tk shots Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 are photographers like diane arbus,nan goldin,larry clark,stephen shore,andreasgursky,that guy crewdson and many more,are these people truly good photographersor is it that they were in the right place at the right time,or that they cameup with a new way of taking photographs or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt_evers Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The more you study photography, the more you realize they were/are truly great. And, you understand why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Someone who puts themself in the right place at the right time and comes up with a new way of taking photographs is a good/great/influencial art photographer. How else would you define that term? If you're asking if they were just lucky and anyone else in the same place at the same time could have done just as well, the answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I agree with Bob. Think about it. We are all in the right place at the right time. We just don't all take the right photo of it. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketch_tbhotmail.com Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Agreed, how many times do you get home and when reviewing your shots, think "damn, I should have focused more on this or that"? I think its got to do with that mysterious "eye" that everyone's always going on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell lewis arps Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Sorry Fred, but that's about the most nonsensical argument I've ever seen! Furthermore, to dismiss the argument of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know' is also incredibly naive. Yes, of course you have to have the talent and vision, but you also have to get the right people to buy into it. There are way too many opportunities for people to miss the boat. And another furthermore; unless you have seen everything that anybody has ever done, you cannot state with any kind of authority whatsoever that no-one else could do it. It all comes down to those known knowns and unknown knowns and stuff. Logic dictates that it has to be a combination of the two. History proves that the balance is not always evenly or constantly distributed! That applies to any field, not just photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Russell-- It's mildly interesting that you think my argument is nonsensical. What would be more interesting is for you to tell us why. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell lewis arps Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Fred - why is it nonsensical? Let's assume a scenario...a little hypothetical situation, mixed with a bit of recent news. A day at the San Francisco zoo. There I am, perched attentively with my trusty Nikon and my KFC Family Bucket, waiting patiently for the Giant Panda to appear with Ping-Pong, her newborn five-legged cub. Everyone wants to see little Ping-Pong take his first steps in the sunshine. A five-legged baby Panda - guaranteed front page. I'm gonna need a lorry to carry away all my cash from this shot. 100yds up the path and out of my direct line of sight, a tiger jumps the barrier and starts snacking on the visitors, before running off in the opposite direction. I can hear all the commotion, but there is no way I can get there quickly. Ethel Dunshootin, on a visit from Luckville, Alabama, snaps the moment on her $10 throwaway camera and earns a fortune from a couple of fuzzy images that could just as easily be passed off as snaps of a Yeti riding a unicycle. Meanwhile, little Ping-Pong the Panda is still sound asleep somewhere indoors and my chicken is getting cold. That hardly puts me in the right place at the right time, does it? Hence, my assertion that your argument is quite nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 After too many years than I care to remember you begin to realise there are only perhaps half a dozen 'great' photographers but hundreds of 'good' photographers. None of the six mentioned are 'greats' in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 What Fred may have been saying is that it's not about being in the right place at the right time, more about making wherever you are into the right place. In that sense were all in the right place at the right time, but most of us don't realize it. There's little skill involved in getting an interesting picture of a UFO landing. There's a lot of skill in getting an interesting picture of more ordinary subjects, which is what many of the cited photographers achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell lewis arps Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Up to a point, I'd agree, with that sentiment. I still believe, however, that such a blanket statement is nonsensical, if not pretentious. I suspect that we could still be discussing this over our next Christmas dinner and not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandysocks Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk shots Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 what i mean by the right place at the right time is that none of the photographers came from hungary or ireland etc....if there was a photographer of equal ability from a country such as those i don't think they would be included....what is the genius of that stephen shore shot of the road and the cloud? is andreas gursky successful because his shots are big and looking down on his subjets?what's genius about that? i can see the ability in some people but certainly not in others and i wouldn't describe any of it as genius.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketch_tbhotmail.com Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Thats an interesting scenario Russell. While you may not get the shot of the tiger or panda (maybe Ping-Pong doesn't come out that day), I think what Fred is saying is that you could get great shots of the crowd running in terror or the zoo staff running towards the tiger with their rifles. In the future perhaps your photo becomes more widely recognized because the photo of the reactions tell a better story than the photo of the incident. Its about making the very best of ANY given situation. At least I think thats what he meant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Now I've been elevated to nonsensical AND pretentious. I just love healthy, intelligent discussion with friends. Anyway, all personal attacks aside, what Bob and Ryan have added pretty much makes my point. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell lewis arps Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Fred - Where exactly was the personal attack? You made a statement, I commented on it. If that is your idea a personal attack you must have led a very sheltered life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I engage others' ideas. I don't label them with pejorative adjectives. That's how we differ. I'm not sheltered. I just have higher expectations than you. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell lewis arps Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I think you like it when people agree with you and lose your sense of humour pretty quickly when they don't. Still, look on the bright side - at least your horse is high enough for your expectations. I'll live, knowing that I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 "knowing that I'm not." You got that one right! We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Responding to Tommy ONLY The people you cited are technically fine photogs, with a particular vision that they pursue relentlessly But, there are lots of hightly talented photogs that applies to who did not somehow catch the attention of the gods of THE ART WORLD. How that happens, this deponent knoweth not, but yes it is a part of their status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk shots Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 it is nice to see someone reply to my question....this is what i mean jack,if diane arbus lived in the west of ireland i don't think she would have the status she has....having said that,i do like her shots....when you take photographs of extraordinary subjects,it is much easier to get powerful shots....she was probably part of a group of photographers in the one place at the one time,the media took it up,and it was sold to the world,then all of a sudden everyone's a genius....the reality is there is little difference in ability between these people and many others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now