Humanism in photography.

[Ivophoto]

I don't keep my rejects, let alone frame them!

Then focus on other things you understand, John, no need to be denigrating.

[john beardsworth]

Not denigrating anyone, Ivo, just refusing to put a crown on a pauper.

[amolitor]

What's interesting here, john, is that you're clearly saying that Ivo's photos are lousy, but claiming also that your judgement is objective truth and therefore not denigrating.

[Ivophoto]

Sure there are photographers on Lula with better work.

[amolitor]

Here's an interesting case that might be tangentially related, which I wrote about here a few years ago: https://photothunk.blogspot.com/2016/07/vernacular-enigma.html

[john beardsworth]

What's interesting here, john, is that you're clearly saying that Ivo's photos are lousy, but claiming also that your judgement is objective truth and therefore not denigrating.

Well, aren't they?

I do see some virtue in the first.

[amolitor]

Outside of some larger context, I see little virtue in Ivo's pictures. This is true, however, of almost all the photos I see on LuLa and elsewhere.

Can I imagine fairly easily a context in which they make sense, and have power? Yes. This, by the way, is not universally true of the photos I see on LuLa and elsewhere.

[RSL]

But basically it's just "human-forward pictures" with an emphasis on genuine human experience rather than staged scenes.

Another way to say "street photography."

[Ivophoto]

Here's an interesting case that might be tangentially related, which I wrote about here a few years ago: https://photothunk.blogspot.com/2016/07/vernacular-enigma.html

Good article, Andrew.

[RSL]

Photography moved on since it’s existence.

Right, Ivo. It moved from wet plates to dry plates, then to film, finally to digital. I think most of us are familiar with those moves.

[Ivophoto]

Right, Ivo. It moved from wet plates to dry plates, then to film, finally to digital. I think most of us are familiar with those moves.

Yes Russ. And you missed the rest. I ‘m not going any further in discussion with you, it’s of no use.

But I would be glad to see some recent work of you fitting in this thread. I will not judge it.

[RSL]

I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to "fit" anything into this thread, Ivo, since I haven't the foggiest idea what it's about. So far there's not a single picture in it worth trying to emulate or follow. You seem to think photography has moved on since its inception, and from a mechanical point of view you're correct. But subject matter hasn't really changed, and never will.

[amolitor]

Humanist photography is not generally considered to be the same as street photography, although much street is considered humanist. Arguably, street which (for example) makes a mockery of its human subjects or (for another example) denigrates them would not be considered humanist. On the flip side, a great deal of what is far more like documentary photography, or reportage, rather than street is considered humanist.

[amolitor]

But subject matter hasn't really changed, and never will.

In a literal sense,  I suppose this is true. The subject matter in the sense of "the stuff in the world" remains "the stuff in the world" but not only has the stuff in the world changed in the last 150 years, the way we treat the stuff in the world photographically has changed enormously.

In the first, say, 50 years of photography it would never have occurred to anyone to take a closeup photograph of an eye. Do we claim that the subject matter is the same, because, well, it's basically just someone's face? Whether we choose to split hairs on what "subject matter" means or not, something has changed.

[Ivophoto]

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Dear Lord! What a load of crap and artsy-fartsy lingo in this thread!? This is Luminous Landscape, not a Crappy Humanity site. We shoot landscape, pure landscape, precisely to avoid idiots otherwise known as humans.

[Ivophoto]

In a literal sense,  I suppose this is true. The subject matter in the sense of "the stuff in the world" remains "the stuff in the world" but not only has the stuff in the world changed in the last 150 years, the way we treat the stuff in the world photographically has changed enormously.

In the first, say, 50 years of photography it would never have occurred to anyone to take a closeup photograph of an eye. Do we claim that the subject matter is the same, because, well, it's basically just someone's face? Whether we choose to split hairs on what "subject matter" means or not, something has changed.

A century ago, post mortal photography was usual, it isn’t today.
In the seventies, certain pictures of naked teenager girls where considered as art, it isn’t today.
Not so long ago wedding pictures where expected to show the golden rim around the day, nowadays a straight forward reportage of the day is preferable.
Etc etc

If you consider a person as a subject, didn’t it change?For sure society did.

The picture as such is not a main goal for me, it’s what it describes on a not literal way. It’s about peoples and what is going on around peoples, peoples are even not necessarily in the frame to search for the circumstances where peoples live in.
If a picture can be a reflection of social circumstances, it better is not ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’ or according to whatever rules. It better is what it is.

[Ivophoto]

Dear Lord! What a load of crap and artsy-fartsy lingo in this thread!? This is Luminous Landscape, not a Crappy Humanity site. We shoot landscape, pure landscape, precisely to avoid idiots otherwise known as humans.

I asked to share pictures. Nothing more.

[Ivophoto]

Dear Lord! What a load of crap and artsy-fartsy lingo in this thread!? This is Luminous Landscape, not a Crappy Humanity site. We shoot landscape, pure landscape, precisely to avoid idiots otherwise known as humans.

You can’t turn your back and this shit happens, Slobodan. Tsss...

[OmerV]

Humanism landscape: