Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,747   Posts: 1,515,667   Online: 792
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    I never quite understand this need to denigrate and dismiss work (perhaps because it apparently doesn't accord with your own view?)

    Have you looked at the full range of his work? Have you spent time with the books? Gone to an exhibition? Our is it a knee-jerk thing based on not having bothered to inform yourself

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    A silly sort of pissing match carried out by pulling random images of the internet makes little sense - especially as well all presumably know (this being apug and all) that the internet is no way to present images.

    But you could have chosen these two for example





    which obviously give a very different view.

    Perhaps you could explain why you happened to pick the two you did?

    BTW I'm still waiting for an explanation of "traditional photography"...?
    Last edited by tim atherton; 07-23-2006 at 11:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    A silly sort of pissing match carried out by pulling random images of the internet makes little sense - especially as well all presumably know (this being apug and all) that the internet is no way to present images.

    But you could have chosen these two for example
    which obviously give a very different view.

    Perhaps you could explain why you happened to pick the two you did?

    I'm still waiting for an explanation of "traditional photography"...?
    What wwas wrong with the first two. You could have posted links if you wanted to be specific.

    As for traditional photography, you know what I mean Tim. Or to put it another way, I interpret your comment about work looking like it was made in the 30s, 40s, and 50s as being what you think traditional photography is.

    Take a look at this link for the work of Holly Roberts for something that has some emotional content and is modern, not traditional:

    http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/form...OLLY%20ROBERTS

    In the end it's all a matter ot taste. And no this ain't no pissing match.
    The style of
    Don Bryant

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by donbga
    What wwas wrong with the first two. You could have posted links if you wanted to be specific.
    well - it's what appears to be the attached snide remarks, such as "Need we say more."

    Take a look at this link for the work of Holly Roberts for something that has some emotional content and is modern, not traditional:

    http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/for...HOLLY%20ROBERTS


    modern with the small m I take it - yes, interesting stuff.

    As for traditional photography, you know what I mean Tim.

    Actually, I really don't know what you mean by it - it's not at all clear?

    "traditional photography is residual photography". presumably a quote from somewhere? But what exactly do you mean by it?

    Photography (even just limiting ourselves to a fairly broadly defined field of "art" photography) has a huge number of traditions, styles, movements, schools which have existed, changed, developed and - some of them - died through the history of the medium. Which one are you singling out as the "traditional photography" (which apparently is now being dismissed in the art schools)?

  5. #25
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton

    Which one are you singling out as the "traditional photography" (which apparently is now being dismissed in the art schools)?
    I made that clear in my last post.

    As for the quote it was made at a recent SPE conference earlier this year.
    Don Bryant

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    I made that clear in my last post

    As for traditional photography, you know what I mean Tim. Or to put it another way, I interpret your comment about work looking like it was made in the 30s, 40s, and 50s as being what you think traditional photography is.

    Sorry - I didn't realise you were deciding for me what you thought I meant by "traditional photography" (a term I didn't and wouldn't use in this way)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    ...
    Last edited by Jim Chinn; 07-24-2006 at 10:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I think some people consider anything not currently hanging on Chelsea gallery walls as traditional.

    The contemporary becomes traditional and the old becomes resurected. In a few years people will consider the style and genre of the giant, hyper detailed prints of Gursky and Burtynsky as dated. Today they are quite "da bomb".

    On the other hand you have someone like Sally Mann who uses wet plate and her signature "flawed" lenses to produce contemporary results with some very traditional methods. An interesting thing about her work is I have never seen it discussed in "traditional" photo rags (I may have missed it somewhere) but she had good exposure in art rags like Art Forum, Art in America, Art News etc.

    Nick Brandt is the undisputed king of hitting various magazines and media about the same time. Besides seeing his images in PDN, Lens Work, B&W and Black and White Photography, I saw his work presented in discussed in some of the art rags mentioned above, one of the digital imaging mags and IIRC his work was featured on CBS television's Sunday Morning program all within a few months of each other. All this tied in with a book he had coming out. Maybe that is what an investment in good a publicist will get you.

    Of course it does not hurt to have stunning images of non-controversial, PC subjects like African wildlife. Talk about traditional!
    Last edited by Jim Chinn; 07-24-2006 at 10:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    85
    Sorry I'm coming late to this original discussion.

    As one of the publishers involved in the original question that started this thread, allow me to add my two cents . . .

    It is very typical in the publishing community to not allow "simultaneous submissions" so as to avoid the very issue of simultaneous publication. This is entirely a publisher's decision. In our case, we buck the trend and specifically do no prohibit it. We do so for the simple reason that we often hold on to an accepted submission for some time before find a place to publish it -- space being a very limiting factor for us. We feel it would be too restrictive to prohibit a photographer from sending their work to anyone else while we are sitting on it. So, that's our policy.

    Having said that, we do feel it is best, when possible, to spread the publicity around as much as we can. We try to avoid simultaneous publication and often ask the photographers we're scheduling if there are any other publications that might be using their work in the near future. Sometimes the photographer doesn't know -- they've sent in work and it just appears by surprise in some publication. Sometimes they know it will be published, but have no idea when. If they do know they will be appearing in another publication and when, we try to schedule them in LensWork so as to avoid a simultaneous publication, if we can.

    Occasionally, however, this becomes unavoidable. For example, photographers are looking for as much publicity as they can when their new book is being released. Nick Brandt's work in LensWork #61 is a case in point. Sometimes (and this is the case with Alan Ross) we are caught by surprise when there is a coincidental simultaneous publication.

    But, even when this does happen, it is usually quite interesting to see the difference in editorial approach. We rarely see the same portfolios, although it is not uncommon for at least a couple of the images to be the same. It is interesting to see how different magazines choose to layout the same work. Printing differences become readily apparent in direct side-by-side comparisons. The number of images are typically different. Obviously, the content of the article/interview is different. Personally, I think a simultaneous publication can be a very useful way to learn more about a photographer and their work -- a sort of examination from different angles that adds to my understanding of that photographer.

    LensWork (in print) has always had just 18 slots per year, three portfolios per issue (we are increasing this in September with LensWork #66 to four portfolios per issue). Now with LensWork EXTENDED, we can do a lot more than that (LXT#65 has 9 portfolios, for example). Statistically, simultaneous publication might increase as we publish more and more photographers -- unless, that is, we get more and more quality submissions! (Hint, hint. Never forget that publishers are always on the lookout for content -- when was the last time you sent in work to a magazine for consideration?)

    Finally -- and I hope this doesn't sound too self-serving -- I like to think that LensWork is different than other publications. I've always thought of our portfolios as "little books-within-a-book". As many of you know, the first 12 issues of LensWork didn't have any images at all. We just didn't want to be another "my greatest hits" publisher. Then I realized that in every workshop I'd ever attended there was always a photographer who'd show a portfolio, that is, a body of work that was intended to be seen as a group -- 10, 12, or sometimes as many as 20 images that explored a theme. This was usually not used as wall-art because it needed to be seen as a group. Nor is this enough content to be a book, so publication was out of the question. Galleries typically avoid portfolios because they want your "greatest hits" so they can sell as much as possible. So, where do these portfolios go to be seen? Nowhere, or workshops at best. With this realization, we decided that this was what LensWork could bring to photography that other venues did not. So, in 1996 we started publishing these little books-within-a-book so portfolio projects could have a place to be seen. To this day, this is still our approach. Remember those thin little books that we used to get each quarter from the Friend of Photography? Marry that idea with the portfolio and you get LensWork.

    Brooks Jensen
    Editor, LensWork Publishing

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    552
    your replies are always refreshing Brooks!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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