Aperture Magazine just set me an e-mail

[Richard Mahoney]

... Nobody trusts pictures of dramatic nature even if they are abstract. I get accused of not seeing what is there (I see situations like the one Wall photographed in John's second link all the time and see nothing meaningful about them), yet those dramatic landscapes are something I see every day as well. They bring me wonder, joy and peace: palpable emotions that don't require pseudo-intellectual claptrap to describe. ...

I guess I'll have to go back to old buildings--not rotting corpses of city buildings intentionally (and often unnecessarily) forced to rot but honest ruins of country buildings going to seed all by themselves, and often still in use. I think I like the story inherent in those better than seeing broken dolls in the semi-razed debris of a sanitarium. I suppose that makes me some kind of romantic.

Rick "honestly stuck, but refusing cynicism" Denney

Yes, for me at least, there just has to be some essential beauty in an image ... and balance (if things are decaying then surely there also has to be at least the suggestion of growth). Genuine engagement on the part of the photographer is also primary, and failing a certain awe, at least respect for the subject. You know I was just jotting down a list of photographers that I `like' -- well not always the right word -- and I was a little surprised at the distance between them and some of those we've been discussing.

Jeanloup Sieff
Paolo Roversi
Ralph Gibson
Sally Mann
Eikoh Hosoe
--
Clarence John Laughlin
Frederick H. Evans


Best, Richard

[Brian C. Miller]

But I'm still trying to figure all this out. I see the word "honest" applied to photographs of ...

Rick, face it, you are thinking like Balthus.

Art is a metier. I don't consider myself an artist. I consider myself a worker. Unfortunately, now this idea seems useless because if you look at modern art you see that now everybody can do everything. And in fact nobody does anything.

After looking up the various photographers who've been listed here, I keep coming to one conclusion: I absolutely know what I like, and those people don't produce it. I find nothing wrong with photographs of amazing natural beauty. There is nothing disingenuous about those photographs. Neither Galen Rowell nor David Muench faked or posed their photographs. There was no production crew or actors. How can photographs like theirs be called anything other than honest? Yes, their photographs are on calendars. I can't find anything wrong with that.

I also like Japanese maples. I have a nice shot of Japanese maple leaves against a deep blue sky, Velvia and enhancing filter. Is it gorgeous? Of course it is. Why do people plant Japanese maples and cherry trees? Why do people plant rose gardens? Hello, clue time for some forum members: beauty isn't kitsch. Just ask any Playboy photographer.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I learn nothing from these works. Especially the one of people at the airport. There is no skill here, no connection (as you state) of the photographer to the subject, and therefore nothing to communicate. Am I to be moved by someone who is that disconnected from their reality? If he is not moved, then why should I be? Should I feel pity for him?

Why not simply wave a camera in the air randomly taking pictures, and then make up a story about them later. Where is the seeing? Where is the insight? Why should I go look at this disconnected work, or buy it? What would I learn, how would it feed me?


Lenny

I struggle with this as well. A replica of the mundane seems like a poor selection of the universe of things to spend time on - either by the creator or the viewer.

That said, I have plenty of airport photos -
http://static.zooomr.com/images/2871093_571a1976d0.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2253/...6b18827cc3.jpg
so I understand that at least there is some attraction.

In my opinion, photographs - even the constructed sorts - are fundamentally a selection. Wall is selecting images from a stream of life which is either imagined or recreated from earlier experiences. And in the selection itself tells us something about what is important (or by contrast unimportant). In diagonal composition, the composition is important and, I think, interesting despite the content (in my case though they are a nostalgic reminder of a certain wash sink on the 6th floor of Wurster Hall).

In the case of Crewdson, the selection is clearly a selection from his own fantasy world - despite his talk of it being a realistic story. But it is overcomplicated with technique at the expense of grace. As I mentioned it is uneconomical - like a Vegas Showgirl. The suggestion is too baroque for my tastes. I can just see him moving into 3d. But that is of course personal preference. I like my selections to tell a story with as little complication as possible.

[rdenney]

Rick, face it, you are thinking like Balthus.

Heh. Is that good?

But in my case, I am really struggling, for the simple reason that the photos I like end up stacked against the wall inside a closet. Whatever it is that makes people want to look at photographs--these aren't providing it. So, I'm trying to figure it out.

The natural scene can't be anything but what it is, and therefore it is honestly that. But we may make it dishonest, I suppose, by making it something it isn't. When I choose Velvia or a polarizer, I'm not really trying to duplicate the scene. I'm trying to represent the impression it made on me, which is always more colorful than the way photographs usually look. The intensity of color I see with my eyes has to be represented somehow. Is that honest? I think so. But inside my closet they remain, heh.

I was once accused of being an exponent of the Pretty Rocks School, and even the label suggests that such photographs are trite. They probably are. My photos are probably like the amateur paintings one sees at small-town arts-and-crafts fairs. Or even the photos. And even I look at those paintings and photos and internally roll my eyes at their triteness.

So, I don't understand the appeal of the post-modern/contemporary/whatever stuff, and the traditional/modern/Adamsy stuff has lost its power. Even though I'm an amateur, I would like to say something with photos that might make a difference for others, but it's hard to know any more whether that happens.

Rick "not being a curmudgeon--this time" Denney

[D. Bryant]

But it is overcomplicated with technique at the expense of grace.

What does that mean?

I like my selections to tell a story with as little complication as possible.

IMO, single images can't tell stories, but merely suggest ideas and leave the viewer with questions if they are interested in photo to begin with.

Crewdson doesn't need to be economical; his editions sell out at a quick pace, but that doesn't make his work great art, it just means he has been recognized as an important and collectible artist.I don't really consider him a photographer, just as we wouldn't consider Hitchcock or Kubrick a great cinematographer. I do consider Crewdson a significant artist who exploits the medium of large format film.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Andrew Moore in this thread who is probably one of the more conventional LF photographers on the contemporary art scene.

Alec Soth also rates, IMO.

Don Bryant

[Struan Gray]

Why do people plant rose gardens?

I'm going to plant a nuttery, thanks to a photo by Beth Dow.

I'll take a plum over a cherry as I love the resonance of the Three Friends in Winter, and you can eat even the pretty ones. There'll be a Tibetan Quince if only I can source one. Maples (German and Norwegian) sneak in all by themselves, so my Japanese tree will be a hornbeam. My neighbours already have a 150 year old Ginkgo, but perhaps I'll find a female one and play Noah.

Art photos and nature photos of these trees are vanishingly rare. You can find them in botanical guides and enthusiast shots on flickr, but not when people pick up a camera to do Photography with a capital P. They are beautiful too, more so in my mind, but are crowdsourced out by the herd.

Regression to the mean is a law of averages, it need not dictate to the individual. The only shame in loving red maples is if you let yourself be blinded to all the other beautiful trees. Photography as a whole has let itself be blinded.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Heh. Is that good?

But in my case, I am really struggling, for the simple reason that the photos I like end up stacked against the wall inside a closet. Whatever it is that makes people want to look at photographs--these aren't providing it. So, I'm trying to figure it out.

The natural scene can't be anything but what it is, and therefore it is honestly that. But we may make it dishonest, I suppose, by making it something it isn't. When I choose Velvia or a polarizer, I'm not really trying to duplicate the scene. I'm trying to represent the impression it made on me, which is always more colorful than the way photographs usually look. The intensity of color I see with my eyes has to be represented somehow. Is that honest? I think so. But inside my closet they remain, heh.

I was once accused of being an exponent of the Pretty Rocks School, and even the label suggests that such photographs are trite. They probably are. My photos are probably like the amateur paintings one sees at small-town arts-and-crafts fairs. Or even the photos. And even I look at those paintings and photos and internally roll my eyes at their triteness.

So, I don't understand the appeal of the post-modern/contemporary/whatever stuff, and the traditional/modern/Adamsy stuff has lost its power. Even though I'm an amateur, I would like to say something with photos that might make a difference for others, but it's hard to know any more whether that happens.

Rick "not being a curmudgeon--this time" Denney

What more is there to say about pretty rocks? Is there something else you see that people would be interested in? Which people? Why? How would you photograph it?

I'm satisfied with photographing things for a number of reasons:

To document them - I have shots of disassembled machines to help me put them back together and photos taken inside wall cavities where I can not see.

To share - primarily group activities and family photos

For historical reasons - I'm interested in towns and the shapes of cities, the way things are or were

For aesthetics - I like the color, shape, texture, view point ...

but only a few of those interest other people.

[Lenny Eiger]

I struggle with this as well. A replica of the mundane seems like a poor selection of the universe of things to spend time on - either by the creator or the viewer.

I couldn't agree more.

In my opinion, photographs - even the constructed sorts - are fundamentally a selection. Wall is selecting images from a stream of life which is either imagined or recreated from earlier experiences. And in the selection itself tells us something about what is important (or by contrast unimportant).

Photographs, fundamentally are a selection. But if that's all they are, then why bother? There is an extra added element when they communicate something. So what are they capable of communicating. A lot, as it turns out. The History of Photography is filled with photos that meant something to people, beyond the selection.

I am only interested if I can learn something - why else would I waste my time. There is so much to do, and see - why should I, for an extreme example, go to a war zone and watch people kill people? Should I get a telescope and watch my neighbors having sex? I don't choose to view these things because they don't interest me. Similarly, when someone simply takes a shot with no content I don't want to bother.

Further, there are deep thoughts and lighter ones. Weston spoke a lot about sensuality, for example. He found himself in nature, one could say. Begs a number of questions. It has been said, and I believe it, that man is not judged by what he knows, but by the quality of his questions. There is certainly something lacking in the questions of today's work.

Much of color photography I find ends up talking about color. I'm not a fan of Galen Rowell. I'm not particularly interested. There is a huge difference between pretty and beautiful. I can do without all the orange sunsets. The best portrait I ever took speaks of intimacy. Hey, there's a big word. What about integrity? What about presence?

If you look at enough of Lewis Hine's work, you will see how he approached his subjects. Every time, he allowed them to speak. That speaks of humility, something that is a lifelong learning process. That's the expression - one's relationship to one's world. That's how you communicate.

At the end of the day, my question is, 'what do you have to share with the rest of us?' Is there any value to your communication? Do you have any wisdom and can I see it in your image?

Anais Nin said:

"If you do not breathe through writing,
if you do not cry out in writing, or sing
in writing, then don't write, because our
culture has no use for it."

The post modern tradition has allowed people to define what photography is that 1) don't understand what photography is at its core, 2) aren't photographers, and 3), are apparently shut down emotionally to the point where they are sterile beings.

I'm with Anais Nin on this one.....



Lenny

[Darin Boville]

... just as we wouldn't consider...Kubrick a great cinematographer.

Careful there. Some of us have built shrines in our homes to Kubrick and we say our prayers every night.

--Darin

[Jack Dahlgren]

I'm going to plant a nuttery, thanks to a photo by Beth Dow.

I'll take a plum over a cherry as I love the resonance of the Three Friends in Winter, and you can eat even the pretty ones. There'll be a Tibetan Quince if only I can source one. Maples (German and Norwegian) sneak in all by themselves, so my Japanese tree will be a hornbeam. My neighbours already have a 150 year old Ginkgo, but perhaps I'll find a female one and play Noah.

Art photos and nature photos of these trees are vanishingly rare. You can find them in botanical guides and enthusiast shots on flickr, but not when people pick up a camera to do Photography with a capital P. They are beautiful too, more so in my mind, but are crowdsourced out by the herd.

Regression to the mean is a law of averages, it need not dictate to the individual. The only shame in loving red maples is if you let yourself be blinded to all the other beautiful trees. Photography as a whole has let itself be blinded.

Ginkgos are difficult to photograph. I've been trying for 30 years and still don't have a shot I really like. The huge one in Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū-ji was reportedly a thousand years old, and fell over this past spring. They certainly are a common motif in Japanese art. Persimmon is another under appreciated tree.

I'm not particularly successful photographing trees. Leaves are relatively easy. Flowers too, but the whole tree is difficult.