historicist
Well-known
I was quite surprised by this, but the word is indeed fairly recent. But 'ennui' is first noted for 1667, and the first recorded use is one specifically mentioning the lack of an English equivalent for the French word - I would imagine that before this educated English speakers simply used the French or Latin.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
historicist
Well-known
That is pretty interesting, but it's a pet hate of mine when people start an article with a question and then fail to answer it 
steve kessel
steve kessel
Pmun, Can you say how you set about your urban paths project to achieve your aim that I've set in italics in the paragraph above? How does one know when a photo is revealing more about what is really is? Is passing beyond a kind of boredom threshold necessary?
Thardy
Veteran
My daughter used to call many things boring or say that she's bored. Her mother told her that a person who is frequently bored is perhaps a boring person themselves.
pmun
Established
Steve, when you become acutely aware of things you wouldn't normally get to see (eg: a glimpse of a person in motion sustained over time) or when you notice details you otherwise wouldn't see (eg: the ability to count the textile creases behind someone's knee during a stride) or when you start to notice the formal characteristics of the photograph before the characteristics of the subject matter (a splash of red that breaks up the greyness).
Basically any of these are some of the unique characteristics of photography (it could be argued that colours, tones and shapes are everywhere, not just in a photograph - but don't forget the relationship with reality). If you look back at the LUF thread at posts 69,71 and 81 you can read more about this with examples: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/88999-non-classic-shots-m8-4.html
An interest in and openness to these ideas and a keen eye for detail for its own sake is probably enough. Otherwise, as many people have found here and on the LUF thread the whole thing could be tedious.
Last edited:
pmun
Established
My English teacher used to say exactly the same thing. Personally, I think they both have a very good point.
pmun
Established
Another thought about this: We always bring something to our viewing; we never look through virgin eyes. We look based on our experience, knowledge and conventions. Hence we have been 'primed' and no image stands on it’s own; it is dependent on what we bring to it. Again that Michael Jackson photograph has changed dramatically, it's nothing to do with the photograph though. Our situation has changed (we now have knowledge of his death).
On this basis, is it not reasonable for a photographer to exploit this by affecting the viewer's disposition prior to or post viewing with an idea or framework for viewing? Is it not just another artist's tool?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Another interesting philosophical distinction: between a subject that is inherently boring, and one that is beaten to death.
Tashi delek,
R.
Tashi delek,
R.
delft
Established
I'm more than halfway through it, and the thought has crossed my mind a few times.
Dirk
delft
Established
Well, I'll give you a boring answer:
Since it can be proven that there are no boring (i.e. un-interesting) integral numbers (if there were, there would be a smallest boring number, and that would be an interesting number), and your photographs are represented digitally, they can be reduced to a (large) integral number, and as such can NOT be boring.
I hope this answers your question.
Greetings,
Dirk
antiquark
Derek Ross
chris000
Landscaper
I have read the first 10 posts and the last 10. I fear that reading all the rest in between will give real meaning to the title of the thread.
Thardy
Veteran
All of the interesting comments are in the middle.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Brad Maestas
Established
I managed to read the whole thread and it certainly has been a lively discussion. Pmun, I see what you're getting at. Your concept of only photographing people that share your path is intriguing in a metaphysical sort of way but I feel like the results were quite limited, particularly with regards to composition. To put it into a musical context, it reminds me of the avant-garde musician creating music in a very specific (often nearly-unlistenable) vein only for the sake of being different, blindly chasing the thing that hasn't (to their knowledge) been done yet solely in the name of diversity. I have certainly experimented with that in my early years as a musician and photographer (as I'm sure we all have to some degree) but at a certain point I think that we must move beyond that and seek a balance in our creations/improvisations, both within the single frame and within the project as a whole. The fractal concept if you will, ie. detail at every level of viewing.
You still have two years left in your project. That gives you plenty of time to do what you want to do. If you are genuinely interested in public opinion of your work, you'd be wise to learn to accept criticism and perhaps apply some of it to your future endeavors. Turn negative into positive. Or you could just ignore it and continue making pictures that mean everything to you, regardless of their acceptedness or perceived marketability.
You still have two years left in your project. That gives you plenty of time to do what you want to do. If you are genuinely interested in public opinion of your work, you'd be wise to learn to accept criticism and perhaps apply some of it to your future endeavors. Turn negative into positive. Or you could just ignore it and continue making pictures that mean everything to you, regardless of their acceptedness or perceived marketability.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I can kind of see the project as a sort of photographic equivalent of Steve Reich or Terry Riley or something, if Steve Reich or Terry Riley's compositions spanned many years instead of ten minutes or half an hour.
But it seems to me that what pmun is seeing in this work is not visible to others in the work itself. That is, the photos are only successful if you were the guy taking them--the experience of taking them is part of the artwork. And we are just not privy to that experience. We are just getting these static artifacts and a solemn promise that, whatever we may think, they are interesting.
But it seems to me that what pmun is seeing in this work is not visible to others in the work itself. That is, the photos are only successful if you were the guy taking them--the experience of taking them is part of the artwork. And we are just not privy to that experience. We are just getting these static artifacts and a solemn promise that, whatever we may think, they are interesting.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
pmun, you might like the work of my conceptual artist friend Hamish Fulton.
http://www.hamish-fulton.com/
He goes on walks. The walks are the artworks, really; the gallery show is sort of an artifact of the walk, a kind of map of it. This may be the kind of thing you're going for. But if you actually want feedback, I can tell you that you need more than the photographs themselves to be the artifacts of your experiences. You need writings maybe, or video, or physical items you found nearby, or something--things to fill out the viewer's experience of it, to lend your experience mystery. Ultimately, as it stands, I think the project asks too much of its viewer. Every photograph demands something of its viewer, of course, but not many people will put in the imaginative work necessary to complete their experience of your pictures. It would end up being more the viewer's work than yours.
http://www.hamish-fulton.com/
He goes on walks. The walks are the artworks, really; the gallery show is sort of an artifact of the walk, a kind of map of it. This may be the kind of thing you're going for. But if you actually want feedback, I can tell you that you need more than the photographs themselves to be the artifacts of your experiences. You need writings maybe, or video, or physical items you found nearby, or something--things to fill out the viewer's experience of it, to lend your experience mystery. Ultimately, as it stands, I think the project asks too much of its viewer. Every photograph demands something of its viewer, of course, but not many people will put in the imaginative work necessary to complete their experience of your pictures. It would end up being more the viewer's work than yours.
pmun
Established
Thanks Brad, the compositions are deliberately 'limited' for the reasons I stated earlier (post 120)
People who explore a medium and push at it's accepted boundaries are often treated with derision; sometimes the results seem self-indulgent other times innovative. Most people here would probably accuse me of the former. But the world is wider than the Rangefinder.com forum, so we'll see what happens.
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Thanks mablesound, I had a look at Hamish's site and liked it. It is meticulously pieced together and the atmospherics combined with the typography really worked. I think that gives it a distinct narrative cohesion that photography often denies.
I'm more concerned with exploring the medium of photography by reducing it down to some of its composite elements. It’s not so much my own experience that is important or that of individuals, although both are clearly implicated, it is more the universal human experience. I accept that it may leave some people behind but consider that a sacrifice worth making.
By the way, I really like your site and your simple approach to indexing your work. I often find photography sites aimless, but yours has real coherence and clarity.
Last edited: