Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,940   Posts: 1,557,494   Online: 908
      
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 104
  1. #11
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,327
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    In my experience - it can be difficult, if not impossible, to know how to respond to a photograph without understanding the intent of the artist.
    In my experience, it is not that difficult, and entirely possible to know how to respond to a photograph without understanding the intent of the artist.

    That being said, I saw Friedlander's show last year in Chicago and liked it. However, I reserve the right to not like something without being told I don't understand it. For one thing, it's an assumption that may not be true. Perhaps one does know the artist's intent, and still doesn't like it.

    With all due respect ...

  2. #12

  3. #13
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    So - for example - if we speak of a Friedlander photo of this era - I think that the following aspects are noteworthy;

    1. The tension between the deliberately 'casual' aspects of his composition with the FORCING of a casual aesthetic. I'm not sure (I doubt) this is the same sort of tension that Blansky refers to. Regardless, I think it's a safe bet to say that he's EXTREMELY concerned with composition.

    2. The way that, in confronting the Banal (note capital B), there are two things going on. One is that the mind tends to treat the image more plastically - that is to say, we pay more attention to composition and other surface characteristics. The second thing that happens is we enter into a social critique of america, in terms of the alienating/alienated world that Friedlander represents.

    3. It is important to consider in his use of depth-of-field a certain 'suspension of disbelief'. That is to say, the great depth of field combines with the 'casual' framing and allows one to actually inhabit the scene portrayed in a way that shallow depth of field would force us to consider the work as a graphic entity.

    4. I find the way that Friedlander populates his scenes interesting. He's not at all afraid of portraying people - but I don't think it's ABOUT the people. The empty scenes seem especially conspicuously absent - and the people who DO appear in his photos don't have the same sort of presence/personality they might in a Winogrand photo, say.

    Any responses to this?
    Last edited by Sparky; 03-31-2007 at 03:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown
    That being said, I saw Friedlander's show last year in Chicago and liked it. However, I reserve the right to not like something without being told I don't understand it. For one thing, it's an assumption that may not be true. Perhaps one does know the artist's intent, and still doesn't like it.

    With all due respect ...
    And that would be FINE - as long as you acknowledge that's pretty much defining willful ignorance. There are LOTS of times I'd resolved to not like a particular image or artist... and then I'd found out something about the image or body of work in question which made it seem FAR more interesting. Which gave it a depth I hadn't even consdidered. Take Jeff Wall's work maybe. Or Andre Serrano. The truth was - I was simply looking at the work through a certain filter that made things unchallenging and easy for me (an example: "does this look like an ansel adams photo?" if yes, then I like it - if no, then I don't). But the one thing I think that's VERY important in learning to be a photographer, an artist, a visual person, what-have-you... is to learn FIRST to step outside of your little box, your preconceived notions. I don't think it's possible to pass judgement on ANYTHING until you understand it. "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes", right?

  5. #15
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    But we aren't judging the man. Only the work.

    I'm not sure that any good work of art needs context to be "legitimate". I'm kind of torn on that issue.

    If the picture can't stand on its own, should then a context or explanation be something that elevates it to something else.

    Someone is these last few days made the comment about Migrant Mother that without the context this would just be another photo. But is not the desperation, and beaten down expression on her face, plainly there, even without the background knowledge?

    I think it is. And this elevates it above a picture that needs explanation.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #16
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Sure - I agree fully. BUT! The knowing the context and something about the Dust Bowl and the FSA and Lange (that WAS Lange, right? Or am I spacing out?) sure adds another whole dimension to the photo, don't you think?

    That IS a good point though, B. I think that there is a tacit assumption of the author in every judgement of a photograph. That is to say, if someone sees what they consider a schlocky photo by Person X, then they'll try to generalize about Person X. If they see eight bad and one good, then they'll have a slightly different assumption. But that's just human nature, right? Generalization is a compression scheme we use to store information. Compression tends to be more efficient than accurate.

  7. #17
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    Sure - I agree fully. BUT! The knowing the context and something about the Dust Bowl and the FSA and Lange (that WAS Lange, right? Or am I spacing out?) sure adds another whole dimension to the photo, don't you think?
    I think it might add an "interest" but I think the picture needs to stand alone first.

    Actually the more I think of it, I DON'T think it needs the Dustbowl context. It has power and grace on its own.

    If it needs the context to "exist" then I think it has failed to some extent.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  8. #18
    Gay Larson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,209
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    But we aren't judging the man. Only the work.

    I'm not sure that any good work of art needs context to be "legitimate". I'm kind of torn on that issue.

    If the picture can't stand on its own, should then a context or explanation be something that elevates it to something else.

    Someone is these last few days made the comment about Migrant Mother that without the context this would just be another photo. But is not the desperation, and beaten down expression on her face, plainly there, even without the background knowledge?

    I think it is. And this elevates it above a picture that needs explanation.

    Thank you, Michael (I never thought I'd say that) but you have said exactly what I was about to say. My ignorance not withstanding, I believe a piece of art should stand on it's own without expaination or it's only what the artist wants you to see. So I stand by my statement that this does not appeal to me at all. You can add all the flowery artists statements and expainations all you want and it won't change my mind.
    Michael
    Michael[/QUOTE]
    Prints available in the APUG GAllery
    www.gaylarsonphotography.com

  9. #19
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    If it needs the context to "exist" then I think it has failed to some extent.
    I think there IS some truth to this statement - but I also think that people tend not to understand the way in which they are constantly being given context for things. Perhaps you're just starting to get interested in photography - and you hear about this cat "ansel adams" and "how great he is"... "a true master". Well, I think you're probably going to bring a whole different set of assumptions to looking at an adams photo with this in mind rather than not. Not only that - but I think that people probably have a whole lot more reverence and reserving of opinion towards images that are constantly foisted on us by what we perceive to be 'authority' than not. There are millions of ways in which we're constantly being 'trained', not just towards visual images, but towards EVERYTHING in our lives. I think that starting to be aware of this fact will make you a far better photographer, among other things.

  10. #20
    Gay Larson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,209
    Images
    22
    I don't know why I'm having trouble replying but what I wrote is in the box that should only contain what Blansky wrote. I was replying to his post. This has never happened before??? I had to write it three times before it even posted at all?
    Prints available in the APUG GAllery
    www.gaylarsonphotography.com

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin