Jump to content

What do you expect from the photographs you are presented?


Recommended Posts

Sontag has much to offer that’s worth considering, in its place and as one of many ways to look at things. Sometimes, I find her richly cynical and dark, other times unnecessarily cynical and dark. I think the quote you provided is worth considering in some moments and worth rejecting or being suspicious of in others. Plato made the mistake of thinking there was some universal truth that remained hidden to the senses and to ordinary human beings. Sontag, by seeing us still locked in the cave, offers picturesque possibilities but also repeats Plato’s error. Here, her intellectual side, just as with Plato, relegates her sensual and emotional side to secondary status. This is one reason Plato so misunderstood art, thinking of it as *mere* representation.

 

While painting and photography offer different takes on and methods for *representation*, as arts they share a lot as well, especially so in the realm of *expression*, which goes well beyond representation. Here, the truth is not some hidden secret which often fools the senses by its so-called faulty and misleading appearances. Here, the truth is not only truly accessed by the intellect. In art, the truth is revealed expressively, sensually, passionately, not excluding the intellect but also not putting the intellect at the apex. Painting and photography offer both overlapping and unique methodologies. And their pictorial and sense-oriented *expressiveness*, while also unique in some ways, shares many qualities.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I say everything I mean the conceptual thing, the conceptual subject.

I would disagree with this all having been photographed as well. Humans, and photographers, can and do come up with new conceptual subjects.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree with this all having been photographed as well. Humans, and photographers, can and do come up with new conceptual subjects.

Of course humans and photographers can come up with new conceptual subjects and new and innovative conceptions to present visually.

What I’m saying is that this seems to require a lot of creative energy, much more nowadays when, believe it or not, millions of photographs are produced every minute.

 

Look at a photographer I’ve studied a lot (among others): Henri Cartier-Bresson. His experience is kind of irripetibile. He certainly had talent and also business skills, but as important, he was instrumental in exploring the world in an era of post-war transformation. People were eager to know how the world was developing, travelling was certainly available to a restricted segment of the population and Cartier-Bresson met this demand for knowledge and information about a radically changing world. With the means that were available at the time. And he quit photography around 1974.

 

Certainly an innovator of his time, it makes no sense to emulate him nowadays, because people’s demands are different, information channels are different, mobility and accessibility are different (think of Google StreetView). When he quit photography he, smart as he was, was certainly aware that he had contributed with what he could.

 

The success of Davide Monteleone is due to his choice of then-transforming Soviet Union and Russia and the need to document the human condition during this transformation. And there are endless examples. All outstanding photographers are precursors in their own way, besides their (self-)communication skills.

 

All has been photographed by now. Creating something new, presenting it in a new way is certainly possible, requires talent and work, a lot of work. And as far as I can see it is quite rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nowadays when, believe it or not, millions of photographs are produced every minute.

 

Creating something new … as far as I can see it is quite rare.

Hasnt it always been rare? And, as we were saying before about social media, doesn’t how far you can see in so many ways depend on which direction you look?

 

I can understand some of your conclusions in light of the fact that you’re talking about someone like Cartier Bresson against the contemporary backdrop of millions of “this is what I had for lunch” or “look at me in front of the Statue of Liberty” photos. Isn’t that apples and oranges?

 

When Bresson was working, and developing his most influential style and approach to photography, my dad and others like my dad, not by any means photographers, were thrilled with their accessible-to-the-masses cameras and labs, snapping pics of my mom and millions of other soon-to-be-left-behind-girlfriends of WWII at the 1939 New World’s Fair.

 

Though they were not photographers and not playing in the same ballpark as Cartier Bresson, today those shoeboxes full of pics, for the style of clothes and cars at the time if nothing else, are more interesting than most of what you’ll find on Facebook. In a hundred years, I would not be surprised if the Facebook version of the shoebox held some of the cultural allure that the pre-WWII family and event snaps hold for us today. Still, though, looking at Bresson in the context of Facebook’s millions of snaps is a little like looking at Matisse in the context of a yellow pages* filled with house painters.

 

*speaking of anachronisms, lol!

 

I’m thinking that the viewer’s responsibility, and certainly the critic’s or theorist’s, is to narrow the field of view and separate the wheat from the chaff. If one doesn’t want or have the time to do that, take advantage of the many excellent gallery and museum curators who do it. Once that’s done, there’s a reasonable point of comparison between Cartier Bresson and what’s happening today of significance in the art and documentary world of photography, as opposed to the world of Facebook and Twitter.

 

As a founder of Magnum, I’m sure Cartier Bresson would be proud that, today, one can still turn to Magnum instead of the millions of throwaway photos on Facebook to get a picture of contemporary photography at a certain level.

 

Not that there aren’t some gems to be found on the Internet. And not that the “Facebook-aesthetic” can’t be mined, much like the snapshot and Polaroid aesthetics of years ago, for artistic or other significant possibilities, with some intention, thoughtfulness, and creative energy applied.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to this being a relatively new technological, digital, and Internet age and cameras being in the hands of more and more interesting and diverse people, I think if we’re open to it this is likely going to be a fascinating period for photographic and cinematic innovation. Being open to it means that our paradigms for what’s good will be changed by such work, so the average viewer will likely dismiss the innovative because it doesn’t meet the expectations previously built up for what’s good. That’s why it can take time and some eyes with expertise and influence to help guide viewers toward more unfamiliar work that might just matter in the long run.
  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasnt it always been rare?

Probably you are right. Only the "hits" resist time and come through to us.

 

Isn’t that apples and oranges?

Yes and no. I'm attracted by curated work, but I am also aware of some initial selection bias of collections as the ones presented by Magnum, VII, AgenceVU, ParalleloZero, etc. even if it is worth keeping an eye on those of them who do scouting of new talents.

today those shoeboxes full of pics, for the style of clothes and cars at the time if nothing else, are more interesting than most of what you’ll find on Facebook.

Definitely. I have not yet managed to put this in perspective, but shoe-box collections of contemporary pictures will be of value in 20 or 30 years, because they will have the patina of time passing. Think of Vivian Maier and her story. If we imagine her in a present time, her imagery is created out of some naivety and candidness, with quite a few of orginal and attractively funny shots, documenting life in the streets. I think it's nice documentary, some critics are critical of her, I think she's enjoyable. One of the keys is that her photography is not pretentious.

I’m thinking that the viewer’s responsibility, and certainly the critic’s or theorist’s, is to narrow the field of view and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Absolutely. However, I suspect that the judgment over quality of certain work is influenced by "other" interests. Commercial ones for example, or praising the established, ignoring their demise (as Martin Parr calls it). Some time ago I've attended the presentation of a book by an amateur, published by a renown house, edited by an established editor, commented-on by a known photography critic, supported by a well-known brand of photo equipment. The job I find absolutely mediocre, lacking breadth and depth. But it served the purpose: an averagely interesting subject, prominent sponsors, an adequate, high-level promotion, targeting a certain market, probably successfully.

Not that there aren’t some gems to be found on the Internet.

That is what I'm talking about. It's a challenge. And I long to find those interesting and diverse people you mention here:

Due to this being a relatively new technological, digital, and Internet age and cameras being in the hands of more and more interesting and diverse people, I think if we’re open to it this is likely going to be a fascinating period for photographic and cinematic innovation. Being open to it means that our paradigms for what’s good will be changed by such work, so the average viewer will likely dismiss the innovative because it doesn’t meet the expectations previously built up for what’s good. That’s why it can take time and some eyes with expertise and influence to help guide viewers toward more unfamiliar work that might just matter in the long run.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Op...either the photo hits me or not. A good photo has poetry.

 

Poetry and Photography

My own appreciation a quite subjective criterion: "I see what I know" and I may also add "I see what I feel and I feel what I'm sensitive to".

 

It would be very interesting to define what "poetry" is. Daniel J. Teoli Jr.'s definition is a fascinating one but also very synthetic, there is a lot of room for individual projections. Thank you for signalling the blog, it is worthwhile deepening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the "hits" resist time and come through to us.

Yes. After all, how did Cartier Bresson come to most of us? Likely neither by rummaging through random shoeboxes nor by scouring the Internet. History (and the institutions involved) presented him to you.

I'm attracted by curated work, but I am also aware of some initial selection bias

Yes, I think bias is a fact of life. The best I can do is be aware of it in others and myself and overcome it to the extent possible, but I’ll never get rid if it completely. Genetics, cultural exposures, class, and taste all contribute to bias. Cartier Bresson did not come to us without some bias at play.

Think of Vivian Maier and her story.

A good case in point. I found the story about her work and the way it found its way to us, the fight among her family, the art world, and Maloof, as interesting or even more interesting than the work itself. And there is an argument to be made that Maloof was not the best presenter of her work and that a better job of culling and curating her work would have given it more resonance. Curators play a role that not all artists or art collectors or lovers of art could perform as well, any one of whom would also be prone to bias.

I suspect that the judgment over quality of certain work is influenced by "other" interests. Commercial ones for example, or praising the established, ignoring their demise (as Martin Parr calls it). Some time ago I've attended the presentation of a book by an amateur, published by a renown house, edited by an established editor, commented-on by a known photography critic, supported by a well-known brand of photo equipment. The job I find absolutely mediocre, lacking breadth and depth.

Yes. That’s part of the process. The art world is not free of outside and side interests. Art is very often (also) a commodity. I can be aware of and accept that while still experiencing the art, music, theater, movies, etc. that are most meaningful to me on a different and more personal plane, where the work is strong enough to break through all that and I’m capable of letting go of the outside interests in the moment of experience. There will always be these kinds of examples of the mediocre being successful due to other factors. For me, the examples don’t say as much as they seem to say to others. I just move on and am still able to find and appreciate more meaningful work in spite of the mediocrity that often gets elevated.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cartier Bresson

Cartier-Bresson is THE iconic photographer of the twentieth century. A communist aristocrat (or rather an aristocratic communist?). Mastering the craft (formerly and lately a painter). Mis-understood, mis-interpreted. A genius of his time.

I think bias is a fact of life

I try to deal with it. Photography, as all of the plastic arts, is not subject to the laws of physics. Fortunately. Personally I've come to the conclusion that the less time I spend on social media platforms the better. Sometimes I have the feeling that members just upload the whole of their memory cards (or smartphones).

I found the story about her work

It seems to me that she was just passionate about photography and photographed. Then her life continued and ended. We are born into this world having nothing and we die leaving everything behind. And then, as it happens, somebody finds stuff and has to get rid of it (the warehouse where her boxes were kept) and by pure chance John Maloof ran across it. He was a real-estate agent, with sales skills, and that was his driver. Not really a curator. My personal opinion is that the dispute about her estate was purposefully created by the lawyer. Vivian Maier had some talent on her side, certainly some obsession and the patina of time, the latter being fundamental.

Art is very often (also) a commodity.

Yes. I recall the lawsuit against William Eggleston by Jonathan Sobel, a financier, because the photographer had produced new prints of some of his iconic dye-prints.

 

Overall, my original question stems from my personal belief that photographs should go very much beyond the mere representation of reality. I look for a sense in photographs. Understanding what others think about the sense of photographs helps me assessing my own work better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sontag has much to offer that’s worth considering. …Sometimes, I find her richly cynical and dark, other times unnecessarily cynical and dark. …

Or she may have too many drinks during writing “On Photography” (per her own notes)

"... Our perception of the world is a fantasy that coincides with reality."

Chris Frith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I'm talking about. It's a challenge. And I long to find those interesting and diverse people you mention here:

 

I subscribe to Apple News and specify Photography as a subject of interest. I recieve several photography related articles and blogs every morning from different parts of the Web. Some of them are quite inspiring and I have tried to share one or two on PN occationally. However, if I try to randomly look into social media for a good photo, I am most likely to be disappointed.

 

Also, presentation and sequence matters a lot in how a series of images are appreciated. I think, many photos on social media when viewed randomly may not create an impression, but presented in a certain way can be insightful. These are my observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What do you expect from the photographs you are presented?"

 

- I expect them to inspire me to pick up my camera, when I am not in a mood to.

 

THAT is the biggest reason I lurk about PN.

 

To see what others are doing, think about what I would like to do, and share what I have done--with the EXPECTATION that I will share the results of my mental prodding.

 

Plus, I just like the work of many of those here. I expect that this is too simple...

  • Like 2

 "I See Things..."

The FotoFora Community Experience [Link]

A new community for creative photographers.  Come join us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What do you expect from the photographs you are presented?"

 

to make the presentation worth my time--no preconceptions as to what it would be that fulfills this expectation

 

now you'll want to define "worth" :eek:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expectations can be either a positive or negative for me.

 

They can often prepare me for something in a constructive way. They can also limit me in negative ways if I allow them to.

 

If a photographer or curator introduces work, I may come at it with expectations from what I’ve read. That can help sometimes and hurt other times. Often, when I’m in a museum, I’ll skip the intros until I’ve seen the work for myself. That way, I have an open mind to the work and, when reading the intro later, my experience may or may not be further enhanced.

 

My expections may differ depending on circumstances. I may have different expectations of a beginner than a seasoned photographer, of a photojournalist than a fine artist, etc.

 

Mostly, I consider my own expectations of myself. There, too, it’s not a one-way street. My expectations can motivate me and sometimes help focus me. They can be an articulation of goals or general ideas in advance. But I try to provide a counterpoint to that with some combination of spontaneity and abandon.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks, folks should post photos of what they like; rather than what they expect.

 

Too many expectations, and little involvement. Okay, the endless words-of what this word means or whatever.

 

Lost in space. Danger Will Robinson.

 

Time for a photo...which is a reflection of this forum.

 

IMG-20181107-WA0002-019.thumb.jpg.49ff1a126c569ea0791c1fbb95695510.jpg

 

 

 

 

.

  • Like 3
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...