What's up with the blur and grain?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think blurry and grainy can be beautiful. I try to have an open mind and try not automatically reject something based on preconceived notions.

[Vaughn]

Reminds me of the old West saying -- "We'll give him fair trial, then we'll hang him."

But I agree, the first question to ask -- "Does it work?"

[pdeeh]

Ah!
Warren Buffet, the epitome - ne plus ultra - of aesthetic philosophical enquirers ...

[desertratt]

I have no clue about who/what you are talking about but I am compelled to ask --are these rogue photogs crowding your space or should you maybe live and let live?

[Felinik]

I have no clue about who/what you are talking about but I am compelled to ask --are these rogue photogs crowding your space or should you maybe live and let live?

it's a philosophical discussion regarding the evolution (or not) of photographic arts. If you're not interested, seek other threads please.

[horacekenneth]

I have no clue about who/what you are talking about but I am compelled to ask --are these rogue photogs crowding your space or should you maybe live and let live?

While I disagree with the notion that grain & blur is necessarily bad (nobody's gone that far yet), I appreciate a discussion on art. Maybe you should live and let live those who would like to critically consider artistic methods.

[Rudeofus]

No doubt similar things were said about the Impressionists.

Yes, they were attacked a lot in their time, and the term impressionist itself was meant as derogatory term for their style. But impressionists added a lot more to visual arts than just blurry images, and that's why they are still respected today. Hastily painting a Rembrandt image would likely not pass the test of time.

Shouldn't the question be "Does it work here?" And not: "is it innovative or imitative?"

This ties straight into Eric Rose's rant about lith printing. Fact is that grainy/blurry b&w images are unusual views these days for most people, so by their unusual appearance they catch interest with the unwashed masses.

There is a good chance that quite a few of these images are not exhibited for their artistic value but for the apparent novelty of their appearance. And I guess that is what this thread and Eric Rose's rant are all about.

[Felinik]

Reminds me of the old West saying -- "We'll give him fair trial, then we'll hang him."

But I agree, the first question to ask -- "Does it work?"

Good question!

One of the specific cases I am referring to, imho, is a series of photographs telling a story about a group of people in a specific area on this planet, a small countryside village outside a larger western city. The artist has chosen to work with film, looks like t-grain, and for some reason underexposed most of the images a fair bit, and many of them are, hopefully intentionally, blurry (as in the camera was not sitting entirely firm/still). Then the development looks like it's done in Rodinal using stand dev or something, the grain is HUGE and it does NOT help the underexposure at all. If it was abstract or surrealistic, or any other kind of non storytelling/journalistic category/genre, I would probably not react on it.

[horacekenneth]

Good question!

One of the specific cases I am referring to, imho, is a series of photographs telling a story about a group of people in a specific area on this planet, a small countryside village outside a larger western city. The artist has chosen to work with film, looks like t-grain, and for some reason underexposed most of the images a fair bit, and many of them are, hopefully intentionally, blurry (as in the camera was not sitting entirely firm/still). Then the development looks like it's done in Rodinal using stand dev or something, the grain is HUGE and it does NOT help the underexposure at all. If it was abstract or surrealistic, or any other kind of non storytelling/journalistic category/genre, I would probably not react on it.

can we see them?

[Felinik]

Here I found an example:

http://images1.citybreak.com/image.aspx?ImageId=1403322