_mark__
Well-known
Did i say most, sorry, i meant a lot of the less strong work.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Ray, is it possilble that you are seeing a proliferation of imitation, something you did not see so easily 20 years ago, because there was no internet?
The new digital technologies have made an iterative photographic process possible: Instead of defining a project, creating deliberate, authentic images over a longer period of time, editing these with experts and publishing a cohesive series in print (the waterfall method), millions of people today are publishing/uploading random images as they go and tagging them with keywords and/or adding them to existing sets (the new agile/iterative method). This has led to an obvious increase in imitation because people are looking at each other's uploads, cherry-picking the popular images and copying them in one way or another.
I guess this is what you mean by "lacking sole." It's basically the rehashing of ideas/imagery over and over again by people who have no ideas of their own.
If you google +photo "I'm going to try that sometime" or +photo "I should try that sometime" you get the feeling that something's not quite right with the general photographic mindset. It's similar to the garage band scene of the 1960s, when millions of teenagers worldwide played and recorded imitations of the great songs of the Stones, Beatles, Kinks and Who.
nome_alice
Established
same amount of soul, but different type. don't want to get bored doing what our grandparents have already done.
emraphoto
Veteran
and that pretty much covers it.
Pablito
coco frío
Solarization is not manipulation?
gavinlg
Veteran
Just wanted to point this out - this was what I meant to say. There are thousands of fantastic photographers making fantastic work with digital cameras.
Ducky
Well-known
Merry Christmas, Roger, I have gone through some of my loser images from way back and all of a sudden the don't look that bad, (maybe not that good either). This is from my low quality camera period, which I have gone through many times, and am going through again, (this one is a 104 Instamatic about 1964-5 with Ektachrome):
This is what I like about photography. I remember the car, the coat, the hairdo and even the feel of the 60's. Could be anywhere in 1960 USA.
charjohncarter
Veteran
While the phots you have posted are very nice... and I'd say do have "soul," Eggleston definetely has soul! And digital all looks the same? huh? :bang:
back alley
IMAGES
i still hate the look of those coats.
charjohncarter
Veteran
You hate the look of a coat, I'm glad you don't live near me.
dan denmark
No Get Well cards please
what does 'modern' mean?
user237428934
User deletion pending
Good question. From several visits of exhibitions I know that the term modern art is generally used for art from 1900 up to now. As far as i know modern art startet with expressionism that came up in early 1900.
I doubt that there is an "official" date when modern photography started.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eggleston all looks the same!
One school says "We have lost the genius [or soul] of the past."
Another school says stuff that is even more nonsensical, such as "Good colour photography didn't exist before 1970" (cf Szarkowski or Eauclaire).
My own view is that we remember the good stuff and forget the bad. We just haven't had time to forget the bad current stuff yet. Go back to books and magazines from the past -- any era you like -- and there was a high percentage of rubbish around then. Even Camera Work, which is all but worshipped by many, was often not very good.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Whistler in the 1870s? Seurat in the 1880s?
'Modern' art really started when people felt the need to belong to a 'movement', and the label or manifesto became as important as the art. The Fauves and Impressionists got the ball rolling, indeed around 1905; then (sorry, can't remember the chronological order, nor do I care) Constructivists, Cubists, Surrealists, Socialist Realists, Photo-Realists, Hard-Edge, Pop, Op, Minimalists, Post-Modernists and any other label you care to make up.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Before a movement, you have to have someone that steps out of the normal rules and boundaries; in art, what is now call modern (visual) art, it was JMW Turner; way before the impressionists. To me he (Turner) was the first modern visual artist (Beethoven was the first modern artist).
http://www.allartclassic.com/pictures_zoom.php?p_number=131&p=&number=TUJ026
back alley
IMAGES
charjohncarter
Veteran
why, do you wear ugly coats?
I've got a couple, I even have one of them on now.
bmattock
Veteran
I very much like that statement. Thank you!
EDIT: Let us also not forget that we have not yet had time to hoist current photographers on our shoulders and pronounce them Gods. This will also happen in time. Then, their work will be considered deep and meaningful.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Don't think I'd argue with that, except that he was more 'realist' and 'figurative' than Whistler or Seurat. For that matter you could step back a few centuries and argue for Cimabue. Certainly, Turner coincided with the rise of the critic (bloody Ruskin again!) which is what you need for a 'movement'.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: