famous photographer

[tk shots]

i was looking at stephen shores' photographs....can anyone explain why his shots

are considered to be so good....eg that shot of the road with the one big cloud

in the sky,and i'm thinking of some shots of a small town....

[david_glick1]

I'm certainly no expert, but it seems that in a lot of cases artists become famous not so much for their actual work as for the back story or personality behind that work (and a lot of luck). Obviously, the work has to meet some minimum set of standards (or at least the artist has to be able bullsh*t that it does, especially if it's technically unimpressive). In the end, I think good art is about evoking a feeling or response - and Shore's photos have a sense of nostalgia or history to them. They seem to capture a view of the American landscape that is being forgotten. And as observers, we should never under-estimate the planning that goes in to what may seem like a banal scene. Often those can be the hardest to get right (though I have no idea how much effort or planning goes into Shore's specific work). Just two cents from someone with a couple college art classes a while ago...

[rnt]

Many of his photographs are pretty clever- the one with the billboard depicting a mountain view blocking the real mountain view comes to mind. And they're large format- the hallmark of a true artist (disclaimer- I occasionally shoot 4x5:-).

 

When you look at his work, don't think photograph, think tableau vivant... As David said, communicating banality (some of those motel rooms!) can be difficult.

[tk shots]

consider this dave....a lot of shores' famous shots were taken on the road,going from town to town-he probably spent 1-2 days in these towns....for me it shows,this is the opposite to planning....if you want to take something special of any given area,you have to live there for a significant period of time....in his artist statement,he talks about a special light that lasts a few minutes-what if he sees a perfect composition,but the light isn't there that day,or the next....is he going to wait?no,because he's on a schedule,as opposed to the person living in that town,they will get it,and many more stephen shore will never see,besides,many of his shots do not have any special light....i had a look at his shots,for me,one is special(telephone lines and poles,shadows,one person and a dog in a small town),some solid,and some for the bin....one of shores' heroes is walker evans,i can understand that....there are some famous photographers-shore is far from the only one-i will never undrstand....nothing personal stephen,but for me,becoming successful and famous has far more to do with being part of the system,and living in the right place in the world

[ellis_vener_photography]

Try looking at Shore's work in the context of what other photographers were doing back at the time we was made the work he is best known for. that might help you understand why he is thought of so highly. A lot of the work other phoptographers have done since then is based on the ground he broke.

 

It also really helps to look at his prints -- not small online or book reproductions. He's one of those guys who finds inspiration is the quotidian details of the world. He likes formalistic qualities in photograph: the subtle play of colors, juxtapositions (sometimes ironic) , spatial relationships, color relationships as shapes, as compositional elements. He was doing serious color photography back when few people took color as a serious medium. One of the thigns he did back then was make people people take color photography as a serious artistic means of expression, not just as snapshots or its commercial appeal.

 

But still , no one in their right mind can say that there is a single standard for what you (or I) should consider great photography. I personally know a couple of equally reknown photographers who work in color who just hate Shore's work, they find it boring.

[dg1]

For me it's not so much nostalgia that attracts me to Shore's work, although as I get older, I'll admit there's something of that there. But mostly I get a sense of place and a moment in time, along with the formal elements and the "look" of his photography, which I find technically and aesthetically excellent.

 

Altogether he's one of those photographers who produces pictures I come back to and want to continue looking at, without knowing always what exactly draws me to them.

 

There are levels beneath the surface, and the surface itself that sort of resonate with and against the apparent banality some folks see. It might be that I just don't normally see everyday things as banal, or at least try not to. Life's to damn short.

 

Photographers like Shore, Eggleston, Friedlander, to name a few, challenge the idea of taking anything for granted. Their work shines a flashlight that cuts through the brain dead haze thrown up by all our sensational sensory overload and helps me tune my sensibilities to a more subtle level. There's information all around us, information in subject, action, content..but also context and form, the way the apparently chaotic things around us fall.. spacial information that changes with our view point, color, time. I think that's the world photographers like Shore are trying to perhaps not capture, but point to.

 

You said, "if you want to take something special of any given area,you have to live there for a significant period of time".. I'd say no, you don't HAVE to do anything, and what you do or don't do is no guarantee of anything either. Perhaps taking something "special of any given area" isn't the point. Maybe it's the special that's obscuring the truly amazing.

 

That's my take. Or I could have just said it's a Zen thing, and saved my typing fingers.

[tk shots]

i think "banal" subjects can make fascinating photographs,i just don't think stephen shore is very good at doing that....on the other hand,i can see the brilliance in some of egglestons' work....here is an example of a stephen shore type shot that i rate....

[devon_watson]

i dunno, man... some of the ones here are pretty good:

 

http://www.billcharles.com/shore/stephenshore_18.htm

 

Even some of the boring outdoor shots seem like there's a sense of anticipation. like theres

nothing happening...yet. Something about them seems cinematic; it reminds me of the Wes

Anderson movies.