How come no one here (except maybe Frank) posts images as hip and cool as the NY Times heralds on the front page today from Art Basel Miami? Cindy Sherman on acid with a heroin chaser.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/fa...pc&oref=slogin
Help me, please.
Mike
Maybe because many who post here are into landscapes, B/W portraits, and more traditional styles of images. Photos of naked tattoo chicks might be hip and cool, but between that and traditional images there is a world of photography. This is mainly a gear forum, though if you look through some of the image posting threads, you can find some quite interesting, non-traditional images ... amongst a bunch of very traditional ones.
Now what I would wonder about is what types of images you would like to see. Maybe you can post some of the stuff you shoot, or start a thread on edgy images ... or something.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Gordon:Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
Maybe because many who post here are into landscapes, B/W portraits, and more traditional styles of images. Photos of naked tattoo chicks might be hip and cool, but between that and traditional images there is a world of photography. This is mainly a gear forum, though if you look through some of the image posting threads, you can find some quite interesting, non-traditional images ... amongst a bunch of very traditional ones.
Now what I would wonder about is what types of images you would like to see. Maybe you can post some of the stuff you shoot, or start a thread on edgy images ... or something.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
My sarcastic comment was that in my opinion the crap from the Miami show the NY Times posted this morning as today's hip & cool photo shop art connected with me as much as Cindy Sherman's images. IMHO, they appear sophomoric and calculated to evoke a response as opposed to capturing an emotion. I do marvel at how they can market their images though.
I leave the edgy images to Frank. He is very, very good and sneaks humor into his images. I have never been able to connect with a subject as intimately (literally and figuratively), so I stick to landscapes and architectural details.
I have Weston & Adams (Ansel and Gary), as well as Michael Smith and Clyde Butcher, on my walls (some of mine,too).
Life seems gritty enough without actively seeking to permanently memorialize it.
Mike
I get this newsletter called A3TV that had the Art Basel Miami event as on-line video. They also had a feature on fashion photography as art. Funny how a couple years ago, there was talk in the commercial photography world of an emergence of fine art. That influenced some of the look of the images, at least at the higher end of the advertising market.
Now we have a few attempts at reversing that, trying to make commercial images into fine art. Much in the way that pop art of the past was somewhat commercially influenced, there is a circle of change constantly evolving in images and art. Everything is co-dependent and influences abound. What works, however, is something always up to interpretation.
I haven't seen the works of Ansel Weston nor Gary Adams, though I am familiar with the other two guys you mentioned.
Frank does some cool images, so no dissing there. If I was sarcastic, I might state that all you need to be popular as a photographer is lots of images of half-naked (or naked) interesting looking girls. Frank allows us to see a bit past the naked girl, and interpret the images.
Anyway, in my commercial work, I am usually working on an idea/concept/brief (or story boards), as a creative partner to develop a final result. Sometimes that is portfolio level, other times the final result might even be compelling as an art print.
As long as we continue to look at new work, whether or not we like it, then we can continue to improve, grow, and realize our own creative visions. When we too easily dismiss something, then it can make us seem cynical ... not sarcastic.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
I agree wholeheartedly. I look at everything I can and read anything that falls under my gaze. I constantly fight that cynicism (I earn my living as an attorney), but there are times it wins. Fortunately, it loses nearly as often. I just never know which will prevail on any given day.
Knowing what displeases you or moves you away is just as important as knowing what draws you in.
Mike
I fail to see the point of the Elaine Constantine image presented in that NYT story -- a tourist snapshot, at best.
A ruder person might say "crap" and make a connection between a lot of other photographs in the 'fashion' world.
I doubt there are any images that are universally appealing. Even famous Ansel Adams photographs are found boring and lacking by some viewers. These views tell more about us than the photographers. I don't particularly think much of the work of Terry Richardson, yet there he is in so many magazines, and doing so many ad campaigns. It would seem to defy logic, yet when it comes right down to it, there is no logic in photography ... nor preferences.
I think we can learn from images that do not appeal to us. Maybe it reminds us we don't want to shoot those types of images, or it reminds us of why we prefer certain images over others.
To try to go backwards and dissect popular images, then try to emulate them, would be another (my opinion) wrong approach. Touristy looking snap-shot aesthetic is one extreme, but is someone shooting endless images of half dome in the style of Ansel Adams really any better? Be true to your own ideas, express your own creative vision, then don't worry about who likes it or not ... there is a ready and waiting audience for nearly anything.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Last edited by Gordon Moat; 6-Dec-2007 at 21:03. Reason: grammar
Damn! You and Frank keep making me think, analyze and try understand why I take a position. This was supposed to be simple...
Thanks for the perspective.
Mike
Agreed! Very well put, Gordon...one more small bit of education in my photographic life, and I thank you for it.
I showed two photos at Art Basel Miami this year. I would be curious to see what you all thought of them. While not LF, they are 6x6 film - traditionally printed by me in my darkroom. At Art Basel I saw a good amount of what I consider very strong straight photography, and hardly anything like the image posted in the top of this thread. As you would expect, 95% of it was very large and very grainy/pixelated digital C prints.
larger versions here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebarry/2191705332/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebarry/2190918597/
Steve
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks