Non traditional photographs

[rippo]

nice one Struan!

here's my contribution:

[jnantz]

hi domenico

mine is just a traditional photogram.
bright light and shadow
( since it was azo the light was really bright ) ...
i took the photogram and contact printed it onto
a sheet of ilford mgfb ...

i use ansco130 as my stock developer, and this was a few days old in the tray
for the original photogram, and a few days more than that, for the print ..
i think it had been traybound and cocacola coloured for about 5 or 6 days ..

john

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread.

I am discussing exactly the purpose of this thread, whose premise contains a statement which is historically inaccurate.

[Gordon Moat]

Seems that rocks, trees, and B/W images are non-traditional . . . though I wonder what we might now define as traditional. Anyway, some very nice images here so far, and here is my contribution:



Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[sanking]

Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread. Can you tell me why that is the case? I ask that question because, quite honestly, I am confused by the content of your contributions. It seems that your contributions are intended to take things off their stated direction. I do not care to discuss abstraction and it's place in the historical or hierarchal scheme of things. I simply wanted to post and see some images that were not typical illustrative depictions of known objects. Is that too much to ask? If you want to discuss this in the context that you wish then you might consider starting a thread to discuss it.

I get kind of upset when I watch the Antiques Road Show (which happens quite rarely, by the way) and see the value of some of the "junk" I threw away in my lifetime. Have a great holiday season!!!

Donald,

Your first post clearly establishes a categorization that implies that abstract imagery is non-traditional. Hell, the name of the thread itself is “Non traditional photographs. “You write:

"The overwhelming preponderance seems to be threads showing photographs of a traditional (typically representational) nature. How about a thread showing some photographs of a more abstract nature? I will begin with this recent one."

Kirk merely pointed out that abstract photography at this point in time is quite traditional, as one can readily ascertain by a cursory examination of the histories of photography, most of which contain sections or chapters on abstract photography.

If in fact all you had wanted to do was have some folks show some abstract images you might simply have asked for that rather than attempting to establish a false distinction between the traditional and the abstract.

In any event, some of the images posted here are quite interesting.


Sandy King

[Greg Lockrey]

Not to stir the pot, but I also agree with Kirk's definition. When I took a course in college called "Non-Traditional Photography" it was about using photgraphic materials to make photos without the benifit of using a camera. Examples were making photos from using objects like leaves contacted on photopaper/ film and exposed to light. Katie's images are very excellent examples of the process. Abstract photos made with a camera are just that "Abstracts" and they are traditional in nature.

[tim atherton]

Kirk, Interesting comment but... With all due respect, you seem to have failed to understand what I said in my opening statement. I addressed the subject matter in threads such as this...not representational versus abstraction in photography as a whole.

Makes more sense in what way and to whom? Given that your statement about making more sense may hold true to some people and in some ways does that mean that your assessment holds true for all? Are you elevating yourself to a peer position to dictate what should be true for all? Beyond that what in the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Happy holidays!!!

Almost all of the photographs presented so far (with the exception of one or two such as Struan's?) are very very tradition photographs. There's not really anything "non-traditional" about them at all

(which isn't to speak to their quality at all)

[rippo]

everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

or even put up some nice non-traditional pictures, whatever those might be. probably would involve photoshop.

as for photograms...they're very nice. but hardly non-traditional. photograms predate lens-based photography, from what i recall.

seems like a fair share of post-xmas blues around here.

[Donald Miller]

everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

or even put up some nice non-traditional pictures, whatever those might be. probably would involve photoshop.

as for photograms...they're very nice. but hardly non-traditional. photograms predate lens-based photography, from what i recall.

seems like a fair share of post-xmas blues around here.

sd

Thank God,
Someone understands what the hell I meant. It seems that there are some here who want nothing more than to make their nuts by picking nits...For those who fit that category... that will be readily apparent when one reads the responses to this thread. I will leave it to you to argue among yourselves and you can pick apart your run of the mill pictures. I am out of here...your argumentative positions bore me to the point of nausea. It is interesting to me that those who contend to be such experts have difficulty with the use of our native language let alone spelling it correctly.

One appropriate response for Kirk or Sandy would have been to post an image appropriate to the thread...to argue about designations or definitions does nothing more than indicate one's self consumed orientation to their fellows.

I am willing to wager as much money as anyone wants to wager that my posted image is not traditional...it has never been done before and will not be repeated unless someone copies it...and I hope the hell that happens.

[tim atherton]

everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

But most of these are just that - standard examples of a longstanding genre - albeit many are very good examples of such work.