frankie_bellocchio

<p>Hi Arthur, thanks for such an interesting thread. I haven't time to get into a reply that would do the subject real justice right now, but just wanted to comment on what you said about making a feature of digital or analog artifacts - "I love the geometrical form and assemblages of pixels that extreme “blow-ups” of digital imagery procures and wonder why we are not using that environment more in our images".</p>

<p>Contrary to your statement that this avenue has not been sufficently explored, I believe this is actually an aesthetic that has been much <em>overused</em> in the last decade. I'll try to track down some examples to back up this claim if I have time, but for now it will have to remain based in anecdotal evidence: there was a period around 4 or 5 years ago when visiting some European art fairs that I saw so much work that used digital "faults" as an aesthetic gimmick that I become utterly bored by them. Admittedly not all this work was photography - much of it was painting mimicking the pixelation of digital imagery - but I have seen a suficient amount over the years (even in fashion photography, which tends to just recycle ideas from the art world rather than innovate) that I am not really sure there is still much new to be discovered in this avenue of artistic research.</p>

<p>With the number of artists now using google street view as a source of "photography" the pixelated look is now everywhere. Although admittedly the pixelation here is more of an unintentional/undesired by-product of technological limitation than down to a conscious decision to explore said limitations.</p>

<p>for me <em>creativity</em> is a way of life, photography is just one way of being creative...</p>

<p>this thread is already way too advanced for me to read through all the replies, so i appologise if this has already been said (fairly sure it will have been), but photography was NEVER about truthful representation of real life even from the start (somethign i consider fairly impossible), so its not like the introduction of new technologies has had such a huge effect... beyond just highlighting this fact.</p>

<p>as in any artform, there are rules, and those rules are often broken with considerable success by the truly talented.<br>

yes, practising makes a better musician, but not necessarily better music: this is, apart from anything else, a matter of taste.<br>

the punk period has been cited above as one example. another might be hip hop in its early days: the pioneers generally didnt even know what a musical key was, never mind what key they were composing in.<br>

i can think of many examples of photographers who produced groundbreaking work using nothing more than an automatic point and shoot camera. Richard Billingham's book Ray's A Laugh is one clear example.<br>

Nick Waplington's early work is another (although he was a little more technically sophisticated than Billingham)<br>

Of course, to anyone who values correct exposure over all else, this work will no doubt be ultra-offensive to the eye. But this is just your personal opinion, and many others (including major collectors and museums) beg to disagree.<br>

However, yes, technical knowledge and know-how is rarely a hindrance. And those who get lost in the technical side of things to the detriment of creativity probably do so out of choice and would have never produced anything significant anyway as they revel in the technical rather than creation.</p>

<p>So far people seem mostly to be concentrating on photos (or, more accurately, photographers) which have as their goal the "communication" or "evoking" (as opposed to telling) of a specific story (i.e. photojournalism) and whether or not they succeed in this, whereas in recent years a number of photographers have explored other more interesting angles, namely the "telling" of fluid, non specific, "open" stories. I.e. situations which i think are left deliberately ambiguous and ill-defined so as to allow the viewer the chance to create their own narratives.<br>

A couple of examples I can think of are the fashion photographer Robert Wyatt ( http://www.robertwyatt.net/ ), and artist / photographer Nigel Bennett ( http://www.bennettism.com/ ). While Wyatt mostly creates campaigns for luxury fashion brands, he often manages to bring in an extra soemthing lacking in other commercial photographer's work: a subtlety and intelligence that doesnt patronise the viewer (see his campaign for Prada for example).<br>

Of course, this "openess" to interpretation is present in any image or photo, regardless as to whether the photographer intended such a thing or not - as the viewer will always interpret the work as colored by their own personal experiences. but what is interesting about the photos of both Bennet and Wyatt is an apparent acknowledgment by the photographer of the futility of trying to fix a meaning and instead they seem to strive for a deliberate open-endedness, inviting the viewer to participate in the storytelling. Or in other words, rather than dictating outcomes, they provide the raw materials that permit the viewer to "tell" the story his/herself.</p>

[<B>Moderator's note:</b> Please do not upload photos that are not your own; it's a violation of copyright laws and of photo.net's Terms of Use.]

<p>do you really think the dead would mind? most people probably wouldnt care if they were living, even less likely to when dead</p>

<p>photoshop has its uses, but the overly retouched look of some (particulalrly fashion and other commercial) photography now is just downright ugly. i got no problem in people using photoshop as an aid to creating a great image, or removing the odd imperfection/distraction, but creating either a> impossible objects of desire, or (more frequently these days) hideous monstrosities is just silly. everything in moderation.</p>

<p>well youve already received lots of sensible and useful answers, so maybe i can take the liberty of saying that its not the lens that makes a good portrait but the photographer. and that equally there <em>is</em> no correct or incorrect lens...it all depends on the situation, personal taste and the effect you are trying to achieve.<br>

although, having said this, wide-angle lenses really arent all that flattering on people, its true.<br>

but of course that may be the effect you want? everything has its time and place.</p>