Lilserenity
Well-known
That's pretty harsh and unnecessary.
If the chap is having fun doing what he does, then so be it. Who are we to judge whether someone is wasting their time or not?
I'm probably wasting my time doing a project that involves walking around 34 square miles of new town, but to me it's not a waste, but if anybody did say that to me in that tone, I don't think I'd take too kindly to it.
We all have reasons for pursuing the things we photograph and if we derive satisfaction and meaning from it, then no one can tell you to junk them.
Never speak of photography in such objective ways, it's not possible.
I may say this as someone who quite likes his photos of old motel signs and very punchy colour but I say this more because it's him having the last laugh, after all, he's not doing too bad for himself with all those cameras!
I don't think you'd like the same thing said of your work, so perhaps let's give the guy a break.
Don't like what he has to say, don't read what he has to say.
Simples.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
jbf
||||||
First off, I dont read what he says. So that is not an issue. I am pointing out the fact that quite a lot of 'photographers' do not strive to really say anything with their work. Their photos consist of flowers, random objects in their house, which show no relation or viable meaning behind them. There is no thought process or concept behind any of it.
One thing that I feel is 100% is that no matter who or what a photographer chooses to shoot. If he or she chooses to put a concept or thought or real idea behind what they are doing, you can always see it in their work, and it will cause that work to stand out in one way or another. Regardless of the technical, or asthetic merit.
Also, I would be rather happy for people to look at my work and be completely honest with me. The flat, harsh, and realistic truth to it all, is that there will always be people who are opposed to your work. The sooner you realize that, and are able to objectively listen to their reasoning, and at least attempt to understand their point from one way or another, it gives you a much broader and understanding view of how others viwe your work.
No one is ever going to see your work the way you do, so what is the point of getting 'married' to your images? There is none. Getting attached to them is simply blinding yourself from growing as an artist and pushing your ideas and technical/asthetic ability further.
So no, it is not harsh. Its the truth. Either you have an idea, concept, story, or some motive to your work that attempts to say something meaningful, otherwise (to me) it is useless.
Of course others will not agree with me. And that is fine. It is your right to look at art/photography/etc as you wish.
I choose to look at it as a form of expression to do something meaningful with. To either change one person's view on life, or try to explain something in or world which may otherwise go overlooked.
ferider
Veteran
jack palmer
Well-known
It's truth alright it's your truth. Not everyone aspires or can be the artist the you obviously consider yourself. Beleive it or not most of the people taking photographs are just average Joes enjoying their hobby. If you're offended by their lack of vision, you better hold up in your ivory tower because you're vastly out numbered.
tonyj
Established
....and the success he is having ...... the job he has .....the places he sees ..... the equipment he gets to play with ........ etc., etc.
it's oh so easy to climb up on our own little pedestals and deride everything around us. "We could do better", is the message I am hearing.
Well show us.
If the avatars used on these forums is representative of the best work of some of us who tend to become a little pompous on occasion, then Mr Rockwell has little to fear.
I disagree with this. I have seen shots by Winogrand (not to pick on him, he's just the first one that comes to mind) who I'm sure had a concept in mind (or thought or real idea) when he took particular photos, yet when I look at them I scratch my head and say "why?"
Others can ooh and aah over these particular photos but they do nothing at all for me. I definitely do not 'always' see the concept/thought/idea in the work. But on the other hand, I don't criticize other viewers for greatly appreciating the same exact photos.
To each his own...
Lilserenity
Well-known
I would then say, why does it have to? This also changes over time. I took some photos oooh, 6 years ago. That's not long, at the time they had no meaning really. They were snaps. 6 years later thinking they had been lost, I found them again. And now they have some meaning, I'm not sure what, but they remind me of where I was, what I was doing at the time etc. -- people look at photos of our neighbourhoods years ago with interest but on the day they were taken, they had seemingly no meaning. It's an important thing to note, when these things are gone, what is there left to evidence they ever were there, those children in the photos with the life they lead, or the town changed beyond comprehension, the artetfacts of US road trips such as these quirky motels -- they may mean nothing now, but in time they could be as much as the spoken word and recollection from memory a great visual memory of the way we were.
Of course that's an opinion but I don't think a photo has to have meaning as such, it's the meaning you give to it. What could be a vase of flowers in the dim light of noon meaning nothing to you or I, could be the moment a photographer snapped of the time when someone died, reminding them of the benign platitude of that that dimly lit noon when someone they knew or loved passed on. But to us, it'll always be that vase of flowers in that flat light...
We cannot no matter what we feel about it, change what a photo means to someone. And it may take time for that meaning to develop. In fifty years time, I'll look at some nonsense I snapped the other day and remember when, and then it has meaning...
Uhhhuhh, but what they think doesn't take away from what you feel about your work if that depth of feeling it strong enough. There will be people opposed to my work, that to me is the wrong expression, I'd say there would be people who think my photos are a bunch of formulaic done before baloney that is dull tedious and about as awe inspiring as an insipid afternoon in a down at heel bar. That's fine if they think that. But I don't have to agree with them because someone feels that way, it';s good in life to know when to heed criticism but also sometimes to stand by your judgements when you feel you need to. Or you'll get walked over, it's like everything in life : balance.
Disagree. If I don't have attachment to what I create then what is the point. If I derive no attachment to the work I like that others don't, then where's my pleasure of my reason? Is my reason for enjoyment, or to play up to the ideal of the artist I think I should be? And if I never get attached to any of my work, then when will my artistic vision (if I have one) ever be complete or begin to be fulfilled? It wouldn't in my view, it would be just a series of intellectually rich and aesthetically rounded photos or works that hold no emotive feeling or sense of satisfaction in. That's not for me personally, I want to once a year take a photo that I look back on and think, "I really like that. Good job." I'm not here to impress anyone, I'm not here to prove myself, I am here to enjoy myself but horses for courses.
It's the truth -- the truth as you see it.
Very rarely will you change someone's view. Maybe peversely the need some feel that their work should try to change someone's view or explain something in life is a sign of that attachment to our photos after all; because they are married to the thoughts and ideas we wish to explain through them. No human can divorce themselves from this, we will always be a little subjective as hard as we might try to be utterly objective.
Vicky
jfretless
Established
50 posts refering to KR and he didn't even have to lift a finger.
Would we not all like to be able to take images of what we want, talk about what we want, give our opinions AND make money at it.
....and have the half the internet hate you, the other half like you.
In either case, driving more people to your site.
As a business man, he's a genius.
John
Would we not all like to be able to take images of what we want, talk about what we want, give our opinions AND make money at it.
....and have the half the internet hate you, the other half like you.
In either case, driving more people to your site.
As a business man, he's a genius.
John
Roger Warren
AddlepatedWight
I love all this bashing
Lilserenity
Well-known
Quite agree. I don't go a bundle on all of his stuff but then nobody does for mine, but he's doing bloody well for himself so as I say, he's having the last laugh. Personally well done on the man!
Now if I had an ounce of that acumen
Vicky
ferider
Veteran
As a one-man show he is doing better than all of us on RFF
Cheers to that.
Cheers to that.
wgerrard
Veteran
As a one-man show he is doing better than all of us on RFF
Cheers to that.
As I read it, Rockwell's site targets folks who have sunk money into DSLR's and can't figure out why they are stilling getting indifferent results. Rockwell hits them with a few basic points:
1. A modern automatic exposure and focusing system is almost certainly better doing those things than most of you.
2. Digital doesn't guarantee better pictures than film.
3. New toys don't take better pictures than old toys.
4. If you scan film, you're probably better off paying a really good lab to do it.
He illustrates it all with well-saturated images, frequently taken with Velvia 50. They might not be to everyone's taste, but they do pop out of a web page.
For someone searching the web looking for advice about getting into serious photography, Rockwell's message is consistent with the usual RFF message.
climbing_vine
Well-known
I think this is an extraordinarily incisive observation, and all the too-cool-for-school kids (who are mostly 55+) here should take note.
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Sorry, I wasn't `focusing` on everyone here, though I believe a few of the posters have a trace of the frustrated green eyed monster about them.
Didn't Martin Parr suffer from a similar thing during his Magnum application? Out of place, dull, boring, untalented and worse was probably `fired` across the table at the AGM i'm sure.
Even the geezer who runs Britains Got Talent (?) and X-Factor suffers the same fate. His programs may be low budget, empty tosh but he's made for life (git).
And he wears his waistband by his ears (see, I'm at it now).
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
A few things:
I think his site is less interesting now than some years ago... He did a huge work while the digital boom, and then with the return to film, but now he's got not too many new things to say or review on film or digital, and he's in general been right on what he's said, exaggerations apart... Sometimes I take a look there, and I think it's more because of him, just trying to find absurd or amusement, not because of the information or his shots, of course. He believes shooting is related to strong perspective and color, not to emotions, delicateness or passing moments. Particularly I find awful his shots of people with fill flash. Maybe he found out some time ago the future of his page and wallet will depend basically on starting photographers buying from his links. I think he's very intelligent and well-intentioned.
Cheers,
Juan
I think his site is less interesting now than some years ago... He did a huge work while the digital boom, and then with the return to film, but now he's got not too many new things to say or review on film or digital, and he's in general been right on what he's said, exaggerations apart... Sometimes I take a look there, and I think it's more because of him, just trying to find absurd or amusement, not because of the information or his shots, of course. He believes shooting is related to strong perspective and color, not to emotions, delicateness or passing moments. Particularly I find awful his shots of people with fill flash. Maybe he found out some time ago the future of his page and wallet will depend basically on starting photographers buying from his links. I think he's very intelligent and well-intentioned.
Cheers,
Juan
Mephiloco
Well-known
I have no problems with Ken Rockwell. He's one of the many photographers who happen to have a gear site. Some of his writings are helpful to me, some aren't so much helpful as interesting, and some garner no interest from me at all. I'm not sure the ratio of one to the other, but to be fair, there are more threads on RFF that don't interest me than do strike my interest; the same could be said for any website or outlet of any sort. I don't see why there needs to be a thread every time he takes a picture.
Also, regarding the comment that his photos have no meaning, and that they're basically snapshots or soulless blah blah blah. Why does a photo have to be well thought out beforehand and have a clear intention or meaning? Meaning and importance vary over time. Pictures taken by my parents or grandparents that had no meaning to them could have great meaning for me. Pictures I took before Katrina that I were nothing special to me would now have great personal meaning to me, even though at the time of capture they were impulsive snapshots.
Some of my favorite shots (of my own, and others) were of things I just thought looked interesting or caught my eye. I've had great pictures come from rolls where I hadn't intended on any of the pictures being keepers (test rolls, experimentation etc).
I personally think that people extrapolate meaning as an after thought in most cases, and to criticize Ken Rockwell for his photos lacking meaning is idiotic. It's as silly as criticizing photos that don't 'depict reality.'
Also, regarding the comment that his photos have no meaning, and that they're basically snapshots or soulless blah blah blah. Why does a photo have to be well thought out beforehand and have a clear intention or meaning? Meaning and importance vary over time. Pictures taken by my parents or grandparents that had no meaning to them could have great meaning for me. Pictures I took before Katrina that I were nothing special to me would now have great personal meaning to me, even though at the time of capture they were impulsive snapshots.
Some of my favorite shots (of my own, and others) were of things I just thought looked interesting or caught my eye. I've had great pictures come from rolls where I hadn't intended on any of the pictures being keepers (test rolls, experimentation etc).
I personally think that people extrapolate meaning as an after thought in most cases, and to criticize Ken Rockwell for his photos lacking meaning is idiotic. It's as silly as criticizing photos that don't 'depict reality.'
Wuddy
Member
wgerrard
Veteran
Shhhh....!
CopperB
M3 Noob
Last edited: