I’m a photographer ... what’s a camera?

RichC said:
Nah. That was the first skirmish - pictorialism vs modernism. Modernism won, ushering in an era where "straight" photography became dominant...

But, since the end of the 20th century, postmodernism has been questioning the modernist view that photography's primary concern should ideally be a record of reality.

And hence today you have photographers who reference painting, as well as more radical approaches - like the examples I gave in the first post of this thread.

Actually, there is no "turf war" today, really. Modernism was prescriptive - it laid down rules about what painting, photography and other media should and should not focus on. But postmodernism says "nuts to that": there are no rules - if I want to take a photograph that looks like a classical painting, then why not? More importantly, you can do this *and* be taken seriously - in the bad old days when modernism ruled photography, even using colour film would mean that you weren't a "proper" photographer...

Oh, happy Christmas...!
Click to expand...

Think that I`d rather read about woods metal :)
I`m still trying to work out how I`m going to arrange my horse over that fence and maintain complete control.
Going to have to have a word with him in the new year.
Failing that you`re welcome to come and apply your techniques ,Rich .;)

Have a good Christmas and new year.
Hope that its not too wet down your end.
 
RichC said:
"Photographer Ahn Jun... always shoots in the same way - setting her camera onto drive mode she shoots as many images as possible per second until the memory card is full.

'I then review normally thousands of pictures and I pick one or two.'"

Jun is not inexperienced - she has a photography degree - but she's supremely uninterested in the traditional craft of using a camera. Her "machine gun" approach producing thousands of semi-random shots should give at least one she likes.

My personal approach to photography requires a camera and deep knowledge of technique. I cannot see myself shooting thousands of photos on auto, nor putting the camera down and appropriating images from somewhere else.

But I take note of and understand those photographers who do work in unorthodox ways (some of whom I'd call photographers even if they don't use a camera directly). I think a lot of photographers (some in this thread) fail to appreciate how much the practice of photography has changed (and continues to do so) since the 1990s.

Someone in this thread mentioned that they expect photography to evolve where soon the norm is to shoot video, and to afterwards extract still images from this stream. Jun is a precursor to this way of working.

Video is a good example of technology changing photography and the role of the photographer - making the craft of photography in some ways more automatic and less skillful, allowing the photographer to concentrate on the image with no need to master the tool used to create it.

Video will become more and more a part of photography - half the master's students on my degree course use it routinely. And Mark Power - the Magnum photographer - has in the last 2 years gone from using only 5x4 film to dSLR to now including video in his last project (he'll continue to use film, though!).
Click to expand...

Excuse me but I know many people who were using photography in this way in the 1970's. I myself used a cine camera to shoot scenes and then made cibachromes of individual frames when I was a student in the early 1980's.
Nothing is a 'pre cursor' there just a continuation of artistic process, nothing 'unorthodox' or game changing.

How is this the changing face of photography? You sound like someone inexperienced in photography who seeks to define a 'brave new world' and yet seems to think there is some sort of massive change, whilst pointing to examples that don't support this.
Someone who collects photographs or photographic ephemera is not a photographer but rather a curator putting together a collection.
Someone who uses others images in their artwork isn't a photographer either, lets not pretend any of the 'artists' are actually doing something new.

Not putting you down Rich but every new generation thinks they have discovered sex...

Happy Christmas everyone!
 
Well, I don’t care how people make their art or what tools they use as long as the product of their labor is interesting to look at.

As for titles like artist or photographer or “Dictator of Visual Stuff, consult a publicist for the current media “power term”. I don’t care what you or any other “artist” use for a title – unless the title is humorous. I’ll pay closer attention if it’s funny.

Architects define most periods of Art. The folks with less project money that make things that aren’t so big as not to be ignored, that don’t last as long as most major works of public / corporate construction are looking at the lead dogs butt. Today, big collectors (gallery owners included) and museum / corporate creators define the “other art”. These people all know each other - often well enough to socialize and collude on who’s “important “ or who’s going to be “important”. If you play in that park you know it’s often more about money and (art) politics than about Art. Make influential friends early in your career.

So, I see most of this dialogue about “photographers” as BS.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how I feel, especially the last sentence.
 
A friend of mine who is a curator at the London photographers gallery was explaining to me recently about her boredom with "legacy" photography. Ie traditional photographs made by a person with a camera and lens and film etc. in terms of photographic importance in a fine art context, pretty much everything has been said that needs to be said. As a practicing artist/curator who has an interest in the medium I agree with the examples that you mention as being part of the new conversation that is happening in photography today. As a rff member, I consider rangefinder cameras a fun hobby and an important part of photographic history. However, nothing I have ever shot with my m9 has been used in an exhibition yet. I think ideas of authorship and renegotiating photographic language are of far more interest than "legacy" photography.
 
Unfortunately for many photojournalists, they probably are wasting their time unless they are covering a sport event with vip passes... In an age where someone caught in the thick of a news story can upload a photo via their iPhone instantly, dedicated news photojournalists are always going to struggle for relevance. Think of the Arab springs or the london riots and all the amazing imagery that came from non-photographers. I respect and enjoy looking at photojournalism, but their game has certainly changed in the last 10 years. I am certain even Mr mccullin would be aware of this.
 
kehng said:
A friend of mine who is a curator at the London photographers gallery was explaining to me recently about her boredom with "legacy" photography. Ie traditional photographs made by a person with a camera and lens and film etc. in terms of photographic importance in a fine art context, pretty much everything has been said that needs to be said.
Click to expand...

She should look for a new job if she feels 'everything has been said' and is bored.
Possibly she doesn't read any new novels or listen to new music because it's all been done before?
Photographic 'importance' within a fine art context probably is a euphemism for self importance– as is 'fine art'
 
I am afraid you must have misunderstood what I was saying... Let me reiterate... She is bored with "legacy" photography but conversely is inspired by new conversations in photography. Which is precisely why i thimk she was hired. I understand folks who think fine art is up its own backside, as it is not for everyone but let's not resort to presumptions or judgements eh?


Photo_Smith said:
She should look for a new job if she feels 'everything has been said' and is bored.
Possibly she doesn't read any new novels or listen to new music because it's all been done before?
Photographic 'importance' within a fine art context probably is a euphemism for self importance– as is 'fine art'
Click to expand...
 
kehng said:
I am afraid you must have misunderstood what I was saying... Let me reiterate... She is bored with "legacy" photography but conversely is inspired by new conversations in photography. Which is precisely why i thimk she was hired. I understand folks who think fine art is up its own backside, as it is not for everyone but let's not resort to presumptions or judgements eh?
Click to expand...

I got what you said, perfectly. I just think her argument of what is and isn't 'a la mode' is just pseudo intellectual twaddle. She has defined legacy photography as passé and boring because 'it's all been said' and is drawing from what she calls 'new conversation' (obviously speak for what I want to sell this week)
Could be why the photographers gallery has gone downhill so badly, possibly she shouldn't resort to so many presumptions about what 'legacy' photography means and what her 'new conversation' really consists of.

Most of these people over intellectualise their terminology to maintain their positions of self importance.
 
kehng said:
Unfortunately for many photojournalists, they probably are wasting their time unless they are covering a sport event with vip passes... In an age where someone caught in the thick of a news story can upload a photo via their iPhone instantly, dedicated news photojournalists are always going to struggle for relevance. Think of the Arab springs or the london riots and all the amazing imagery that came from non-photographers. I respect and enjoy looking at photojournalism, but their game has certainly changed in the last 10 years. I am certain even Mr mccullin would be aware of this.
Click to expand...

Poor old Don ...and he was so looking forward to it ....being relevant again I mean.
It means a lot when you`re a pensioner .

I`d like to think that he`s not aware of any of this.
So if you bump into him say nothing ... it`ll be our secret :)
 
She has defined legacy photography as passé and boring because 'it's all been said'
Click to expand...

I love the way the "arty" crowd think they're being cool by lifting techie terms and misusing them. When the engineers I work with talk about "legacy technology", they're referring to things that are obsolete and due for replacement. I don't see anything obsolete about any form of photography. You can even get new wet plate cameras and equipment...

http://www.blackartwoodcraft.com/wet-plate-cameras/

;)
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I love the way the "arty" crowd think they're being cool by lifting techie terms and misusing them. When the engineers I work with talk about "legacy technology", they're referring to things that are obsolete and due for replacement. I don't see anything obsolete about any form of photography. You can even get new wet plate cameras and equipment...

http://www.blackartwoodcraft.com/wet-plate-cameras/

;)
Click to expand...

Yes I travel to quite a few seminars and talks with my wife, we play 'bull***t bingo' with terms like new conversation, fine art, giclee etc

I think I'll start using more Latin and French terminology to blind the plebs still using their outmoded legacy offerings that can't be part of the 'new conversation'
 
@ kehng ....

What the hell is ''legacy'' photography ?

Is ''legacy'' in this context a euthemism for ''old'', ''stale'', ''has been'', ''no longer relevant'' ?

At what date did ''legacy'' photography get put in the trash bin and ''post modern'', ''trendy'' and ''cutting edge'' become paramount ?

I ask purely as an amused/bemused onlooker who still thinks that ''talent'' over-rules ''trendiness'' and ''artistic ability'' outranks ''arty farty BS'', regardless of the era in which it was conceived....
 
One can however say the legacy (inherited) code still works, all we need to do is extend it.
Click to expand...

Ow, Ow, OW! You just trod on my corns. :eek:

I do a lot of maintenance programming and my personal definition of "legacy code" is: something vital to business continuity but everyone who wrote it left years ago and the only documentation is some in-line comments, which refer to documents that were pulped last month. :bang:

Come to think of it, that does bear some resemblance to a description of the average "artistic" type. :rolleyes:
 
I have a lot of trouble thinking of the OPs examples as "photographers", and, for context,
I am 42 yo rather progressive thinking person.
I would consider the gents as "visual artists", not photographers. And again, for context, I am not a pro fotog, or pro artist.
Por example, the guy that takes pictures of pictures on the Net/google, then rewraps them in his own gift paper.

he was popularized and got upper class art shows b/c of this being a new medium, and significant change in the way that average people view,
understand, and interact with the world. For me, that may define "art" in a broad sense, but its not something I haven't already thought of,
or many others for that matter. In a sense, his art is cheap, its a methodical and tactical regurgitation of what is already out there,
nothing special about it. Most scientists could do the same thing: its a strategic permutation that describes the masses: so what?
And more to the point, it lacks the immediacy, soul, and personalization that, what I believe, differentiates a photographer from a regurgitator.

An analogy: A music DJ: they take snippets of other peoples music and put it in a strategic order to say what they want.
Are they the originators of the soup of music that goes into their regurgitated song? No. Are they "musicians": I think not.
But can they be considered "musical artists"? I think so.
Same with "photographers" and "visual artists".

Rich, you've taken some heat on starting this thread, but I really appreciate your provocative questions, given that there is a big
"gear head"community on RFF (myself included), which ends up lacking much intellect in the posts.
thank you.
 
fotomeow said:
I have a lot of trouble thinking of the OPs examples as "photographers", and, for context,
I am 42 yo rather progressive thinking person.
I would consider the gents as "visual artists", not photographers. And again, for context, I am not a pro fotog, or pro artist.
Por example, the guy that takes pictures of pictures on the Net/google, then rewraps them in his own gift paper.

he was popularized and got upper class art shows b/c of this being a new medium, and significant change in the way that average people view,
understand, and interact with the world. For me, that may define "art" in a broad sense, but its not something I haven't already thought of,
or many others for that matter. In a sense, his art is cheap, its a methodical and tactical regurgitation of what is already out there,
nothing special about it. Most scientists could do the same thing: its a strategic permutation that describes the masses: so what?
And more to the point, it lacks the immediacy, soul, and personalization that, what I believe, differentiates a photographer from a regurgitator.

An analogy: A music DJ: they take snippets of other peoples music and put it in a strategic order to say what they want.
Are they the originators of the soup of music that goes into their regurgitated song? No. Are they "musicians": I think not.
But can they be considered "musical artists"? I think so.
Same with "photographers" and "visual artists".

Rich, you've taken some heat on starting this thread, but I really appreciate your provocative questions, given that there is a big
"gear head"community on RFF (myself included), which ends up lacking much intellect in the posts.
thank you.
Click to expand...


Thank you for this post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom