Originally Posted by
r.e.
I figure that riooso is right. If not, this is a tall order. What happens here is that people either say nothing or engage in a form of mutual congratulation. There is no such thing as actual criticism, even when asked for.
So I'm going to make an exception. Only because you asked. In my opinion, educated or not, the first photograph is the worst kind of kitsch. The second photograph evokes the response, who cares?
OK, I said what I think. I didn't do it to insult you, I did it because you asked, and out of a rare, for this site, expression of honesty. I did it because I think that it might be nice to be able to post photographs here and get an honest response. Have you noticed that not a single person who has responded to this thread, thus far, has actually said anything about the photographs? If I don't bother posting photographs of my own, it is in part because the usual routine here is that people post stuff that ranges from bad to fair, and people either say nothing or do oohs and aahs about photographs that aren't worth a glance, let alone a second look. As far as I can figure out, this site is one of the most technically proficient of the photographic fora, but one of the most aesthetically deficient. The basic idea seems to be, if it is large format, it is by definition good, even if it looks basically like just a big snapshot, devoid of content or form, that could just as easily have been made by a 12 year old 40 years ago with a Kodak Brownie or yesterday with a digital point and shoot. The really funny thing is this. The people who make these big negative photographs that have no content then engage in religious wars about whether photographers who use these big negatives to make big prints are any good, especially if said photographers, such as Ed Burtynsky, actually have customers or, like Jeff Wall, not only have customers, but do something that doesn't look like Ansel Adams. Evidently, the basic idea, if you make big negatives, is to make small prints. Or better yet, contacts, which puts one in what is evidently an exculsive club of true artists. And meanwhile, there is nothing going on on this site that consitutes criticism, unless one is into the mentality of a mutual admiration society.
By the way, your kitsch is actually progress compared to a 2007 19th century Julia Margaret Cameron or 20th century Ansel Adams or Paul Strand knockoff, which are the stock in trade of this site. There are a zillion of those in the archive to your one piece of kitsch. So your photograph is actually special. That said, my personal view is that there's more interesting low-def cell phone video on YouTube.
I fully expect that I shall now get jumped on. That's cool.
Reply With Quote
, she's 53, Next year when she's 54 I'll trade her in for a couple of 27 year-olds. 
Bookmarks