If I'd taken that picture...

Art market manipulation 101.

Take 10 of your worst photographs and give the prints to one of your many
billionaire friends to frame elaborately and sell at major auction houses, while
several of his "secret agents" bid them up to ridiculous sums over a few months.

Voila! Now your work is worth something. Galleries will be clamoring to show it and Time magazine will write a spread asking the world, "Is this really Art"?

The more controversy between the critics, the better. They will argue over its merits for decades.

Enjoy your new found fame and fortune. 🙂
 
Day said:
Is a picture more worth if it comes from a famous photographer?
Let me explain what I mean:
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL53ZMYN

If I'd taken this picture yesterday, would you rate it as a masterpiece?
For sure you know that picture a long time now and every picture like this is
just a copy, but would you rate it as the same if I'd taken it?
Click to expand...

Here, this might help; and though I am not a huge fan of Eric's work, his words here are right on and help explain some of what you are maybe missing?
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/10/16/street-photography-composition-lesson-4-leading-lines/
 
NY_Dan said:
If I'd taken that picture... Well, that's one of my own points in my (shameless plug perhaps) new Blurb Book: http://www.blurb.com/b/5301658-come-see-come-saw

From my intro:

"My hope is that people -- and especially other photographers -- will say, “If I saw that, I’d shoot it too.” It's what I say to myself when I see photos I appreciate."

This is my litmus test of sorts.

I've made 9 books over the past few years at the rate of one every 3 months. And from the 900 photos I believe I have a handful of "contenders."

Of course what does one do then? From what I can figure out, one needs to be collectible to be of value to galleries -- and that requires being "knighted" and admitted to the realm -- or at least allowed a guest seat at King Arthur's Table. Without this, one labors on, and hopes there is purpose. In the end, perhaps the most realistic approach is to shoot for oneself -- if nothing else one will be consistent.

As for Bruce Gilden -- he has in my opinion a more obvious formula than most, but all have some formula, or at least a variety of approaches that work for them.

Okay, back to work.
Click to expand...

The ones that do consistent work at a high level have developed a way of seeing for sure. Remember that all of these artists /photographers with a name didn't always have a name.

As much goes into editing. What I mean by that is what you choose to show. And I think Bresson said something like this and I am paraphrasing here. You have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese.
 
It's an interesting question the OP poses, IMO.

I like to think that I can be objective when considering the "greatness" of a picture - even if I know it comes from a "great" photographer. I am a huge fan of Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Eugene Atget, Bill Brandt and a number of others whose names are their trademark. However, I am not so blinded by their brand that I feel I have to like everything they ever produced.

Equally, I'm not art historian and there will be many, many photographs taken by my favourite photographers that I do not know are by them - some of which I will think are amazing, some okay and others to which I wouldn't give a second look. The flip-side of this is that, if I don't know the photographer, I can only judge on the merits of the phoitograph itself.

If you asked a traditional camera club judge to decide how good a photograph is, you might get another answer completely. In the days when I was a member of camera clubs, the judges seemed to have been hewn from the same block. The photograph mustn't have blocked out shadows, burned highlights or pronounced grain. It must, however, be pin-sharp, exposed to perfection and the point of interest absolutely must be "on a third". By that "objective" measure, the photographer becomes almost irelevant.

Ultimately, it's a great photograph if someone thinks it is. The next guy might believe it's rubbish.....
 
Claude Monet painted 25 different versions of Haystacks over the course of a year. The story alone is an interesting one, but his pursuit understanding light was obsessive.

When I look at HCB... which happens fairly often, I see a master of composition.

IMHO... just a different interpretation of say Monet.

How many times to HCB revisit the scene and wait for the moment? The light, the shadows, the angles?

All of the elements lined up. The season, the subject, his attire, the weather, the time of day... all lead to a wonderful "moment"

I don't see that with the randomness Gilden or Meyerwitz. Maybe it's the subject matter, approach, or there portrayal.

Why would/should street photography be any different than Monet's approach to haystacks?

For me, personally, that is the challenge. People are just pieces to the puzzle.
 
If that picture came up in the weekly Gallery pick, I maybe would have looked at it but most likely not have included it in my picks of the week - but all depends on the mood...
 
Once again people at RFF are better than the masters of the medium. HCB has his place in history and so do his photos. It doesn't matter if any of us think individual photos are worthy or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom