Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,921   Posts: 1,556,565   Online: 1233
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Gay Larson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,209
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    In my opinion, this picture needs no context. It easily stands alone.

    I would argue that it is a little girl playing dress up. The mothers shoes give that impression.

    Although after being inundated with the JonBenet Ramsey pictures and "expose" of child beauty pageants it sort of makes me cringe, but the fact that they are not her shoes but her mother's suggests that this is not the case. (I could be wrong)

    But the body position and the strike a pose "voguing" gives it a sort of charm.


    Michael

    It certainly could be a little girl playing dress up in her Mother's shoes but the lipstick is too perfect and too bright. It jumps out at you. It was the first thing I noticed. It made me think someone had made her up for the photo shoot. Or as someone suggested, a pageant child.
    Prints available in the APUG GAllery
    www.gaylarsonphotography.com

  2. #22
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    I am curious. You called this an experiment. What was your point?
    To see what would happen and what comments might come up -- same as ALL posts in this area!. In this specific case, what comments might be when a photo that's highly-context-dependant was posted without the context -- a context that transforms it from a generic cute kid pic to a complex adult one by positing it within something broader (Greenfield has been careful always not to directly preach as to the good or evil of Girl Culture, but instead to use photography to explore it -- this lack of judgementalism and an ability to see directly is a huge part, I'm sure, of her ability to gain intimate access (and probably a reason why she was selected post-GC as a member of VII). Whether you agree with the importance of her theme or find it superficial, it's clear (to me) that the context is a big element.

    Maybe I should have picked a more obscure photo (not Greenfield) that is meant to be sold as a single pic though part of a broad body of work, like:



    or


    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  3. #23
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    The photographs are interesting individual elements that when put together in the manner they have been tell a story that for me seems to be far-fetched and very unbalanced view of young womanhood.

    Of course it has been a long time since I have lived in LA as a young lady and my memory and age could well be skewing my attitudes.
    Menopause will do that to you.


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

  4. #24
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Bjorke, it seems that your opinion, or the point you're trying to get across is that context is as important as the individual print. Sort of a buy the photographer not the photograph sort of thing.

    I think that when a photographer decides to make a social documentary with their photographs, it may be a different thing than when a photographer with their built in prejudices and points of view, takes random picture of subjects than interest them.

    But I still hold that if an individual picture can't stand up, then laying a story line around it, is just a crutch and the photograph fails. If that is the case then the photographer should take up cinematography, because the failures should end up in the garbage can and not the background for a series of mediocre pieces to a whole.


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

  5. #25
    Timothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    199
    Images
    14
    I agree with blansky:
    If the picture does not work on its own, then a story line is just a lame crutch.
    If the picture is supposed to serve a documentary purpose or be evidence for an investigation, then the context is vital. If it is supposed to be art, then it either is, or it is not, and lame titles, captions, or story lines or artist statements will not change that.

    Tim R
    Tim N. Roscoe

    Celebrating
    Canadian Landscape

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    But I still hold that if an individual picture can't stand up, then laying a story line around it, is just a crutch and the photograph fails. If that is the case then the photographer should take up cinematography, because the failures should end up in the garbage can and not the background for a series of mediocre pieces to a whole.

    Michael
    that seems to imply that all photographs can only be viewed individually and in isolation? Because as soon as you put two or more pictures together in any kind of sequence - even if they aren't directly related to each other - they have an effect on each other. Whether in a display, book, magazine or whatever.

    As soon as you have more than two or three pictures together, intentionally or unintentionally, there is a narrative, even if we don't want it. What you call mediocre pieces are often required as pause or counterpoint or rhythm or echo. You can do this consciously - as in designing a book or gallery or museum display. Or you can ignore it and hope everything doesn't clash - which rarely happens.

    The sum of the whole is usually greater than all the parts.

    Only if every photograph is only ever meant to be viewed in isolation(and I'm not sure how you even do that?) can each picture really be required to "stand up on it's own" in the way you seem to describe?

    The expressive nature of any photogrpah more often than not does depend on context. The more shared the context the more more readily that that expressive nature is received and responded to.

    Most people here, in the case of this photograph, have provided their own context - that of having female children, of growing up in the USA or N America, of the pressures of consumer society, of weddings, of photogrpahing children such as this. And they have easily fitted the photograph into these experiences and provided a context. Those seem to have been balanced against anything that might be lacking in the formal qualities of the photograph.

    This photograph really only seems to "stands on it's own" as a photograph because of it's broadly shared context with thisd group of viewers.

    Taken out of context, it's not that great a photograph at all. In context, it's brilliant

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy
    If it is supposed to be art, then it either is, or it is not, and lame titles, captions, or story lines or artist statements will not change that.

    Tim R
    photographic art can only consist of individual images? (presumably each piece on their own expanse of blank white wall?). I must have missed that rule somewhere?

    are you talking about "art to match your sofa"

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    most of the comments on this photogrpah seem to have drawn quite consciously on the viewers own experiences to try and provide some context to the picture and thus expand its meaning a fair way beyond the quite limited things it actually conveys

  9. #29
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    photographic art can only consist of individual images? (presumably each piece on their own expanse of blank white wall?). I must have missed that rule somewhere?

    are you talking about "art to match your sofa"
    This is a tangential issue here, but the strict answer is "Yes." If you're going to present work as single images in frames on a white wall, of course they've got to stand up on their own. This of course presupposes a definition of art as "images saleable in a gallery." Photojournalism, as I and others have remarked, is a different ball game, or at least was in the days when there were magazines that published photo-essays - these need a narrative, a flow, a beginning, middle and end, and are very likely to consist of images which work in context but do not all have (perhaps none have) a "blow your socks off" impact. Images of this kind have not conventionally been given the label "art," today it is more likely that this will happen, since with the demise of the big picture magazines, photo-essays if done at all are most likely to appear as books, exhibition catalogs and exhibitions themselves and to be sold in at least the first two of these forms.

  10. #30
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    [QUOTE=tim atherton]
    that seems to imply that all photographs can only be viewed individually and in isolation? Because as soon as you put two or more pictures together in any kind of sequence - even if they aren't directly related to each other - they have an effect on each other. Whether in a display, book, magazine or whatever
    .
    I agree, they do have an affect. I don't see that as positive or negative, as long as every one can stand alone without the context. If one "needs" the other, then it fails in my opinion.


    As soon as you have more than two or three pictures together, intentionally or unintentionally, there is a narrative, even if we don't want it. What you call mediocre pieces are often required as pause or counterpoint or rhythm or echo. You can do this consciously - as in designing a book or gallery or museum display. Or you can ignore it and hope everything doesn't clash - which rarely happens.
    I don't believe you need mediocre piece to carry any narrative. Or to enhance or highlight great ones by comparison.


    The sum of the whole is usually greater than all the parts.
    That may be true. Or the whole may be denegrated by a lot of mediocrity.


    Only if every photograph is only ever meant to be viewed in isolation(and I'm not sure how you even do that?) can each picture really be required to "stand up on it's own" in the way you seem to describe?
    I made the distinction by saying that a social documentary series could have pieces that were less than great, BUT that is different in my opinion than what most photographers do. The photographer here in question is an example of someone who has a distinct point of view and only includes pictures that propel that position forward. In doing so she has a lot of relatively meaningless images without the context. Such is social documentary photography. It's about the whole. Rarely can any image stand alone.


    The expressive nature of any photogrpah more often than not does depend on context. The more shared the context the more more readily that that expressive nature is received and responded to.
    Maybe, but the context has to come from the photograph. Not cute titles, or descriptions etc. Granted if the viewers shares lifestyle, culture, it may have more meaning, or maybe just the opposite. I might be very impressed with a picture from Tibet which is not big deal to Tibetans who see it every day.


    Most people here, in the case of this photograph, have provided their own context - that of having female children, of growing up in the USA or N America, of the pressures of consumer society, of weddings, of photogrpahing children such as this. And they have easily fitted the photograph into these experiences and provided a context. Those seem to have been balanced against anything that might be lacking in the formal qualities of the photograph.
    I can't speak for them. I think the picture has power from the expression or "voguing" of the child.

    This photograph really only seems to "stands on it's own" as a photograph because of it's broadly shared context with thisd group of viewers.
    Taken out of context, it's not that great a photograph at all. In context, it's brilliant
    I disagree. Even though it's from a social documentary, I think this picture is great and can stand alone.


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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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