Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Generalisation just isn't as good as it used to be - all of it! 
ron1945
Established
thats the magic dieing
DRabbit
Registered
One person hates Eggleston. Another thinks it's mundane. Another likes it. Ask each of these people if Eggleston's work had soul and you'll get a different answer. That's the beauty of art. It's SO subjective.
Lets throw away all the snapshots and cellphone photos of the world for this discussion. We had those before, we just weren't subjected to them via the world wide web. They mean as much as they did 20 years ago, just now it's all very public.
When it comes to those striving to be photographers I think there's a lot of technically beautiful photos shot with precision, composed wonderfully that somehow lack soul. Something about them bothers me. They are beautiful. They are perfect. The colors are spot on. But they bore me. But that's ME.... because art is subjective.
The ones I enjoy most are often the ones that wouldn't win the contest but come in third or fifth place... or maybe even last. The ones that reveal more than a beautiful scene. The ones where the color seems off, but intentionally as it adds something to the artful composition. I ilke photos, like Eggleston's, that take what we see every day and turn it into something we suddenly notice. However, I'm biased, because it's the kind of work myself I have always strived to do, even before I knew Eggleston existed. I don't know whether I succeed, but have enjoyed the process of trying.
I've come to love film, and that's new for me as I really didn't get into photography until digital cameras were becoming popular. I wouldn't say my film photography has more soul than my digital photography. I can't even be the one to judge myself whether any of my work has soul, because as the "artist", of course it means something to me, which automatically gives it soul, if only individual.
I will say though, interestingly enough, I embarked on a photo-a-day project almost 180 days ago, and one of the photos that has garnered the most attention and positive comments is something far from technically perfect. I'm not sure why, but to others it seems to contain soul. I think when we capture a feeling, even if different from the viewers, as long as it evokes something more than just "that's pretty", it contains soul. I think in a group such as this, we may achieve it more than we think we do.
Or maybe I'm all wrong...
Lets throw away all the snapshots and cellphone photos of the world for this discussion. We had those before, we just weren't subjected to them via the world wide web. They mean as much as they did 20 years ago, just now it's all very public.
When it comes to those striving to be photographers I think there's a lot of technically beautiful photos shot with precision, composed wonderfully that somehow lack soul. Something about them bothers me. They are beautiful. They are perfect. The colors are spot on. But they bore me. But that's ME.... because art is subjective.
The ones I enjoy most are often the ones that wouldn't win the contest but come in third or fifth place... or maybe even last. The ones that reveal more than a beautiful scene. The ones where the color seems off, but intentionally as it adds something to the artful composition. I ilke photos, like Eggleston's, that take what we see every day and turn it into something we suddenly notice. However, I'm biased, because it's the kind of work myself I have always strived to do, even before I knew Eggleston existed. I don't know whether I succeed, but have enjoyed the process of trying.
I've come to love film, and that's new for me as I really didn't get into photography until digital cameras were becoming popular. I wouldn't say my film photography has more soul than my digital photography. I can't even be the one to judge myself whether any of my work has soul, because as the "artist", of course it means something to me, which automatically gives it soul, if only individual.
I will say though, interestingly enough, I embarked on a photo-a-day project almost 180 days ago, and one of the photos that has garnered the most attention and positive comments is something far from technically perfect. I'm not sure why, but to others it seems to contain soul. I think when we capture a feeling, even if different from the viewers, as long as it evokes something more than just "that's pretty", it contains soul. I think in a group such as this, we may achieve it more than we think we do.
Or maybe I'm all wrong...
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Amy: Wrong? You've said a lot of good stuff from where I sit...
- Barrett
- Barrett
Sparrow
Veteran
International Exhibition of Modern Art of 1913, at the New York The Armoury/Armory was probably the date
Late 1880s in Europe
Neare
Well-known
Soul? Every Joe/Jane Blog with only a phone in their pocket these days considers himself/herself an amateur photographer, they all have souls don't they?
Do most people put as much thought into photography as they once did? No.
Do most people put as much thought into photography as they once did? No.
Pico
-
I agree with all that, however in this particular magic moment of history we have a flattened curve for quality photojournalism. The media which could really make a contribution to good photojournalism, for example CNN.COM, could hire photographers who know how to work rather than use almost exclusive 'iReporters' for free. iReport kind of work is important in that the picture-takers usually have no motivation to fake it, their work is perfectly candid, but it lacks professional perspective and it's rather lacking in courage to get in there and get the right picture.
That's what is missing in the 'magic moment' of media right now.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Most people probably don't. I'd hesistate a guess that sooner or later 100% of the earth's population will have taken a picture sometime in their life. In other words there are a lot more people taking photos now, than before. If you were to ask me if less people take photography seriously than before, the answer would however be no. Why should it not be so? Because more people take pictures, fewer make an effort to inject some meaning into them? Hogswash.
Neare
Well-known
Ahh but this is all speaking relatively. There are many more Photographers these days than their once was. Therefore, while there may be more people taking photography seriously than say 60 years ago, in comparison to the increase in numbers then ratio wise I am sure it would have dropped some.
I met two men yesterday. One was an Elderly man in a bar in the City, he was sitting outside by himself in a beige suit and hat. He was gleaming at my Mamiya C as I was walking past and I gave him a little smile back. He then shouts down the street to me that I have a lovely camera and you don't see any of those anymore (At least in NZ). Turns out he was once an photographer who's first camera was the Mamiya C back in the 60's. We talked for a little while and as I was about to go he said
"So you only use film? Ah so you're not a Photographer, you're an Artist."
This was a Photog who grew up and watched the profession change to what it is today. What he said is a key observation. The second was another Man in a cafe later. He had been doing commercial work for 20 odd years, took his camera to the street for the day, not something he usually does, and he explained that this outing was the first time he had actually appreciated taking photos of People. He had actually, for the first time in 20 years, been happy with the photos he had taken. He sat there with this huge grin on his face saying that
"It was really a Kodak Moment!"
Haha I loved it and by some chance that I met these two people who what they said, I believe, goes hand in hand. 20 years on and he only now starts to enjoy it.
Then again, we are hardly entitled to say if another Photographer believes if their work has soul or not, if you were to ask them, the answer would be 'Yes' I'm sure. But these are the people I meet and these two were only yesterday.