Jump to content

je ne regrette rien

Members
  • Posts

    2,363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

67 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1,345 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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: 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Because in the end it’s the relationship that stands out, the image is just a medium. 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.
  5. Thank you for your bottom line @samstevens. In respect to making demands on others, I rationally agree with you. But I live this kind of idealistic contradiction. And, again, here we agree. Your reflections make me rethink about my annoyance and leads me to a more patient and welcoming approach to what comes my way, refraining from too quickly judging and moving on. And this is the question of questions, at least for me. I am one tho wishes that his photographs portray his relationships with his fellow human beings, their objects and scenarios. I have no idea if I identify as a photographer or what else. I think I am more interested in documenting rather than making art, even if aesthetics has its importance. This documentation can be of such intimate nature that I seriously consider if I want to make it public. And so often I decide against it. It is very important for me to verbalise it to others so that I can become aware myself, as the long discussion threads in this section since 2010 show. Hearing from others, being open to their views and opinions is what really makes me develop.
  6. Fine, but I’m talking about those who don’t recoil and define themselves straight away. There are many. Agreed. I was thinking of something universal and vague such as “I work to make art”. Definitely not a refined artist statement. There are photographers who don’t even think of producing art.
  7. Here I'm fully on the same page. Everybody should be free to declare an artistic intent. We then see what they make out of it.
  8. I think I already mentioned it: nothing should be done to limit freedom of expression or of creativity in any form, obviously if it's not exploitation or abuse. Ethics and propaganda or manipulation are more difficult ti handle. Nor can we make creativity and thus art an exclusive elitist realm. My motivation for my position, which, as you correctly indicate, is related to the so many unfulfilling photos, is not creative exclusiveness. That would be a disaster, because excluding is never a fruitful approach: we should not miss any creators with an artistic intent. I welcome creative and artistic acts, they are needed and nobody shall be excluded for any reason, even though I may not be capable of understanding creative propositions because of my limited nature. My motivation is creating and seeing awareness, starting with declaring the artistic intent, which is totally legitimate and welcome. And not with beginning with the author's declaration "I am an artist", most of all when this is obviously not the case, in respect to what else can be seen and the steps of the author's creative path. I call for awareness, knowledge, information and exchange. We mentioned mistakes. A precious experience. But how can we understand and take advantage of mistakes to progress along our creative path if we upfront label ourselves as artists. Somebody who is already complete and fulfilled. Declaring our artistic intent is just enough, perfectly fair, not annoying and no obstacle to making art at some stage.
  9. While there are fundamental principles in various art forms, like composition or color theory, I believe art is inherently subjective, and there are no strict universal rules. And exposure to art counts: the more art one is aware of, the more refined the subjectivity is. Just like History of Art. As you say of Duchamp, artists often break conventions to express creativity. It's too easy to define art by the example of somebody renown as Duchamp. Let's try ourselves on the young creators entering the contemporary art scene. And mimicking, no, too easy. It's just cutting corners.
  10. As I said that is perfectly fine. That is the “idea of the family album” or the “projection of uncle Mario’s transparencies or film” of the recent family holiday in the mountains. There is no dispute about it being meaningful to people that are close or recognise any emotional bond with what is shown. But the claim of art is the issue. Mine is: conceded that art is definitely a realm with blurred borders, any “creator” should be careful before claiming it is art and they are an artist. That I observe: that the exposure to so much work has driven uncle Mario outside the circle of the family album or projection and made him mimic the mechanisms of the famous documentary, sports, boudoir photographers. The family album or projection are genuine and candid and are valuable. The constructed and artificial work presented may be less valuable. Even if everybody can do what they are drawn to and pursue their freedom of expression.
  11. I love this. So be it. While I still think that there are many, if not most photos, which the universe does not need at all, I am certain that those who take them have reasons to do so. And as a liberal I cannot even think that something may be done to hinder the free expression of anyone. Therefore I owe complete respect to anyone who feels the urge to photograph, or create in any of the arts or crafts. You mention it It's all very diverse in photography, and very nuanced. I cannot limit myself to looking for those photographers who publish, exhibit, win prizes or are part of renown organisations, because there's more and that's very interesting and I don't want to miss it. The past is important because it sets the basis for the future and the future needs to be looked at. Therefore the contemporary channels and the internet are unavoidable, it's important to keep an open mind because in @inoneeye's "deluge" there are rare pearls. Not because there are no talented photographers, but because the scene is swamped. Those who want and need to take the n-th picture of Half Dome, of the sunset, of their dog or evening meal should be free to do so. But I still need to speak up for awareness, humility, knowledge and honesty.
  12. Sure. And after Leonardo da Vinci some quite interesting portrait work was done by a few other painters, Pablo Picasso for example.
  13. Thank you @samstevens. I use the concept of responsibility in a broad sense. As I said, I consider responsibility in respect to history of photography, the body of photographic work that exists. Then there is responsibility to subjects and viewers. Barthes identifies three practices the Operator (the photographer) the Spectator (those who view) the person or thing photographed (the referent, the target). in my opinion, all three are equally responsible for the picture and what they want to take (the Operator); see (the Spectator); and show (the referent, in case it's a human being). Of course responsibility has many levels the one in respect to history of photography is very loose and may embed some degrees of subjectivity: it is responding to the question whether the picture we see, which is always rooted in reality, in any way is additional to the documentation of the reality of the world which surrounds us; you yourself refer to "uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow". Beyond subjectivity, these adjectives are applied with reference to some categories: ethical, moral, aesthetic, documental. It's always a comparison. I am not questioning these categories, everyone is free to consider them valid or not. And there is a lot of influence of the current social values (think of the "free" 1920s and the much more rigid 1940s. And the prior Victorian age). and the there is a more significant responsibility when it come to issues which you define "exploitive, abusive or worse" and "propaganda and exploitation": these are ethical to begin with, but then may become legal cases. As I see it, all three practices mentioned above have the responsibility for the visual results: photographer with how they construct the picture (if they have a choice); the viewer with what they choose to view (and they have a choice); and the subject, or target, with how they choose to present themselves (if they have a choice). I don't deny that I'm subjective in my criticism, but I claim to be openminded and welcoming, watching the pictures I'm presented looking for "the potential that there’s something personal or unique about this nude for the photographer who made it". In the deluge I'm often disappointed. My annoyance, if you will, comes from the fact that any self-criticism is evidently absent, in relation to some knowledge of what photography has been so far. Do I want to have my own Lisa Lyon or Tina Modotti, or my own "In my room"? Fine. But if my own version does not add anything, I should be careful in making claims about my ability to communicate visually through photography. It's not about the photographer, or any of the three practices mentioned, which need to be respected always. It's about the relationship with the work and its visual communication.
×
×
  • Create New...