Photo-opportunities

[alan_zinn]

<p>This may be old news for the web surfers on this forum. I searched the topic in PN and didn't find it. But if it's old hat I apologize in advance. These pictures made by Corinne Vionnethave set my head to spinning. What do you think about them in regard to photo technology, culture, art, philosophy? <br>

http://www.corinnevionnet.com/index.php?/photo-opportunities/<br>

Most pedestrian thoughts: A composition aid- SCN setting for digicams. A social networking pastime. Everyone who takes the same snap is your friend.<br>

More academic musing: What were the cultural or other differences among the photographers? <br>

I'm thinking of the comment - don't know where I saw it first - "I don't need to go there I've been there in pictures so many times." May have been referring to Venice. </p>

[starvy]

<p>I like the picture of the Eifel tower.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Hmmm.....gotta say it doesn't work for me at all. Reminisent of the pictures I used to take with my first box camera back in the ancient days.........Robert</p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p><em>"...from hundreds of snapshots of tourist locations culled from the Internet."</em></p>

<p>Wonder if she got permission from all the original photographers (ie. copyright holders) to use the images. Inquiring minds want to know...</p>

[marc_rochkind]

Big discussion of this at The Online Photographer a few weeks ago... worth looking up.

[nathangardner]

<p>yeah, the images are unique and cool, but they're not hers. I guess, in a way, it's artistic, but it's not her art, just her idea. Anyways, the one of the Golden Gate Bridge seems to move when you move your eyes across the frame; kind of like a holographic effect.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p><em>"Wonder if she got permission from all the original photographers (ie. copyright holders) to use the images."</em> It has been shown repeatedly that she wouldn't need to. She has made a "new work". Same as all those mosaic programs, you can cull the images from anywhere and turn them into a new picture, you don't need the original images owners permission, you can take a picture of a picture, and this has been done by many photographers, and if it can be classed as a "new work".</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Had the same as Nathan, some seem holographic. I like the results, and the whole idea is interesting for sure. Thanks for this link! </p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>I'm aware of that. Mine was a 'tongue in cheek' comment that, unfortunately, didn't come across that way when written vs. spoken.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I get the idea, but without the back story it's just a bunch of blurry pictures, although a couple look nice in an impressionistic way. I guess I think art should make it on its own merit without needing an up-front explanation (or excuse).</p>

[jtk]

<p>Alan, thanks for posting that link.</p>

<p>Great stuff. She had an idea and executed it. There's no evidence of anybody else's work there, it's just Vionnethave's. It's far more "original" than 99.9% of the stuff proposed as "art" by (for example) nature or street photographers.</p>

<p>The curatorial/critical/analytic writing is not the photography. It attempts to steal the concept and reconceive it in the "ideas" of people who weren't imaginative enough to do the work. <a href="http://www.susansontag.com/SusanSontag/books/againstInterpExcerpt.shtml">http://www.susansontag.com/SusanSontag/books/againstInterpExcerpt.shtml</a></p>

<p>As to your "pedestrian thought" : People socially network specifically to avoid relationships. Same reason many use long lenses to photograph homeless or travel great distances to photograph maximum strangers (rather than neighbors). OBVIOUSLY you should try to patent your idea because it describes a soul-deadening drug, which would sell like hotcakes.</p>

<p>Your last thought, "academic musing," is disconnected from the image: Vionnethave is the only photographer...the others we are imagining are background noise, non-entities.</p>

<p>Worry about ownership of images makes sense if one thinks one is Michaelangelo or thinks one's duck/cat/rock/tourist-snap/bug/homeless/sunset is valuable financially. Otherwise it's narcissistic BS.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's far more "original" than 99.9% of the stuff proposed as "art" by (for example) nature or street photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I'd love to see some large-ish prints. (It's Vionnet BTW - excuse my typo) I think, even though the technique isn't original to her, she employed it well. Reminds me of when the painter David Hockney did his big photo collages with drug-store snaps and blew away earlier attempts by photographers. These kinds of conceptual things push the photographic idea ahead. The enormous and sudden leap in camera and social media possibilities exceeds the grasp of conventional thinkers. The discussion about her on the other list mentioned WAS awfully pedestrian!<br>

I was being semi-facetious RE the SCN feature. I strongly disagree that social mediaists retreat inward. </p>

[riz]

<p>Any idea how it was done?</p>

[stannobles]

<p>Original! I like it!</p>