Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,686   Posts: 1,482,323   Online: 970
      
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I dunno. Look at the thread title. Discussing Sally Mann is what we're doing. Facile dismissals get tossed around...participation in the discussion would seem to involve examining those dismissals.
    JS - thanks for the response. It's just that his comment seemed so 'bait-like' it didn't seem worthy of a response. And I was surprised that someone bothered. But I chose to pick your comment out for questioning among others because I thought it was an easy way to frame a larger question - i.e. it seems that people tend to view the validity of certain work from a surprisingly absolutist place. it's as though there is no room for individual value-judgement. But anyway...

  2. #72
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Sort of, yes. There's public art -- I wouldn't necessarily want to live with Guernica or much Bosch -- and there's private art, which yes, I would like on my wall, if only I had enough/big enough walls (Alma-Tadema being a prize example).

    Cheers,

    R.

    Bosch, there you go...perfect. I sure as hell don't want it on my wall and it sure as hell is art.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  3. #73
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    Bosch, there you go...perfect. I sure as hell don't want it on my wall and it sure as hell is art.
    Oh, I think it would be a hoot to have "Garden of Earthly Delights" hanging on the dining room wall. Especially when you had company over who you really didn't want to stay long.

  4. #74
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,348
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Oh, I think it would be a hoot to have "Garden of Earthly Delights" hanging on the dining room wall. Especially when you had company over who you really didn't want to stay long.
    Guys, where is your stoner ethos? I have seen plenty of people with a poster of the Garden hanging in their flats because of the cool weird little people.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  5. #75
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    How do you mean that björke? Why do you construe it as 'corrosive'?
    What you wrote:
    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.
    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 Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    ...the photographer absolutely dominates the subject into submission.
    Light on the surface is ultimately all you get. The photographer needs to confront this fact when making pictures, whether through direct action of the power of chance. Whatever your greater purpose, you own it to the work itself to do whatever you can, whether it's Mann's watery idylls or even journalism (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

    Too close?

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  6. #76
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,715
    Images
    135
    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... Thanks, Bjorke, for your posts.

  7. #77
    Neanderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio River Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    575
    There is a world of difference between a 'snapshot' and a photograph made using the 'snapshot aesthetic.'

  8. #78
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    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...



    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke View Post
    What you wrote:
    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."
    Light on the surface is ultimately all you get. The photographer needs to confront this fact when making pictures, whether through direct action of the power of chance. Whatever your greater purpose, you own it to the work itself to do whatever you can, whether it's Mann's watery idylls or even journalism (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

    Too close?

  9. #79
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    ...You're paraphrasing...
    Actually, I pressed the "reply with quote" button, which did all the direct-quote typing for me, to avoid any duplicity of effort

    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")
    Last edited by bjorke; 04-21-2007 at 03:06 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo typo typo

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  10. #80
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke View Post
    Actually, I pressed the "reply with quote" button, which did all the direct-quote typing for me, to avoid any duplicity of effort

    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")
    THANK YOU Bjorke - for the very thoughtful reply. Well, indeed - it puzzles me too. I just feel that portraiture, for me, is EXTREMELY complicated. Much of the reason why is political (i.e. - having the consent of the sitter, for example... and then there is SOOO MUCH responsibility involved in that transaction vis-a-vis representation). So - certain portraiture illustrates why this is. Perhaps mann & sturges both. I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it more.

    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.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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