Is Majoli shooting with a Holga now?

[alien8]

I think that there's a lot of merit to what sirius and itf have had to say about these images, and I agree that some of the shots are very beautiful. One problem that I have with the series is that it seems really obvious to me (painfully so) that it is precisely a "unique vision" that Majoli is trying to find or define. I don't find that vision unique at all in this series(sorry). I find it really trendy and to me it smacks of a lot of the put-on naive amateurism that you find in a lot of published photography today (Vice magazine, I'm looking at you).

I think the images taken from within the cars and the mug-shots don't belong in a series of photographic work presented as such. They may be informative, or help contextualize things if they accompany a magazine article, for instance, but presented in a series like this, it just makes me wonder how seriously the photographer and the editors take this work.

 

[tmfabian]

I know majoli uses little digital point & shoots quite a bit. His abuse in alaska series was shot on them as well. So maybe that's what it was?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/archive/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RHN8U6G

 

[aizan]

wasn't magnum always about making art?

 

[amateriat]

Things like this can be hit-or-miss, but I think most of Majoli's work here falls into the "hit" category. I'm not sure just how much you can concentrate on being "arty" in a place where you know your head could be blown off without due notice, so I'll give him benefit of the doubt for doing what he thought he could. Technically, he ain't shooting with a Holga from what I can see. More important than that, most of the images get across to me. Some of them are clinkers, and the series could have used tighter editing, but I see worse stuff every day in the papers.


- Barrett

 

[sanmich]

I didn't know Majoli but I find his work excellent, be it with a Holga or an MP with Summilux.

 

[lic4]

So the prevailing sentiment is, if it doesn't make clear sense to you, then it's art?

 

[Avotius]

So the prevailing sentiment is, if it doesn't make clear sense to you, then it's art?

Art which deserves its name involves a critical aspect. Art should constitute the world and consequently alter it. The world resists this. Art is difficult and is invigorated by the misunderstanding that attends it.

 

[Nh3]

Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.

The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.

Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.

 

[jbf]

Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.

The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.

Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.

Your thinking of what is considered 'photography' is extremely limited. Have you even taken a look photography in the fine art world that isnt considered documentary/street photography? From your post it sounds like you have not. Try taking a look at post-modern artists such as Jeff Wall. You will be completely surprised by the type of work that has been produced, etc. Also try doing some real research and reading about what these post-modernist works are actually about. I think you'll find they are just as creative and flexible as any other artistic medium.

In fact, Jeff Wall's work is considered to be moreso painting than anything else, and his works are decisively photographic with strong art historical references to painting and art in general.


To claim that photography is less valuable and not flexible enough as an artistic medium compared to say painting is simply ignorant.

 

[mr_phillip]

Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.

I absolutely could not disagree more.

The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work)

I'd love to see Frank's reaction to being referred to as the least artistic of photographers. You appear to either have a very narrow view of his work, or a very limited and absolute definition of art. Have you seen his more recent work - the Steidl publications such as 'Come Again'?

 

[f/stopblues]

Photography is not painting. Photography is the act of capturing the phenomenal word on film/sensor and therefore its a craft not an art.

The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days.

Artists and those with sensitive artsy temperament should look at something more flexible for self expression like painting or even film making.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I really think a photograph is sucessful to the degree that it moves or affects a person, not at all how literal it is.

“A great photograph is one that fully expresses what
one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being
photographed.” - Ansel Adams

Being a photographer with your kind of view, I'm afraid you're missing out on the richest part of the medium.

 

[Nh3]

Photography is a craft, and these days a technology which helps us capture what is visible to our eyes.

That is the essence of photography.


Everything else associated to photography from art to science is secondary.

 

[f/stopblues]

All I can say is that's an unfortunate view! How boring photography would be if that were all it had to offer!

 

[photogdave]

I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.

 

[Nh3]

I think there is a very successful troll here at RFF and he's giving us some of his best stuff in this thread. Let's not give him any more food.

Simply because you cannot engage on a critical discussion of philosophical nature on what is photography, it does not mean you crap on the thread and call me who has simply posted an opinion a troll.

You played your part as a troll by posting your stupid comment and spoiling the discussion at hand. Go away!

/Could we please ignore this interlude and get back to the discussion.

thanks.

 

[photogdave]

Simply because you cannot engage on a critical discussion of philosophical nature on what is photography, it does not mean you crap on the thread and call me who has simply posted an opinion a troll.

You played your part as a troll by posting your stupid comment and spoiling the discussion at hand. Go away!

/Could we please ignore this interlude and get back to the discussion.

thanks.

uuhhh i no understand u

 

[Nh3]

uuhhh i no understand u

I don't know why this guy is not warned or even banned.


He spoiled an interesting thread and I hope some of you complain about him to moderators as well.

 

[sirius]

Nh3, it takes a lot of craft to paint. I studied it for four years in school. Just as it takes a lot of art to make a successful photo. If your argument is that because photography is reliant on technology it is a craft, then how come there are not more photographers producing at the level of Robert Frank. How did Robert Frank get such insight and such a personal signature to all of his photos. Presumably, anyone with a Leica who shoots a well exposed and focused photo of a juke box could create exactly what he did. I propose that it's not the tool, it's how you use it that makes the art. There are enough luminaries of 20th C photography to prove that not everyone can attain the level of expression and communication. Perhaps you are playing the devil's advocate and winding us up here?

 

[Nh3]

oh come now Nh3... you post with provocation and you know it. it is an interesting thread indeed but take a stiff drink and suffer the words you put forth.

"The best photographs are the least artistic ones (Robert Frank's work) and worst photographs are the artsy-sentimental-bokeh-over-composed-bs which is all over the place these days."

...there's more of course.

I love photography and my life is dedicated to it so i have strong opinions about photography. Some of these opinions are blunt and forward some of them are not.

Yes, I hate 95% of photos out there and I hate the trend of artsy and pointless photography which is the norm these days.

I also know for a fact that this site has a lot of serious photographers which share the same view.

Keeping those in mind I see no reason why I should play the same tune and compliment any piece of visual garbage as 'great shot'.

 

[Nh3]

Nh3, it takes a lot of craft to paint. I studied it for four years in school. Just as it takes a lot of art to make a successful photo. If your argument is that because photography is reliant on technology it is a craft, then how come there are not more photographers producing at the level of Robert Frank. How did Robert Frank get such insight and such a personal signature to all of his photos. Presumably, anyone with a Leica who shoots a well exposed and focused photo of a juke box could create exactly what he did. I propose that it's not the tool, it's how you use it that makes the art. There are enough luminaries of 20th C photography to prove that not everyone can attain the level of expression and communication. Perhaps you are playing the devil's advocate and winding us up here?

painting is far more difficult and it requires real artistic talent. Painting is also purely synthetic and the craft of it is secondary to the imagination of the artist.

Robert Frank simply used photography to convey a message and in the process changed the face of photography. He did not go out to take perfectly exposed artistic and well-composed shots, he went to photograph the condition of people and at the same time comment on it.

So, photography when used as a means to depict a subject and comment on it is unrivaled, but when it comes to purely visual and aesthetic beauty / art - painting will always be the only medium.

So, photographers should stop trying to be painters and painters should never stop painting to take on photography.

That's my humble opinion.