a lot more people than just the guy who made it
Originally Posted by Flotsam
we don't always understand everything we see
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
btw - I happen to like it for precisely the reason Brad sets out (and more).
I kinda like it.
I'd like to see the actual print though. I've seen a lot of this type of photography, particularly from a few teachers and lots of students at variuos fine art faculties. The prints are invariably in colour and typically very big (as big as the Kreonite at the school will go) and usually have suburban homes/streets, cars, gas stations, power plants and fluffy white clouds in them.
The better ones are clever, with a keen eye for things that we take for granted today but in the grand scheme of things will capture a certain feel for the era in which they were taken. The good ones are well executed technically, with top knotch gear and excellent printing.
The lousy ones, by far the great majority, are sloppy copies of the good ones done in an effort to fit in and/or get a good mark on an assignment about the evils of our man-made world.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have skimmed through the other replies and here is my two pence or dollars worth...
I am currently studying for a degree in photography in the UK, and one thing I have learnt (if nothing else) is not to discredit or disregard other photographers or artists work with out first looking into the reasons and background as to why the photograph has been taken.
To me, and I will confess this definitely is not my favourite style of photography, but this is similar to work by Eglestone (I'm sure this is spelt wrong so please forgive me!), Teller, Peter Fraser and Richard Billingham. To me they are snap shots but, you will often find that the photographers are skilled in the craft but have decided to take 'their art' back to a very basic level, almost intentionally disregarding all the photographic rules. In many cases this appears to be seen as art!! I would disagree but then that's my humble opinion.
Also, showing one image from what might be a series of images is misleading and unfair to the photographer, if there are other images that support this one photograph then they should also be shown to prevent it from being read out of context.
Well as I said thats my two pence worth.
Grant, you trouble maker
Without knowing who the photographer is, or how 'important' the photographer is, or without having been told by 'someone in the know' why this photograph is important...it's a lame duck.
Then again, within the context of a body of work or a portfolio, this could be the pivotal image which binds several themes together. Alone, its lifeless.
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
this one was usually an 8x10 contact print
Originally Posted by CraigK
I recently read a wonderful description of Eggleston's work - and although this isn't Eggleston, it remains appropriate I think (wish I could remember where I copied it from...)
In part - "Eggleston's photographs look like they were taken by a Martian who lost the ticket for his flight home and ended up working at a gun shop in a small town near Memphis. On the weekends, he searches for that lost ticket …with a haphazard thoroughness that confounds established methods of investigation. It could be under a bed among a bunch of down-at-heel shoes; or in the Thanksgiving turkey… under the seat of a kid's looming tricycle, in the spiky ears of a mini-mouse cactuses, in a microscopic tangle of grass and weeds - in fact it could be anywhere. In the course of his search he interviews odd people - odd in the Arbus senses - who, though polite, look at him askance. He suspects some of them might once have been in a predicament similar to his own but have since put down roots.
Weston pointed out that the prejudice against colour came not seeing colour as form and decided he "liked colour" even if he didn't "know" colour - " those of us who began photographing in monochrome spent years trying to avoid subject matter exciting because of its colour. We must seek colour as form, avoiding subjects which are only coloured black and white."
Eggleston was working not as though colour were a separate issue, but rather as though the world itself existed in colour, as though the blue and the sky were one thing (is that chevy red, or is that red which happens to be a chevy?).
... or to put it another way (as Dorothea Lange said) - can you photograph an orange in B&W? Not really. Doesn't the thing that makes an orange an orange demand that it is photographed in colour?"
Last edited by tim atherton; 07-27-2006 at 07:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Remember (as some would remind us) , Walker Evans once said Colour tends to corrupt photography and absolute colour corrupts absolutely. There are four simple words that must be whispered: colour photography is vulgar