Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,514   Posts: 1,543,677   Online: 913
      
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 90
  1. #51
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    To me they are mildly interesting nostalgia. At least they are correctly called snapshots.

    Unfortunately today snapshots are called portraits.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  2. #52
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    If I were a malicious person I would suspect that the Kodak contest (or contests) was just a marketing trick to make people buy film, use cameras, see themselves as potential prize winners etc.

    In order to do so, the best thing is to award the prize to a picture of a family dog, or a child.
    Those are:

    a) obviously present in most houses;
    b) obviously available as models for free;
    c) obviously the subject that most photographers are "shooting" in any case;

    Besides, after the publication of the results, most people will think "well, that's not really better than my own production" and this will encourage the narcissist inner self to photograph more.

    So one might be induced by the Malign to think that the winners were not really chosen by the jury, but by the marketing department or, which is the same, that the marketing department instructed the jury on the kind of picture which should have won: a picture similar enough to any family picture, thereby excluding professional executed portraits or exotic landscapes etc.

    The winner picture, in a word, should have looked like a picture that "you could have taken" (and you could have won the prize).

    Obviously I don't think any of the above because thinking bad of photographic juries is a sin and I care about my spiritual salvation.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #53
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,358
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    To me they are mildly interesting nostalgia. At least they are correctly called snapshots.

    Unfortunately today snapshots are called portraits.
    Today, snapshots are called Gursky photos and sell for $4.3M.

  4. #54
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    All art has its rightful places and means of communicating and some just won't fit with the zeitgeist. That work is better left on your own wall. It's about tapping into the spirit of the times or simply not getting it, which is when most artists will fail to find an audience. There are rarely ideas as brilliant as the barking dog which will challenge what is culturally accepted. If a pictorialist photographer is capable of doing that, then nostalgic photography might have something timely and worthwhile to say. Most of the time it only seems to appeal, quite incestuously, to other photographers.
    I think you are getting hung up on the history of art and it's impacts on people. You are giving a reverence for historical artists and their aesthetic and basically saying that type of aesthetic is off limits and to be hung on your wall as opposed to being considered "art".

    Is my appreciation of art deco architecture laughable to you? If I was an architect and I was designing an art deco style building; would that be a deplorable persuit because that doesn't fit the revered zeitgeist and would be better off designing glass boxes like every other architect? Your very claim for analog'ers to move past their aesthetic is flawed because your premise is that we will canabalize our own near and dear analog capture medium due to not moving beyond the art movements of past. What is paradoxical is you seem to believe that what is produced is rehashed and therefore not art and thus the inevitable failure of film is our fault. Who is to say what is art or not? You?
    Andy

  5. #55
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,732
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    If I were a malicious person I would suspect that the Kodak contest (or contests) was just a marketing trick to make people buy film, use cameras, see themselves as potential prize winners etc.
    That is exactly why Kodak had these contests.

    I know that there is a strong streak of "I can do that" in me.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #56
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,732
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    To me they are mildly interesting nostalgia. At least they are correctly called snapshots.

    Unfortunately today snapshots are called portraits.
    Yeah, gotta agree there.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #57
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    That is exactly why Kodak had these contests.

    I know that there is a strong streak of "I can do that" in me.
    Yup. Think "Pillsbury Bake-Off" run by General Mills for years.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    If I was an architect and I was designing an art deco style building; would that be a deplorable persuit because that doesn't fit the revered zeitgeist and would be better off designing glass boxes like every other architect?
    I'm just not sure you'd get the planning permission.


    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Your very claim for analog'ers to move past their aesthetic is flawed because your premise is that we will canabalize our own near and dear analog capture medium due to not moving beyond the art movements of past. What is paradoxical is you seem to believe that what is produced is rehashed and therefore not art and thus the inevitable failure of film is our fault. Who is to say what is art or not? You?
    The original work is and was the greatest work produced in photography, but still relevant to a time and place, which is why it had an impact in the art world then and doesn't now even in the most skillfully rehashed forms we see in traditional fine art photography publications. The original Steichens and Westons and early Brandts still have impact if only because they have become iconic images and have a recognisable name attached. An annonymous, unpublished image by one of these artists is unlikely to turn many heads in a gallery. The vision of the photographer is still apparent in the image, the composition is still beautiful, but without the name or the familiarity, the photograph is simply an artifact from a time and culture long gone. Only historians and other well read photographers would perhaps recognise the image and see its worth.

    I'm saying that this derivative nu-pictorialist/modernist work is more craft than art, because I believe for a photograph to be accepted as 'art', it has to fit with the zeitgeist and cultural sensibilities or move beyond it, to affect people who aren't other craft concerned traditional photographers. It's simply too self-referential if it harks back to movements normal people have forgotten. Having any success as an artist depends on seeing outside of your creative bubble, which can often be delusional and warped. You have to learn to communicate with your audience on their terms, even if you're an abstract expressionist. That is, you say what you want, in a language they understand.

    I don't make the rules, but unfortunately, if you were to show an annonymous, unpublished Gursky image and an archetypal modernist Weston image (unpublished) on the street in a metropolitan area (where average Joe will be more middle class and more switched on about art) I have a gut feeling the Gursky would attract most attention. Without them recognising the photographer or the image that is. This is because the imagery and clinical documentary style representation in the Gursky reflects the mood of the times we live in. Its visual language is something people will understand without a deep knowledge of the history of photography or knowing the value of its materials and craft hours. For photography to be considered art it surely has to be appreciated and understood by people who have no concept of these references to the craft and history of photography? Which is all that the nostalgic work I'm criticising does and why it has no audience outside of photography communities and publications.
    Last edited by batwister; 04-27-2012 at 11:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    681
    Images
    15
    batwister,
    I was brief earlier in this thread, when I said B&W photography is alchemical process.
    Most of us probably have been there, where You are standing now and have had that high school / undergraduate university student jumpstart.
    to quote Oscar Wilde
    Experience is one thing you can't get for nothing.
    So is understanding for some conceptually fundamental points about stuff.
    You might be just trying to cross the street with a helicopter, when the other way might not be that obvious, yet.

    My best wishes to You!
    G

  10. #60
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    I'm just not sure you'd get the planning permission.
    Please see:
    6060 Indian Creek (built 1992) 2nd one down, then call the planning board who approved this design and convince them to have the building condemned...

    "The Sixty Sixty Resort Residences is an Art Deco-style property..."
    http://condosandhomesmiamibeach.com/...Homes_for_Sale


    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    I'm saying that this derivative nu-pictorialist/modernist work is more craft than art, because I believe for a photograph to be accepted as 'art', it has to fit with the zeitgeist and cultural sensibilities or move beyond it, to affect people who aren't other craft concerned traditional photographers. It's simply too self-referential if it harks back to movements normal people have forgotten. Having any success as an artist depends on seeing outside of your creative bubble, which can often be delusional and warped.
    Who said anything about success?

    I guess we need to part ways here because, your sacred reverence for artists who've connected doest make room for the van Gogh's and Vivian Maier's and outsiders, those are the ones that keep me jazzed, "the little guy", the one who couldn't connect and are missed by your algorithm.

    Everything is a remix anyway, please, please check this out....thoughts?

    http://www.everythingisaremix.info/e...-remix-part-3/
    Andy



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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