semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Gotta love it when people criticize books that they haven't read.
Brian Legge
Veteran
...and this is just a picture of a trike:
It's fine if you don't want to engage in critical thought, but I wouldn't brag about it.
Okay. I'm not familiar with this photo. Lacking any other context, it is just a shot of a trike to me. A well executed one, but thats it.
Interpretation involves a lot of shared framework, understanding about intent, etc. You know, all that stuff that goes into any form of communication. I don't have it with the photographer here so this photo will have a totally different meaning for me compared to others.
I don't know if 'you aren't thinking critically about this photo' is the right critique for people who 'don't get it'.
bensyverson
Well-known
Hmm, I think you're mistaken—I took the "reading" phrase from Alistair:
Honestly, I'm fine with people failing to understand why Eggleston's trike image is important. GSNfan is right; what's in question is interpretation (or the lack thereof).
All of that is fine. The thing that really puzzles me is the sentiment "I don't want to know." I see a lot of that these days. It's not that people are simply uninformed, which would be totally understandable; it's that they're actively hostile to learning anything that's not gear-related.
Internet people happily memorize every 50mm M mount lens in existence, but they refuse to familiarize themselves with a few different ways of thinking about an image. If you can only look at a picture formally (how is the bokeh; is it sharp; how much grain, etc), you can never see past the surface.
Internet people canonize HCB, AA, Weston, etc, but completely neglect those photographers' contemporaries or idols. Of course, any contemporary (current) photographer is disparaged as either a no-talent hack or pretentious.
I know this post is already too long.
Last edited by a moderator:
ishpop
tall person
I have this on my list...
Brian Legge
Veteran
The photographer and his work is significant, but without knowing the role he played in color photography, etc I don't know if the image would stand out today to someone who wasn't familiar with his work at all. That makes it difficult to have a discussion about the photo with people who lack that context.
And again, posting the Eggleston shot without context - heck, without saying who the photographer was as an entry point for people to educate themselves - and criticizing people for not knowing why the shot is important strikes me as slightly silly.
If you'd posted work by Saul Leiter I probably would have recognized it and agreed with out. But thats just about me being on your side of the context equation as I'm more familiar with his work.
And again, posting the Eggleston shot without context - heck, without saying who the photographer was as an entry point for people to educate themselves - and criticizing people for not knowing why the shot is important strikes me as slightly silly.
If you'd posted work by Saul Leiter I probably would have recognized it and agreed with out. But thats just about me being on your side of the context equation as I'm more familiar with his work.
Last edited by a moderator:
bensyverson
Well-known
I guess I misjudged my audience... I didn't credit Eggleston's photo because I thought it would be as recognizable as Nick Ut's photo.
It's funny; I almost used a Cartier-Bresson image (Hyeres) instead of the Eggleston. Obviously everyone here would have gotten that one immediately.
It's funny; I almost used a Cartier-Bresson image (Hyeres) instead of the Eggleston. Obviously everyone here would have gotten that one immediately.
alistair.o
Well-known
The one thing I endeavour to maintain during any discussion that involves a difference of opinion is respect for the people taking part. I would be rather disappointed to see this discussion lose that respect of parties who hold differing opinions.
On a more personal note, I have been using Nikon digital for some time and my main 'body' of work is photographing interiors for people i.e. hotels, homes, items within those places at the request of the owners. Not for one moment had I heard of the names of 'famous photographers' that are used here, even those of my own country - I have to google them when they are mentioned! I have over the last two years had the great fortune to visit exhibitions by some of these photographers, this I have done because of references made to them and acted upon by myself. I love digital and I love film - two different experiences, both can be very frustrating as they can be enjoyable.
I am an opened minded amn who has, as they say, been around the block a time or two. I think I am a pretty good judge as to whether the king is wearing any clothes or not and in the case of Sontag my opinion after reading the book is that the king is naked!
Al
On a more personal note, I have been using Nikon digital for some time and my main 'body' of work is photographing interiors for people i.e. hotels, homes, items within those places at the request of the owners. Not for one moment had I heard of the names of 'famous photographers' that are used here, even those of my own country - I have to google them when they are mentioned! I have over the last two years had the great fortune to visit exhibitions by some of these photographers, this I have done because of references made to them and acted upon by myself. I love digital and I love film - two different experiences, both can be very frustrating as they can be enjoyable.
I am an opened minded amn who has, as they say, been around the block a time or two. I think I am a pretty good judge as to whether the king is wearing any clothes or not and in the case of Sontag my opinion after reading the book is that the king is naked!
Al
Sparrow
Veteran
That could well be true, but thankfully we have you to point out our shortcomings and narrow minded prejudice.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I don`t always like what Eggleston does.
I have his book Paris which I find so so.
I find him a fascinating character though, although I sometimes think that there is a touch of the powdered wig about him (as they said about Mozart).
The problem is I`m curious and want to try and understand more.
Sontag didn`t help me and I blamed the language used in that book because if you`ve no background in art its difficult to overcome.
My only art qualification was forty years ago and doesn`t equip me in this regard.
I have his book Paris which I find so so.
I find him a fascinating character though, although I sometimes think that there is a touch of the powdered wig about him (as they said about Mozart).
The problem is I`m curious and want to try and understand more.
Sontag didn`t help me and I blamed the language used in that book because if you`ve no background in art its difficult to overcome.
My only art qualification was forty years ago and doesn`t equip me in this regard.
Richard G
Veteran
This thread has gone in a number of directions. Susan Sontag's writing and particularly her book 'On Photography' do elicit strong reactions. I reread it just now after 30 years. Perhaps I see more of her shortcuts, and of course so many of the ideas are assimilated into our culture so there is a temptation to see something as more banal than it would have been in the early '70s. I can't see that the writing is difficult. I can see that some would find the inclusion of film (cinema) along with photography as annoying. The apparent racism about the Chinese is largely negated by the context, where she is talking more about the regime than the people. The section of quotes at the end is dedicated to WB, doubtless Walter Benjamin, a highly relevant antecedent whom she duly credits. It is a significant book, not perfect by any means. I always think of the irony of her withering body being photographed by Annie Leibovitz and find it hard to dislike her or get annoyed about this non-photographer writing one of the important books on photography. Sure, you might just want to take photographs or look at photographs, but it is legitimate for there also to be criticism as in careful, thoughtful, informed analysis of photography and photographs and everything else important in a civilization. The discussion of William Eggleston shows that clearly enough.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" — I. Asimov
For what it's worth, I generally don't agree with Sontag, but that's a very different thing from saying that she's not worth reading. Here's a link to another useful take on a closely related set of issues.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
One has to ask what he meant by 'our'. In quite a few parts of the world, the exact opposite of anti-intellectualism is found: the French, in particular, could be accused of having an exaggerated respect for certain types of 'intellectual'. And while it's easy to be rude about the BBC in general, and Radio 4 (the Home Service) in particular, Auntie puts out a surprising number of 'intellectual' programmes.
Cheers,
R.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
This is a wild rollercoaster ride of a thread. It’s covered a lot of ground. I’ll say this.. “if you want to run with the pack you have to be able to keep up”. The argument that someone’s writing is not worth reading immediately eliminates you from the game.
Equally it’s not the front runner’s obligation to pull everyone along with him. They’ve trained long and hard to run. The people who want to pull on a pair of sneakers and shorts and say they ran the Boston Marathon should know they will not keep up. Why would they. They simply can’t because they’re not prepared.
I’m not a fan of Sontag but she does have observations and even tho she’s not “a photographer” one doesn’t need to be “a chef” to tell what good food is nor be disqualified because they aren’t a chef. So Sontag’s writing does have a place. I think a lot of her work like Eggleston’s trike is based on previous works by others. I would be surprised if they both didn’t acknowledge this. Eggleston’s trike was a “reveille call” to photography. It was a “hey there moment” it signified a directional change and it came from a credible source. For this reason it was significant.
Regarding Eggleston’s “Paris”. This is a man with an eye and a camera. Sometimes like all of us when we are at bat we don’t knock it out of the park, sometimes it’s a single and sometimes we strike out. Never deny any photographer that right. That doesn’t make his work less valid. There is more but this is RFF so this enough.
Equally it’s not the front runner’s obligation to pull everyone along with him. They’ve trained long and hard to run. The people who want to pull on a pair of sneakers and shorts and say they ran the Boston Marathon should know they will not keep up. Why would they. They simply can’t because they’re not prepared.
I’m not a fan of Sontag but she does have observations and even tho she’s not “a photographer” one doesn’t need to be “a chef” to tell what good food is nor be disqualified because they aren’t a chef. So Sontag’s writing does have a place. I think a lot of her work like Eggleston’s trike is based on previous works by others. I would be surprised if they both didn’t acknowledge this. Eggleston’s trike was a “reveille call” to photography. It was a “hey there moment” it signified a directional change and it came from a credible source. For this reason it was significant.
Regarding Eggleston’s “Paris”. This is a man with an eye and a camera. Sometimes like all of us when we are at bat we don’t knock it out of the park, sometimes it’s a single and sometimes we strike out. Never deny any photographer that right. That doesn’t make his work less valid. There is more but this is RFF so this enough.
rdeleskie
Well-known
I think it's good that practitioners are suspicious of academic "theoreticians," as evidenced by many in this thread. There was a period when I was in school where the art object itself seemed entirely secondary to the essay the artist usually had framed next to their work. Practice and art "theory" (a horrible word to apply to the arts) require different ways of seeing, and of understanding and connecting with the world.
That said, Sontag didn't set out to define what made photographs "good" or "bad" from a practitioner's perspective (or even from an art critic's POV). She was trying to understand how they "work" culturally, historically, even politically. A perfectly valid project for a non-photographer. The language she used is of its time (and was strongly influenced by continental philosophy), but as has been pointed out, it's actually refreshingly clear compared to what passes for "art theory" today, where you can barely find the original artwork buried beneath layers of "cultural criticism," and where even the photograph's "author" has been erased from the discussion. At least that was my experience of art theory, before I finally ran screaming from the halls of academe.
Anyway, thanks to the OP for bringing this up. I haven't thought about Sontag in years.
That said, Sontag didn't set out to define what made photographs "good" or "bad" from a practitioner's perspective (or even from an art critic's POV). She was trying to understand how they "work" culturally, historically, even politically. A perfectly valid project for a non-photographer. The language she used is of its time (and was strongly influenced by continental philosophy), but as has been pointed out, it's actually refreshingly clear compared to what passes for "art theory" today, where you can barely find the original artwork buried beneath layers of "cultural criticism," and where even the photograph's "author" has been erased from the discussion. At least that was my experience of art theory, before I finally ran screaming from the halls of academe.
Anyway, thanks to the OP for bringing this up. I haven't thought about Sontag in years.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
When it's obvious that at least a couple of the people making that assertion (not argument) haven't actually read the work they're slagging, well, yeah.
On the other hand, some here have actually read Sontag and really despise what she has to say. I'm fine with that. I'm on the (precarious) middle ground. I like Barthes a lot more, and I fund much to disagree with in Sontag, but it's polite disagreement.
Last edited: