Which was quoted out of context (why I said "non sequitur"). Still -- the idea that closeness disqualifies art is imo a horrible sentiment. What distinguishes art from craftsmanship (don't forget, we're discussing images here that are clearly being received as "art"), at least since the 1800's, is the idea of the artist's personal internal emotions, discoveries and realizations finding external outlet. There is no "too close."Quote:
But they're too emotionally close - (mann i mean) to be art. For me. It's impossible to distance the author from the subject enough.
Natchwey: "I need to make pictures that are eloquent")
BTW, Jessie Mann is on the back cover of SHOTS 95 ("Books-Words"), and inside too. So is Sam Portrera:
Sam Portrera, March 2006
Regretting deeply that I've let my subscription lapse... I'll have to change that. Actually, a thread about looking might be worthwhile... after all, the camera can only record what is in it's point of view. Nothing else... no irony, poetry, or politics. At least at the start.
There's usually plenty to discuss later... :p Thanks, Bjorke, for your posts.
There is a world of difference between a 'snapshot' and a photograph made using the 'snapshot aesthetic.'
Bjorke - I don't really think you're gettin where I'm coming from. You're paraphrasing an earlier post 'out of context', not to mention the fact that I think you have some fairly romantic ideas about the discourse of visual art. But anyway - there comes a time one is just beating one's head against a wall...
Your quoting of MY post let me realize how poor a typist I am! "direct action of the power of chance" should have been "direct action OR the power of chance" and "you own it to the work" should be "you OWE it to the work" *sigh*
I continue to be puzzled though, why someone who says they avoid portraiture has been so vocal in their opinions about Mann & the other aforementioned and influential portraitists (and quick to inappropriately trot-out the "p word" too) -- while not really talking directly about the pictures themselves very much (not even simpl elow-hanging fruit like the prominent role, in both Mann & Sturges, of water). Not to turn it into armchair psychology (though a huge bit of art, imo, is exactly that).
Sometimes I think that art with all that icky human internal-state stuff sliced-off is what most "crasftman" imagery strives for. A dully art-like product made from Statements, rather than questions or poems.
(these shooters are imo Mann-influenced in varying degrees, and Sanguinetti is an especially good example of kids-as-collaborators, of what Jessie Mann, these days, calls "the agency of the subject")
I WOULD SAY (perhaps this will be EQUALLY as contentious a statement for you as the earlier ones) that the examples you've provided are WORLDS away (again, for me only perhaps) from Mann's portraits. I say this because you could EASILY replace the model in either of the photos and it would be the same photograph. I don't think that is at ALL the case in Mann's portraits. Nor do I think it's the case with Sturges! Perhaps that is somehow the CORE of what gets to me about that work. About the 'personal' - the 'closeness'. I don't pick that up from the examples you gave... again - I hope this made some sense and somehow, from this dialogue we can both, and all, grow in terms of our relationships to the work and photography/art as a whole.