Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    My first thought was that he hasn't been to your studio Darin...
    Thanks, Bill.

    --Darin

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,827

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Here's the problem for me: The author compares the National History Museum wildlife photo winners with a work by Caravaggio. He points to another comparison of a puppy dog photo to a work by Caravaggio. He compares Taylor Wessing's portraits to Rembrandt's.

    These are goofy comparisons.

    However, his overall point is valid. Large photographs--very large photographs--don't seem to have the *presence* of paintings of the same size. There's some sort of imbalance there, there some sort of failure to gain increased *weight* with the increased weight.

    Then again, the paintings the article refers to are not all that large. About as big as a Karsh Churchill photo (which *does*) have that presence, by the way). It's a puzzle.

    --Darin

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,707

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Biggerstaff View Post
    I think this is a good article in that it's a look at what we do by someone who doesn't do what we do, which is never a bad thing. As photographers, we have a different take on the art than others who are not so absorbed by it. Instead of writing this off so quickly, it might be good to take some time and think about it.
    Eric, I had exactly the same thought. The author has expressed what is in some respects an honest appraisal of a current trend in photography. We are judged by what we produce. Perhaps it is time for reflection, rather than a hasty dismissal.

  4. #24
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    I don't think it is a good article-I think it is the typical pap taht passes in the popular web press for an "informed" POV. It is hyperbolic from the beginning title and is aimed at stimulating click throughs-not real dialogue.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    338

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Many publications have contributors who's purpose seems to be the generating of letters to the editor. The Guardian is no exception.

  6. #26
    Eric Biggerstaff
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,327

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    It is opinion after all, so it is neither right nor wrong. I agree that his comparisons are far fetched and perhaps he is not well "informed" but this makes his point no less valid. In fact, sometimes the less informed or even out right uninformed have more sincere and honest opinions.

    My wife, who loves art and even appreciates photography, would not be a well informed commentator on the subject of photography despite having seen many exhibits, sat through lectures, gotten to know well regarded photographers and listened to my boring rants for years. However, I highly value her opinion for the simple reason that she knows what she likes and what she doesn't and she is honest in her opinions. She sees images not as a photographer but as an observer and there is a great deal of value in that.

    My point with this is don't shun this just because we feel his viewpoint is uninformed. While I disagree with much that he wrote, his opinion is still valid and worth consideration. The problem is that he may just be stating an opinion that is shared by a larger percentage of the public then we might care to admit. This doesn't lessen my love of what we do and in many ways, only serves to inspire me to try and make images that, if shown to a person like this writer, may make them change their opinion.
    Eric Biggerstaff

    www.ericbiggerstaff.com

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    338

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    It's his approach, his style, that raises hackles. The topic will always be there and nothing is wrong with that.

  8. #28
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Biggerstaff View Post
    While I disagree with much that he wrote, his opinion is still valid and worth consideration. The problem is that he may just be stating an opinion that is shared by a larger percentage of the public then we might care to admit.
    The problem has nothing to do with who shares his opinion; it's that his opinion is poorly argued. It isn't really argued at all. It's a pile of assertions based on premises that go unquestioned (and that themselves were often widely dismissed after feuds from decades ago).

    There are standards of good journalism even for opinion pieces. It's not enough to say, well, it's an opinion and all opinions are valid and worth consideration. It's up to the journalist to make the argument worth consideration.

    This has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the opinion. The opposite argument made this poorly would be just as bad. I enjoy reading opinion pieces that push against what I already believe. But they have to be smart. They have to push somewhere interesting. The Guardian should be ashamed for giving this guy a voice.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    601

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Someone should tell that guy how many of his classic paintings were really done with camera obscura.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Duluth, MN
    Posts
    245

    Re: Photography = Flat, Soulless and Stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lewin View Post
    Let's be honest, would any of you argue that Adams, Steichen, Stieglitz, Clift, Penn (again, substitute your favorite photographer) is really as wonderful as one of those painters? Or to put the question differently, whose work would give you more enjoyment hanging on your wall if you really had the choice?
    We do have a choice and I have chosen to hang a cheap ansel print over any painter. Frankly I find photograhers far more interesting than paintings. I am not a snob to other art forms, but the reason I choose do do photography is I get more enjoyment from looking at photographs than I do paintings.
    Last edited by Jeff Dexheimer; 16-Nov-2014 at 18:25. Reason: Fix a typo

Similar Threads

  1. Hello, and stupid question
    By Steve Muntz in forum Introductions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2012, 01:18
  2. Ever feel really STUPID???
    By Michael Graves in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2008, 23:33
  3. Stupid question
    By cyrus in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 8-Jan-2007, 00:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •