Jump to content

Oh Boy, am I out of it!


Recommended Posts

After looking at the profiles, I can understand a lot of the sentiments here. I've got to admit that there's a kind of "sameness" to a lot of these images. However, I think you have you keep in mind how they are presented. These photos don't make any "sense" because they're taken COMPLETELY out of their original context, poorly scanned, and arbitrarily clumped together. In addition, each photographer has 1 or 2, or at most 4, photos in their profiles. 1 or 2 photos will not give a good representation of a photographer's work--it isn't a portfolio. Speaking of which, many of the profiled photographers have portfolios online, on their website, their agency's, or on photoserve, that will give a much, much better presentation of their work.

As far as 5 of the selected photographers coming out of NYU, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an NYU faculy member on the selection panel. In PDN's 30 selection panel, there are a couple faculty members from SVA and Parsons, and hey what do you know, 2 or 3 of the photographers selected went to SVA or Parsons. Speaking of PDN's 30 Under 30, Digital Journalist's 25 Under 25 (geez, they were pretty original) features many of the same photographers.

 

All these lists, surveys, biennials, etc., tend to have an incestuous flavor to them (e.g. lots of people connected to certain schools, instructors, etc.). I enjoy these kinds of lists and surveys, but there's no reason to take them seriously. Sure, in a few years from now, many of these profiled photographers will be "successful," but just as many might leave the field and turn to something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sally wrote<p>

 

<i>What's wrong with leaving you with more questions than answers?</i><p>

 

Not trying to be mean in my following Sally. My comments are made in a generalize manner, as they're not directed at you. Your question generated this response in me and I'm responding in my following in a generalized, to anybody and everybody, sort of fashion.<p>

 

I think more then "What's wrong...?"; it's more along the lines of; "What were these people even thinking?". Why? Their images don't generate any questions. The images don't push the bounds of photography any further then photography was back in the late 70's. The images are along the lines of a snapshot sort of slide show about "What we did this summer." or "Here's somebody about to get their head pounded in." How quaint. :)<p>

 

Where did people ever get the idea that photographic images were even suppose to generate questions, let alone, actually doing so? And please! To whom ever. If you're gonna answer the question I posed, spare me the "Who Ha!". :)<p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let an old timer butt in.

A "photograph" as seen on a monitor does not, <i>not</i> look the same as the 16 x 20 (or whatever size) photo sitting on an easel.

 

Real photos have texture, texture <i>and</i> depth for many B&W. No way you get the sensory input from a screen you will from "seeing" the shot.

I've gone to places and shot masterpieces. Next to the real thing, my carefully set up shots look like fakes. Even I can tell the difference.

 

I have not seen the photos being discussed. Probably never will. But they deserve at least a nod of respect for what they have been noted for. Lets see how many of them are even in Photography in 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone to goes to bolivia for a week and rattles of twenty rolls of crud is "key" or "vital". Re hashing family of man. Those who think Herb Ritts is "seminal" "new" and "innovative" never heard of Irving Penn. And anyone who can throw $10000 at a technical problem is bound to think the answer is worth something, and sadly many publishers agree. Don't feel bad, you're not out of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this really funny. like RM L, the only photos I found somewhat compelling were Bayeté Ross-Smith's photo of the female boxer and Chana Warshauer-Baker's collage photo - at least they were interesting and different. The rest looked like ordinary snapshots to me.

 

Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I always thought that good photos should have some kind of artistic value - thats what seperates them from snapshots.

 

It's not that I don't get it, it's just that there is nothing to get. A photo should say SOMETHING even if it says different things to different people. I know my photos are not that good but with each one I try to say something, make the viewer think or make it visually compelling - not successflly all the time, I assure you, but getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a member of the late 70's (76 to be exact) generation, I can assure you that

what you see in the DJ under 25 hot list really, sadly or not, is among the best stuff

that has come out of our generation. Why? Because, a bunch of hippie, touchy feely,

I'm OK, your OK, express youself, don't sell-out, art-house, summer of love hangers

on are teaching us.

 

At my school, York University, the photo-program's shinning light was some guy who

took a shi%&$7ly-lit photo of a bunch of half naked people in togas standing around

wathching a woman push an egg from her shaven vagina. (see it all here in vibrant,

slightly-off focus technicolour http://www.excal.on.ca/

index.php?option=content&task=view&id=645&Itemid=82 )

 

Thank God I majored in International Development Studies and not shameless self-

expression, err, fine art.

 

OH, grump all day long Bill, but your generation made us what we are.

 

We were rasied on TV, before someone figured out that it's bad for your brain. We

grew up right alongside personal computers and the belief that faster is better. We

can't spel. We were never taught, or encouraged to focus our cameras. We honestly

believe that taking a whole day to do something is a very very large investment of

time. We were raised without God or religion. We learned morality from sitcoms. We

are the first generation to be fully secure in our own will to power and our own

freedom of expression. We are the fruit of the tree of liberty, and we know full well

how shi%$y a thing that is to be.

 

In all, I'd say most (not all, some of it really does suck) of the under 25 stuff is a

perfect reflection of my generation and where we stand in the world today. We don't

understand emotion, who we are, how we got here, or why we deserve to live in a

country where we can buy fresh mangoes at 3am in the middle of winter when

elsewhere, people are killing eachother over water.

 

Some of us ignore this and tuck in and go for the 'big win.' (usually through the help

of antidepressants) Others, like the people featured in the under 25, take a more

head-on approach and try to understand it, and how to live with it.

 

If you want to understand what the generation who took these photos is all about, try

reading Douglas Coupland's 'Generation X' or 'Life After God'....or maybe just read

Catcher in the Rye again.

 

And DON'T say that someone who's under 25 is technically naive. Mastery isn't

something anyone can attain with a cheap course and an instructional CD-Rom, it

takes years and years. Hmmm, maybe we're rubbing off on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas, As someone who would describe themselve as "liberal" I'd have to agree with

you. But I think that in many cases what you see as "liberal" really isn't. It's the voice

of people who see injustice and blindy, without recourse, take mad stabs at the

institution which brought it down on the head of some poor sod who just happened

to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

 

IMO this is something that stems from the opinion that when something is broken,

you throw it out and get a new one...a highly capitalistic idea. The left have their

hearts in the rigth place, but we are just confused as all hell. You should be able to

see that in the 25 under 25 stuff.

 

I can assure you that you're rigth about college professors, even in Toronto, every

class I took seemed to have some tie to Marx....who in turn was influenced by

Cartesian reasoning, which, of course was thought up by the most overrated

philosopher of the past 500 years, Rene Decartes himself. Thus, I'd have to say, left,

right, it's all the same sh%&t, but in a different pot.

 

The world is not rational, nor are the 25 under 25, thus they are true sharpshooters

(in a zen koan sort of way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked out 25 under 25 and I did not feel out of it. Except for Laurel Nakadate (Girls' School) the photographer's age was not important to the subject matter. Nakadate's intimate shots of young women at a posh women's college could only be made by a peer.

 

I did not find the work of these young photographers to be radically different from work done by previous generations. And that is just fine.

 

My response was subjective, of course. What I'll have to say represents first impressions--a first reading. The photographers I liked best were in some way like me (surprise, surprise).

 

My favorites: Bayete Ross-Smith (Female Boxers), Daniel Ramos (Working at Sloan's), Greg Halpern (Harvard Works Because We Do), Kambui Olujimi (4th and Goal), Laurel Nakadate (Girls' School).

 

Of these only the last two were in color. I found myself more open to black and white in general. This disturbed me. Is there something off putting about color? As I shoot primarily in color this is an especially interesting question for me.

 

The best of the lot I felt was Bayete Ross-Smith's work on female boxers. After that--Daniel Ramos and Greg Halpern.

 

A lot of the shots I did not like (remembering that this is a first "reading") seemed to strain for effects. This is to say I felt b.s.ed.

 

I think you can find work on this website that is as good or better than most of the "under 25" photographers. This is also a subjective judgement that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the judges simply do not see as many pictures as we do, in quantity or variety. I bet they would feel embarrassed with their selection if they saw some of the pictures on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at the work and some of it was quite good. The BW portraiture didn't do alot for me but then I don't care for much BW portraiture anyways....especially the ones of luminescent, wrinkled faces.

 

What I did find quite interesting was what the young people were drawn to. It was more documentary of their lives or normal life around them. To me this is somewhat of a rebellion against the overwrought, oversaturated, glossy-magazine, travel nonsense. Let's not forget that being young is mainly about rebellion. It is also about spontaneity and most of the negative comments on here seem to be about the lack of polish.

 

What it reminded me of are the photography year books from the 70's and 80's that I bought recently. In each edition there was a section on up and coming photographers. It was surprising at how many of them are well-known and well-respected now. Their early efforts, however, were just as free, spontaneous and 'unpolished' as the ones in that article.

 

In answer to the question that has been asked repeatedly in this thread "Am I missing something" the answer is YES!!! Yes you are missing something so the onus is on you rather than photography. You're the one to blame :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

There is a bit of "I'm insecure about my tastes, so I'm glad other people hate this stuff too" there as well.

 

I like some of the photos, but possibly because I care more about the content of photographs than anything else; as a documentary nut, I like most of these photographs (but I like most photographs from a documentary perspective anyway). I don't like the text that accompanies the photographs, but that's what happens when you ask people to justify/explain something that is instinctive...

 

On that note, how much response would a "documentary vs artistic" thread get? The more I look at artistic photographs, the more I think/feel/suspect that they have more in common with photographer's idealised/prettifed perception of reality than the world which I am familiar with (and the more I hate lots of photos in the top-rated section, esp. ones from the "nude woman next to rock/machinery/etc." genre with lots of prententious comments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to explain just one of these images, in part. It's the last one -- from Wyatt Gallery's "Spiritual Sites-A Carribean Study". It's not well-explained in the article, nor does it appear in Gallery's own gallery of this topic.

 

It has in the background pictures of two men who shared in part the same name. One perhaps stole from the other. One is considered (at least by me, as far as I know) a saint, and the other, a charlatan. And in the center is an ornate chair, for someone who would perhaps associate himself with these figures, not knowing the difference. That chair is empty. A good image in this interpretation.

 

But this explanation falls short. I don't know why it was chosen. Wyatt's explanation says little. I don't even know if he recognized the men. I doubt that many would have. It's also an image that I likely would not have taken. Visually, I find it cluttered and unappealing. It is also out of place with the rest of Gallery's work from what I've seen.

 

But I'm glad to have seen it. Thanks for the mention and the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found that image on Wyatt Gallery's web site -- under Fullbright Fellowship - Trinidad. There he had some more comments about the image. He said that it was (like) a shrine to one of the people in the images, one of many such set up to educate visitors.

 

So I contacted Wyatt Gallery by email, and asked him about the chair. He was kind enough to reply, and said that the chair would have been empty. It would have been used by the person so honored, were he present, but no one else would sit there. Also, Wyatt Gallery didn't know about the person in the other picture.

 

So my previous interpretation was clearly off with respect to the actual image, and to what (I now think) Wyatt wished to convey.

 

However, I find that I can still use my previous interpretation, or a revised one, and that both are more satisfying to myself, based on what I think I know, than what I think Wyatt Gallery, or even the original designer of the display meant to convey. That said, there is sufficient similarity in our interpretations to resolve the differences.

 

What is the difference between a saint and a charlatan who pretends to be a saint when you're an ordinary person who can't tell the difference? Well, there's a big difference, but we can't tell it. So one can hardly be criticised for honouring someone in wrong sincere belief.

 

The subject is faith or the quest for faith. Wyatt Gallery was on such a quest, photographically at least, and this is a decent illustration of an aspect of it. One that I find moving, thought-provoking, and only ordinary in turns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...