Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,336   Online: 986
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    413
    word up.

  2. #22
    bill schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by zenrhino View Post
    It's about lunch at the kitchen table instead of Thanksgiving dinner.
    Very, very well said.

    B.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    First let me be specific that my comments are not about Alec Soth in particular but about a general trend I see of extremely boring mundane work. It is nice to hear though that Alec Soth answers emails. He's not the only one who does this.

    Doing work that is different, doesn't make it good. It just makes it different. The hard part is being different and good.

    Zenrhino you mention that life is composed of a million little mundane moments everyday. That is very true. However maybe it's just me, but I really have no desire to see "a million mundane moments" from someone elses life. I would rather see the exceptional moments. When they succeed or fail, when they experience a challenge, when they find satisfaction or enlightenment. I feel the same way about landscape photos, I don't want to see some scene at it's most common and most disinteresting, I want to see it when the planets have aligned and it is amazing to behold. And that may not even be a scene of excitement but one of serenity and beauty. Can you imagine sitting down and reading a book about a million mundane things in someone's life? Or watching a movie about a million mundane things for 3 hours? I can't, so why is it acceptable in photography?

    This million mundane moments thing is just like reality TV. At least they edit out the truly boring stuff and only show the more unusual moments.

    If you can take a mudane scene and make it captivating and magnetic, that's something, taking a mundane scene and keeping it mundane is a security camera.


    "Don't like his stuff? Perfectly fine. People turned their noses up at Renoir and Monet, too. People thought Picasso was f'n nuts. People thought Ray Charles was blasphemous and thought Hemingway couldn't write his way out of a sack. No accounting for taste"

    It's very easy to use that argument. But for every artist that truly is like a Renoir or Picasso, there are 10,000 who use that argument to justify why people don't "get" their work. As for Renoir, Picasso and Monet, their work while being different for their time, still held to the foundations of painting, that is good composition, good color use, a sense of light, good design, and serious visual interest. People may have thought that they didn't understand their work, but they found it interesting to look at. Ray Charles still used rhythm, harmony, composition and his work was stunning to hear, not boring. What did Hemingway write about? Were his works mundane or heroic in their scope?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    695
    Images
    3
    Don't get me wrong here. I hope you don't think I'm coming down and saying, "Dude, your opinion sucks!" If you're running with the big dogs and even have representation (let alone in the same group as Soth, et al) then your experience and opinion are greatly valued and I thank you much for your engagement in the dialogue.

    What I'm saying is that often, it takes a long time for taste to catch up to contemporary work. Maybe art history will relegate Soth, Deutsch, Hilliard, Strassheim, etc. to the same sad place where Mortenson is -- forgotten and reviled for over-reaching and trying to force the medium to do things it was never meant to do.

    You're not the only one who holds a negative opinion of contemporary phototgraphy. My own mentor (who is a straight documentarian and studied with Jerome Leibling), considers contemporary photography to be nothing more than "pretty, affluent people sitting on a bed and staring off into an uncertain future" and pretty much holds the Yale MFA program in contempt for forcing this upon the art world. But you know, art reflects its era. We live in an uncertain world where people do sit on their beds and stare off into the future. Maybe the current trend reflects a retreat from the hyper-realism of Fox News and reality TV and is trying to dial "reality" back a notch from roadside bombs and plastic surgery-enhanced "bachelors" to shots of actual people.

    What does all of this mean? That there is a great gaping void where a countermovement can go. It's perfectly fine not to like an art movement. Let's just come up with the Next Next Big Thing(tm), preferably using film. Then WE can get into the Whitney Biennial, sell prints for a cubic buttload of cash, and get invited to join Magnum.

    Me, I happen to like taking pictures of people sitting on beds staring off into an uncertain future. I also like pictures of places that people see every single day but never find beautiful because they don't take the time to see the beauty there. Mundane? Banal? Sure. But I like that kind of stuff. Notice that George Slade and those guys aren't banging down my door to get prints to hang, either.

    By the way, I LOVE that we get to have this kind of discourse and dialoge here. So much of shooting gets into dilutions and emulsions and which lens has the highest LPM, etc. It's a ton of fun to get to comment on the passing clouds of art trends. And really, that's all they are. Art trends are like the weather, and you know what they say about weather up here in Minnesota: Don't like it, wait a few minutes and it'll change.

    Which begs the question: Where is hyper-contemporary photography? Where is the bleeding edge? Or is there one? Maybe photography as an artistic medium has been explored as fully as possible and all that's left is retread and use of photos as documentary images. This whole discussion makes me want to find my copy of Crisis of the Real and give it another read.

    Lastly,
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    What did Hemingway write about? Were his works mundane or heroic in their scope?
    Get a copy of "A Moveable Feast." Read about what he thought of trains, cheese, booze, horse races, his neighbors, the clothes that Gertrude Stein's girlfriend wore, hanging out with other artists and trying to be an artist while holding down a day job. Mundane? Sure. But it's mundane filtered through Hemingway. Great stuff.

  5. #25
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    I enjoy reading threads like this. The only thing I can add is that ultimately, history, and the market, together, sort it all out quite nicely in the end.

  6. #26
    bill schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by zenrhino View Post
    Don't get me wrong here...
    Once again, a very refreshing read.

    B.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    695
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    I enjoy reading threads like this. The only thing I can add is that ultimately, history, and the market, together, sort it all out quite nicely in the end.
    What it got me thinking about was rock bands. Rush is a great example. They were musically so far out ahead of their time that it took until Moving Pictures for the music-buying public to really catch up. The flipside is Triumph. Equally talented and agressively forward-thinking, but whatever it is that Rush had, Triumph didn't.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    695
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    I have no intention of...standing by and photographing people suffering ( in order to show the world just how much compassion I have, by standing there aiming a camera at those in distress instead of actually helping them) in order to get a rise out of people who have been overstimulated and ultimately insensitized by shock photos and and the vast bombardment of imagery.
    Man, am I ever glad to hear this. I run with a group of documentarians and I just don't have whatever it is that lets a shooter grab a capture of someone suffering and then think about the next shot. I always thought I was somehow deficient in that way. Hearing, "We're working to bring these people's suffering to light by documenting it" always seemed a lot like, "We'll point it out. You guys go actually do the work to fix it."

  9. #29
    bill schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by zenrhino View Post
    The flipside is Triumph. Equally talented and agressively forward-thinking...
    Gulp...

    Guess I never gave a second listen.

    B.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    ZenRhino, you stated," We live in an uncertain world where people do sit on their beds and stare off into the future." Uncertain world? Is that any more true than when people lived during the Great Depression? Or WWII? Or the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918 that killed 40 million people? To be honest the times we have now, while challenging are not the nearly same as those endured by our parents and grandparents. Yet there was photography done during and following the Great Depression, WWII and The Spanish flu that still managed to have beauty, timelessness and deep meaning. And they still managed to have good composition, good lighting, serious visual interest, etc. I think the problem now is that our society has become quite shallow and lacks the substance of our parents/granparents generation and the current photography either reflects that or is a symptom of it.

    I'm not saying that mundane things should not be photographed, I photograph them all the time. But I attempt to take those mundane things and make them special, and it takes a lot of effort. If I simply wanted to photograph things that were mundane and keep them mundane, I need not even look through the camera. So why celebrate countless mundane moments that are given significance simply because someone aimed a camera at them? Why lower the bar to where mundanity becomes the desired affect?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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