What difference does it make if you really know your subject?

[Norman 202]

@julie, your Hardy post is a little disingenuous. GEH did a helluva lot to further

Ramanujan's career

Edited March 2, 2017 by Norman 202

[Norman 202]

I'm sure you never meant 2b disengenioud

[Julie H]

@julie, your Hardy post is a little disingenuous. GEH did a helluva lot to further Ramanujan,s career

<br><br>

... there you go again, reading my quote-laden post. "Just say No." — Nancy Reagan

[Norman 202]

why do i have a green triangle next to my avatar?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

why do i have a green triangle next to my avatar?

Hover your mouse cursor over the green triangle and it says "Online Now".

[Norman 202]

Thanks, Tim

[Tim_Lookingbill]

The more someone in a forum posts lofty worded quotes from obscure authors only known by the poster, the more it indicates the poster more admires the performance of the author over communicating anything having to do with the original topic. We don't need an opinion from Julie. We need an explanation why her quotes are relevant to the topic.

<br><br>

Writing eloquently doesn't necessarily translate to effective communication. I had to read several times over Julie's quotes and I got nothing I could relate to this topic much less photography.

<br><br>

Julie, could you respect the readers in this forum a little bit more by explaining why those quotes relate to this topic?

[Norman 202]

the

<br><br>

... there you go again, reading my quote-laden post. "Just say No." — Nancy Reagan

then don't quote shit

[Norman 202]

that gibberish between the two outermost "*" is pnet's translation of a rude word.

<br></br>

<br></br>

<i>chuckles to oneself</i>

Edited March 2, 2017 by Norman 202

[Julie H]

Julie, could you respect the readers in this forum a little bit more by explaining why those quotes relate to this topic?

<br><br>

Why? My time is as valuable as yours. I give as much as I want to and no more. If you don't get anything from my posts, just skip them. Really, it's easy as pie. Turn your eyes to the next post and be don't worry; be happy. I won't harangue you for not respecting my writing.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<br><br>

Why? My time is as valuable as yours. I give as much as I want to and no more. If you don't get anything from my posts, just skip them. Really, it's easy as pie. Turn your eyes to the next post and be don't worry; be happy. I won't harangue you for not respecting my writing.

Didn't say I didn't respect your quotes. I said I don't understand how they relate to the topic. I can see we're not going to get anywhere with this so I'll just drop it and move on.

[Julie H]

Julie, have you read

<br><br>

No and it sounds really good (you know I'm a book addict ... happily anticipating a new purchase). I do have a stack of Baudrillard which I now have an excuse to rummage through. I don't have anything specific on Luc Delahaye but I bump into him all over the place in essays and collection books. Anyway, I will be very interested to hear what you get out of the book. Thinking also of Michael Wolf's book (I think that's right) of squashed passengers on the subway. Also thinking of Bakhtin, whose books I'm currently reading: on how we can't ever be other because "I" is always the perceptual embracer that can't be embraced.

<br><br>

The "frontal stare" reminds me of Thomas Ruff's portrait thing, but he used acquaintances, not strangers.

<br><br>

Please post as you read. Thanks.

[Julie H]

This, below, is Jan Avgikos writing about Katy Grannan's Model American project:

<br><br>

"There is no guise of objectivity in Grannan's art. Rather, her portraits are freighted with personal issues — hers, theirs, and ours — that emerge through the quasi-collaborative terms of engagement that she stipulates and that shape her interactions with her models. For a brief time, she and they become intimate strangers, mirroring each other's motivations and creating a drama that draws us in as the viewer and gives us a prominent role to play.

<br><br>

"Anonymity is a pervasive, if not permanent, state in the sociology of Grannan's art. Typically, she puts brief ads in small-town newspapers, giving little information other than that she's a female photographer, who would like to photograph you in your home or surroundings, and her telephone number. The respondent must be not only willing to be photographed — in a private manner by someone who may or may not be who she says she is (a professional artist) — but also motivated enough to contact her and follow through with arrangements made over the phone. By identifying herself as female, Grannan enables her potential subject to make a series of assumptions; a female photographer might be more sympathetic than a male; inviting a female, rather than a male, stranger into your home might involve less risk of harm."

<br><br>

[ ... ]

<br><br>

" ... ultimately, whom we judge her subjects to be has everything to do with how much we're willing to acknowledge the ordinariness of our own lives and how much we're prepared to identify with people who decide, for one reason or another, to take Grannan into their confidence and to reveal themselves to a perfect stranger. Lest we forget — everyone has something to hide."

<br><br>

[ ... ]

<br><br>

"Grannan works with her models collaboratively to decide how they want to be photographed. They make many of the decisions together: What will they wear? Will they be clothed or nude? What sort of poses will they strike? What do they want to reveal about themselves? Who do they want to be? 'How comfortable are your subjects with the actual progress of being photographed by you?' I asked Grannan in a recent conversation. We had been talking about what actually happens when she meets people for (what amounts to) the first and last time, excluding one or two phone conversations. I wanted to know what sort of apparatus they confront.

<br><br>

[line break added] "She explained that she shows up without a crew, or even an assistant. She's as low-key as she can be, except for the fact that her setup demands a certain amount of support gear — primarily a tripod and lights. In addition she might use a fan, a stepladder, or other low-tech means to achieve the desired result. She also mentioned that she has an impression of herself in the process of setting up the photograph as physically a bit awkward, which she speculates might suggest to her subject that they share some sort of parity — an idea that's never far from my mind as we gaze upon her finished portraits."

<br><br>

[ ... ]

<br><br>

"... The truths these photographs embody ... have to do with the defiance of her subjects to contradict the status quo, to take up with a stranger, to live dangerously, and to offer themselves up to the camera (no matter how uncomfortable) as a means of self-discovery. [ ... ] The willfulness of Grannan's subjects — to recognize the importance of representation and to go along for the ride with the artist, even if it feels like something they shouldn't be doing — is at the heart of what we champion in art."

<br><br>

******************************************************

<br><br>

I'm thinking, if I find the time, I might look at Bruce Davidson's classic Subway tomorrow — as it relates to what Phil may post and also how it contrasts to Grannans' approach and work.

[Uhooru]

<br>

 

It's hard to say. At the minimum it's a bit of their time, some conversation and insight into their life and neighborhood, some trust, and a willingness to help me make a portrait.

Julie, I've been with Brad shooting and watching and joining in a little while he engages people and they really do relax and open up, if only briefly. Maybe its not an in-depth relation, but people do relax and talk about their lives. There's one guy who has religious posters about the evil of fornication that Brad has gotten to know and the guy is such a character. Point is if you want to do an in-depth exploration of another person, then you will have to invest some time with that person or persons, generally lots of time. Look at Helen Marks work, or Bruce Davidson. Bruce Davidson is so interesting because he remains friends with many of his subjects. As did Helen Marks. Brad, like other's I know, when they connect with someone on the street, especially if a local, he will find them and give them a print of their photo. Its just a way of approaching photography on the streets that has a great element of serendipity and jazz but also connection, respect and just plain fun and the pictures show the engagement. That's important. I only wish I was better at engaging with strangers and to engage them enough to take time to help with the photo. More of my stuff is candid and I like to really put a subject under a microscope because though I'm reticent to always engage, I do have an intense curiosity about people. But I feel its a lack in myself that I'm not more patient, less afraid and willing to chat up people more often and Im probably friendlier than most. Maybe its L.A. and Orange County as opposed to S.F. Yeah that's it. In the obverse, I know people that are highly respected street photographers that have a policy at never making eye contact or talking to a subject. So really there's no one approach to subject. But engaged photography will look different than candid photography.

[Julie H]

Uhooru, thank you for your extended description. I'm still thinking about it, but may I ask if you meant Mary Ellen Mark (who is wonderful) instead of Helen Marks? The names sound almost the same, thus my question.

<br><br>

The details about how Brad shoots are really interesting reference the difference that some sense of collaboration makes, as opposed to 'taking' without collaboration. If without verbal collaboration and/but the subject sees the photographer, there is an interaction that is ... not a collaboration? I think both cases are performances (verbal, nonverbal?) of a kind. Just thinking around your post. Again, thanks.

[Norma Desmond]

Its the same logic, people are attracted to stuff that make them uncomfortable, like art for instance.

<br><br>

Supriyo, trying to keep the discussion to photos, I'm just thinking how art is often used as an excuse for bad photos. How many times have we all read a page full of insightful, honest yet negative critiques only to be told by the photographer or a defender of the photographer that it must be a great photo to have received such emotional responses. I don't buy it, except in the very rare case. Usually it's just a bad photo and the photographer deflects by bringing up how he must be ahead of his time, misunderstood, or getting others' juices flowing by getting them to make harsh negative comments.

<br><br>

Larry Clark, until I got more used to seeing such images, made me uncomfortable. Nan Goldin has made me uncomfortable. Scenes of war and the holocaust, of famine and urban violence can make me uncomfortable. The thing is, they make me uncomfortable in salient ways. The unsightliness of bad post processing where slider bars are pushed around like someone is playing a video game, may make me uncomfortable but not in a salient way.

[Julie H]

'All women are humans' does not mean that all humans are women.

<br><br>

'All art makes me uncomfortable' does not mean that everything that makes me uncomfortable is art.

[Brad_]

Uhooru, thank you for your extended description. I'm still thinking about it, but may I ask if you meant Mary Ellen Mark (who is wonderful) instead of Helen Marks? The names sound almost the same, thus my question.

<br><br>

The details about how Brad shoots are really interesting reference the difference that some sense of collaboration makes, as opposed to 'taking' without collaboration. If without verbal collaboration and/but the subject sees the photographer, there is an interaction that is ... not a collaboration? I think both cases are performances (verbal, nonverbal?) of a kind. Just thinking around your post. Again, thanks.

<BR>

 

Thanx, Barry.<BR><BR>

 

Julie... I generally don't care for strict definitions, but for this particular discussion, I suppose the photographs I make could be set into three categories: 1) There's a subject in the distance that's seems interesting, who I then engage in conversation that usually lasts for awhile, and that leads me to making a few portraits, usually after moving the person to better light and environmental context; 2) A subject I approach with something like, "Mind if make a make a portrait of you?" and if get an OK or gesture, I make a quick portrait on the spot; and 3) I see a scene and interesting person in a situation at a particular moment, hopefully with a decent background/context and nice light, and then candidly (meaning without asking/gesturing for permission) make a photograph - sometimes the person sees me, sometimes they don't (it doesn't make much difference to me).<BR><BR>

 

Of those three broad possibilities, the most satisfying to me is the first. That's because I enjoy talking to people in general, and in particular, learning something interesting about the person's life and neighborhood/surroundings. Still, there's a great deal of synergy between the above situations in that they all help in developing skills and a comfort level towards making photographs of people on the street in various situations.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Brad_

[Norma Desmond]

'All art makes me uncomfortable' does not mean that everything that makes me uncomfortable is art.

<br><br>

I know it doesn't. That's a fairly basic principle of logic.

<br><br>

Supriyo was analogizing the discomfort some people were feeling in this thread with the discomfort some people feel when they look at art. I was pointing out that they might be two different kinds and qualities of discomfort.

[Julie H]

Of those three broad possibilities, the most satisfying to me is the first. That's because I enjoy talking to people in general, and in particular, learning something interesting about the person's life and neighborhood/surroundings. Still, there's a great deal of synergy between the above situations in that they all help in developing skills and a comfort level towards making photographs of people on the street in various situations.

<br><br>

Brad, I don't know if I can get you to follow one of my meandering posts, but I'm going to do it anyway. Long ago (very long ago), I did sports photography for a university's Sports Information Dept. That meant any/all sports needs; events but also team shots and individual head shots. In that role, I was invisible. I did not exist; a photographer was baked into the circumstances. Nobody noticed me; I was there on the sidelines, on the floor, in the training room; on the wrestling mat, close enough to touch the combatants, but the spectators simply didn't see me. Photographers were part of the scenery.

<br><br>

However, when I was not in that role, if I was on a street in my smallish town with a big telephoto, I was most certainly not invisible. In that case, I was the event. I was the thing that was going on and people being photographed were in effect being asked to 'play the photography game,' which, nowadays, everybody knows how to do. They perform, but I also perform. In fact, if there is nothing 'going on' I'm the lead actor. Point being (I think ... if there is a point ... ) that I, as photographer became a major player in that kind of photography.

<br><br>

Taking this out of the street, though, if I'm at home with friends and relatives, there is no 'photography game' because everybody sees through any performance. They know what's being given and what's being withheld. Which means that what I 'put' into a picture (or choose to make into a picture) is more ... what's a good word? permanent? rooted? invariant? I expect I've lost you long since, so I'll stop.

<br><br>

Thanks very much for posting, Brad.

[Supriyo]

Yes that's an important distinction to make. Though the uncomfortable can be very visceral ( not sure if that's similar to how you're using salient here ) by design yet without the discomfort necessarily having any deeper meaning beyond its own effect. For example I remember watching Irréversible and its literally nauseating camera work at the beginning of the film. Of course you could argue that the caused nausea drives home the larger point of the film. Enter the Void by the same director takes a similar approach in causing a visceral discomfort in the viewer.

 

 

First of all, let me clarify, my statement about the uncomfortable was made in a light spirit. Also I must confess, not everything that discomforts me ends up being attractive, the PN 2.0 front page for instance :D. There u go, another smiley for you....

<br><br>

Now coming back to discomfort in art. Is discomfort always a negative feeling? Can discomfort be fascinating or startling? For instance, you are looking at a pretty calendar-esque landscape thinking this doesn't interest me since there is nothing unsettling about it. Its all about comfort and placidity. But then you end up staring at it for a while and actually appreciate it (although there may be no conceivable reason for you to do so). Wouldn't that be somewhat uncomfortable? The art defied your expectations of it and somehow it got to you. Isn't that one of the characteristics of good art, that it gets to you at the most inopportune moment and spreads its tentacles around you before you know.

[Supriyo]

I'm just thinking how art is often used as an excuse for bad photos. How many times have we all read a page full of insightful, honest yet negative critiques only to be told by the photographer or a defender of the photographer that it must be a great photo to have received such emotional responses. I don't buy it, except in the very rare case. Usually it's just a bad photo and the photographer deflects by bringing up how he must be ahead of his time, misunderstood, or getting others' juices flowing by getting them to make harsh negative comments.

 

Fred, I think this and your subsequent discussions with Julie make a lot of sense. I just want to ask you to expand a bit on what photo to you comes off as bad. From the example you gave, bad interprets to me as discomforting. At the same time, the referenced photo is engaging since people took time to write comments on it. I can think of example photos that are both discomforting and uninteresting or non-engaging where people won't spend much time at all. While I believe there must be a flaw in how I am thinking, isn't art supposed to hook you on with a resonating feeling. Here the feeling may be of empathy about the original scene, how it was defiled by inappropriate use of post processing by the artist, or it may be about looking into a dream through the window of ugly reality. Now consider a case where the artist's intent was to make you feel exactly that. Would you consider it a bad photo?

[Supriyo]

But regardless, beauty is still the thing around which everything in art levitates....

 

I think, Phil, the bottomline is, there is no alternative to keeping an open mind when it comes to art, especially for a genre that is designed to capture your imagination and attention. I don't want to think a pretty colorful photo would be something to pass on by default, at the same time, a photo of an urinal should be worth viewing before passing judgement.

[Uhooru]

Uhooru, thank you for your extended description. I'm still thinking about it, but may I ask if you meant Mary Ellen Mark (who is wonderful) instead of Helen Marks? The names sound almost the same, thus my question.

<br><br>

The details about how Brad shoots are really interesting reference the difference that some sense of collaboration makes, as opposed to 'taking' without collaboration. If without verbal collaboration and/but the subject sees the photographer, there is an interaction that is ... not a collaboration? I think both cases are performances (verbal, nonverbal?) of a kind. Just thinking around your post. Again, thanks.

Mary Ellen Mark, my bad. So I guess it calls for an understanding of whats meant if you know your subject or not. Not to attempt to catalogue the relationships but there is connections that pass between people that is in nature, knowing in some sense and that moment is ascertainable through photography. Then there's getting to know, which comes from active engagement, a different quality of knowing, and then there's candid, where you may think you know something or understand something, or see something known, or unknown for that matter that you want to reveal, and then there are friends, or acquaintances where photoraphy is very different, easier in some sense. Some of the great documentarians, Davidson, Mark, Smith went about getting to really know their subjects by just hanging out with them, creating friendships. It seems Diane Arbus had a certain way of meeting and breaking down barriers with people. It seems by people getting to know the photographer, allows them to feel more comfortable. not tense up, lower boundaries often times. If you have a chance, if you haven't, try looking at "Country Doctor" series by Eugene Smith. I don't think Smith would have gotten some of those photos without the relationship he formed with the Doctor. To me its all good, each thing reveals something different.

For my stuff, if you want to see how the pictures reflect differently with knowing someone and not, look at my "Friends and Musicianers" gallery compared to my street photography galleries.. Not for the quality or anything, but you'll see different types of interactions, and also see, how familiarity breeds content:)

[Norma Desmond]

I just want to ask you to expand a bit on what photo to you comes off as bad. From the example you gave, bad interprets to me as discomforting. At the same time, the referenced photo is engaging since people took time to write comments on it.

<br><br>

Bad can be many things, including but not limited to discomforting.

<br><br>

I think this week's POTW, for example, is bad, though it has some aspects that are OK.

<br><br>

My taking the time or others taking the time to write comments doesn't mean the photo is engaging. It means the people commenting chose to take some time out to engage with the photo. I write critiques not always because I find the photos engaging but sometimes because I try to be a team player and feel it's a good thing to contribute critiques to the system. Sometimes, I've even gone through a queue of photos and decide to write a comment on every 4th one, specifically so I make sure I'm not commenting because I like or dislike something but just because I want to find something to write about a few photos, as a service to the photographers who've requested a critique. My deciding to write will often have nothing to do with the quality of the photo.

<br><br>

isn't art supposed to hook you on with a resonating feeling

<br><br>

I don't personally like thinking of art in terms of what it's supposed to do. Art can certainly resonate. But when something resonates with the feeling that it's trite or annoying or immature or worthless, I don't turn that into a positive or say that because it provoked me it's art. I keep this very simple. Some things are just bad and I don't like seeing what's bad manipulated into something that's good because the badness is somehow a significant thing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes something I think is bad is just bad. That I may choose to write at length about it, doesn't make it any good.