Brutally honest critique thread

Dan Daniel said:
But Hines photographs were mean to be seen, and were shown, in the context of a campaign to stop child labor. They were not meant to be seen floating free of narrative and context. Without these surrounding stories, I'd suggest that your comment, 'His photo did not tell the sad story of children and how they lived, it went beyond all that and got to the point, should children be working in factories?'is mistaken- his photos say nothing to the question of should children be working in factories. You seeing it that way is simply another example of external context providing a story.

By the way, we may have some serious confusion as we use words like 'story' and 'question' and 'context' and such in shifting meanings.
Click to expand...

... and we don't normally?
 
Sparrow said:
... and we don't normally?
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by 'normally,' but if I am trying to have a productive conversation with someone on an issue, it's a good idea to have some shared understanding of the main concepts being used. HSG is interested in how photos come to 'mean,' and the way that they provoke questions. I think there' a good chance that I use the word 'story' in a very similar way that he uses 'questions,' and that I also use 'context' in ways that overlap with his use of 'question' but also pushes close to narrative (which may be similar to 'story' but not the same for me).

But maybe you mean that the norm is that we should just keep talking and not make the effort to clarify points of confusion and conflict?
 
"Berger would probably agree with you on the simple answer, photos don't tell stories.

"But he'd probably go on to say that people looking at photos *do* tell stories about what is depicted in the photo."

IMO Dan and Berger have had the last word on this. Viewers tell themselves stories, or make up narratives as backstories to what they see, in some kinds of photographs. And some photographers are brilliant at evoking this response.

This is not the 'story,' however, of all photographs. A snapshot might simply record what great-aunt Agatha looked like in 1939 – not much of a story. And others might aim at old aesthetic values like 'the sublime' and 'the beautiful,' asking you just to stare at tones and forms with satisfaction.

Having said this, I hope we can move this sort of commentary over to Hsg's new thread on such issues in the Philosophy of Photography section, and hold some critiques (other than of Eggleston) on this critique thread?
 
Hsg said:
Is that a story telling shot? That is an event; a story is a series of events.

If you take a photo of someone eating food, is that a story telling shot? Someone is eating food, that is an event. Girl is being teased on the street, that is an event. A story is a series of events.
Click to expand...

Hsg said:
I'm looking forward to a separate thread about photography and story telling, because I like to learn more and read more arguments on both sides. I'm aware that my own views are limited on this subject.
Click to expand...

I'm firmly in the camp that believes all pictures - including photographs - tell stories.

Pictures tell stories differently to, say, a novel or a movie because with novels and movies the narrative is more complete and can describe an entire event whereas a picture can show you only one slice out of an event.

So, with a picture you have to guess the past and future of the event - which to a large extent is subjective. But then all stories are subjective anyway, just that pictures are more so: Steinbeck's Cannery Row means something entirely different to me than it would to you - we would take away similar but not identical stories.

If story-telling is important to a picture-maker, they should paint or photograph (or whatever) a scene to tell a particular story as clearly as possible. For example, if you photograph a falling man, including - or not - the 300 metre drop he's over makes a huge difference to the story!
 
Dan Daniel said:
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by 'normally,' but if I am trying to have a productive conversation with someone on an issue, it's a good idea to have some shared understanding of the main concepts being used. HSG is interested in how photos come to 'mean,' and the way that they provoke questions. I think there' a good chance that I use the word 'story' in a very similar way that he uses 'questions,' and that I also use 'context' in ways that overlap with his use of 'question' but also pushes close to narrative (which may be similar to 'story' but not the same for me).

But maybe you mean that the norm is that we should just keep talking and not make the effort to clarify points of confusion and conflict?
Click to expand...

ah ... sorry flippant on my part

I was thinking of writing something about seeing, and communicating this area with a glossary of terms appended

(bit worried I'll come over as a bit of a cock) 🙂
 
RichC said:
I'm firmly in the camp that believes all pictures - including photographs - tell stories.

Pictures tell stories differently to, say, a novel or a movie because with novels and movies the narrative is more complete and can describe an entire event whereas a picture can show you only one slice out of an event.

So, with a picture you have to guess the past and future of the event - which to a large extent is subjective. But then all stories are subjective anyway, just that pictures are more so: Steinbeck's Cannery Row means something entirely different to me than it would to you - we would take away similar but not identical stories.

If story-telling is important to a picture-maker, they should paint or photograph (or whatever) a scene to tell a particular story as clearly as possible. For example, if you photograph a falling man, including - or not - the 300 metre drop he's over makes a huge difference to the story!
Click to expand...

You can read my post in the other thread that addresses this story-telling aspect of photos: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2460215&postcount=11
 
If someone intentionally ignores the rule about not having things growing out of people's heads, does it still make sense to criticise them for it?

You don't sound like a cock, Stewart. We missed you for a bit there 🙂

I think the shed gives the bottle picture a boundary rather than having it drain out the side. Also it's balancing the trees on the left side.
 
And here's a thing. Does it really make any sense at all for Eggleston to spend his life, every single day making photographs that do NOT attempt to express his vision? Does it make any sense that he woud simply shoot random boring things and then present them to us like they were lemon cake? Do you honestly think it's just a jape?

What makes the most sense is that he's no different than any of us, he's trying to find pictures that suit him, sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. You have to allow that he is persuing what he considers a fine photograph, even if you don't like his work. If you can't allow the man to shoot as he likes, and like what he likes, and present what he likes, then that's pretty freaking sad.

So come on, tell me the real problem is that it's just really a shame that so many people are being fooled and influenced by him, lmao.

😀
 
Ranchu said:
What makes the most sense is that he's no different than any of us, he's trying to find pictures that suit him, sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. You have to allow that he is persuing what he considers a fine photograph, even if you don't like his work. If you can't allow the man to shoot as he likes, and like what he likes, and present what he likes, then that's pretty freaking sad.
Click to expand...

i can agree with that.
 
I may be a bit late to the game, but I'm willing to play.

Kill this one :

_DSF0426.jpg


Cheers
 
Other than the near-symmetry, the first thing that caught my eye was the well-spaced standing figures all facing different directions. And somehow oddly looking frozen in position.
 
not dead yet.

they are five statues, not looking at each other.

They aren't well detached from the background, except for the girl and maybe the boy. It's a bit hard to read, too many points of brilliance.

I like the science fiction atmosphere, and the absence of relation between the characters. You can fill that gap with whichever fantasy tickles your fancy.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Keith
The brutal critique thread .....
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
8K
f16sunshine
f16sunshine
Back
Top Bottom