boring

[Oscar Levant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H0U-gx5Nb8

 

[Al Kaplan]

Getting to the point where you can realize that you enjoy what you're doing, and it does not matter what others think, is liberating.

Last year I had an exhbit in a gallery that showed both photography and "the traditional arts". It was a group show curated by the gallery owner. He asked me to to include some photographs that were different, experimental, along with those in my typical documetary style.

It was a total goof on my part, what I did. I made B&W conventional gelatin silver prints but developed them by flicking drops of developer onto the paper with my finger tips, letting the drops run this way and that by tilting and turning the paper, even pressing my developer dampened hand on the paper on some of them. I liked and kept maybe one out of ten. The gallery owner was thrilled! The conventional artists in the show thought they were great, as did the local art community. I ended up selling a few of the prints. Without exception other photographers wanted to know how or why I screwed up so badly.

I thought that it was a fun excersize, showing what a wide range of opinions people have more than anything. Since then I've gone back to shooting mostly with my 15mm lens. A lot of folks like the photos while others, mostly photographers, only see the perspective distortion.

 

[pmun]

Bill this is a new thread, different issues. It's not about my project, it's about the quality of 'boring'. But I'll address your questions anyway.

Alongside the many comments from people who found your project "boring" there were many others who took the time to engage and offer you constructive criticism.

I would disagree with you there.

Those who disagree about either the work or the discourse are "judgmental & dismissive"?An odd view of both photography & criticism.

I agree with you here. (Just for the record, that is not my view)

Perhaps the thread itself is a kind of performance art to you?"

It’s part of the discourse set up by the photographer

I think that comment, incisive as it is, plays to what has brought you to RFF to "air your grievance". of the 119 posts to that thread, 47 are from you.

47 our of 119 – sounds a bit self-indulgent to me! I’m not trying to air any grievances though, I just enjoy a discussion; do you find that difficult to believe?

You also chose to start your thread in the M8 sub-forum, rather than one of the photo forums - if I wanted to discuss the aesthetics of an image I would not do so in a sub-forum where people gravitate to discuss technology rather than technique. It was subsequently moved by a moderator to the People photo forum, where it rightly belonged in the first place.

Yes, my mistake.

I know that there are many on RFF who would not normally consider visiting the Leica User Forum - personally I fail to understand why that would be the case, but there you go - but I would encourage anyone who feels moved to contribute their views to this thread to go "back to the source" and form your own opinions before shooting from the lip.

The Leica User Forum is an excellent source for technical stuff – most people are very helpful and knowledgeable there.

 

[pmun]

Maybe the photos are really boring.

Inherently so? Come on this is the philosophy section, you can't get away that easily😀

 

[sunsworth]

Why is it that people who complain about the responses to their photographs only ever complain about the negative responses? I don't think I've ever seen anyone criticise a positive response by suggesting that the viewer hadn't explained themselves well. Odd that.

 

[Oscar Levant]

If they are not sufficiently interesting to engage the attention of anyone other than yourself, they are boring.

There's such a thing as absolutes. Would you want to be forced to spend a few weeks with an utterly boring person?

http://web.mac.com/pmun/pmun/Rotterdam.html#0

Looking at your photos, well, yeah, they're sort of boring. For example, in the photo above, it looks like you wanted to take a photo of that attractive girl but you were too chicken to go up to her and take a close photo of her. So you created that photo. That's why you also take a lot of photos of people's legs from behind. Sort of obsessive and boring.

A lot of your photos have very little to engage the viewer.

http://web.mac.com/pmun/pmun/pmun.html


On the other hand, the photos of your daughter are very good. It looks like your wife took a lot of them.


* NOTE: It seems as though "PMUN" deleted all the photos referenced above after this was posted.

.

 

[pmun]

Viewers have no responsibility to think deeply about photographs. I don't think photos, in general, are part of a dialog. They are given and sometimes received

I agree, it's up to the viewer to take what they want from a photograph. I think photos can be part of a dialog, discussions such as this one prove it.

What questions about relationships do you think your project asks? I'm not being provocative. I'm rather literal minded and need this kind of thing pointed out to me.

Thanks for asking, here's a typical question concerning the relationship between the photograph and photograhed: Can we disregard subject matter to the extent we have with colour in B&W photograhy? If you'd like to know more, you can go to the site and download a word document: www.urbanpaths.net

 

[pmun]

Why is it that people who complain about the responses to their photographs only ever complain about the negative responses? I don't think I've ever seen anyone criticise a positive response by suggesting that the viewer hadn't explained themselves well. Odd that.

Have a look again at the subject of this thread - in case you've lost track.

 

[Oscar Levant]

OK, in answer to your original post, the way people look at things can be inherently boring, or they can lack the courage to take photos of the things they really want to photograph.

Thus, the photos they produce will be inherently boring.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Isn't 'boring' statistical?

One picture may engage 99% of those who see it. Another may engage 1%. Choose your 'boredom threshold' and any pic that engages less than (say) 17% or 44% or 62% of those who see it can indeed be dismissed as 'inherently boring' on a statistical level.

There's also a big difference between initially boring pictures that you then think about, and see the artist's point, and then find interesting; those you think about, and see the artist's point, and still find boring; and those where, even after you've thought about it, seem pointless.

Then of course there are pictures with impact but no depth: good to look at initially, but soon becoming boring.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[pmun]

Isn't 'boring' statistical

Tashi delek,

R.

That's a very intersting way of looking at it. I'd never considered that.

How about this then, say we started out with colour photography and somebody tried to remove the colours. There was uproar as people were so accustomed to seeing colours. The grass was grey, the bright blue sky - dark grey, please!! Even people's faces became grey. This innovative/boring photographer defended their project in terms of tone, contrast and textures. The more s/he did so the more irritated others became. In fact 95% of them said his/her colourless photographs were just boring.

Does that then mean they were boring - simply because they lacked colour and people weren't prepared to except that (after all colour is very interesting)?

 

[back alley]

for the most part...

i find landscapes boring along with images of cats, not dogs, just cats.
photos of flowers are boring too.

boring is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Al Kaplan]

Many of us start out by shooting pictures without color. We use black & white film. Are they all boring because they lack color?

 

[pmun]

Many of us start out by shooting pictures without color. We use black & white film. Are they all boring because they lack color?

No but they probably would appear so if they had been taken by a couple of scruffy conceptualist students named Ansel and Edward in a world of colour of photogrpahy that had never known about the tones of grey in photography.

 

[Pablito]

I don't think you can say any photo is intrinsically good or bad. Boring or interesting. It's always in the eye of the beholder.

That sounds like beginning photo students, defending lousy work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

(after all colour is very interesting)?

Is colour inherently more interesting than shades of grey?

Highly disputable, I'd say. Surely it depends on how either is used.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rayt]

I don't know if that was your intent but these pictures are what I would expect to see from the first attempts at street photography by a shy and frightened beginner. One or two shots might have been tolerable but having your entire project on the back of two legs just doesn't work *for me* and yes to me it is really excruciatingly boring.

 

[BillP]

That's a very intersting way of looking at it. I'd never considered that.

How about this then, say we started out with colour photography and somebody tried to remove the colours. There was uproar as people were so accustomed to seeing colours. The grass was grey, the bright blue sky - dark grey, please!! Even people's faces became grey. This innovative/boring photographer defended their project in terms of tone, contrast and textures. The more s/he did so the more irritated others became. In fact 95% of them said his/her colourless photographs were just boring.

Does that then mean they were boring - simply because they lacked colour and people weren't prepared to except that (after all colour is very interesting)?

Or how about we started out with realistic, pictoral art, and someone decided to paint in blobs, or even points, and produce pictures that just gave an impression of the subject...?

It'll never catch on... 🙄

I admire your defence of your body of work, but I think you might just have to accept that you are not the only one on parade who is in step.

Regards,

Bill

 

[kermaier]

Street photography seems most appreciated by street photographers. I don't get it. There are a very few exceptions, but for the most part street photography looks to me like random photos of people walking on the street. Or sitting. Or laying. Boring. I don't know the people. They aren't doing interesting things. I see them every day on the streets.

Yes, that is a big challenge in street photography. I saw a short documentary on YouTube about Jeff Mermelstein (a great contemporary street photographer, IMO). It was obvious that his hit rate -- the percentage of "keepers" he gets -- must be appalling low. I have two of his books, and I think the majority of his published photos are interesting, either by virtue of subject matter, perspective or use of color/composition. It's quite possible that the perception of street photography as boring is due in large part to insufficiently draconian editing. I think the goal should be for each photo in a project to be able to stand on its own as at least marginally worth looking at, or the overall sequence of photos will not hold viewers' interest.

Another thought is that art is sometimes about art itself, rather than the about the subject matter. (See references to paintings of soup cans.) This is the case, I believe, with much of Lee Friedlander's photography: It is ostensibly just street photography, and for a long time I found his photos pretty boring. But many of his photos are more concerned with ideas of composition in terms of how the three-dimensional world can be mapped onto a two-dimensional plane in amusing or interesting ways. The subject matter is still boring -- but the photo is interesting if you take the time to examine it in a different conceptual context.

::Ari

 

[Oscar Levant]

It appears as if you're looking for validation and not finding it:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/88999-non-classic-shots-m8.html