McCurry, Singh, and the boring "too perfect" photograph

<p>Interesting article from New York Times magazine, though it may be heretical to some people. The article touches upon a number of interesting concepts, not the least of which is akin to the Joker's comment in <em>The Dark Knight: </em>"introduce a little chaos." </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>...let in messiness at the edges of their images — a messiness that reminds us of the life happening outside the frame as well as within it)."</em><em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Is McCurry boring? Or is that too harsh? Middle-brow eye candy? And is technical and compositional perfection the ultimate goal, or only a stepping stone to true personal vision? </p>

<p>And then there is the notion of how best to document a country, a culture? A lot of food for thought.<br>

<em> </em><br>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html</p>

<p>I find McCurry boring. I do understand his mass appeal and respect what he does.</p>

<p>For me, it's not about perfection or its lack. It's about sterility. It's about each portrait giving me pretty much the same vibe, with no sense of the individuality of the subjects of those portraits. It's about a kind of emptiness behind the sharp, colorful eyes.</p>

Why waste time judging other people's photographs. Obviously McCurry's pictures appeal to a lot of people.

They apparently don't hold that appeal for others who possess the ego to critique them. I find them attention

getting at a minimum. My judgments are limited to technical as I admire a great number of photographers that

may or may not conform to my taste. I shoot to my own standards and those of my limited audience. I have

been somewhat successful in my commercial work based upon what people paid for my work. I really mostly try

to shoot to please my audience. I admire almost any technically sufficient image that captures or evokes human or gorilla

emotion.

<blockquote>

<p>Why waste time judging other people's photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Were this an honest question, you wouldn't have prejudiced it by assuming it's a waste of time. But I'll answer honestly. Judging the work of others helps me learn. I can't (or won't) simply accept and appreciate everything I see. Part of the experience for me is judging whether I like it and whether it works for me. That doesn't mean I can't or won't learn from stuff I don't like. But I'm able to acknowledge my likes and dislikes without them getting in my way. Rather, they add to the experience for me. You mention that it requires ego to critique. Sure, why not? But it doesn't require a terribly big ego just as it's not necessarily a sign of weakness or a copout to shoot to please one's audience.</p>

Maybe I was spoke to broadly in that statement. I stand corrected. My thought was more aimed at those who

have the ego and self acclaim to hold themselves out as experts in judgment. To each his or her own. I judge

most everything I see but with the understanding and question that asks who am I to judge. Holding myself out

as a judge is wrong in my mind and a waste of time. McCurry really struck a chord with us commoners.

<p>The article plants some good seeds for thought for sure.<br>

I'd be tempted to say that technical and compositional perfection ought to be only a stepping stone to true personal vision, and not a goal in itself. But McCurry in a way proves that partially wrong: you pretty much immediately can recognise a McCurry photo. Which to me sounds pretty close to at least having a personal style that it recognisable enough. I hesitate to use vision, but it's not something random.<br>

I'm ambiguous about McCurry's photos. I recognise the skills, the work gone into them, the keen eye for those precise compositions. I admire them in that sense. They do not swing, though, they're documentary in an almost literal sense: documenting what he saw, and it stops there. I agree with the article there, a bit more mess and chaos would probably give that bit of swing, a few open clues to a story unfolding, an imaginary documentary inside the documentary.</p>

<p>I always find it disheartening when photographers denigrate the success of other photographers. It may be Lik, McCurry, even Adams. I guess I'm guilty of that too, on occasion. Their success cannot be attacked directly since they are, well, successful. So we attack their artistic vision and fans who are certainly stupid, unsophisticated boors and just don't "get it". Why not just leave it as different strokes for different folks? Are jazz listeners inferior to rock listeners? Can't we appreciate the differences in "styles" or should we be bored with just one approved theme?</p>

<p>I like the Afghan girl photo and have the magazine actually. I found it at the thrift store a couple years ago but I cannot say I have seen other photos that he has done. However I am sure he is very skilled. </p>

<p>I used to like the Afghan girl photo, her gaze and eyes, but then learned from McCurry himself via an article that decades later she is still as underprivileged and poor as she was then. That gives the image a different meaning, a long time extension of the original instant that says a lot. I am not sure how he thinks about the image having seen her later.</p>

<p>This probably doesn't have much to do with the article (which I guessI should read).</p>

<p>McCurry's photos look as if they were made of metal and painted with enamel paint--and then saturated just a tiny bit too much, and with just a tiny bit too much contrast thrown in to boot.</p>

<p>That's his style. Some like it. I don't particularly care for it, and the more I see it, the less I like it. At best it seems a bit too formulaic. At worst it is almost boilerplate.</p>

<p><br />--Lannie</p>

<p>So two different photographers with radically different backgrounds and upbringings in two very different cultures shoot in the same country and produce two different bodies of work. Well duh. As for "messy" photographs well why not? There's a time and a place for everything. I personally wish I could take messy photographs but I just don't think I have it in me. Or maybe I do to some small degree but I wouldn't know. I don't make contact sheets since my darkroom time is so limited so I simply hold up strips of film to the light and look at each frame through a loupe to decide what to enlarge. There's no rhyme or reason to my choices so maybe a few here and there are messy in a good way. That's key by the way. I see some photographers who attempt to make messy photographs but they fail because their pictures lack coherent visual syntax. Like the article above states a messy photograph works because everything is in it's place. Hard to do but very effective when it works. Look back on the initial reactions to Robert Franks' "The Americans." People were ruthless in describing Franks very personal methods but time has proved otherwise. In capable hands messiness can work wonders but it's a precarious path to be on.</p>

<p>Ahh, the paradox. Discussing the merit and validation of judging the work of others in a venue whose sole purpose is to create a community that ultimately requires members to judge the work, technique, and knowledge of others...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The thing is, we all have different styles because we see and think differently. I think lots of photographers start out trying to emulate someone they admire, and that can teach you a lot, but ultimately one develops one’s unique style. McCurry’s photos are popular and I think it is because he has a great sense of composition and does a pretty nice job of capturing people in his own way. He does what he does. I’m the same way: I’ve had pretty much the same style since the 60’s in the way I photograph people. Its just the way I see them. It doesn’t really matter to me, or McCurry, I’m sure, that there are some people who dislike my particular style of photography or McCurry’s. I’m not such a big fan of “messy” photography as mentioned in the article. I like composition, geometry, tension. I like my style because it’s the way I see, and I would hope all photographers come to feel that way about their own style. Judging someone else’s style is a matter of personal taste but we really do benefit on the whole from a wide range of styles to provide enjoyment and stimulation to the broadest range of people</p>

<p><em><a href="http://stevemccurry.com/stories/afghanistan-shooting-under-fire"><strong>Here</strong></a> </em>is one in black and white by McCurry. I had not seen any B&W work by him before this. I do have to say that he gets the shots.</p>

<p>When he gets out of his color portrait rut, his work can be pretty impressive, as shown in the galleries on <a href="http://stevemccurry.com/"><em><strong>his website.</strong></em></a><br /> <br /> Although he seems to have one fairly predictable mode of color processing, it can work pretty well for <a href="http://stevemccurry.com/galleries/deep-south"><em><strong>landscapes</strong></em></a>, I think. It is still a just a bit too rich in saturation and contrast for me, but, again, he does get out there and get the shots. He certainly knew his target "audience" and went after it, and he markets himself well. All that together does give him a high level of commercial success. I won't begrudge him that.</p>

<p>Yet, yet, when he shoots the South, I cannot help but try to compare him to Eggleston. Alas, there is no comparison.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think that McCurry is nice to his viewers; he's considerate of his viewers. A lot of viewers like it when someone makes the effort to be nice to them.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I can think of any art that tries to be nice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I can think of any art that tries to be nice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He makes his viewers feel comfortable. Yes, that's it: <em>comfortable.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I almost hate to say it, but at times he seems to want to be the Norman Rockwell of photography. There is obviously a place for that kind of work, and he has found that place, but I tire of it rather quickly.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Am I being too negative here?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Many years ago, I had to take an elective to snatch my scroll and make a dash for it. Clever me, I chose Contemporary Photography. What a breeze it would be, so I thought. Imagine my surprise when the MFA instructor handed out the syllabus for what we were to buy. Film? Aw, hell no. A big stack of books with titles like "The Body and the Lens", "On Photography", and "Photography in Print."</p>

<p>What I learned has served me more than just making trendy conversations on the cocktail and art circuits--it opened a door to influence--and the outcomes that fall from it. McCurry reminds me a lot of things that are strong with Steichen and Brassai--the painting with light capture the central element of a place or face--bereft of the distraction, and as some have observed, plenty of saturation!</p>

<p>His portraits may seem staged--or even contrived context. In this, I am set to mind by these words of Steichen:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face, the beauty of the earth and skies that man has inherited, and the wealth and confusion man has created. It is a major force in explaining man to man.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>In this, he has caught the vision of containing just what is necessary to tell us the story--one that the person photographed wants told, one that communicates the exotic or alien nature of the subject in an environment. He does this well, and with a methodical portrayal.</p>

<p>One of the troubles I find in dialog about photography--and in critique--is the focus on how necessary it is to develop a recognizable style and subject mastery. If one does not have that, they are accused of lacking vision and style. When one finds that niche, they are often accused of pandering to monotony or populism. Is there a win here?<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p>I guess the messy and chaotic reality of Indian street life is harder to sell to westerners (chaos is stressful whereas order is peaceful) whereas the very selective and beautified view in McCurry's work is fascinating (but perhaps too cliche and far from the reality that locals see and experience in their daily lives).</p>

<p>I see nothing wrong with simplifying the world and searching for, and publishing, what is beautiful. I also don't see anything wrong with a documentary approach showing a more realistic view of India (or any place). I don't see either as "boring". However, I find sloppily tilted cameras, chopped off heads etc. uneasy to look at. I do like Singh's work interesting but not all of it is "messy" rather it too includes rather beautiful scenes no doubt selected for their visual and cultural beauty. </p>

<p>Dislike of the "perfect" works of McCurry speaks more to the nature of the critic than the quality of the master photojournalist. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach, Those that can do neither, criticize. McCurry is able to extract simplicity from chaos, the essence of what we should remember, rather than what we prefer to forget.</p>

<p>The several expressions of resentment of criticism, not for the specifics of what the critic has said but for the very idea of criticism itself, is rather amazing. But it does help explain why there is so much mediocre photography around. It's because of the lack of critical eyes and minds.</p>

<p>While we're at it, count me among those who think the cliché quote about teachers is also not worth the paper it's printed on or the screen it's shown on. I have great respect for teachers and think they DO plenty. But it's not surprising teachers would be maligned by avowed non-critical thinkers.</p>

<p>Mind you, I have no quarrel with specific disagreements with the critique the author makes. My quarrel is with the notion that this writer's critique is an attack or that criticism <em>per se</em> is some lowly form of expression.</p>

<p><em><br />"Is McCurry boring? Or is that too harsh? Middle-brow eye candy?" (Steve Gubin)</em><br>

<br>

McCurry is certainly not boring unless you are forced to look at a long series of his portraits.<br>

I don't know what "middle-brow eye candy" refers to, but it pushes me to say that his <a href="https://sugarbritches.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CandyGrid-Bulk.jpg">candy like view of the world </a> seriously puts me off - despite the fact, that I would consider him as a great photographer.<br>

The black and white photos Landrum referred to above, is like fresh air. <br>

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Alan Klein: <em>...always find it disheartening when photographers denigrate the success of other photographers.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand your point, Alan, and unfortunately that type of bashing does occur. Become popular, become famous, and as sure as the sun rises each day someone will come critically gunning for you. But I don't think the main thrust of the article was to denigrate McCurry. It was to offer an alternate viewpoint that says, "Hold on a sec! Let's step back and think about McCurry's work from a different point of view." Taste in photography is subjective and there is no right and wrong, no greater or lesser. If someone likes McCurry, there is nothing wrong with that. But neither is there anything wrong in someone saying they do not like McCurry. In the case of the author of this article, they are not denigrating McCurry's success, they are questioning his approach and style and by way of contrast they are presenting a photographer (Singh) with an alternative approach to the presentation of similar material. In so doing, they are saying that maybe Singh's work is a little more artful and closer to the real subject by virtue of allowing some "messiness" to creep in at the edges. Some people like chaos, ambiguity, and messiness in their art. Other people do not. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Patrick Thrush: <em>One of the troubles I find in dialog about photography--and in critique--is the focus on how necessary it is to develop a recognizable style and subject mastery. If one does not have that, they are accused of lacking vision and style. When one finds that niche, they are often accused of pandering to monotony or populism. Is there a win here?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the way you present it, probably not. We can all find a way to criticize almost anything by viewing it from a different perspective. I think, however, that taking an absolutist view that recognizable style and subject mastery is the only criteria for greatness is too rigid. I understand that that is not what you are proposing, I'm just saying that I don't think it is a black or white, either/or, proposition. This is just my personal belief, but I think the best criticism allows for a flexible approach which takes each artwork or artist into account individually, rather than judging them from a single standpoint (Traditionalist, Marxist, Feminist, and Post-Colonial critics, for example, come to the table with loaded preconceptions of what standards must be met. )</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Edward Ingold: <em>Dislike of the "perfect" works of McCurry speaks more to the nature of the critic than the quality of the master photojournalist. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach, Those that can do neither, criticize. McCurry is able to extract simplicity from chaos, the essence of what we should remember, rather than what we prefer to forget.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you honestly think that this is all true? How depressing to think that by expressing an alternative aesthetic opinion (one not necessarily held by a majority), one is automatically going to be dismissed as being bitter, jealous, or suffering from "sour grapes". Neither the author of the original article, nor anyone here that I can recall, bashed McCurry for being a hack or unworthy of the fame and attention that he has received. But I see nothing wrong with appraising McCurry's work according to a slightly different standard than the National Geographic aesthetic. The author of the article lays out his case quite intelligently in my opinion and I think he has a point. That does not make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. As I stated earlier, some people like a little chaos, ambiguity, and messiness in a photograph and some do not. </p>

<p>As for the rest of your comments, I am neither a teacher nor a critic, but I think you do both professions a grave disservice. It is far too easy to spout dismissive and simplistic platitudes in place of earnest discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anders Hingel: <em> I don't know what "middle-brow eye candy" refers to, but it pushes me to say that his <a href="https://sugarbritches.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CandyGrid-Bulk.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">candy like view of the world </a></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photos you linked to could actually be considered "high-brow" eye candy by virtue of the artfully inherent chaos and messiness of their arrangement. </p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach, Those that can do neither, criticize.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the definition of a critique is "a criticism." This is a critique site. </p>

<p>Most of the criticisms offered to McCurry's work here have been quite measured and highly qualified. We grant him his due. We do not thereby necessarily offer him unqualified endorsement by every criterion possible.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The photos you linked to could actually be considered "high-brow" eye candy by virtue of the artfully inherent chaos and messiness of their arrangement.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's eye candy, and then there's eye candy. There are even high-brow nudes and low-brow nudes. I won't say which I prefer when I'm in the mood for some serious eye candy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>