Do you love a photographer you used to hate?

[boarini2003]

I admire many photographers, but it took me time to appreciate some. It's all about seeing something that you didn't see there before. For example, I used to think many of Garry Winogrand's shots were boring, random snapshots of bland subjects. Sure, some of them were pretty good, but how could they be considered good in general? Then one day I saw his pictures again, and liked some of them, I thought they were witty. Then I saw even more, I just kept coming back to them and I started to think they were awesome, enough to want a book. So I bought his book "The Animals." When I first leafed through it, I was dissappointed. But as I saw the pictures again over time, I came to the realization that they were brilliant! It was like seeing something with somebody else's eyes, or like finally being able to find the 3D image in a Magic Eye book. Now I can't have enough, I think he's one of the greatest photographers ever, I can stare at his photos and I keep finding new things about them. What a change. Has this happened to anybody else?

 

[J. Borger]

You named a good example .... it took me quite some time to appreciate the man. I'm still not sure if his number of "stunning" pictures is not on the low side keeping in mind the huge amount of pictures he took. At least judging from 'figments'. Could also be a case of bad editing though.
His best work for me is "1964" ..... that book knocked me out ... and really proofed to me how great and divers he was.

Other example of a photographer i had to learn to appreciate are Eggleston and Stephen Shore.

It is the same as with music ... if it sounds right at a first listen it is boring after 10 times most of the times. Records that have to grow on you .... usualy last longer.

 

[Trevor]

Henri Cartier-Bresson. Liked him at first. Went off him. Got back into him again.

 

[boarini2003]

Liking the work of Eggleston is a great example of "learning to like it," although I admit I still don't "get it" about him. Cartier Bresson, on the other hand, I liked immediately. The beauty and depth in his pictures to me was obvious at first glance, his work beautiful, without complications, the use of masterful framing and composition there for all to see. But others, like Winogrand, present you with work that at first glance seems compositionally child-like, or random, as if the photo taker accidentally tripped the shutter. It is only upon close inspection and re-consumption of the image that you find taste in it.

 

[aterlecki]

Martin Parr. I used to have a quite vehement hatred of his work. While much of it I still hate, there is some of his work I have now grown to like.

 

[boarini2003]

Beniliam, I agree with your obsevation on "Who gives success to the photographers? The critic, the publishers, the luck, the time? In the life there is much cheating... in the photography too."

I wonder the same thing about many artists in general. I think it's a combination of talent, first and foremost, and whether that talent is compatible with what's "in fashion" (according to whom?) and other things like luck.

 

[kbg32]

John Szarkowski had a lot to do with the making of the careers of Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand, beginning with MOMA's 1967 exhibition of their work in "The New Documentarians" show.

Beaumont Newhall's extremely biased view of photgraphy's history left out many trends and photographers for many, many years. Sometimes only giving them a line or two. Newhall had a lot to do with Making Ansel Adams career.

 

[John Camp]

I tend to like more and more photographers the older I get...recently I've been buying really great stuff from people who are fairly obscure, and may remain that way, but still terrific photographers. I think Diane Arbus might be the best American artist of any kind, of the 20th century. But my strongest reaction is the opposite of what you asked about: I liked Robert Mapplethorpe flower photos so much that I went well out of my way to buy a good one back in the 80s, when I could hardly afford it. I've had it for almost 20 years now, and though it is an example of beautiful printing, it seems more and more inane with each passing year. Also more and more valuable 😎 There's another thread here about getting spousal approval for photographic purchases. My wife doesn't much care about the Mapplethorpe one way or another, so it might vanish next fall, and John-boy will be walking a fairly complete digital M outfit around town...As they say in the army, don't ask, don't tell.

JC

 

[J. Borger]

Frank, Eggleston, Shore and Winogrand (at least 1964 which screams "Robert Frank"from many pages ) have a lot in common.
I did not like any of them judging them from individual photgraphs at all.
Their photographic work is more in the form of diaries. You should look at a complete work to fully apreciate .....for instance some food pictures or pictures of a toilet in Shores "american surfaces" look realy awfull and senseless as a single picture. But in the whole work of documenting a road-trip it makes perfect sense and fits in wonderful.

With all these photographers there is always the feeling "anybody could have taken that picture" ... but the secret and dificulty is in the consistency of the complete work.

I explain their succes because of the fact they were perfect exponents of their time.They were for photography what Kerouac and Ginsberg were for literature and Dylan for music in that period.

 

[boarini2003]

You're right about Shore. To me, he's very much like Eggleston. It's still hard for me to comprehend the message in his photos. Personally I like the type of picture that is a story in itself, without requiring the viewing of a series for them to be understood.

 

[RayPA]

...

Beaumont Newhall's extremely biased view of photgraphy's history left out many trends and photographers for many, many years. Sometimes only giving them a line or two. Newhall had a lot to do with Making Ansel Adams career.

As a (much) younger photography student, one of the classes I took used this book as one of the texts. It sparked many debates, for the reasons you state, and divided the class into the 'Ansel-wannabes' and the 'nonAnsel-wannabes.' The critiques in that class were very interesting. 🙂

I like the work of the Bechers...now. I was so-so about it, and have only very recently begun to appreciate it. I picked up 'Basic Forms of Industiral Buildings,' and really enjoy it. To some that is probably similar to admitting that I like to watch paint dry. 😀



.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

www.kanakosasaki.com

Check out this young Japanese photographer's stuff. When I first came across her, I liked the photos well enough, but the more I visit her site, and the more I study the photos, the more impressed I am. I think her stuff is just brilliant. Her use of space and color is wonderful. In her project "A View From Here" she explores the theme of death and childhood, but she explores it from a really unique perspective. When my wife looked at Sasaki's photos, all she saw were snapshots, and creepy one's at that. My wife did not like the photos at all. I really look forward to seeing more of her work.

 

[kbg32]

Though the debate had been ongoing since the early part of the century, Beaumont sparked a great public debate in one of the early photo magazines - pictorialism vs. objectivism. I believe it was in the late 20's or early 30's.

If you look back over history, the photographer's who came out of the Clarence White school, a leading pictorialist, unbelievable - including Margaret Bourke-White, Anton Bruehl, Dorothea Lange, Paul Outerbridge, Jr., Karl Struss, Doris Ulmann, etc..

 

[amateriat]

I guess it's Arbus whom I've done a complete turnaround about: when I was first exposed to her work (high shool photography class, which I positively loved), I found her work largely scary, which went beyond mere like/dislike. I've come to truly admire her work over the last decade – time, distance, maturity in perspective, whatever. Kicked myself hard for missing the retrospective when it hit town.

Of course, some people's work never did much for me from the start, and likely never will. Arthur Tress, anyone?


- Barrett


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

www.kanakosasaki.com

Check out this young Japanese photographer's stuff. When I first came across her, I liked the photos well enough, but the more I visit her site, and the more I study the photos, the more impressed I am. I think her stuff is just brilliant. Her use of space and color is wonderful. In her project "A View From Here" she explores the theme of death and childhood, but she explores it from a really unique perspective. When my wife looked at Sasaki's photos, all she saw were snapshots, and creepy one's at that. My wife did not like the photos at all. I really look forward to seeing more of her work.

Interesting work...certainly someone to keep an eye on. I had a little chuckle reading about her being chosen by PDN as "Emergency Photographer" for 2006 (as read on her site under "news").


- Barrett

 

[JoeFriday]

the one photographer that I can definitely recall is seeing Winogrand's "Women Are Beautiful" series in Portland.. I could appreciate the photographic style, but it didn't appeal to me at the time (about 2 years ago).. looking at the same photos now, after concentrating on street photography for the past year or more, I see the images in a completely different way

 

[JoeFriday]

Eggleston bores me... that's my opionion... nothing more... it doesn't grab my eye --- but the one "photographer" I absolutely detest is Anne Geddes - -- maybe we need to get a collective agent and get ourselves marketed like Anne Geddes or Thomas Kinkade --- then we can all afford all our equipment

Thomas Kinkade has successfully divided the world into two types of people.. those who like his work, and those with taste 😀

I'm not particularly fond of Anne Geddes, either.. but at least I can see it why people like it.. which is almost universally females

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Anne Geddes and Celine Dion once did a book together. How's that for making you want to jump off the nearest cliff.

 

[xabi]

I liked Ralph Gibson's work a long time ago, but then I dislike it because the contrast in his pictures is too high. But recently I read his book and I like it again.

 

[kbg32]

"I'm not particularly fond of Anne Geddes, either.. but at least I can see it why people like it.. which is almost universally females
__________________
Brett"

Can you say cheese?