Norma Desmond

<p>Ilia, I'm not sure it's necessarily about the personality of the photographer <em>instead of</em> admiring the pictures themselves. It's usually about both.</p> <p>Art is such a very human endeavor that it makes sense to me part of a discussion would be about the expression of the person who made it. The virtues of a photo are often tied to what vision of the world it is giving me. It's this vision and it's not that vision. That's because I know there's a person with a perspective, personality, feeling, a mind and heart behind that camera.</p> <p>If I were looking at photos made from a camera on auto-pilot set up in the town square to take pictures at such-and-such an interval, I might only be interested in the picture without reference to who made it and why, though even then it would be interesting to connect the tone of the photos with how they were being made. But when there is a human face behind that camera, all sorts of things are going to occur to me beyond literally what is pictured or what is in the picture.</p> <p>A camera is as much an expressive tool as it is a recording device. This is one reason why I don't fully buy what I find to be some coldness in Winogrand's famous statement about taking pictures to see what things look like photographed. I mean, I do buy it in that it's a significant way to understand photos and a revelation about his own approach. But you will never find me limiting photos to just that, even Winogrand's.</p> <p>Artists say things, and they're worth listening to and sometimes profound. But they rarely if ever delimit what they're doing. For me, they're words are just a start in understanding and relating.</p>

<p>Yes, I consider it art.</p> <p>(Lex may well be right that Winogrand would scoff at labeling his photos art. That's fine. I still would consider them art. As I understand it, though, it's not a straight question of "Is is art?" It's "Is it art if Winogrand didn't complete the process?" Would Winogrand have to have seen it all the way through in order for it to even have the chance of being art?)</p> <p>The article is about differing approaches to and methods of doing photography. The contrast is stark between Stieglitz and Winogrand, and IMO the photos that eventually result from each of them pressing the shutter can both be art, despite the differences in methodology. The process is different and authorship concerns are different. It may just be harder to attribute sole authorship to Winogrand because others are so involved in the making of the photos. (How good the photos are is a different question.)</p> <p>Plays are written by someone who then lets the play come alive, most often interpreted by a director and actors, often substantially changing what the playwright may have originally had in mind.</p> <p>Is a Beethoven Piano Sonata only a work of art if Beethoven performs it but not when someone else does? I'd have to answer, "No." It's art no matter who performs it.</p> <p>The article gives me a chance to recognize the various methods employed by different photographers in achieving a photo. Winogrand cared most about getting the shot and was not as involved in finishing it up. Weston, for example, had a much more hands-on approach all the way through to the final print. For me, it's not whether one is more of an artist. It's recognizing that photos get formed in all sorts of ways, and are often the product of a collaboration, even in cases where only one person becomes famous for the work but is supported by gaggles of people who may have helped realize the dream.</p> <p>This is also a good reminder of how important curators are and how much of an art is the culling and editing, the presentation, and the exhibition itself. Most of us view photos/art that is exhibited and the means of exhibition has a big effect on our viewing experience. The curator and the museum designers are part of that collaborative effort and extremely important to the process.</p>

<p>A while back, all photos that had been submitted with no titles suddenly had the title "Untitled" below them on our portfolio critique pages. That lasted for a day or two until the glitch was fixed. After being fixed, photos that were submitted without a title had no text below them, as it had always been. The error seems to be happening again. Photos I've submitted without a title are again being labeled "Untitled." This is happening to new photos I submit as well as photos that have been in my portfolio for some time with no title appearing below them. I prefer having the choice to submit my photos with no title below them. If I want to title them "Untitled," I can do so. Thanks for looking into this.</p> <p>Is this an intentional change or a mistake? If the latter, can it be corrected? If the former, would you reconsider?</p>

<p><em>"All though we cannot avoid it, language is a trap when used to discuss art forms other than writing."</em></p> <p>Ellis, I completely disagree though that disagreement is stimulating and welcome.</p> <p>Language is one way to communicate, especially in these forums. I don't know that I see much difference between "the work itself" and "our varying interpretations of it." It's not like there's a work out there that can be accessed or experienced without someone's perspective on it. That's all we got, I'm afraid, is our perspective with which to view it. To experience a photo is to <em>experience</em> the photo, which takes the one experiencing as well as the photo. I wouldn't know how to separate the experience of the photo from the "photo itself."</p> <p>For me, language is not a trap at all when it comes to art, though I hear similar sentiments expressed a lot. IMO, language is one means we can use to share ideas and to share our experiences. I could remain mute and still have my wonderful experience of Erwitt's photo. But then I couldn't participate in a discussion forum, which is what I'm here to do. Words aren't necessary to photography. But they are necessary to a discussion. I am not here photographing. I am here discussing. I think the trap is in the assumption that words are a trap. For me, words are a significant accompaniment and means of communication. Photos communicate among other things. So words often seem totally appropriate.</p> <p>When others, such as Allen, speak, I don't assume they're trying to speak for the photo. I assume they're speaking for themselves and revealing a little of their experience of the photo. Listening and sharing in this way can be of great benefit in broadening my own experience, understanding, insight, and feeling. Otherwise I'd be out of here in a nano-second. Why would I enter a discussion forum if I thought discussing photos / using language was a trap?</p>

<p><em>"The photograph is a posed/ candid photograph. The stiffness of a posed photo is combined with a freedom of movement emphasizing the character's and insights into their persona. They are movements of life...as alive as the time the photograph was taken. Unlike most posed photographs which dwell on stiffness, self awareness....the characters are breaking away offering more of themselves."</em></p> <p>Here we have a wonderful and astute description of a photo in the English language, belying the claim that "A photograph has its own language, it does not have to be explained with another language." Now, of course it's true that it does not HAVE TO be explained with another language, but Allen has shown how effectively a photo CAN BE explained with another language. Thanks, Allen.</p> <p>What's also nice is that others are willing to do this as well, and it's so great to hear everyone who participates in these threads describe and explain what they're seeing when they look at the photos, as well as all the other great insights and info shared.</p>

<p>Matt, as we've both said, it's outside the scope of this thread, so perhaps it would have been best to leave it outside of this thread to begin with and perhaps it would be a good idea to stop now.</p> <p>What kind of photographic tool it is and what kinds of results are showing up seems photography-related. They've got potential to be used creatively and expressively. If they become or are discussed as merely another wonder of technology, much akin to the driving force behind ever increasingly-sharp lenses, I'll lose interest quickly. Much remains to be seen.</p>

<p>Matt is correct that a political discussion of the regulations is beyond the scope of this thread, but since California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein was singled out (she has sometimes been used a convenient punching bag with high name recognition for certain political interests), it's probably worth mentioning that, for example, in Texas, Lance Gooden, a Republican state representative, introduced and helped pass drone restrictive legislation through the Assembly which Republican Governor Rick Perry has already signed. </p>

<p>I am very much in favor of drone regulation. Just as I am in favor of regulating who drives on the road, at what age, and under the influence of what substances. (I know people break the laws but I'm still glad we have licenses and driving regulations.) I know it's very popular to talk about senators and congresspeople who are ignorant and don't care, but that's no excuse for not allowing regulatory agencies to at least try to keep things safe and running smoothly and equitably for the common good.</p> <p>I'd advise checking out the credentials of anyone writing about drones and their regulation to see what their general thoughts about regulation are . . . for instance environmental protections. You will get a better feel for how much is specifically about drones and how much is specifically about governmental intervention.</p>

<p>The lamp is like a fifth member of the family, perhaps an eccentric aunt, cleverly stuffed into the corner of the frame and slightly tilted as if having knocked back a couple already. The family is seated uncomfortably close together (even for a family), not using up any of the extra space at the other end of the couch. As posed as this feels, I feel like I'm getting a lot from the people themselves and there's a very candid kind of engagement.</p> <p>It's a photo of the Potwup family of Detroit, taken in 1962. No back story I could find.</p> <p>In true Erwitt fashion, I'm getting at least as much if not more expression from the poses and the perspective of the shot as I am from the faces. Here's a case where I don't get a feeling for anyone's "essence" or as if I'm seeing through to the "souls" of these people.* It's something else. Isn't it?</p> <p>_________________________________________</p> <p>*This is not a criticism, just an observation.</p>

<p>Things I love about fireworks are their aliveness, the sense of community in being with other families at the beach, the smiles on the kids' faces, the taste of the salty air, the faint smell of smoke, the reflections of color on the breakers, straining your neck to look up, the sound of the cracks and booms. One redeeming feature about the video is that I could turn the sound down to silence Bocelli, though he seems absolutely appropriate to the filmed experience. For me, the video is a technological reduction, lacking in the human and natural perspective and qualities that are so much a part of fireworks displays.</p>

<p><em>"So how can we help improve PN?"</em></p> <p>What I do is seek ways to improve my own experience. I'm on the lookout for different and interesting photographers and I encourage even some humdrum photographers I encounter by engaging honestly with them. We were all probably a little humdrum before we got to be fascinating! :-)</p> <p>If my experience improves by taking a proactive role, I don't have to worry too much about what seems to be a disappearing and unengaged website as a whole and I don't have to worry too much about all those who've left for feeling unfulfilled. I put effort into what I can control, which is my own little corner of the universe. Each ripple effects the whole. The biggest ripples will be created by administration and considerations beyond my understanding and caring and that may have to please and excite the most people, so popular will often win out in a lot of the decision-making. I can provide alternatives to what's popular and hope that just a few people will be interested in stepping out of the mainstream and into a corner somewhere where we can still give to the whole but without compromising our aesthetics and intent. I make sure to respond to everyone who comments on my work and I also will then comment on one of their photos, not always providing a like for a like, but simply returning the favor of some comment, be it positive or negative/constructive. I will often comment on the photos of those people who've taken the time to rate me as well, as a gesture of community-building.</p> <p>So what can we do right here? Yesterday, I had already taken the bull by the horns and commented on one of your photos, J, as a gesture of photographic camaraderie and also because it stood out to me for a variety of reasons when I saw it in your portfolio.</p>

<p>Lex, it's like your my twin! I did the same thing recently. Spent several hours rating, mostly to see what was being offered beyond the circle of people I normally check in on because I've grown to like them and/or their work. I've also felt this community disintegrating and becoming less and less engaged, including administration, so felt I should put some effort into engaging in the various methods available here. Like you, I had to force myself to rate things because there was so much worthy of simply ignoring. And I also couldn't help but notice how many folks were posting 4 new pieces of crap per day, seemingly every day of the week. I'm pretty good about giving honest critiques and I think because I usually back my negative critiques up with some understandable rationale, even if the photographer disagrees with me, they usually appreciate my thoughts. Often, they actually seem to think I've made good points and claim to learn things. I certainly do learn things myself when I get insightful critiques, which I often do having developed relationships over the years with people who seem to care. An insightful critique doesn't always have to be a criticism. It can be a sincere emotional reaction without an accompanying judgment about the photo <em>per se</em>. I still do have productive dialogues on many critique pages. I'm in the midst of a few right now, as a matter of fact.</p>

<p>Conni,</p> <p>I think one of the results of mate rating is getting visibility for one's photos on the top-rated photos page. I think people assume (and it's probably the case) that some PN members peruse the top-rated photos regularly thinking they will see good stuff. (My own experience is that the top-rated photos pages often contain particularly bad stuff: dead on the inside, super-saturated and over-sharpened on the outside, but that's another story.) So when they game their photos and get them high rates by rating their friends' photos with high scores, they are in effect getting "publicity" for their photos.</p> <p>Also, when one gets so accustomed to lying and cheating, one tends to forget one is doing that and actually becomes convinced that the high rates are real as opposed to being stolen, faked, and manipulated. The ability for humans to fool ourselves probably knows no bounds. The method of achieving the high rates is completely forgotten and the high rate just seems to stand as some sort of trophy. It is, as you say, a complete lie, but to those doing this it's not perceived as a lie, and my guess is that even if they were confronted with the fraud of it all, they'd rationalize it in some way, using self-serving reasoning and illogic.</p>

<p>Ellis and Dan, if I had to use one word to sum up Erwitt's style it would be <em>droll</em>. His photos show a distinctive wittiness in presenting humorous, ironic, and sometimes even absurd situations that seem to very organically grow out of the otherwise ordinariness of those same situations. His style consists in sometimes using scale to heighten the juxtapositions he's "focusing" on and he also often cuts things off or allows interruptions or distractions into a frame that help tell an amusing tale he has in mind.</p> <p>I find his style less visually compelling than many other photographers, instead leaning to concept, cleverness, idea, narrative, and outright jokery. I've seen one very well done exhibit of his work at the International Center for Photography in NYC. Because I found it less visually stimulating and acute than other photographers and found his work often to rely on the equivalent of visual puns (and sometimes even what I consider to be somewhat sophomoric humor), I didn't come away terrifically moved but nevertheless appreciated the experience and learned from it and still took much away from the show. There's a lot to get out of his work even if it doesn't appeal to me as much as other types of work.</p> <p>I think the group portrait you singled out for the OP is among his best because he seems to combine photographic finesse, in terms of perspective, scale, and emphasis, with the characters he seems both to be capturing and simultaneously creating. I really liked many of his political documentary photos and was more moved by some of his "social commentary" photos.</p>

<p>I'd recommend you pass those emails onto administration. There are definitely ways people game the system and administration should address people who are monitoring their ratings and complaining to people who've been generous enough to take the time to rate.</p> <p>I rarely rate over 5 unless a photo is pretty exceptional, which most are not.</p> <p>I rarely get average ratings over 4 and, judging by the top-rated photos here, that's a badge of honor. I'm very understanding that a lot of people don't like my work and wouldn't realistically expect it to be otherwise. I am fine with people having different taste from me and expressing that in words or ratings. I'm happy with the 3s I get because at least I know someone bothered to look at my photos and appreciate that they took the time to push a button with a rate. Think how many people DON'T do that.</p> <p>You're adding to the sense of community here by putting some energy into rating and anyone who doesn't appreciate that and can't put the ratings into a realistic perspective ought to, as you say, get a life! A real one.</p>

<p>I think Alan makes a good point but I also think there's a different side of it. I think a good cinematographer also has to think fluidly and narratively. Sure, they would have a proclivity to know what makes a good still (though clearly many don't translate their skills into still photography for a reason) but they have to think the bigger picture of the film as well and have to consider movement, transitions, supporting a story line, and often working much more as part of a team (though photographers do this as well in some contexts). So much of good film is about more than fixed or still composition and is about how a camera moves around a room or scene.</p> <p>What I learn from movies does not so much come from looking at their images as a series of stills and putting too much emphasis on the composition of particular shots (though of course I do notice and appreciate these things). For me, a movie is more about getting a feel for narrative and storytelling, which is often very important to my own photography. It's from accepting it as a very different (although in some respects similar) medium to the one I've chosen and appreciating aesthetic elements that I can translate from movies to still photography.</p> <p>A movie is really no more a series of stills (in that it's much greater than merely the sum of its parts) than a dance is a series of sculptural poses.</p>

<p>It usually comes out early Tuesday morning but hasn't appeared yet (as of late Tuesday night).</p>

<p>Michael, if a water mark is meant to protect the work, then its being inconspicuous would undermine its purpose and usefulness. Text within a border around the photo can be cropped out in an instant. A small signature placed off in a corner could most likely easily be cloned out.</p> <p>That being said, I don't use watermarks for precisely the reason you mention, they're unsightly and interfere with the experience of a photo (in most cases). The Internet is an important viewing medium and often the only one that's going to convey my photos to others or theirs to me. As there are billions of photos circling around the Internet, I'm not too concerned about maintaining control over the integrity of my images. When they're out there, they're out there.I use only low resolution jpgs for Internet purposes. If people want to steal them and claim them as their own, it doesn't present me with much of a problem or at least I don't find the aesthetic tradeoff worth the protection the water mark supposedly offers. If I had my 'druthers, I'd prefer people didn't do things like steal images, but I'd also like everyone not to cheat on their taxes and not to spit their chewing gum on the street . . . there isn't much chance of my controlling any of it.</p> <p>Most of the time when I see these logos and signatures, they do get in the way and they just seem silly and a little too protectively possessive to me. But I've also become used to them and they've become more like background noise than a major irritant. It's like the stupid logos now in the corner of every TV screen or the iPhone screens that light up before the applause ends at any play, movie, or concert I go to see. Just part of the modern-day experience of sensory bombardment.</p>

<p>A while back, all photos that had been submitted with no titles suddenly had the title "Untitled" below them on our portfolio critique pages. That lasted for a day or two until the glitch was fixed. After being fixed, photos that were submitted without a title had no text below them, as it had always been. The error seems to be happening again. Photos I've submitted without a title are again being labeled "Untitled." This is happening to new photos I submit as well as photos that have been in my portfolio for some time with no title appearing below them. I prefer having the choice to submit my photos with no title below them. If I want to title them "Untitled," I can do so. Thanks for looking into this.</p>

<p><em>"We all did not have Photoshop to undo our poor shots."</em></p> <p>I think I can fairly say that, as good as I am in using Photoshop as a post processing tool, I've never been able to undo what started out as a poor shot. And I've had my share of poor shots, so I know of what I speak.</p> <p>Most <em>good</em> photographers I know who use Photoshop use it to further interpret their already good shots. It's usually pretty transparent to a discerning eye when someone is putting lipstick on a pig, and it usually doesn't undo a thing.</p> <p><em>"Today, who cares about talent or workmanship?"</em></p> <p>I do. I also care about photos themselves and expressiveness of vision, which often goes beyond what camera is used and how adeptly it's used, though I'm not minimizing the importance of facility with and knowledge of a camera.</p> <p><em>"The most important and popular aspect about most of the discussion I see here now is receiving personal superlatives."</em></p> <p>This I understand. I was going to nominate the "Critique Forum" as the most friendly, precisely because of all the superlatives and "support" I often see which seem to generate little controversy or "unfriendliness," though there are certainly acrimonious exceptions. I wonder if friendliness can be overrated when it comes to honestly assessing photos and helping ourselves improve. I'm not advocating disrespect, which is another matter, but I'd submit that, in the criticism-oriented threads (and I don't follow many of the threads mentioned here so I'm not making any claims about them) the friendliest threads I've read through are in many cases the least interesting, least constructive, and least passionate.</p> <p>The Beginner Forum is usually friendly and also often constructive.</p>

<p>As good a photo as it is, and the description given by James strikes a chord, it also feels like a sort of cultural family snapshot of a personal kind, that family being my generation. It is a memento from having grown up with the Beatles and in the 60s. It is a keepsake in the most palpable and significant way that a photo can be such a thing. It is joy, it is fun, it is each individual and it is the group, which was so much more than their sum, totally in sync in this moment as they so often were . . . and then weren't!</p> <p>This photo is alive, as any vivid memory is alive, both altered and unaltered by time.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks for all the hard work and attention, Jin.</p> <p>I still continue to get the Bad Gateway 502 error throughout the day, on and off. The good news is I haven't received any of the 503 or 504 errors.</p> <p>I'd be curious if others continue to get the 502. I'm on an older Mac OX operating system with an older version of Safari, which could be the culprit if the problem has been solved for most everyone else. </p>

<div></div>

<p>That's where I think Michael has made a very good point, and Ellis had already brought it up earlier, in bringing abstraction into the mix.</p> <p>Because a photo is a stilled moment, it may be operating, in some ways, at a more abstract level than a lot of other means by which we might encounter a subject. For me, a still photo commands in many instances a heightened focus of attention on its subject that greatly affects the portrayal of that subject. And because the subject is taken out of time and often out of context, a natural abstraction (even when the subject is completely recognizable) takes place. That sense of abstraction occurs even in genres other than "abstract" photos, because of the time and space changes. This may be why a photo can strike us uniquely and in a very special way and I think saying that the photo captures the essence is really just a way to express that specialness without really necessarily meaning we have encountered the property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is. I think most people who claim a photo captures the essence mean that the photo captures something very special for them and has clued them into something and focused their attention in a significant way. And they're right, unless we get so hung up on the word "essence" that we miss their actual point.</p>