PDA

View Full Version : Discuss a Joe Cornish Photograph



Pages : 1 [2]

roteague
08-06-2006, 07:37 PM
I can't possibly find a single technical fault with this...it's well designed, well exposed, and printed with care for all of what's in it. But, as said before, it's repetitive of soooo many other scenic decor images that I don't feel I need to spend more than a couple of seconds with it...in a word, it's boring. He's found an excellent spot to uncover some excellent photographs, but settled on simply recording the site which is what I would have seen had I been there. I don't sense he's shown me anything that matters to him about the place. Great for a calendar, though, especially in New York in February. ;)

That's OK. Personally, I would live to be able to take images of such magnitude as Joe Cornish. For me, this comes from having a love of such places ... and even though, I may never visit this beach, I will at least have visited it in Joe's images.

David H. Bebbington
08-06-2006, 10:37 PM
God, we are all so jaded.
Since we have all been inundated by millions of images, is there nothing that can fill us with wonder anymore.

Michael
I think I read in an interview with JC that his stated aim was to "record discovered beauty." This to me is both his strength and his weakness, he goes out and captures in film what he is looking for, but this is a kind of over-romanticized ideal, essentially a preconception that he has brought to the scene. This is not in any way to deny that JC's work is technically impeccable.

df cardwell
08-07-2006, 06:34 AM
It's a sentimental picture,
referring to the ideal of 'beautiful nature'
rather than to the scene itself.

Does nature need be perfectly exposed
and rigidly composed to the law of thirds
to be 'beautiful' ?

Hadn't thought so.

This is 'man's view of nature',
recreating the world in his image,
a pastel dream of the perfect place,
as much a falacy as the starlet's plastic surgery.

It reminds me of the outfits the young dancers wore on Lawrence Welk.

It is as damaging to the 'natural world' as a pipeline,
for it leads 'the masses' to believe only the pastel and perfectly composed
has value.

Sentimental, and superbly executed
it shows exactly the power of a an idea supported by craft.

It also demonstrates that you can only go so far
when you keep your passion out of your work.

Cornish could be FANTASTIC if he risked imperfection for the sake of his heart.

Harrigan
08-07-2006, 07:24 AM
[QUOTE=df cardwell]It's a sentimental picture,
referring to the ideal of 'beautiful nature'
rather than to the scene itself.

It is as damaging to the 'natural world' as a pipeline,
for it leads 'the masses' to believe only the pastel and perfectly composed
has value.

pretty cynical. the man found beauty in the natural world and exploited it for his image. All due respect, I think you're going over the top with this philosophical horse manure.

I find this to be a standard commercial landscape good for calendars etc. I cant fault the guy for being technically perfect but the image does feel a bit standard commercial landscapey to me.

Bill Hahn
08-07-2006, 07:33 AM
One of the benefits of this forum is that it may introduce us to photographers/images we don't already know (particularly some of us parochial folks in the USA, myself included). I now plan on buying Cornish's book. Thank you (I think).

I like how people react based on the subject of the photograph. While I like landscapes/nature, after sitting with Adams "The American Wilderness" for an hour or so, I like to then pick up Dorothea Lange or Helen Levitt - and vice versa.

And we do become jaded as the glut of images go by. The same thing happens in other fields: a sacrificial combination in chess, thought beautiful and brilliant in 1900, is considered a mundane bit of technique 40 years later.....

df cardwell
08-07-2006, 07:41 AM
All due respect, I think you're going over the top with this philosophical horse manure.

Harrigan, my friend

Try to talk about Cornish's picture,
not me.

df

RH Designs
08-07-2006, 08:13 AM
Anyone who's interested in seeing more of Joe's work might like to visit http://www.joecornish.com/

Harrigan
08-07-2006, 08:13 AM
Like I said the image to me is a standard commercial landscape photo. I don't feel the image merits futher discussion.

naturephoto1
08-07-2006, 08:16 AM
Anyone who's interested in seeing more of Joe's work might like to visit http://www.joecornish.com/

Richard,

Thanks very much for the link.

Rich

RH Designs
08-07-2006, 08:25 AM
You're welcome Rich. I'm a great admirer of Joe's work - his gallery is about 45mins drive from here and his big Ilfochromes are just beautiful ...

roteague
08-07-2006, 12:53 PM
Anyone who's interested in seeing more of Joe's work might like to visit http://www.joecornish.com/

Unfortunately, Joe has had his site redesigned lately. I can no longer find some of my favorite images on it. :( Fortunately I have his book.

donbga
08-07-2006, 01:15 PM
Unfortunately, Joe has had his site redesigned lately. I can no longer find some of my favorite images on it. :( Fortunately I have his book.
I've just looked at Joe's site and though I like some of the work I saw there, I must say that unfortunately a lot of his approach to his work seems to be very formulaic. A quality that is often seen in work of color landscape photography. It seems as though David Muench has set the mold so to speak, making the work of many others derivative.

And BTW, I do not equate landscape photography to be a variant of nature photography which seems to be a popular concept of NANPA - ettes.

tim atherton
08-07-2006, 03:17 PM
And BTW, I do not equate landscape photography to be a variant of nature photography which seems to be a popular concept of NANPA - ettes.

well, technically, a landscape should be a picture of a vista which includes the hand of man at work in it, though landscapes in general have moved beyond that original definition to be at least either/or - man-made or just "natural" landscapes.

I suppose if it is the later it's really a form of nature photography, because really, who gives a hoot about who or what NANPA is or what they say....!

If it's about nature, and you want to call it nature photography - then that's what it is. If you want to call it landscape - cool - do so. There's no book of rules and at matters little one way or the other. You can do landscape photography int he middle of the city if you really want to (in fact such work can often be truer to the word than is the photograph in question here....)