sam_richardson

I always thought of timeless as being exactly as described. They are subjects or styles that do not depend on topicality to appeal or to be relevant. In general it seems to be used to describe those famous images that are continually accepted by each succeeding generation. An example would be Lange's migrant mother and children. Although it was used for a specific problem at a definite point in time, the impact is still the same regardless if the problem or idea still exists.

I'm not sure why the previous responses are so nasty.

 

I'm not much of a magazine reader but I wasn't aware that the volume of either magazine distribution nor advertising photography in them had increased. In fact I always thought they were on the decrease, at least according to the media. I thought the internet had cut a huge hole in the magazine pie.

 

Regardless, it is a bit frightening to think that advertising would be used to replace art but I guess it's been going on for quite awhile - just look at how many Walker Evan's interiors have magazine images on their walls, and in some cases magazines are the wallpaper. I think that probably advertising as art would be the realm of the young, who are most influenced by slick images. I think it drops off precipitously when you reach your mid-thirties. But then most advertising is aimed at the youth market so it's not surprising.

I would imagine that this same sort of criticism was rampant when Kodak brought out their first box camera and suddenly everybody was a 'photographer'. I know that I heard it when good quality Point n Shoots first came out in the 80's - the film variety.

 

I can't see 'Art' photography being overly diluted by digital because galleries still tend to want actual artists rather than some civilian with a good camera and PS skills. I think the photographers that are going to be hit the worst are those that shoot for money - such as commercial and wedding photographers. Also I can see problems for some of the 'fine art' photographers who have relied heavily on technical prowess to see them through.

 

I'm fairly optimistic that art photography will survive through this digital crisis. In fact it'll be interesting to see how artists respond to it - some great art may be the result.

I kind of hacked around with photography for a number of years and never got into it because I thought that you had to be born with tons of natural talent and spend years working at it to produce anything decent. Then I decided to take a non-threatening photo course and in one of the classes the instructor taught basic composition - this made a huge difference to my photos and confidence.

 

What made the difference was that after a brief lesson of the basic rules, the instructor opened up a large book of Cartier-Bresson photos and illustrated how often they showed up on HCB's images. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes it was subtle and occasionally it was absent but there is no doubt that HCB's photos used good composition as a backbone. Hey may have done it naturally and without having to think about it but it was there and it made for stronger images.

 

In order to break rules you have to know the rules. Breaking rules just to be rebellious is a sign of immaturity. Knowing when to break rules and by how much takes experience and talent.

The index of master photographers is excellent and wide ranging. It covers many genres and includes those that either created or excelled in each genre. I can't understand why you feel so cheated!!?? What type of photography are you looking for? Maybe the reason you feel so inadequate is that you trying to understand something that is beyond your realm of interest or way of thinking.

 

As a side note, Sally Mann also encountered the same problems as Jock Sturges and was accused of creating child pornography - of her own children. Even though it is necessary to root out child pornographers unfortunately we let the right-wing, religious-fanatics be in charge. They have no concept of grey areas or exceptions.

This happens to me on a regular basis. I wish I was one of those types that loves everything I do forever and ever. But I'm not. Sometimes a break is the only way to refocus.

Quite often cafes and other stores are the only place available for showing. If a photo (and photographer) is of high enough quality to be in a gallery then they'll find their way there. Galleries are often hard to come by but coffee shop wall space is readily available everywhere. I've seen some places become well known for their exhibits and with the right crowd you can get a lot of attention.

I used to feel like you and tried my hardest to be someone else. It took awhile before I realized that those who photograph with more direction etc. just do that naturally and have often done it since day one. Maybe you can be a bit more thematic or methodical but the die has probably already been cast. Perhaps as you grow older you might change naturally but forcing it doesn't seem to be very fruitful.

"So along comes Picasso who couldn't draw to save his life"

 

This is totally false. In fact as a student he was singled out because he was incredibly competent at both drawing and painting. He mastered both at a young age.

this need of being 'original' is such crap. its an egotistical ideal which strays one from seeing whats there, and deters from the moment of being, and becoming....whats truly original is without ideas...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the other hand, it could be that once you've seen enough photos you get bored of the same thing over and over again. I don't think that has anything to do with one's ego.

 

I have no idea what you just said in the second half of your paragraph so I can't respond to it... suffice to say though, that you are most likely wrong :)

The vast majority of nude photographs are boring repititions of the same type of work

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But Jeff, if you look at your beloved street photography it is just a repititous and often quite boring. When was the last time you saw something unique in street photography?

From what I see on here you just need people, outside of their homes. They don't have to be doing anything but just as long as they are outside of their homes then it's probably street photography. If you can have a sidewalk and the wall of a building as the background all the better. It's more 'street' with concrete. As you can see above it's also helpful to have a prop or some other noticeable object to juxtapose with that person. Or, the easiest way is to find a suitable background...like a wall with posters, and just let the people walk past and photograph them that way. You have them sharp or with motion blur. If you can superimpose them with a poster that shows irony, such as a homeless person and a Guess ad then you add social commentary to the photo. No longer is it just a photo of a person but now it brings the question of a class system to the forefront of everyone's mind.

 

However, personally I prefer photos of pretty girls. If you are going to photograph people doing nothing they might as well be young, pretty and hopefully wearing low riders :)

I'm pretty sure I understand your question but I'm not familiar enough with these movements to be able to answer whether photography falls into these same categories. I do know, as RML said, that such movements as surrealism did influence photographers but whether you can classify current popular photography in this same way is another story altogether.

 

Whatever answers you get, I just hope the moderator leaves this question up for a little while. There's been some brutal hatchet work done in the last couple of days and the only live thread is gone well past it's expiration date. Give us a break Mr. Moderator.

I have a lot of variety. I'm not a book collector so as long as the book is in decent condition I don't care what edition it is or if it's hardcover. I love getting a good deal so I have many second hand, remaindered or even damaged books.

 

A sample of the photographers:

 

Eggleston

Joel Sternfeld

Helen Levitt

Roy de Carava

Joseph Sudek

Eliot Porter

Nan Goldin

 

I also like collections and some of the Photography Yearbooks etc.

 

My next purchase will most likely be the big Martin Parr retrospective. That will be my prized possession for quite some time :)

I use a 4x5 Calumet for my Street photography. The shutter is extremely quiet and since I'm hiding under my focus cloth they don't even realize I'm there most of the time. For hard-hitting street photogaphy there's nothing like a view camera.

Calle's work just says something about Calle.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From the intro Calle says:

 

"I want to show 'him' the streets, the places I love. I want 'him' to be with me as I go through the Luxembourg [gardens], where I played as a child and where I received my first kiss in the spring of 1968."

 

So, yes, it is about Calle as you'd expect from the 'experiment'. Once again I suppose it just comes down to the fact that you don't like this type of art, in your own words you find it the most barren type of art....although you do say 'unfortunately' so I presume you realize that you are missing out on something :)

Thanks William, I'll check it out at the newstand. It'll be interesting to read him talking technique.

No, but then you are oversimplifying the complexity of architecture.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Actually I'm doing the opposite! I'm supporting the idea that a house is composed of many elements that put together provides a home. A single board is not expected to do this on it's own so why should a single image have to stand on it's own, as is often stated? I agree that a house composed of poor material is a bit dicey but this is not what we were discussing. I've always argued that the idea of an image having to 'stand on it's own merit' is limiting. It implies that each photo must tell the whole story, which is too simplistic for the work that Calle (and others) have produced.

 

BTW, these postings are so far apart in time that I'm not sure we're even discussing the same thing anymore...and I'm too lazy to reread the thread :) So my apologies if I've gone off track.

I do expect images to be significant in a photographic work. What point does an image have if it is insignificant? If it cannot stand up on its own merit, it does not need to be shown - after all, it has no merit.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

When building a house does every board need to support the weight of the family that will live in it? Does the house need to be constructed entirely of ornate finials in order for it to be worthy?

 

My comment about 'eye-poppers' and 'nature photography' were not in reference to your tastes in particular Will, but I have found (through a few years now of these forums) that when I encounter the 'every photo must stand on their own' attitude, that the authors usually like graphic photography. Nature photography represents one of the extremes where the graphics/color/light take center stage.

 

I do accept that others do not find this particular case to be interesting and take that into account when I read your comments. I do find it quite interesting, even without seeing much of the work. I like the creativity of ideas as they provide a wonderful break from the tedium of looking at photos.

I picked up the book for next to nothing and was surprised that I never heard of him before. I like his work. As someone above said, he's good but perhaps not great. Still it was a pleasant find.

Looks great. Who said art is inaccesible to the people?

Not sure if anyone on here is interested in Stephen Shore, but

Aperature (Foundation) has released a much fuller version of Stephen

Shore's Uncommon Places (1982 Aperature). The original book had a

very limited selection of only 49 plates, which to me seemed totally

inadequate to do justice to the six years he spent on this project.

Now, nearly twenty years later, Shore has revisted this work and

produced what he describes as his 'directors cut' of Uncommon

Places. In addition to the original plates there are around 100 more

from the series - some of them showing the interiors of the motels

that he stayed at, as well as more potraits. IMO his new inclusions

are stronger than most of the originals. In addition there is a more

detailed essay on Shore as well as an interview by Lyn Tillman with

Shore. The printing is not bad, but a little heavy and my first

purchase had printing damage to two of the plates - I was able to

replace the book with no problem. So if you are a fan of Shore, or

others of his ilk (Jim Dow, Joel Myerowitz, Joel Sternfeld etc.) I

highly recommend this book. His large format color photographs are

always interesting.

I don't know about anybody else but I would like to read an English translation of this comment.

I assume because the forum is titled 'Philosophy of Photography" that the work we are discussing is primarily photographic.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's true that the title of the forum does say 'photography' in it and it's also true that this work by Calle is photographic, but does that mean that each photograph must be an eye-popper? I suppose in nature photography that this is expected but then there's not much more to a nature shot than 'this is nature, isn't it grand'. I guess I'm not one of those who demands that each and every photograph MUST stand on it's own, I believe that a photo can be part of much larger work or idea. I find the whole idea for her project to fascinating in itself and the few photos I've seen from it do reinforce the interest.

Calle seems to believe her presence is enough to make an interesting work.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Does she? Then why did she go through all of the trouble of setting up this complex situation? It's a fascinating idea and experiment. I expect it's probably also unique, although I'm not familiar enough with the art world to say for sure. Do you also need eye-popping visuals to go along with it?