Check this guys street photos out and be inspired.

That fellow hangs out with some rough people on both sides of the Atlantic. You don't just wonder into those people's worlds and begin taking pictures. It would be interesting to know how he managed to be accepted enough to take the shots. I admire him for his courage to walk into the lion's den, so to speak.

Walker
 
there was a thread about him on photo.net the other day.
there was also another link with a short interview with him.
pretty interesting.

joe
 
i love boogie's work. he made it into pop photo sometime last year... unfortunately, he was in "the fix" section. :(

i'd be interested to see that photo.net thread, joe. link?

here's his fecal face interview:
http://www.fecalface.com/content/archives/002158.html

he's published frequently in hamburger eyes (the continuing story of life on earth), an incredible b&w photo mag. check him, and the other great HE photogs at the site under the blackhole secton:
http://www.hamburgereyes.com
 
doubs43 said:
That fellow hangs out with some rough people on both sides of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Or so he says.

I don't want to open a can of worms that proved to be very unpopular worms when I unleashed them on some other photo boards, but these seem to fall into the category of completely unremarkable photographs that only acquire significance based on what we're told about them.

In other words, pick any one of them and substitute your own innocuous caption -- say, "Rev. Mike Washburn of Central Baptist Church takes his dog Jericho out for a walk," for the photo of the guy's butt and the dog's butt -- and see if you still think the image is "powerful."

I'm not picking on this particular photographer, though, because there are huge arrays of famous photographs whose renown is purely contextual -- in other words, not based on the qualities of the photograph itself, but on the circumstances (or alleged circumstances) surrounding its making.

That's not a problem, as long as we don't get confused when looking at them about whether we're impressed by what we see, or by what we're told.

It's possible to make remarkable photographs under ordinary circumstances, or ordinary photographs under remarkable circumstances. Making remarkable photographs under remarkable circumstances is a really difficult achievement... but it doesn't make the photographs themselves any more remarkable.

See, I told you that you wouldn't like this idea...
 
Not sure I was looking at the same pics as jlw... ;)

I think the presentation and the photographs were tight. At least on par with photography I have seen in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Given the volume of images in each of his galleries, I would say it was fair to describe his tenure with his subjects as something a good deal more than temporary (hung out with). I think it takes a huge pair of rocks to even seek an opportunity to photograph many of his subjects. It also takes quite a bit of testicular fortitude to then publish that work globally.

As for the quality of the work I have seen far worse.

My favorites are "The Playground." He probably took a few shots to the ribs during the session. Street b-ball tends to be all or nothing.

Did I mention I like the presentation?
 
Last edited:
Appreciating a photo in its context is an important step in the viewing process. Most art is metaphorical. Sometimes the metaphor is self evident, and sometimes it is applied by the viewer. Native art, for example, brings forth the images of the ethereal world to its makers. To us, it brings forth images of the native experience. The different viewers bring their sensibilities to the piece and place the art in a context which intensifies their aesthetic experience. These photos also have a context. The simple context of where they were shot and the expanded context of how we perceive them. To some, the images are metaphors for social ills or the pains of immigration. To others perhaps, the struggle of the photographer to immerse himself in an extreme environment. All of these things are valid artistic attributes and a photographer who produces such responses through his work has done a great job. Often times the contextual value of a photo is much greater than its technical details. That is somewhat disappointing. But I don't think that this applies here. I think these photos are really done well.
 
Nick, yes, but, a really good photograph needs no words (of explanation or context) just as a good novel needs no illustrations.
 
Solid work, I think. I don't really want to know how he got those shots, to be honest.
 
don't know much about art and quality of photographs. But I like the photos because of the way it makes me feel. The photos make me think about the issues presented. I think that makes it successful (for me). I'm not sure that makes them good photos or not but what the heck.
 
JLW , you have a point about the photos at Boogie's website. Who do you like? I'd be interested. How about posting some of your pix?

Jan
 
I like his stuff and I like learning more about the photographer and how he got them. Personal preference, I suppose. I also like novels and non-fiction pieces that include illustrations, charts, and footnotes although a book can be also successful as text only.
 
The point I didn't get across was that photos contain their own context regardless of the text, or lack thereof, that accompanies them. If I look at a photo of a kid in a slum, that's context. That's why I don't think it's fair to judge these photos as lacking quality simply because they are accompanied by text. The text is irrelevant. They carry their context with them. That said, the text is interesting in the same way that footnotes, graphs and illustrations are enjoyble additions to good texts. When I read "Into Thin Air" I thought the photos in the book were interesting and I liked them but they didn't add or subtract from the quality of the story.
To eliminate all context or metaphor, we'd all have to take up Lomography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom