Jump to content

tom_kondrat

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tom_kondrat

  1. reply by moaning about how you cannot find anything using Google

    .

     

    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. No, neither Eggleston nor Kitchen Sink photography (i prefer that over present day constructions like "banalography") were inspired or driven by nostalgia.

     

    It is said of Eggleston that he borrowed from Photorealism. I don't know if that is correct. But also not that it would not be. Photorealism had its own motivation, reacting to abstract expressionism. And to the booming image culture, with photos (imagery in general) becoming too overwhelmingly present in all media, deflating the value of the image as such. (Pop art made ridicule of the imagery. Not something Photorealists appreciated.)

    And it is true that Photorealism, in their attempt to rescue the value of the (painted) image, produced images of rather banal things. But did Eggleston borrow from them? I don't know.

    And it's not his main 'selling point'. Eggleston broke the rule that Black and White was for Art and other serious types of Photography, colour photography for holiday snaps. He crossed the border, wiped it off the map, between serious and banal photography with that alone.

    But then, we all know Ansel Adams. And yes, we all know his B&W work. But his colour work is less known. Despite Eggleston. It lasted till Martin Parr, who finally landed colour in 'serious' (Magnum, right? Can't be more serious than that) photojournalism.

     

    And Martin Parr too is an example of turning away from using photography to idealise either the subject matter, or the process, or the photographer, but instead of showing ordinary people and the ordinary things that they get up to. Banal. Echoes of Eggleston, perhaps?

    Is he, Parr, in your paper, Tom? I forget.

     

    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. I don’t think it’s an unrecognized genre of photography. Seems to me it’s been recognized and explored for decades. It is, however, a fascinating part of photography and one that can be further explored. Rather than approaching it as unrecognized, I’d be more interested in an approach that explores some as yet unexplored possibilities. Can a connection be made between cell phone picture-taking and banality among younger (and/or older) photographers who are using their phone cams creatively? Is there a new angle you might find to address this kind of photography? Something I’d be interested in questioning is whether banal photos can last or if, after a few decades, they take on too much nostalgia to be considered banal anymore. Forgive me if you covered some of this. I also couldn’t read your work because of the software constraints I ran into on my iPad. Regardless, I admire your inquisitiveness and wish you much luck with the project.

     

    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. Lomography ? , is this not the film camera version of this "new " genre ? :rolleyes: :D.

    ""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. Can one (me?) claim that Weston's Pepper #30 is "perfectly banal"? Weston got banal before Eggleston, and so did many others. Check out Andre Kertesz, Fork, Paris 1928, can a composition be more 'banal' and yet more profound that this? Or are these two examples too absolutely gorgeous and artistic to be in the new banal category?

     

    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).

    • Like 2
  6. In my uneducated opinion, Tom, your mention of a combination of the poetic and the bizarre very well might be considered another subclass of abstract photography. Your thoughts . . .

    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.

     

    Can one (me?) claim that Weston's Pepper #30 is "perfectly banal"? Weston got banal before Eggleston, and so did many others. Check out Andre Kertesz, Fork, Paris 1928, can a composition be more 'banal' and yet more profound that this? Or are these two examples too absolutely gorgeous and artistic to be in the new banal category?

    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.

    • Like 1
  7. No shortage of great examples for #banalography on twitter, facebook, tumblr...etc.

    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?

     

     

    Banal photography should be a popular genre particularly when an art context is asserted. Why? I reckon because it is inherently failure proof. What possible negative criticisms could be leveled at it? Boring, dull, uninteresting, commonplace, ordinary, trite, superficial, shallow, unimaginative; no, they're not flaws in the genre but rather its virtues.

    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.

  8.  

    Some would compare that with the state of being drunk or under the influence of drugs - so I'm told.;)

     

    Apparently that was a state very familiar to William Eggleston.

     

    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).

  9. The banality lies in the pretence that what is photographed is 'special' and worth our attention, either 'because it is', or because the photographer elected to make it the subject of her or his attention.

    A reaction to that is to photograph things without that pretence, everyday things from our normal life that we do not pay any special attention to, just because these things are just that.

    Fake v. Genuine.

     

    The first is a genre that grew on its own dirt. The result of far too many people believing that what they produce holds an interest to anyone besides themselves.

    The second is a genre that is worth our while, because it draws attention to the nonsense we humans get up to, and documents our true, genuine lives.

     

    “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

    • Like 1
  10. Oh Dear , must EVERYTHING be put into little boxes , why not just enjoy taking pictures regardless.

    :D.

    I do enjoy taking pictures. I don't enjoy doing a research about something that is so difficult to find.

     

    So, then, isn’t “banal” a nod to the New York Times critic? :)

    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.

  11. I've been taking banal photo's for at least the last 50years does this make me a trailblazer or a follower.

    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.

     

    For the type of work you’ve presented, I’ve tended use mundane, maybe a little more neutral a term (?)

    Mundane - commonplace, everyday, ordinary

    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.

     

    When it's good, it's pretty good, but also it can be quite.... "banal" at times, perhaps too much so? In the end, is there a difference between banal photos and just plain uninteresting photos? One does need to draw a line somewhere, I suppose, eh?

    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...

    • Like 1
  12. 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:

     

    4e39ef4d5d2fdde93f7c558fae304e5e_0.jpg

     

    william-eggleston-untitled-1970-dolls.jpg

     

    Peter Fraser:

     

    Fraser_Peter_2.jpg

     

    TSI_P_Fraser_Untitled_2006_.jpg

     

    Teju Cole:

     

    http://www.tejucole.com/wp-content/uploads/092_cole_9780399591075_art_r1.jpg

     

    teju-cole-brienzersee-june-2014.jpg

     

    Stephen Shore:

     

    Slide_Misc_20_8x10_web.jpg

     

    shore-slides-8.jpg

     

    Wolfgang Tillmans:

     

    TILLMAN2.jpg

     

    132_001.jpg

     

     

    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.

     

    18676109-orig.jpg

     

     

    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.

    • Like 5
  13. 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.
  14. The problem is in scanning. Light of the scanner lamp bleeds around the negative, and the software turns it into this orangy colour.

    So mask properly when scanning.

    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'?

  15. 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)

  16. I noticed there is a problem with some of the pictures taken with Mamiya RB67 + 65mm f4.5 lens. You can see a brighter spot of light almost in the middle of the image (it almost looks like a smoke). This happens only in situations when the subject is quite dark but the background is very bright (please see attached photographs).

    I went to the camera repair shop. They said it's not caused by a light leak. It's usually the problem with the lens (some mold) but they checked it and it had no problems.

    I've read that when using UV filters (mine is not very expensive) there can be some flares occuring on the images. Could that be the problem?

    Has anyone ever experienced something similar? Could you kindly help me to solve this issue? Thank you very much!

     

    79600004.thumb.jpg.ed6ac1a063d237be946eab0d0d066fc4.jpg

     

    IMG_9914.thumb.jpg.70fe5772b302b1489963f10c25d5e356.jpg

     

    IMG_9915.thumb.jpg.a1a2cef9c0fd633adeaedb4179680e15.jpg

     

    IMG_9916.thumb.jpg.adfe62fa8d3719f7cc2acb57fe03e189.jpg

     

    rb67_088.thumb.jpg.748c5b251a9d8efc8b76e6038c248e45.jpg

     

    rb67_091.thumb.jpg.f10c03b39b8d48b7eae5a070b8e199cf.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...