Video: an example of how so many people take the same tourist photos again and again

[Norma Desmond]

You seem to have completely missed the premise of the article

No, I didn't. As I said, the article was much better and more insightful than the unrepresentative quote you chose to post. My arguments are with isolating that quote and what those few lines have to say, not the article as a whole. In terms of criticism, my argument was with what you said about it, not as much what she said about it.

[Norma Desmond]

So do you agree with the article or not?

She has some good things to say and some insightful remarks about Shore's work. But I think the article is lacking in a lot of ways. Her subhead suggests that Shore's photos encourage different ways to construct meaning. I don't think she fleshes that out enough. As a matter of fact, she spends too much time telling us he's taken seriously because of his biography as opposed to ways in which his photos construct different photographic meanings. In many ways, she seems more struck with him than with his photos. For instance, she says, "So, for all their superficial similarities to amateur photography, Stephen Shore’s pictures are not the result of happy accidents or random choices. They are the consequence of a lifetime of study of vernacular photography." She then goes on to give a little more biography to support her observation that the pictures are not the result of happy accidents or random choices. But she doesn't really look or talk about what we might see in the photos themselves that supports this. I mean, sure, she goes on to give some examples, like West 9th Avenue, Amarillo, Texas, but really covers the photos rather briefly and superficially in terms of the relationship between visuals and meaning, IMO. She dwells more on biography and process than the photos, and so doesn't really fill in the blanks much for her basic premise about his photography and the construction of meaning.

[Norma Desmond]

No. She clearly writes that the biography is a part of the answer and that part is explained further by the mention of influences like Szarkowski (himself a champion of the vernacular and snapshot aesthetic in photography) and Warhol and from which any further photographic meaning is to be derived, if the photographs can indeed arrive at any meaning at all beyond the language of photography itself.

Precisely, an emphasis not on what we are seeing but on what we know about the photos, their context, their place in history, their relationship to other critics and photographers. All important stuff and stuff I'm glad she talks about. But it's mostly to the exclusion of also just looking at the photos themselves and talking about what's important in what she, herself, sees in them, in the photos themselves. You've illustrated my point nicely.

[john_sevigny2]

I travel a lot and I rarely go where tourists go. That said my photography serves the same social function as the billionth photo of the Empire State Building: to remind me of something I saw that I felt was important. Is it annoying that everyone takes a picture of a Starbucks cup, their own legs, their meal? Yeah. But you can't outlaw it or even say it's below what anyone else photographs. The trick as I see it is to make the old new again. For example at Niagara Falls, I don't photograph my family or the falls. I take pictures of tourists with selfie sticks taking selfies of themselves :D

[Norma Desmond]

For example at Niagara Falls, I don't photograph my family or the falls. I take pictures of tourists with selfie sticks taking selfies of themselves

LOL.

 

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but assuming you actually do this and judging by the 10 photos you have posted here, you'd do a better job of photographing selfie takers taking selfies at tourist spots than most people. Ironically, in general, I'd have to say that most photos of other people taking selfies are actually quite a bit less interesting than the photos of the tourist attractions that might be taken instead, even if cliché. That's because the photo of the person taking a selfie shows mostly as nothing more than a snapshot the photographer thinks was a clever move. These photos of selfie-takers are becoming more and more ubiquitous and cliché, IMO. For the most part, I prefer a reasonably done photo of Niagara Falls to the typical photo I see of people taking selfies in front of Niagara Falls.

 

You'd think maybe taking a photo of a selfie-taker would put it on a level beyond the "snappiness" of the selfie itself being taken. But in many cases it's actually worse than the selfie. Because the selfie comes across as at least genuine . . . "I was here and I'm having fun and I want you to see me here having fun and I'm not trying to do anything more than that with my camera." The photo of the selfie, again not necessarily yours because I sense you'd give it more, often just looks like an easy-to-come-across gimmick.

[Sanford]

I love photographing selfie takers.

[Moving On]

“I love photographing selfie takers.“

 

The first thing they all learn is the slimming effect of high camera angle...

Edited March 2, 2018 by Moving On

[Norman 202]

“I love photographing selfie takers.“

 

The first thing they all learn is the slimming effect of high camera angle...

 

Blimey, Mark, you must be really overweight :-)

[AlanKlein]

Why would I want of photograph of you standing in front of the Taj Mahal?

[Moving On]

Blimey, Mark, you must be really overweight :)

LMAO.....All my selfies are old school tripod with a timer on an old Pentax.....Set, release, run to get into the picture.

[john_sevigny2]

I wasn't being facetious but the entire idea is silly, you're right. Which makes a "more valuable" photograph? The parade or the crowd? And how to you measure value, anyway? Which is the point a number of people have made here. One (wo)man's trash is another (wo)man's treasure. Photography is here to be enjoyed. People will swim at different depths and in different currents.

 

Re my Niagara Falls selfie-taker pictures, thanks for looking at my work and for the kind words. I do think a creative eye can make even the most overplayed subject into a good photo. I don't think I've quite done that at Niagara but with all sincerity, after about ten minutes looking at the falls I get bored and start looking at people.

 

Everything you said about maybe assuming that's somehow better than just photographing the falls is dead on.

 

On a side note, I know someone who got a HUGE grant to photograph people photographing the wonders of the world. He flew to Egypt, France, Asia and everywhere else on somebody else's dime to take pictures of people taking pictures of the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower and the Great Wall, etc.

 

I hope to be reborn as a grant-writer. :D