equally ignorant of the genre, swallow them up. That's a bad thing.

Oh, by the way, yesterday I posted a picture on Landscape Showcase titled "In the Swamp." Is it landscape (another one of those genres)? If not, why not?

[Martin Kristiansen]

No Russ. It isn’t people not understanding. Or not bothering to find out. It’s people that disagree with your weird non definition definition and find the stuff that you do like and approve of to frequently be boring, dull and outdated. Vacuous if you prefer.

You can be quite rude and scathing to people about their opinions and about thier photography. For some reason that eludes me people don’t wish to be rude back to you about your view or your photography. Now we are trying to have a constructive conversation here and you drag the same thing up again. Let me state it again quite plainly. Things change and your narrow definition of street is outdated and redundant. It allows no growth and nothing interesting to happen. You have killed off the sub forum, not the lack of skill and understanding of people who were initially excited about posting on the sub forum.

Personally I don’t care what you think of me or my photography but I know that people have been put off by what you say and some interesting people have stopped posting and I believe you have contributed to that.

[Ivophoto]

I'm intrigued by this 'clock', but I can't make much sense of it.

The linked text isn't very helpful.

Is there a better explanation?

Yes, there is, but in books. And I can’t be of great help with my Dutch literature.
I didn’t find anything better on the net, maybe if you de some research.

[Ivophoto]

Well said, Rob. The unfortunate part of the street genre is its name. People see "street photography," and instantly are sure they know what it is. After all, it MUST involve a street. As I pointed out in https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/, an awful lot -- perhaps most -- of street photography takes place far from a street.

But it's no use... and I, for one, would be happy to see LuLa's Street Showcase disappear, simply because I think it confuses people who aren't willing to take the trouble to learn what street photography is all about. Their opinions appear over and over again on LuLa, and other people, equally ignorant of the genre, swallow them up. That's a bad thing.

Oh, by the way, yesterday I posted a picture on Landscape Showcase titled "In the Swamp." Is it landscape (another one of those genres)? If not, why not?

Come on, stop riding that death horse.

[Ivophoto]

No Russ. It isn’t people not understanding. Or not bothering to find out. It’s people that disagree with your weird non definition definition and find the stuff that you do like and approve of to frequently be boring, dull and outdated. Vacuous if you prefer.

You can be quite rude and scathing to people about their opinions and about thier photography. For some reason that eludes me people don’t wish to be rude back to you about your view or your photography. Now we are trying to have a constructive conversation here and you drag the same thing up again. Let me state it again quite plainly. Things change and your narrow definition of street is outdated and redundant. It allows no growth and nothing interesting to happen. You have killed off the sub forum, not the lack of skill and understanding of people who were initially excited about posting on the sub forum.

Personally I don’t care what you think of me or my photography but I know that people have been put off by what you say and some interesting people have stopped posting and I believe you have contributed to that.

And I only can confirm Martins words.

Can we go back to the interesting conversation?

[RSL]

No Russ. It isn’t people not understanding. Or not bothering to find out. It’s people that disagree with your weird non definition definition and find the stuff that you do like and approve of to frequently be boring, dull and outdated. Vacuous if you prefer.

You can be quite rude and scathing to people about their opinions and about thier photography. For some reason that eludes me people don’t wish to be rude back to you about your view or your photography. Now we are trying to have a constructive conversation here and you drag the same thing up again. Let me state it again quite plainly. Things change and your narrow definition of street is outdated and redundant. It allows no growth and nothing interesting to happen. You have killed off the sub forum, not the lack of skill and understanding of people who were initially excited about posting on the sub forum.

Personally I don’t care what you think of me or my photography but I know that people have been put off by what you say and some interesting people have stopped posting and I believe you have contributed to that.

Sorry you’re offended, Martin, but sometimes the truth is offensive.

Please give me an example of something of which I approve that you find boring. Maybe some of HCB’s stuff?, or Winogrand’s stuff?, or Frank’s stuff?, or Riboud’s stuff?, or Levitt’s stuff?, or Doisneau’s stuff?, or Evans’s stuff? Please be specific and point me to an actual photograph you find boring. Then we can discuss that photograph and you can explain why you find it boring.

Also, please point me to an actual example of where I’ve been rude to someone. Thinking back, I’m pretty sure there have been points in our political discussions where I responded to a rude statement with asperity, so maybe that’s what you’re thinking about.

As far as the definition of street changing – uh uh – I don’t think so, any more than I think the definition of landscape has changed or portraiture has changed or the definition of Impressionism has changed. If you think the definition of street has changed, please explain what you think the changes are.

[faberryman]

Oh, by the way, yesterday I posted a picture on Landscape Showcase titled "In the Swamp." Is it landscape (another one of those genres)? If not, why not?

The real question is who cares.

[elliot_n]

Yes, there is, but in books. And I can’t be of great help with my Dutch literature.
I didn’t find anything better on the net, maybe if you de some research.

Then maybe you could explain how it works, and why you think it's interesting?

I can't make head nor tail of it. But it looks interesting.

[RSL]

And I only can confirm Martins words.

Then let's see your "confirmation," Ivo.

[Ivophoto]

Then maybe you could explain how it works, and why you think it's interesting?

I can't make head nor tail of it. But it looks interesting.

Well, I already explained where I see value for me. I’ll do some research if I can find some better material on the web.

I hoped to investigate how it works by example, see my question about the galoche woman...

[Ivophoto]

Then let's see your "confirmation," Ivo.

Stop filibuster this topic.

[elliot_n]

Well, I already explained where I see value for me. I ‘lol do some research if I can find some better material on the web.

Ok, I'll re-read the thread.

The difficulty with the text you linked to is that it is an extract from a longer essay about something called 'instrumental photography'. That's a new concept to me - something similar, perhaps, to therapeutic photography (?)

I hoped to investigate how it works by example, see my question about the galoche woman...

Well how about making a start?! It might help us understand what this 'clock' is all about.

It's a good image to discuss - it wouldn't look out of place in Roland Barthes's 'Camera Lucida'.

[Ivophoto]

I’ll try to explain by example.

At 3 o’clock
Engaging reportage such as the work of Bresson, Klein, Wessing, Goldin, Parr, Capa, etc.
‘War’ reportage is a typical example but of course not covering the whole.

At 6 o’clock
Abstract tendencies such as the work of Pierre Cordier, Vik Muniz, Jurgen Klauke, Jan Dibbets, Luigi Ghirri.
This work explores the materiality of ‘a Photo’ and the suitability to reflect a subject.

At 9 o’clock
Surreal work such as Mapplethorpe, Dieter Appelt, dirk Braeckman, Araki,...

At 12 o’clock
Work not made by the author but used to make the viewer think about the exhibit. Such as Bolstanski, Marcel Broodthaers, Michael Snow, Thomas Hitschorn, Joan Fontcuberta,....

The transition from 3 to 12 is about the content
From 3 to 6 is about form
From 9 to 6 about the object
From 9 to 12 is about the subject

Googling the artists in the example clarifies a bit.

[Ivophoto]

Ok, I'll re-read the thread.

The difficulty with the text you linked to is that it is an extract from a longer essay about something called 'instrumental photography'. That's a new concept to me - something similar, perhaps, to therapeutic photography (?)

Well how about making a start?! It might help us understand what this 'clock' is all about.

It's a good image to discuss - it wouldn't look out of place in Roland Barthes's 'Camera Lucida'.

I would place the galoshes woman in the quadrant between 3 and 6.

For me it is about how it looks and the form is the key.
But this could be terrible wrong.

[KLaban]

I disagree, Keith.

Its problem as I see it, was that few do steet of any kind, beyond espousing the belief that if it's shot in a street, then, by definition, it's street. Which is akin to believing that if you make a selfie on a cruise boat you're doing marine photography, a concept that would drive any boat broker into his grave. You see the point and the problem.

The filing cabinets are as fresh or otherwise as the material within them. If LuLa readers are unable or not interested enough (a real consideration and possibility) to supply relevant material, then that's not the fault of others. The hoped for types of material are easy to place: there is the one where people can place "street art" which is best explained by reference to Leiter, "Street street" which you can reference by looking at a zillion people like Winogrand, Arbus (to an extent), Joel Meyerowitz and on and on. Anyone able to post here is able to look those people up via Dr Google and understand what street, the genre, actually is. It's not some arbitrary decision made up here on LuLa: it predates most of us.

Of course, if it makes anyone happy, there is nothing to preclude a section of street that fits the "if on a street, then it's street" concept. Somebody's pet pooch peeing against a lamp post would be just dandy.

;-)

New thread: On the Streets: an open image sharing thread

[Ivophoto]

Another concept to challenge is ‘viewers projection ‘

Do we have to try to avoid projection while observing a photo? Is it possible? Or is projection invaluable in reading a picture.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I’m not at all offended by you Russ. And I don’t find HCB and R Franks work boring. I think it quite wonderful. What I find boring is your endless quest to repeat that work and the work that ends up posted on your pet sub forum as a result of your inability to innovate and allow things to grow and progress.

Why must you put Ivo down for his work as an example. I think his work is great. Pity he isnt contributing much anymore.