That's cool... I used to be that way, but as I get older (and more removed from getting a BFA in photography) I become more relaxed about what I like about photography. I like all well done photos from simplistic to complex as long as it just works for me.
GSNfan
Well-known
To expect from every street photographer an intellectual approach to their work is a little too demanding. But at the same time its essential that the standards are maintained; however, its also necessary that there is a counterbalancing type of work otherwise no one will be able to appreciate the intellectual approach.
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
A quick glance at Flickr would provide an adequate counter balance. We are awash in visual imagery some of it simplistic and some of it more complex. I'm not sure that more complex photographs require the foil of simplistic photographs to be appreciated at this point in our common visual history. We are all fairly sophisticated visual consumers, consciously or not.
There is a difference between an "intellectual approach" and editing out simplistic visual jokes. Again I do like some of Stuarts photography, but I think it leans too heavily on very straightforward visual jokes at times. Frankly I'm curious why he wouldn't feel a certain compulsion to get beyond this himself. Perhaps he does as I haven't kept up with his work.
I'm very much a proponent and practitioner of serendipitous visual juxtaposition in street photography, in fact I think it is one of the hallmarks of the genre, but I think to adequately explore this, particularly as a well know professional photographer, you do need to present it in new ways.
There is a difference between an "intellectual approach" and editing out simplistic visual jokes. Again I do like some of Stuarts photography, but I think it leans too heavily on very straightforward visual jokes at times. Frankly I'm curious why he wouldn't feel a certain compulsion to get beyond this himself. Perhaps he does as I haven't kept up with his work.
I'm very much a proponent and practitioner of serendipitous visual juxtaposition in street photography, in fact I think it is one of the hallmarks of the genre, but I think to adequately explore this, particularly as a well know professional photographer, you do need to present it in new ways.
RollingBall
Established
I'd like to see your or other people's one-liners. They're often the hardest joke to tell.
I agree RollingBall... I they are deceptively simple.
dyao
Well-known
Let's not confuse the process of getting the photograph with the photograph itself...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
As I've said before, people are too ready to dismiss wit in photography. Why this is, I have no idea. We don't so readily heap contempt on wit in literature or music or theater or even painting...
dyao
Well-known
I don't dismiss wit categorically; Erwitt is one of my favorite photographers. This kind of wit feels like it's hitting me over the head.
zumbido
-
In other words, maybe it isn't wit at all, and some people just can't/don't want to hear the difference between "wit" and a fart joke when it's visible in a photograph instead of spoken in a sitcom.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Ah, yes. The subtlety of Twain, Swift, and Chaucer. Not a one of 'em would ever take a cheap shot, lest they be taken less than serious-like.
zumbido
-
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. Yes, the silly and obvious and cheap is a part of life and art and entertainment. That doesn't have anything to do with some people being driven to justify their appreciation of fart jokes as something other than what they are.
Wow, now Matt Stuart's work is the equivalent of a fart joke? An all time low for RFF.
dyao
Well-known
I'd be interested in seeing if somebody could mount a defense of Matt Stuart.
What needs defending dyao? You either like him or you do not. The photos either do it for you or they do not.
zumbido
-
Nobody said that. Other people were generalizing about the place of "wit" in photography, so I generalized too. Leads to great discussion, doesn't it.
That said, I find Matt Stuart's "fun" work to be a lot closer in spirit to, say, "2.5 Men" than, oh, "Fawlty Towers". Neither is highbrow, but there is a difference in what's being communicated between the two.
dyao
Well-known
Well, the pictures don't do it for me now, but it's not to say they wouldn't do it for me if somebody else showed me a way how. I've tried as best as I can to articulate why I dislike his work - and I'd be grateful if an admirer of his work would do the same on why they like it.
I don't understand why people are so confrontational in this thread.
daninjc
Well-known
He has a great eye for catching quirky and unexpected moments, and tons of irony - which I can only find good. I am not a big fan of 'one-liners' either - once the surprise factor is exhausted (and it can happen pretty quickly) not much is left - but the guy built an impressive body of work, with a well defined and recognizable style, and excels in what he does. I can barely imagine the time and dedication that went into that.
What I find a little more disconcerting is the "new wave" of street photographers that end up imitating that style - you can see a large number on the in-public website. As usual, it's easy to follow someone else, and harder to find a personal voice.
What I find a little more disconcerting is the "new wave" of street photographers that end up imitating that style - you can see a large number on the in-public website. As usual, it's easy to follow someone else, and harder to find a personal voice.
zumbido
-
"I like this" doesn't need defending. "A guy having his nose picked is witty!" is an interesting assertion that doesn't need defending either... unless a person wants anyone to take their opinion seriously ever again.
But the way of the modern world is to never examine your opinions and seek out communities where they don't get questioned. Internet fora being the prime enabler. So it goes. < /Vonnegut >
GSNfan
Well-known
You mentioned how we're inundated by simplistic work on flicker yet you assume that we're fairly sophisticated audience when it comes to still photography... Actually its the other way round, flicker is a true representative of the taste and preference of an overwhelming majority who take photos. I don't know what the flicker membership is but for a statistician that is a huge sample to work with.
Matt Stewart's work appeals to a majority, the same way that a Hollywood romantic comedy appeals to a majority. There is nothing wrong with that, it does not compromise the more serious aspects of photography. It has its own place and audience and even if at a basic level it makes street photography appealing and thus more popular, its a good thing for all street photographers.
When it comes to the question of humor and wit, it may not be something that appeals to me in photography terms, but I also see its value as a way to reach a wider audience and make photography more popular. So, in my view there is a need for people like Erwitt and Matt Stewart to be a sort of photography ambassadors for a wider public, especially street photography, because in the end of the day we want the public to allow us photographing them.
My approach is pragmatic, I really don't care what people do with their camera, what sort of work is produced etc... If i don't like something I don't look at it, or I use image block function of my browser.
I think we are all on the same page with regards to his work i.e. it is easy to understand. Some like the visual one liner, some don't. So it goes. What works for me may not for you. There isn't much to critique with regard to his work that hasn't already been discussed here.
Last edited: