Jump to content

tom_kondrat

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    46

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tom_kondrat

  1. tom_kondrat
    I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. When you google 'kitchen sink photography', you get commercial pictures of ... kitchen sinks. Not the best name for a photography genre imho. There is no reason to be rude. I was curious if you read any articles that would confirm the connection between 'kitchen sink painting' and Eggleston's or Nakahira's work. I could always update the paper but I need to base it on something. I did find that Takuma Nakahira was inspired by Nouveau roman writers, especially Le Clézio. As Eggleston started in 1950s with banalities, it was difficult to see the connection there though.
  2. tom_kondrat
    Please google 'kitchen sink photography' and let me know what results you got :) Is there any research that prove the connection between the British art style called the 'kitchen sink painting' and William Eggleston's photographs (or others like Takuma Nakahira). I did not find any connection like this in my research. Where did you hear about Eggleston (or other photographers) borrowing from photorealism? William Eggleston took black and white, banal photographs in 1950s. Not sure why colour should be automatically connected to banal. 'In 1982 Parr and his wife moved to Wallasey, England, and he switched permanently to colour photography, inspired by the work of US colour photographers, mostly Joel Meyerowitz, but also William Eggleston and Stephen Shore, and also the British Peter Fraser and Peter Mitchell.' I think there were few 'serious', colour photographers before Parr. Also I think Martin Parr's work is documentary or photojournalism photography. Regarding nostalgia - I feel it is highly personal, hence not an objective part of banal. For one person a picture would feel nostalgic, for other not.
  3. tom_kondrat
    according to my research banal photography does not officially exist as a genre of photography. I think it's usually considered as a sub-genre of documentary, street or still life photography.
  4. tom_kondrat
    ""Lomography" as a photographic ethos and style is generally centered on a rejection of the increasing "perfectness" of modern camera lens design, light metering, and final rendered images. The lomography style tends to reject the continued advancement toward cameras that provide sharper, clearer, and more realistic images, and also rejects the heavily refined photo shoots that orchestrate every aspect of the final image. Lomography seeks to exploit the interpretive and expressive nature of what might otherwise be considered "imperfect" images resulting from the use of low-fidelity cameras and film stocks."
  5. tom_kondrat
    I can see that quite a few people gets fixated on the word 'new'. It is my fault as I didn't use the best wording for the title of this post. Unfortunately I cannot change it now. If I could, I would have written: 'Banalography - unrecognized genre of photography. A debate.' Let's forget about the word 'new' and try to focus on the essence, shall we?
  6. tom_kondrat
    I finished writing my critical inquiry about banalography and I would like to share the results. Although I know it is not perfect, I did spend quite a lot of time on that. If at least one person finds it interesting or inspiring, then it would make me really happy: https://issuu.com/tomkondrat/docs/banalography
  7. tom_kondrat
    I feel that although the subjects of Weston's and Kertesz' photographs are banal in their nature, they actually belong to Still Life Photography genre. Why? Because the light and the setting has been changed a lot of times that it doesn't feel like a candid photograph any more which is, in my opinion, important to banal photography (banalography).
  8. tom_kondrat
    I made a short presentation video (for my studies) about the subject:
  9. tom_kondrat
    According to Wiki: 'Abstract photography, sometimes called non-objective, experimental or conceptual photography, is a means of depicting a visual image that does not have an immediate association with the object world.' Unlike in abstract photography, the object still matters and is recognizable in banalography. I would argue that both Weston's peppers and Kertesz' forks belong to still life photography. Why? Because there are some many versions of them, so it seems to me that they arranged those objects carefully before taking pictures. I would also put them in the fine art genre as well.
  10. tom_kondrat
    I like this name. I feel it's more catchy and it feels fresh. What do you think guys? Does Banalography sound better than Banal Photography? As with any other genre of photography, I feel the composition, colors, shapes, light, etc. are still important. I would also argue that if the photograph is able to trigger some emotions of sadness/nostalgia/excitement/happiness/... than I believe it is more successful. And perhaps of those personal beliefs, I might disagree slightly with William Eggleston's approach in 'The Democratic Forest'. There are a lot of photographs there that, for me personally, are just not interesting. The other thing is, that it is impossible to say what is more compelling than other, as everyone being different and having different life experiences look at photographs from a distinct perspective.
  11. tom_kondrat
    It reminds me more of the practice of mindfulness. Being drunk definitely doesn't help with the state of heightened awareness (tried). Drugs have the ability to make your awareness over-heightened which can be an obstacle as well (also tried).
  12. tom_kondrat
    “I had this notion of what I called a democratic way of looking around: that nothing was more important or less important.” William Eggleston "If one thing matters, everything matters" Wolfgang Tillmans
  13. tom_kondrat
    'That's more about really looking at the world with attention, seen in the state of heightened awareness.' Stephen Shore
  14. tom_kondrat
    I do enjoy taking pictures. I don't enjoy doing a research about something that is so difficult to find. It's like contrarily to his words, those 'banal' photographs became a style on its own, and that exhibition affected the history of photography. I also used google to see what comes up when you type banal, mundane or ordinary photography. I believe the image results of 'banal photography' fit the best of what I described. After all, I don't try to invent anything new. I just wanted to name what already exists.
  15. tom_kondrat
    Gerald, I did not say that those kind of photographs are new, nor that the style is new. I mean, I showed examples of William Eggleston's photographs... I am just trying to name that genre. Apologies if I created any confusion. Yes, I did think about 'mundane'. Banal is the nod to William Eggleston, who is probably the first 'propagator' of this style. Eggleston's 1976 Guide to America exhibition at New York's Museum of Modern Art - "Perfectly banal, perhaps. Perfectly boring, certainly," was the review in the New York Times. I think you can probably say the same about any other genre in photography. I mean, I've seen lots of uninteresting landscape photography in my life...
  16. tom_kondrat
    I would like to propose an introduction of a new genre in photography. The need to generate a new name came from the frustration that arose when trying to find photographers that shoot, what I would like to offer to call, Banal Photography. Let me try to explain what do I understand by it and how I would define it. Banal Photography is a mix of poetic and bizarre photographs of everyday objects. It has some elements of documentary (documents ordinary things), street (but without people), fine art (uses photography as a medium for creative expression) and still life (photographs of still objects but without arranging them), but it is neither. Let's look at some examples of 'Banal Photography' and consider if we can imagine them in any of the above categories (fair and square). William Eggleston: Peter Fraser: Teju Cole: http://www.tejucole.com/wp-content/uploads/092_cole_9780399591075_art_r1.jpg Stephen Shore: Wolfgang Tillmans: The works of Wendy Morgan (Login • Instagram), Enoch Ku (Login • Instagram) and Natalie Christensen (Login • Instagram) are also great examples. I also created a 'Banal Photography' group on flickr which I believe shows a good variety and a lot of amazing work (Banal Photography). --- According to Wikipedia ([PLAIN]Category:Photography by genre - Wikipedia[/PLAIN]) and other websites (like this one: 106 Types of Photography You Should Know), there are over 130 genres of photography. Even if you remove some that overlap, it is still at least 100. If there is a space for 'Dog Shaming' and 'Lolcat' photography, why not add one more that would make it easier for people to find or identify this style of photography? I believe it is not just about adding yet another label. I feel photographs usually belong to few categories and there is no need to pigeonhole them, but if a new genre is able to describe a certain style better, and that it doesn't really fit anywhere else, then it makes sense to me. Please feel free to add more names of photographers that shoot mainly 'Banal Photography' (or maybe just certain projects) and let me know what you think about the name, and the necessity of creating this genre. --- I understand that not everyone is a fan of this style of photography (I am not a big fan of many genres myself) but I would like to kindly ask for a respectful debate.
  17. tom_kondrat
    Genres Of Photography
  18. tom_kondrat

    tom_kondrat posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

  19. tom_kondrat
    ‘Although Eggleston certainly trains his lens on human subjects, in some ways his photography is more about the human environment – the space around the human – than the human subject itself. This is an important sub-genre in street photography.‘
  20. tom_kondrat
    My motivation behind asking this question was not to try to put a label on Eggleston per se, but to start a discussion about a photography style that doesn't seem to have a name. Recently I made my first YouTube video documenting a behind-the-scenes of my photo walk around Neihu in Taipei ( ). I wasn't sure how to title it as both street and documentary categories did not fully describe that style of photography. I would argue that this style is like a mixture of those two. The closest work that I could compare it to was the work of William Eggleston (The Democratic Forest - William Eggleston) or Takuma Nakahira (Overflow - Takuma NAKAHIRA | shashasha 写々者 - Delivering Japanese and Asian Photography to the World) - and I am obviously not saying in any way that my photographs are as good, just the style. I feel that calling it street or documentary is misleading, hence my question.
  21. tom_kondrat
    And I mean the photographs of the everyday, banal, ordinary things; not the ones with people. Is it street photography, documentary photography, a mix, or something else? What are your thoughts?
  22. tom_kondrat
    Yes, I think you are correct as the negatives look fine. I use Epson V700 with standard film holders. Do you know a way to 'mask properly'?
  23. tom_kondrat
    Most of my photographs have darker edges (especially on the sides). I use Mamiya RB67 + 65mm f4 K/L. What could be the problem?
  24. tom_kondrat
    It was the lend problem. I bought 65mm f4 K/L and it's all good now.
  25. tom_kondrat
    I’ve just noticed that the floating element was set to 1m but the focus was set close to infinity when taking the pictures. could that have created this issue by any chance? or is there a problem with the lens design? (the lens is clean, I checked again)
×
×
  • Create New...