Away with pictorialism!

[akochanowski]

Am finding myself moving away from straight pictorialism. I put

these up for critique to see how low they'll go with the PN gallery

raters. Pretty darn low- 1-1's are now not uncommon for me:)Anyone

else have this happen?<div></div>

[Tony Rowlett]

I'd rather have a 1 rating than none at all. In fact, I'm not sure if a 1 rating is any worse than a 7 (or 10, depending on the scale being used.)

[mottershead]

One way to think of it is that if you get 7/7 ratings on photo.net, you are probably excelling according to the canons of taste of the mainstream. Most of the 7/7 photos here are "derivative" by art criticism standards, with the 7 for originality usually being the more questionable.

 

If you get 1/1 ratings, it means you are producing work with a distinctive "vision": the vision is distinctive enough that the photos look bad, to some people.

 

If what you are trying to do is to sell photos to postcard and calendar companies, then the 1/1's might suggest that a different approach is in order. But I don't think that is what you are trying to do. Right?

[Alex_Es]

Well, okay, I'll just say it. I've become a fan of a kochanowski's work. What I love about his stuff, including this photograph, is that he forces you to re-evaluate the entire meaning of what it is to see and to understand the world. I think of him as I do Henry Miller in Tropic of Cancer or Doris Lessing in The Golden Notebook. Both those novels demand a re-perception of experience. This is what a kochanowski is doing in his photography. He makes it difficult to like his work. This is because it is not treating you to something that you see in a familiar way. Rather, he takes familiar things and makes them unfamiliar, even irritating. He violates the rules of nice art.

 

I too have refused to compromise with "pictorialism" in photography--that is a certain kind. This is the typical photo contest Well-Turned Photograph (which I think of as Scribe's "well-turned" plays). Everything is right. Color. Sharpness. Balance. Subject. On a check list of what a good photograph is the Well-Turned Photograph wins prizes and high points because it violates no rules and does not disturb you. It is the sort of photograph you want to hang on your living room wall. It goes nicely with the decore. Guests will not spill their wine into the cheese dip by looking at it.

 

This is why I stay away from photo contests.

 

When I shot my Traveler's Notes with the rainy road at night I was thinking of a kochanowski's work.

 

Here is my own rebellion against the "pictorialism" :<div></div>

[jake_tauber]

If you want a high rating, post a picture of a flower held by a cute girl...then cut and paste them into a scene of a windmill on a cloudy day...and over-saturate the colors of the sky. Oh BTW, it'll also help if you make the sky some unreal color like puce.

 

Make pictures you like. Don't worry about the ratings you get on PN. Period, full stop.

[Alex_Es]

Oh lord! I'm getting to be as bad as some students! Scotch the "the" in front of "pictorialism" above.

[EricM]

I shoot like this too, and cross processed. I love it kochanowski.

[Alex_Es]

Okay, where's the prize money???

[Alex_Es]

Ooooops! Can't collect that prize money yet. Let's try again:<div></div>

[markci]

You're misusing the term "pictorialism." In particular "straight pictorialism" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

[jake_tauber]

1: Pictorialism is the creation or use of pictures or visual images, esp. of recognizable or realistic representations.

2: Emphasis on purely photographic or scenic qualities for its own sake, sometimes with a static or lifeless effect.

 

I would argue that #2 contributes to high ratings and the picture at the top of this thread does not conform, which is why it deserves a much higher rating...if I believed in ratings...which I don't...at least not on PN.

[tom h.]

If you want to sell, you're going to have to pander to the masses

to some degree (Ask Picasso). I've always liked your work-

individual and personal. Don't worry about ratings- If you think

the folks over at the gallery pages are worth impressing, you'd

be entirely wrong.I know we'd all like to change the photographic

landscape etc, but chances are, that's not going to happen. Let's

leave impressing the majority to politicians-taking good

photographs is hard work enough.

 

Tom

[jay t.]

I'd be interested in knowing why everybody likes the photo. I also like it, but it's hard to define why. Perhaps that's the reason! Is it the way your eyes are forced to view the photo in a slightly unnatural way (focus on the shirt, the diagonal railing making you 'read' from bottom to top)? The soft / out of focus and the colors giving a slightly surreal feel? The interaction or lack thereof of the two people? Definitely breaks rules, or maybe it doesn't! It's an intriguing picture, and maybe that's what it really comes down to. Nice job!

[fuck]

<i>I too have refused to compromise with "pictorialism" in photography--that is a certain kind. This is the typical photo contest Well-Turned Photograph (which I think of as Scribe's "well-turned" plays). Everything is right. Color. Sharpness. Balance. Subject. On a check list of what a good photograph is the Well-Turned Photograph wins prizes and high points because it violates no rules and does not disturb you. It is the sort of photograph you want to hang on your living room wall. </i><P>

 

Not me. A.K.'s the man. I'll take this over VelveetasunsetMauimountains (or wussy Tuscany hills in morning fog) crap any day.<P>

 

Then again, I like inhaling nitromethane fumes.

[elliot_n]

'Away with pictorialism!'

 

But this is pictorialism. All effect and no content.

[gerald_widen]

Just went thru your folders. Some amazing photographs. Really like how you see things. Turns my stuff into boring.

[jon w.]

Alex knows I think his work is interesting and worth checking out. The problem I have with this kind of image is that it is unclear what the criteria are for judging whether or not it is a success: how might one tell a bad example from a good one? I think I might have to reluctantly agree that this is 'all effect, and no content'. Of course, there is a place for images whose purpose is precisely to interrogate what we mean by a good photo, i.e. whose theme is precisely 'Is this an interesting image?', without trying to provide a definitive answer. Such images are deliberately provisional or ephemeral, rather than monumental and imposing. The contrast between these two ways of working was quite apparent when looking at the joint Ansel Adams / William Egglestone exhibition at the Hayward Gallery in London last year. But I am still left puzzled by this image, and some of the others like it in Alex's folders. What am I to do with it? Of course, for those photographers who think that our most profound responses are always instinctual, this question is irrelevant - it either hits you or it doesn't. By contrast, I can't figure out if I like something unless I can explain to myself why.

[michael_kastner]

Well, I'm with Tony on this one. This is not about Tony or me, it's about judgement, love and admiration in general. Many of the "very best" artists etc very often get either 1s or 7s. Audrey Hepburn, Glenn Gould, Hemingway. Bla bla bla... we can't do anything about it here, anyhow...

[h._p.]

Well, I'll go against the general view and say that I don't like kochanowski's picture. It doesn't seem to tell me anything about anything so to me it's pointless.

 

Alex's picture of the Shakespeare bookshop gives a feeling of busy-ness that tells a little story so I like that rather more. And, hey! I like his posterised building even more again :-)

[Allen Herbert]

In my opinion a kochanowski does some excellent street photography. It's interesting to see him wandering off the beaten path.

 

I'm interesting to see where that vision takes him.

[gerald_widen]

I've heard (but can't confirm) that Vincent VanGogh received mostly 1's with an occasional 2 for his paintings.

[travis1]

7/7s means you have no where to go. 1/1s means you're on the right track.;)

[akochanowski]

Thank you all for responses, this certainly was not some sort of coded whine about low ratings. A couple of points from this discussion come to mind:

 

First, I do not understand the antagonism I periodically see here to the PN ratings system. I think it is a great opportunity to expose your photos to an anonymous mass of people without the logistical trouble of doing it on your own. I routinely queue up my photos in the request for critique forum precisely so I can see whether-- in general-- the photo strikes any sort of chord. I think the trouble with many people's perception of the PN critique function is unrealistic expectations. You will rarely if ever get a "critique", though occasionally you will get a comment that is interesting (and that in itself is worthwhile if nothing else happens). But the way I look at it, if a photo or series of similar photos gets little or no reaction, or gets all 3s, 4s and 5s, then maybe it warrants taking a second look to see if it really isn't very interesting. On the other hand, if a photo gets 2s and 7s that tells me, albeit in limited fashion, that some people found something about it that provoked a reaction.

 

Second, I appreciate the praise from some of you, but it is unnecessary.

 

Third, Jonathan, in case you were directing your comment to me, I'm "Andrew" or "Andy", not "Alex".

 

Fourth, Harvey, I have by now understood you do not like my photos, but I do appreciate you not being mean-spirited in how you say it. Maybe for you I'll post some rule of thirds HP5 shots I took in London in the early 90's. I'm fairly sure you'll like them:)

[kevin m.]

"Then again, I like inhaling nitromethane fumes."

 

Skully! Where have you been? I had to sell the GTI. Got a Volvo Turbo Wagon. Good new is, a Mustang GT V8 engine can be installed.

 

Post more of your own pics when you get a chance.

[h._p.]

Don't change your style just because someone like me doesn't like it, Kochanowski, other people obviously do. Remember that you can't please all of the people all of the time and keep on doing what you enjoy.