Some pics I do not "get"

[irvine.short]

<p>Lee Friedlander, Stephen Shore (most of) , HCB, Weston and a bazillion others. I "get" their work.</p>

<p>Shore, I admire, but would not want on my wall. Weston I would love to have almost any of his work on my wall, even that picture of a toilet bowl he did.</p>

<p>Yet others however I look at and go "WTF?" This is picture of scrubland or a concrete wall, devoid of all interest. If something like that were submitted to a camera club competition it would be severely criticized.</p>

<p>Am I the only one?<br>

I suspect not.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Irvine, indeed I doubt your the only one. In fact, I'm quite sure you aren't.<br>

But consider, likewise, there are people that do not get HCB, Weston, etc. "<em>Why would one take photos of just normal people on a street doing nothing particular</em>?". Part of it is a matter of taste, part of it is training the eye, a perceptive mind, trying to look at the subject or the photo from a different angle with a fresh view. Is the photo of a concrete wall devoid of all interest because of the photo itself, or because it cannot spark <em>your</em> interest? There is nothing wrong with the latter, but it says as much about the photo, as it says of your preferences.</p>

<p>As for the criticism, I do not know your photo club, but in mine, some people would ask to substantiate the criticism (or simply do so themselves). It might be valid critique - on a technical, artistic or conceptual level. If the criticism is just "I don't get it", then what does it really say?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Variety, different POV make life worth living...</p>

[Julie H]

<p>If a photograph irritates you -- in a good way, a bad way, or even a you-don't-know-what way -- then you're "getting" it. For example, if work moves you to post in the Philosophy of Photography forum somewhere online, then you're "getting" it (or it's "getting" you).</p>

[gordonjb]

<p> You have just realized that different people have differing opinions regarding what constitutes an interesting photograph and you somehow disapprove of such a possibility ? </p>

[mike dixon]

"If something like that were submitted to a camera club competition it would be severely criticized."

 

I suspect that I would severely criticize the majority of photos getting rave reviews in camera club competitions.

[irvine.short]

<p>Julie: good point. <br />Gordon: you're not "getting" me. :-) I was saying "I" didn't get the pictures<br>

Mike: too right.</p>

<p>Are we allowed to talk specific examples here? I have a few pics in mind.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just link to them, Irvine. That's perfectly reasonable.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>You mean this kind of thing? ;)</p><div></div>

[chris_waller]

<p>There are some things I just don't get. I have never got football, or cricket (a strange ritual played out in England every summer) or golf - in fact I just don't get any kind of sport. I do get William Egglestone but many people, particularly those who are strangers to photography, just don't. I don't sweat about it.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Nice wall, Waller. Get it? Wall...Waller.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I feel exactly the same way about dubstep.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[if something like that were submitted to a camera club competition it would be severely criticized.]]<br>

<br /><br>

<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html">http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[starvy]

<p>I went to the local photography club's meeting as a guest only last night. There was a visiting speaker. The speaker had a wonderful array of images from the very mundane subjects. It is true that he was not afraid to experiment, however, this was never beyond the realm of necessary. He often displayed works taken with a small point and shoot and these images had won at international and salon competitions. I would be quite happy to have hung up the finished prints of most of his works but most of the originals were mundane. On my way back I started thinking of the original and unmanipulated images he displayed and if occurred to me that I didn't mind a lot of them once they were explained to me and some sort of context added. This contextualising is very important in relating to the aesthetics for me. </p>

[lachaine]

<p>Some people listen to music they like, but some people really feel the music, like in their bones. There's no explaining that to someone who doesn't feel it. With photographs, it's the shapes, light, patterns, textures, colours, lines, contrasts, moods and so on that evoke a feeling, and sometimes it's something that touches a memory somehow. The person who sees it, feels it and takes a picture of it is in some way trying to communicate that feeling, otherwise there would be no point in showing the photograph. Most people with cameras would probably have never even noticed there was a picture to be taken there, because they are looking for some other kind of picture. Some will get it, some won't... the same as happens with any kind of self-expression, especially the artistic kind.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, camera clubs and photography forums are mostly for people with cameras, not for artists.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>While a picture is said to be worth a thousand words often it is in need of a few words to be worth anything.<br>

As with all groups of people camera clubs have their styles and concepts of what is good.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sometimes, I don't "get" an individual picture until I look at the photographer's body of work. Sometimes, I don't "get" an individual picture or a photographer's body of work until I put it into historical context.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Different people like and dislike different things. That goes for all kinds of things, not just photography. I think that makes people more interesting.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p><em>"There's no accounting for taste."</em></p>

[richardsperry]

The Red Ceiling has another name, Greenwood, Mississippi, 1973.

 

I prefer the name, "Code Violation".

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>I find not being able to immediately ‘get’ a photograph to be a source of pleasure. By ‘get’ I mean chiefly understanding the photographers intentions but also being aware of the various codes and references the photo is employing, the compositional games it might be playing and the conventions it places itself within. All these aspects might be what I think Roland Barthes was referring to when he wrote about the ‘studium’ of the photograph.<br>

All to often one can receive these signals in a glance, admire or dismiss their skill and move on. However if an image withholds its meanings, is intentionally obscure in some way it means its doing something different, its challenging me and it gives me, the viewer, room to speculate and that’s what I find most rewarding.</p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>This contextualising is very important in relating to the aesthetics for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm the same way. I think the challenge is to expand our awareness of many possibilities, or of the diversity of interests in photographic subjects, and to keep on exploring the many interests different people express through photography, so that we can then come to a photograph that may not be immediately understood by us but that with some thought we can get a glimpse into possibilities for the subject, even if it's not fully understood, and even without the contextualizing that you find necessary for some photographs. Or, what I also do, simply pass by with the understanding that my background and interests simply don't even begin to match the background and interests of the person who made the photograph I'm scratching my head over.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>You have to actually look, and look again, at the photo rather than just a cursary glance to gain instant <strong>gratisfaction.</strong></p>

<p>The best photos require a lot more than a quick fix... they require the viewer also to be able to also see.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I don't know about that. Pretty pictures are like pretty girls. You know immediately.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I don't know about that. Pretty pictures are like pretty girls. You know immediately."</p>

<p>Who was talking about pretty pictures? Ha, a pretty girl is in the eye of the beholder...now there's a thought.</p>

<p>But we are talking about photos we don't get. Try harder you might sometimes be in for a surprise..</p>

<p>Ask yourself why did the photographer take that photo... what were they seeing: see, if you can see, what they were seeing.</p>