Allen Herbert Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) Lets be honest, this forum has more to do with a tax return, than a discussion about photography.. Same old folk, purveying their old arse stories. Multiple arse gazing. Looking for love from their mates.and guru, Sam. Outsiders not really welcome.. Just a thought. Edited January 20 by Allen Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 4 hours ago, inoneeye said: ?. I’m intrigued. Intimate photos have So much potential for standing out. Because in the end it’s the relationship that stands out, the image is just a medium. 3 hours ago, samstevens said: There’s risk involved. Indeed. And it does not necessarily involve nudity, even if it may. And not even purpose. A relationship is just there, with its infinite nuances, as all relationships are. And then a camera comes in and makes it visible. Something that otherwise just stays in our memories. One or both Barthes’ “operator” and “subject” lay bare their essence and the essence of their relationship to the third entity: the “spectator”. And all are flesh, blood, thoughts, weakness, frailty, power, consciousness and subconsciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 I see the image/photo as an object, a creation. It may be a medium or representation but it can be appreciated for itself, and taken at face value. I think intimacy can imply oneness (not just relationship). Related to intimacy are inmost and intrinsic. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, samstevens said: I see the image/photo as an object, a creation. It may be a medium or representation but it can be appreciated for itself, and taken at face value. Can be. I’m aware that the photographic technique can be appreciated for itself and taken at face value, but as far as I’m concerned, when I in abstract think of a photograph, I think of the reality that it shows to me and what kinds of reactions and emotions it creates. I experience that often this can’t be expressed verbally. My bottom line: In the past I’ve often debated what makes a good photo. Now I know what makes a good photo for me, what I need to get there and certainly “making pictures to see how things look photographed” is just not sufficient for me anymore. This - fortunately - does not mean that I am able to make good photographs, but at least there’s a path I can follow. And then I learned that I need to be more patient and welcoming towards what photographically comes my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said: I think of the reality that it shows to me Photos have the ability to show possibility, which doesn’t exclude the reality of what was photographed but may well transcend or transform it. Even some documentary work goes beyond representing reality, and the emotions caused can arise from the expression itself, from the how of the photo as much as the what. It may be why I can look at much of Lewis Hine as beautiful photos … of an ugly situation, or Walker Evans as mesmerizingly mundane. Evans called it the “enchantment of the esthetically rejected”. I think the enchantment is not only to be found in what’s photographed but in the photographs themselves, in the photographs being a reality in addition to the one they portray. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, je ne regrette rien said: “making pictures to see how things look photographed” is just not sufficient for me anymore. I see this as one of many ways to describe it. Like photos themselves, the description suggests possibility to me, not limitation. Edited January 20 by samstevens "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) I do think the documentary approach you’re taking is alive with possibilities and your sense of the various relationships involved can provide a lot of room for texture and exploration. Thanks for being open to working through your thoughts in the thread. Edited January 20 by samstevens 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 22 Author Share Posted January 22 Quote I've learned it's often futile to make demands of others I certainly see where you're coming from and to an extent I agree with you. But talking through things is the only way to get a bit out of our usual perspective, think out of the box and develop. As you say: On 1/20/2024 at 11:46 AM, samstevens said: being open to working through your thoughts in the thread that's exactly the point. In 2010 I started a post here discussing what makes a "good photo". Lots of inputs were provided. Over the years I am realising that per se there are no "good" or "bad" photos. There are only photos, which express the author's intention and possibly are "understood" by those who view them. And in the end my question back then was about finding my own purpose for my photography. Over the years and with long exchanges, asking others "to make demands" of what they may expect from my photography has helped me to find out what my purpose in photography is. Not that I would accept any demand, but thinking about demands and about my photographic intention has brought about serious progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) It's OK so long as it is in good taste? Pictorialism /s Edited January 29 by JDMvW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) "I've learned it's often futile to make demands of others" There' thought. Some folk like to think themselves as a Photographic Guru. Okay, they looked at themselves in a mirror and fell in love. Faithfull for ever.... Edited February 9 by Allen Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_swinehart Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Joel Witkin's use of nudes is a design element in the photograph. The body being nude is necessary for the photograph's effectiveness and is only one element of the content. So, yes nudes can make sense today in photographs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted February 18 Author Share Posted February 18 On 2/10/2024 at 3:55 AM, steve_swinehart said: Joel Witkin's use of nudes is a design element in the photograph. Joel Peter Witkin is certainly one of the photographers I did not mention but who certainly needs to be included in the number of original authors. probably I have not been able to explain properly what I mean with "making sense". I have certainly learned that nudes are just like any other photograph - except that online they attract more views - and that they can make more or less sense (in my sense). I have also learned that I need to be more patient, being more receptive to the content and intent in pictures that come my way in one way or the other. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted February 18 Author Share Posted February 18 (edited) I'm not really David Byrne. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Edited February 18 by je ne regrette rien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) Do photographs of nudes make sense after Edward Weston, Saul Leiter or Robert Mapplethorpe?Je NE "I have certainly learned that nudes are just like any other photograph" Je Ne What are you rambling on about? Seems to me you have spent too much time err navel grazing. Whole world out there give it a look. Yep, forget about taking photos ,those old timers have done it all. Silly and stupid thoughts; we all have creativity and unique in our vision. Get over yourself. . Edited February 21 by Allen Herbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now