Alec Soth's Cool Blog

[GraemeMitchell]

http://alecsoth.com/blog/

Just thought I'd share, nice little personal blog.

[david b]

I've been following it for a while. He is very well spoken and well read. It's part of my daily routine.

[michaelsalomon]

read it every day, very cool guy - he uses film too! thats always a plus in my book.

[Amund]

I read his blog too, and enjoy his posts. And got his book Niagara in the mail a few days ago. Have him on a RSS feed, so I always see when there are new posts.

[billschwab]

Saw this on JM Colberg's blog... See the reception Alec's work got on another forum.... ugh.

Bill

[David A. Goldfarb]

He's been spotted on APUG. Maybe he'll drop in on this thread and say hello.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Saw this on JM Colberg's blog... See the reception Alec's work got on another forum.... ugh.

Bill

Regarding that I was a bit annoyed by some of the comments on Soth's blog about the comments on his photo; not his, he was actually very neutral and gentlemanly about the thing, as he should be, but there was some air of "how can they fail to see it's a masterpiece, it's so obvious" in the comments. I think some of the responses on dpreview are fair game, given that this photo is part of a series, and works better as such. To have seen it in isolation hindered its interpretation.

His photo raises the same problems as were raised in the Eggleston discussions we had on APUG in the Discuss a **** photo forum. I don't think one should laugh at people not "getting it" the same way one shouldn't see things only technically and by-the-book-rules.

For my part, when I saw people laughing their head off at others not "getting it" I thought there was some kind of inside or subtle joke in his picture (e.g. you have to look at it in a certain way and suddenly a dirty thing appears, etc.). I didn't "get it" for a long time, and eventually figured out that the photo works out of the tension between the flat surrounding colors and the "angel picture" the woman is holding. But I could hardly blame people for missing that.

[billschwab]

when I saw people laughing their head off at others not "getting it"...

Actually, I never got that far. All I saw were the common sharks circling and biting without provocation and quite frankly, couldn't bring myself to read on. I continue to be amazed at how threatened people can be by a piece that they feel the need, with no knowledge whatsoever of the artist or their work, to speak of "pretentiousness", etc. What is it about not "getting it" that causes so many to lash out? Is art that threatening? Or could it be something as basic as jealousy? The "I could do that.." mentality? Anyway, I never laugh or make fun of this type.

B.

[Early Riser]

While I do not agree with the attack dog mentality that some people have towards certain genres of work, I do agree with their general view of this rise and acceptance of boring mundane work as having real value. Maybe I'm just too old school and just don't "get it" but I find it hard to understand how work done with the lowest degree of effort, least amount of visual interest, and requiring a a lengthy essay to explain it's meaning and value, to be forwarding the art of photography.

I would not criticizes Soth's interest in photography, clearly he is extremely interested if not as obsessed as the rest of us on APUG. But I can understand why the image he posted would get strong negative reactions. It is very reminiscent of the work that most beginning photographers did, in their first efforts, and then moved on from. However today anything goes, anything. And usually the more out there the idea behind the image, the more intentionally shocking, or intentionally maudlin or intentionally mundane, the more acceptance it seems to get. Mundane being a very popular choice today. It's funny but I thought one of the ideas of photography was to take something mundane and make it special, something which takes skill and talent. It seems that now the idea is to take something mundane and make it more mundane. That doesn't require talent or skill. I guess in a day and age where someone with a cell phone is a "photographer" it makes perfect sense.

But maybe Bill is right, maybe I'm jealous. After all I have to travel tens of thousands of miles a year, be away from home for 4-5 months, spend significant resources on travel and gear, put myself in some degree of physical risk to get about 10 shots a year that I feel are good enough to add to my portfolio. Instead I could be taking quick, poorly lit boring images and be the dandy of the museums. All I need to do is write a few thousand words explaining why my work is so significant.

In terms of "getting it" I guess I must be a member of the crowd who upon viewing the Emperor's new clothes, thought he was merely undressed.

[Amund]

Maybe I'm just too old school and just don't "get it" but I find it hard to understand how work done with the lowest degree of effort, least amount of visual interest, and requiring a a lengthy essay to explain it's meaning and value, to be forwarding the art of photography.

While I can agree to the words alone, I fail to see how they can apply to Alec Soth`s work. There are tremendous efforts behind his photographs.

I stumbeled upon Alec`s website by chance and looked at his photographs and "got it" almost instantly without reading a word. Were are those lengthy essays?

I guess it boils down to personal taste, this time too...