Allen Herbert Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 I listen, Phil. I always try to work my two ears. Particularly listen to words of the crying of lost souls. "Just to go off topic, but with a slight relevant to the post...It was interesting to read the comments of a war correspondence who landed on the Omega Beach during the D day landings" And let us not forget, these folk sacrificed their lives for humanity. They died to defend humanity from a racialist regime, who believed that all humanity was not equal. And to put it nicely should be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Ill Mind Of Hopsin 7 The crying. Or, I'm lost up my own arse. Can anyone stick their arms up there to pull me out? Jeeze, it smells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Anyway, I have found my voice. It goes like this. Goodnight, and God bless., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zRW-A5aDuU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Peri Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Hmm... and another thread spirals out of control down into the abyss... http://bayouline.com/o2.gif 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Interesting - y'all can't speak for yourselves - just links, AKA mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Vongries Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Where are your own words? Just others speak for you? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcyin Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Well at least the first page of comments were interesting www.neurotraveler.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 I think you likely mean more than this but it's worth noting that understanding what one does is not the same as having a voice and having a voice may sometimes come without and understanding of it. The Dicionary says to find one's voice is to find one's distinctive style or vision of artistic expression. So I have been shootin' in the same style since 1998, so I guess, I have found my voice. I disagree on the point that having a voice may came without understanding of it. Eech person who really could do real photography, (NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH A CAMERA) who was competent among those who I met during last 20+ years did understand what he/she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Ella had a voice. Judy had a voice. Sinatra had a voice. Pavarotti had a voice. Lennon, Dylan, Janis. A voice is something distinctive enough to be immediately recognized. I don’t understand Judy’s or Sinatra's voice. I just hear it, it’s visceral and organic. It’s part of them. Voice, when used in relation to non-singing artists, is more metaphoric. Thus used, voice is more basic, more elemental, more individual, more personality- and character-driven than style, which is likely what one is thinking of when talking about understanding. Eech person who really could do real photography, (NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH A CAMERA) who was competent among those who I met during last 20+ years did understand what he/she did. A photographer’s understanding of what he or she “did” is different from understanding a voice. My guess is that many of the greatest photographers would tell you that in addition to what they understand, there’s a whole lot that’s beyond their understanding of what they do. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 No - having been involved in both writing and photography for the largest part of my life, seeing, understanding and telling / showing so others understand are quite different. Sandy, what sort of writing do you do? I occasionally write poetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Yes. I have found it! And it sounds exactly like this: Phil, I've found several of my voices by listening to Pink Floyd songs. Of course, I was under the influence of . . . (guess). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 My guess is that many of the greatest photographers would tell you that in addition to what they understand, there’s a whole lot that’s beyond their understanding of what they do. I don't compare distinctive style or vision of artistic expression and understanding because they are different things, you're right here. But every serious photographer (let alone great - Koudelka, Saudek, Avedon, Sutkus, Syomin, Leibovitz, Rodchenko, Horst P Horst, Demarchelier, Doisneau) - everyone understood what he or she did. AND here is the difference from an illiterate, stupid shutterbug - the latter is just clicking without even understanding why, what for, so he/she is the farthest from having a voice like a voiceless (and out of tune) visitor of karaoke of drunken gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 I get that great photographers understand what they do. You can stop repeating it. And I’m not about to engage you on so-called “illiterate, stupid shutterbugs.” That’s not a voice I care to adopt. In any case, there are plenty of fine, self aware photographers with a depth of understanding who don’t have a voice. All I’m saying, and you seem to have agreed, is that voice is different from style and is not as much about understanding as other aspects of being a photographer. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 that voice is different from style Here we step on unknown and slippery path. The dictionary defines voice as distinctive style or vision. Did Karsh have a voice? We would say yes but at that time many people used to use his technique. He was just most prominent and famous with his famous clientele. He was very technically proficient too and had the best gear. Leibovts? We say yes, she is iconic. But buying glossy magazines I would not certainly distinguish her every work out of the many others. I have this magazine - a lot of people take alike portraits (like that of Amy Adams). And I take them also (though not againt a backdrop) and work with professional models and dancers but never posted them here. Let's take Rodney Smith - he was prominent too, but the same story. Moreover, some people criticize his general style as imitation of Rene Magritte (a painter). But still he had a voice. So I am still agree with the dictionary. When speaking about landscapes, product photography, macro.... the voice definition becomes more unobvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 The dictionary is only a start, and not always a good one, for concepts like “voice.” Dictionary definitions are often inadequate enough for words like “love” and “art” and when it comes to metaphors like “voice” a dictionary is often helpful only as a very basic start of a wider discussion. Leibovitz and Karsh were both more style than voice and that’s the part that can be imitated. If one has his or her own voice as a portrait photographer and chooses to imitate Leibovitz or Karsh on occasion, it will make sense relative to their own body of work and the meaning and feeling of the adopted style will likely be somewhat transformed, even while still being a reference, by the new voice taking it up. “Good artists copy, great artists steal” because great artists, when they lift styles or elements of others’ work, make it their own. Two portrait photographers who strike me as having important and unique voices are Arbus and Stieglitz. Their voices were much more important and impactful than their styles. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supriyo Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 My very vague understanding of the issue at hand is (and I am far from being done with it), style is a set of cues or characteristics that can be clustered based on the artist or the age or school of thought. Now whether a voice emanates from that style would depend on whether anybody (including the artist) can hear it. If the style continues to remain in the realm of visual cues or class of chosen subjects, then it is only that, a style. On the other hand, if the combination of style, subjects and context all converge into a higher abstract level of resonance and feeling and/or perceived intent, that is almost like someone whispering while viewing the collection of works from an artist. It is perhaps analogous to the latent image that is above and beyond the individual grains and emulsion characteristics of the film, although it is formed out of those exact things. However, I do agree that a voice can be discernible even without a clear style. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Arbus as an example is known for her distinctive, recognizable subject matter but which I wouldn’t necessarily say is her voice. I agree. My take on her voice is her being willing to be open and expose herself through her fascination with the people she photographs. I see her voice as admitting flaw, as having and letting us in on secrets, as acting more than contemplating with photography. She is specific and detailed enough to be general, she seems to straddle a line between understanding and misunderstanding, she risks perversity, and she seems to find out something for herself and then share that with others. Any photographer's voice has to do with what they put of themselves* into whatever it is they photograph in whatever way they photograph. *This assumes that even a photographer who tries to stay out of their pictures does that by choice. On the other hand, if the combination of style, subjects and context all converge into a higher abstract level of resonance and feeling and/or perceived intent, that is almost like someone whispering while viewing the collection of works from an artist. Nicely put. Relating again to Arbus, I do think her subject matter was more a part of her voice than her style. I think she could have photographed in a very different style and maintained her voice. Her subject matter seems less separable from her voice, even though it's different from it. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 The dictionary is only a start, and not always a good one, for concepts like “voice.” Dictionary definitions are often inadequate enough for words like “love” and “art” and when it comes to metaphors like “voice” a dictionary is often helpful only as a very basic start of a wider discussion. Leibovitz and Karsh were both more style than voice and that’s the part that can be imitated. If one has his or her own voice as a portrait photographer and chooses to imitate Leibovitz or Karsh on occasion, it will make sense relative to their own body of work and the meaning and feeling of the adopted style will likely be somewhat transformed, even while still being a reference, by the new voice taking it up. “Good artists copy, great artists steal” because great artists, when they lift styles or elements of others’ work, make it their own. Two portrait photographers who strike me as having important and unique voices are Arbus and Stieglitz. Their voices were much more important and impactful than their styles. I will think it over. So do you think the voice is social implicatioin of the photographer? So not only Arbus, but I think Sutkus (link). I think Sutkus has a voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 I will think it over. So do you think the voice is social implicatioin of the photographer? I think social implication and lots of other things go into voice. Certainly, social implication is important to Arbus’s voice. Aesthetic and art history implication important to Stieglitz. Sexual and political implication to Hujar. But no voice can be reduced to a single element and the personal plays a role in social, aesthetic, and sexual implications and the personal is often the driving force behind whatever outward shape the voice takes. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Sam, What about Irving Penn? More style than a voice? What about Jan Saudek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Hujar Having examinig his archive I'd say more shocking, scandalous behavior, LGBT portraits in huge amount. But still interesting to see to get to know that era and life in America in 1970s'. Harsh lighting, b&w, special technique, special kinds of people portrayed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Hujar He also photographed with a heavy New York accent ... "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Irving Penn? Hits all the right notes. Jan Saudek? Una fantasia. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruslan Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 heavy New York accent Maybe, it's difficult to judge. I am european, and european aesthetics is more understandable to me. Names that I mentioned above among american photographers like Leibovitz. Are european photographers any known in the USA? Saudek, Koudelka, Sutkus, Syomin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts