Jump to content

je ne regrette rien

Members
  • Posts

    2,363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by je ne regrette rien

  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.
  14. @samstevens It was you who brought up responsibility. In photography I associate responsibility with ethics and aesthetics. I concede that with both the boundaries are blurred, but I certainly know when certain confines are crossed. For me. Is the freedom of producing whatever photographs one feels like equal to my freedom to be annoyed?
  15. I've given it a thought and, ontologically, photos of nudes are no different than any other picture. There are several levels of responsibility involved: aesthetics: the ugly ones, the wrong ones, the ones that show mistakes that definitely are not "intentionally broken rules" towards history of photography and the overall body of photographs: does it make sense to add another nude body against a back drop (for example). The same question obviously applies to sunsets, kittens and puppies and people walking on streets, etc. Here there are the shallow ones manipulation: the dishonest ones that use gimmicks merely to attract attention exploitation or abuse, which is particularly bad in the case one of the actors in a picture is weaker than the other. Subjects of photographs can be exploited by photographers and photographers can be exploited by subjects. All applicable to all genres. Does nude photography or photographs of the naked make a particular case?
  16. I could not agree more! But the past drives the future, if it's good. (definitely a very well chosen tagline of yours, I quoted it and only after that I became aware that Sam did the same.) 😎😎😎 Here we may want to agree to disagree. Look at the relevant sections here on Photo.net, at moderate and restricted pictures on Flickr, 1x, etc. There are well-known names who keep repeating themselves since decades. That said, we are free, therefore I'm fully supporting you if you don't care at all about I do. And I do care so much about present and future photographers, of nudes and all other genres, that I am upset to have to search for non-clichéd, non-banal photographs, just like a gold searcher for golden nuggets. Or maybe golden straws. In the deluge of pictures produced nowadays.
  17. To me, too often the nude - the naked I would say - is the end in itself. It’s trying to stand out in the deluge, @inoneeye’s perfect expression. Perfectly groomed models in boudoir environments; or in ruined buildings, in front of the same backdrop with the same lighting schemes. Photos, which obviously aim to provoke a sexual response. Photos, which a gynaecologist or andrologist may take. And then the rare ones: the nude pictures, which are necessary to capture the essence of a human being, in the wider context of their lives. The representation of the context may be wide or just a thin “slice” of life, but it is absolutely recognisable in a body of work. Unfortunately, since not everybody who would deserve it makes it to a curated book or an exhibition, it is necessary to browse through a lot of debris to find rare gems.
  18. At the Yubba river the initial intention might have been the juxtaposition of the form of the model’s body with the curves of the surrounding boulders. It became something else as @samstevens points out. I would love to see the frames before and after! This “external event” makes it “pornographic about nudity” as @inoneeye says, but more important, focusing on something like a decisive moment, makes it visually something completely different: I would guess that the whole portion of the scene on the upper left is added, where there is an undifferentiated mass of rocks but also some boulders resembling a reclining giant raising the head. Had the purpose been to present the concept of voyeurism, probably a longer lens would have been needed to balance foreground and background. The sculptures and the multiple exposure are highly symbolic in my eyes, in totally different way. In the first one, with a splendid subject, photography is only one means to express a concept. In the second the metaphor is evident. While in my opinion these two pictures need to exist to represent reality, the one with the voyeur happened by chance and is less powerful because of the mentioned constraints of composition, even if it definitely presents the different kinds of relationship between humankind and nudes (voyeurism vs. shapes).
  19. I understand. My point is not about “being better” or any “competition”. I really am not able to come to terms with the fundamental lack of self-criticism and knowledge of history of photography of people who claim to be authors or artists and are fundamentally snapping away. Even with a refined technique. But maybe I should let go. And I’m sure you, and inoneeye, with whom we have been debating since nearly fifteen years here and whose work I know - even if it’s not visible anymore as it was - are well aware of the process that begins with pointing the lens at an interesting subject progresses towards trying to express something visually.
  20. On my part there is nothing about the genre in particular, at all. As a matter of fact is a quote from Martin Parr in a lecture and certainly he was not thinking of photographs of nudes when he spoke. I was comparing my Mapplethorpe, my Leiter, my Weston, my Marianne Müller, and the other authors with what is currently shown today and concluded that little novelty is presented. There are a few, but mostly clichés are proposed. Also from very well known names. So Sam, sorry, it’s not about the genre. It’s about the observation, numbers prove it, that most photographs, of nudes or not, have no reason to exist, because they add nothing to the representation of reality. But in the case of nudes, or better, of naked subjects, mechanisms can be observed that still attract viewers and likes and kudos. More than any other genre. Maybe because of neurophysiological reasons.
  21. Hi inoneeye. I think this is the key. Mine was not a question with the purpose to shutter the genre, or any other genre for that matter, but just to point out that in the majority of pictures they have been done before and so much better. Exceptions are there, but they just confirm the general statement.
  22. Thanks for your interesting, important and challenging questions. On question #1: Upfront I would say that we cannot disregard the specific neurophysiological reaction triggered when viewing the picture of a nude. That makes the difference between watching Tina Modotti on the sandy beach and the pepper, which may be equally pleasing from the strictly visual point of view but not from the overall perceptive point of view. And then comes the narrative around it: William Eggleston’s picture of the red room, which is complemented by the nude portrait of T.C. Boring, the murdered dentist, in the same room, and portraits of the same in other rooms. They show different sides of the same relationship between the photographer and his subject as a representation of life without any hint of erotism. And there’s more to come on this first question.
×
×
  • Create New...