A picture that has always bothered me

*sigh*

OK, look--this is beginning to make me wish I hadn't bothered expressing an opinion on this forum. I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars. And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.

Rick, I have been super patient and respectful of all the differing opinion here, but your response to my last post is weak as hell. Go ahead and debate me on the merits, I welcome it. But spare me the insouciant little turd of a response above.
 
No response is necessary from anyone. Just keep posting these long, mind numbing, ridiculous reasons as to why you do not like a certain photograph. Your own words tell everyone what they need to know.
 
such anger and hatred...soooo funny.

Listen, not everyone will like the same thing, not everyone will agree why they don't like the same thing...that's why it's called an opinion and not a fact, just say why you like it or don't, there's absolutely no point in attacking one another and getting pissy over something trivial like this. Amateurs the lot of you for dragging this thread to this level.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
No response is necessary from anyone. Just keep posting these long, mind numbing, ridiculous reasons as to why you do not like a certain photograph. Your own words tell everyone what they need to know.
Click to expand...

That's your personal opinion and like all personal opinions it sucks big time.


I totally empathize with mabelsound and I'm also sick of Erwitt and many other dinosaurs of photography who refuse to disappear and let the new generation find their own way.
 
Yep. But I don't like the moment he ended up with--I think what he wanted, and perhaps waited for, was irrepresentative of the scene in question--that Erwitt had chosen to make a shallow joke out of a more complex and nuanced scene, and I read this as a kind of dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Here you go again, assuming what Erwitt did, based on your beliefs, not his. Again I say, you have no idea what his thought process was, only what yours is.
You have a right to your opinion of the photograph, but no right to tell us what he was thinking or doing or presuming what the motive for the photograph was.
So you don't like it, good for you, I like it because it shows the difference between men and women.
 
mabelsound said:
*sigh*

OK, look--this is beginning to make me wish I hadn't bothered expressing an opinion on this forum. I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars...

...And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.
Click to expand...


Okay, like.... I don't get it. It's a cliche and apparently a tired subject, but it's also dishonest because it's a unique scene to what one would expect to find?

So I should be finding compelling subjects and photograph them in the most ordinary, "honest" way possible. Is that the formula to a great photograph?

Be gone creativity! I cast thee to the bowels of hell, for thine honesty fails you!
 
I think I've articulated pretty much everything I wanted to here, and then some, so I'll be taking my leave of the thread. I appreciate the intelligent rebuttals. But the rest is keeping my up late, chewing my fingernails. Damn you, internet.

Over and out.

-John.
 
mabelsound said:
I don't like this picture because I think it's a cheap little cliche. I don't think the difference between men and women is interesting, or worth making a photo about--it's the stuff of crap sitcoms and dickheads in bars. And I think it's very plausible that this scene was a coincidence--that, generally speaking, men don't cluster around nude paintings like a bunch of monkeys, and women aren't, generally speaking, prim little things who'd rather look at clothed models. It's a fleeting moment that suggests things are other than what they really are, and that's why it's dishonest.
Click to expand...

😛

Yes, it's like Erwitt had an opinion in his head, and he waited long enough for a scene to appear that fit his opinion. I mean, what is the probablity that gangs of men go to the art gallery to ogle classical nudes? I bet there was a strip joint a couple of blocks away, if they really wanted to ogle nudes, why not go there?

The picture just seems to be overly constructed around a lame idea.
 
Nh3 said:
I totally empathize with mabelsound and I'm also sick of Erwitt and many other dinosaurs of photography who refuse to disappear and let the new generation find their own way.
Click to expand...
It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, IMO, rather then blame someone better-known for not getting outta Dodge already. Erwitt's been at it for one hell of a long time. I've seen a lot of his work, and got the chance to meet him a few times quite a few years back. Images like the one being debated here (perhaps a tad pedantically), might not "date" terribly well, and I certainly like some of his work less than others, but the arguments tossed about here would seem to prove the work in question is anything but shallow. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or feel obliged to offer up a detailed synopsis of why you don't like it (although I'll admit being impressed by a few people here describing why they did like it).

Perhaps his work comes off to some as cliché because of the influence his work had on more than a few up-and-coming photographers over the last few decades. The same has been said about HCB. It ain't their fault, folks.

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. 🙂


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
It's manipulated in that he chose THAT MOMENT instead of one that might have characterized the scene in, perhaps, a more truthful way.
Click to expand...
In one way I understand your point, but in another way I don't get it, because I don't see any necessary relationship between art and truth - a true scene taken a few moments earlier or later simply wouldn't be a photo worth looking at. (In reportage, sure, truth is vital, but not in "photography as amusing art", I don't think). But that is just my opinion, and if you prefer art that tries to portray the human condition truthfully, then I can see why that particular shot might not float your boat.

Also--and this isn't directed at you necessarily, oscroft--I'm kind of surprised that some of you are complaining that I'm making a big deal out of nothing. I mean, if you like art, it seems to me that the best way to express it, other than to make some art of your own, is to discuss and debate its merits. That's how you learn to appreciate it better, and to expose yourself to alternate viewpoints. Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed - and all my replies are really aimed at is understanding your opinion better, not denigrating it in any way.
 
I think I've articulated pretty much everything I wanted to here, and then some, so I'll be taking my leave of the thread. I appreciate the intelligent rebuttals. But the rest is keeping my up late, chewing my fingernails. Damn you, internet.

Over and out.
Click to expand...
By then. And thanks for offering us your opinion - I've enjoyed the discussion (though it's a shame some people found the need to be insulting towards the opinions of others).
 
Amen, brother.

While I admire the passion of mabelsound & others who criticize the photo (though the criticism seems to boil down to "I would have taken a different/better shot") somebody had to do the cliché the 1st time around, & it's not really Erwitt's fault that these type of shots became a cliché. It's not like the so-called "dinosaurs of photography" (which would make an excellent name for an annoying indie band) are conspiring to keep the new generation down . . .

amateriat said:
It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, IMO, rather then blame someone better-known for not getting outta Dodge already. Erwitt's been at it for one hell of a long time. I've seen a lot of his work, and got the chance to meet him a few times quite a few years back. Images like the one being debated here (perhaps a tad pedantically), might not "date" terribly well, and I certainly like some of his work less than others, but the arguments tossed about here would seem to prove the work in question is anything but shallow. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or feel obliged to offer up a detailed synopsis of why you don't like it (although I'll admit being impressed by a few people here describing why they did like it).

Perhaps his work comes off to some as cliché because of the influence his work had on more than a few up-and-coming photographers over the last few decades. The same has been said about HCB. It ain't their fault, folks.

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. 🙂


- Barrett
Click to expand...
 
This (below) I didn't know, on viewing the photo when mabelsound started this thread (I'd seen the photo before, but didn't know this, IMO, major part of the background). Just being told, and then going off to research the incident, was worth the price of admission:
Encinalense said:
WoolenMammoth's reference to his art criticism class, however painful, should remind us again to consider the Goya -- the clothed Maja as an ironic (most likely) response to the shock at his life-sized contemporary nude. He was pressed to paint clothes onto the original -- or to manipulate that original image; instead, he created a new painting of the clothed Maja. In doing so, Goya perhaps meant to suggest something about the misguided or foolish propriety of his contemporaries. Or not. It's hard to know his point, exactly.
Click to expand...
Again, IMO, it is well worth knowing this. Just as knowing the political, and allegedly genological, circumstances of Scottish Kings in England is well worth knowing while reading Macbeth. Or the Catholic vs High Church vs Low Church arguments that were "in the wind" at the time the ghost was present in the opening scene in Hamlet.

I also much appreciate mabelsound's engagement with the photograph, whether I agree with her views or not.

I certainly hope her frustration with some of the responses to this thread is fleeting and that she re-engages with the discussion as I, for one, have enjoyed it even if, as has been said in another context, it is only good in parts.

...Mike
 
mabelsound said:


31473739_14eaf978bd.jpg


Click to expand...

Snap is a snap. I bet he had fun photographing. Like brainlessly. I dont think this photo is worth 5 pages discussion here. Sometimes one pick up that picture and publish after no much thoughts. Anyone have seen Hallmark channel? Just some fun for each thing 🙂

I checked his gallery. One thing I can notice that his works took whole life to photograph. If it was fun, seems so yes 🙂

I can see this picture as composition thing without involving logics there. So imagine those as unimaginable objects and it works still yet beyond context.
 
mfunnell said:
This (below) I didn't know, on viewing the photo when mabelsound started this thread (I'd seen the photo before, but didn't know this, IMO, major part of the background). Just being told, and then going off to research the incident, was worth the price of admission:

Again, IMO, it is well worth knowing this. Just as knowing the political, and allegedly genological, circumstances of Scottish Kings in England is well worth knowing while reading Macbeth. Or the Catholic vs High Church vs Low Church arguments that were "in the wind" at the time the ghost was present in the opening scene in Hamlet.

I also much appreciate mabelsound's engagement with the photograph, whether I agree with her views or not.

I certainly hope her frustration with some of the responses to this thread is fleeting and that she re-engages with the discussion as I, for one, have enjoyed it even if, as has been said in another context, it is only good in parts.

...Mike
Click to expand...


Sadly, said "fact" has been rebuffed by almost all modern Goya biographers, including vallejo-Nágera. The most plausible theory about how the Maja Vestida came to be is that the first known owner, prime minister Manuel de Godoy, commisioned it as a prank: he had them hanged one before the other and, in formal evenings, a set of pulleys was used to hoist the Vestida and reveal the Desnuda, much to the shock of present ladies.

It is also a recorded fact that the Inquisition questioned Goya about who commisioned him to paint the Maja Desnuda. We don't know his answer, or even if he issued one.
 
amateriat said:
It's not EE, or other "dinosaurs" getting in the way of the "new generation" (whoever they are, and however you define "generation"). It's up to others to get out of their own way first, ....

We've all got opinions. No need for brass knuckles, though. 🙂


- Barrett
Click to expand...

but that's where the fun is! ;- )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom