semi-ambivalent
Little to say
I don't care about the quality of anybody's photography. I don't see where it confers the right to judge another photographer. And if it does I see no logical evidence that conferring the right by necessity confers accuracy.
Another NY Times cage match, I won't add to the clicks.
NY_Dan's on point.
s-a
Huss
Veteran
An interesting point. But take the photographer out of it, and just look at the images. Can you have an opinion of those?
icebear
Veteran
The article in the NYT does NOT have the Mark vs MacCurry headline.
What the author finds a relief after looking at MacCurry's pictures i.e. Singh, I can't say that I like this kind of photography.
A critic gets paid for an opinion piece article. If it stirs up some responses he'll get another chance. If there is all silence, he won't be asked again.
What the author finds a relief after looking at MacCurry's pictures i.e. Singh, I can't say that I like this kind of photography.
A critic gets paid for an opinion piece article. If it stirs up some responses he'll get another chance. If there is all silence, he won't be asked again.
JHutchins
Well-known
The exotic is an element in just about all of McCurry's work. That is true and unsurprising as he worked for National Geographic. And I can see holding an opinion like the author's if you conducted the mental experiment of taking every person in any given McCurry photo and putting them in western clothes and asking yourself "Is this still an interesting picture" and you answered no to that question (as the author seems to have).
The thing is -- I don't think you can really.
Yes, the exotic is there, yes it's a part of what the picture is about and important to the picture and maybe it's reasonable to criticise him for that.
But if the subjects of every McCurry picture were residents of New York, none of them would become Humans of New York and for many of them -- maybe most of them -- I'd still say "wow -- that's strong" and that reaction would not be fundamentally driven by McCurry's respect for the rule of thirds.
So, the author, I think, has overstated his point.
The thing is -- I don't think you can really.
Yes, the exotic is there, yes it's a part of what the picture is about and important to the picture and maybe it's reasonable to criticise him for that.
But if the subjects of every McCurry picture were residents of New York, none of them would become Humans of New York and for many of them -- maybe most of them -- I'd still say "wow -- that's strong" and that reaction would not be fundamentally driven by McCurry's respect for the rule of thirds.
So, the author, I think, has overstated his point.
emraphoto
Veteran
well i won't bother with the defence of Cole as i am not sure that matters. for me the article was spot on. i have great admiration for the work ethic of Steve MacCurry (sic) and the marketing machine behind him. I have struggled for some time with appreciating his work though. it seems aesthetically simple to me and i agree with Cole's sentiment that the work paints a western, tourist visual of a complex society. much of it chosen, with a specific eye, to charm foreign viewers with sentimentality. not my cup of tea.
no matter the individuals involved, the critic or the artist, we should constantly discuss and challenge what we see. to assign MacCurry (sic) with some sort of unquestionable credibility because of the prolific amount of work he puts out seems problematic.
no matter the individuals involved, the critic or the artist, we should constantly discuss and challenge what we see. to assign MacCurry (sic) with some sort of unquestionable credibility because of the prolific amount of work he puts out seems problematic.
emraphoto - spot on, as far as I'm concerned; and I reached that conclusion before seeing some of your excellent photography. 
Incidentally, RFF really should have a "thanks" button — it would show what people think of an issue being discussed, without having to read posts such as the one I'm writing just now.
Incidentally, RFF really should have a "thanks" button — it would show what people think of an issue being discussed, without having to read posts such as the one I'm writing just now.
emraphoto
Veteran
emraphoto - spot on, as far as I'm concerned; and I reached that conclusion before seeing some of your excellent photography.
Incidentally, RFF really should have a "thanks" button — it would show what people think of an issue being discussed, without having to read posts such as the one I'm writing just now.
kind of you to say.
(insert 'thanx' button here)
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
I don't know if a photograph can be viewed in vacuo. I think a photograph lives between and within the moment it was taken and the moment it is viewed. Most images I cannot see without the filter of their being iconic, or the filter of the photographer's fame or the skillful pumping of what Joni Mitchell called the 'star maker machinery', or their technical aspects. The world is saturated with imagery. (Not that that's by definition a bad thing.)
Right now the only image I have to relate to in isolation is André Kertész's "Martinique" because I think it's transcendent. For that reason alone I bought a print of it and it's a visual touchstone for me. I hope someday to do something that good, just once. There's some stuff by Atget that goes somewhere I can't quite get to but it's very good. The central image of Eugene Smith's "Minamata" is certainly another. They're relationships and can exist without opinion.
Thanks for asking, hope I answered something,
s-a
If you're referring to my comment (and it sounds like you may be) then: No, it does not. And I didn't say that it did. If it did, I'd hope that the NYT might get McCurry's name right. I did, however, query why the thread was titled "NYT: Mark vs MacCurry" because it seemed odd, given MEM is only briefly mentioned near the end of the article. I still think it's odd.
Cheers,
Brett
MIkhail
-
I don't care what the NYT or Teju Cole have to say about photography. They should spend less time pontificating and more time shooting - not that it would help them, but at least it might represent an honest effort.
I looked at Teju Cole pictures and liked them.
But I don’t think that critic even has to be a photographer at all. It's a completely different discipline. Of course, if it's an art critic, not a summicron vs. summilux kind of critic...
icebear
Veteran
xixi_gelly
Member
I don't care what the NYT or Teju Cole have to say about photography. They should spend less time pontificating and more time shooting - not that it would help them, but at least it might represent an honest effort.
I totally understand the spirit of this remark when it comes to camera or photo hobbyists agonizing over which lens to buy, but to disregard a well-reasoned and legitimate piece of art criticism by effectively saying "the New York Times and Teju Cole should just go out and shoot more" doesn't.....make sense? I mean, what?
Every creative discipline needs its critics. Sometimes it imposes too much structure or orthodoxy and stifles the artistic field, fine, but a lot of times critics provide everyone a valuable sounding board, introduces valuable new points of view even if you don't agree with them, and generally creates an intellectual space to chew ideas over.
Who cares about Cole's own photography? If he makes well-reasoned arguments that provokes you into thinking about McCurry or others' photography in meaningful way, then he's done his job. I think he does his job as a photography critic wonderfully.
telenous
Well-known
I don't think this is a typical outsider/insider piece, although there are other, familiar strands in Cole's discussion. To unpack a bit: Cole does not valorize based on pictorial merit or demerit. The title of the article is telltale: "A Too-Perfect Picture". One would expect such distinction to be an asset. Not here though. The pictures are "boring", astonishingly so to boot. It seems to me the choice of qualitative is not accidental. With it he signals his disinterest for that sort of picture (and, to be sure, he's criticizing the sort of picture, not McCurry's pictures specifically, as they only serve as convenient examples). That may be of little interest to us - why should we care after all about what someone else is disinterested in - but above all he declares his departure from traditional aesthetic categories, e.g. "beauty" and other perennial favourites like "line", "proportion", etc. and the various technical ways to bring them about, as they may obscure or hide other, presumably murkier, agendas. In their place he advances a view of photographs as political vehicles, their real force and interest lying in the domain of ideology and the concomitant propaganda. In photography's past, the ideological burden of photographs has been especially prominent in the case of travel-documentary photographs (a striking example: http://maa.cam.ac.uk/assemblingbodies/exhibition/measurement/anthropometric/ ). Despite their objective/documentary credentials, such photographs of foreign cultures promoted (so it is argued) colonial agendas where people are segregated by dint of physical distinction and cultural practice, while they were looked upon and scrutinized with the kind of fascination and illicit desire usually reserved for the exotic, the picturesque, and the erotic.
I sympathize with these background assumptions but had to wonder whether Cole starts with some limit cases from photography's past and then generalizes a little too broadly. When reading on documentary photography from the critical tradition Cole hails from, I sometimes get the feeling that photographs are not merely suspect of tacit ideology but also guilty of it, no matter what that ideology may be or the practice behind the making of the photographs. However, Cole's careful not to discriminate against the possibility of good documentary, even from outsiders, (besides Singh, he cites M.E.Mark and - from cinema - Louis Malle), it's just that McCurry doesn't rise (in his opinion) to the standard of their achievement. On this, I agree with him, as well as with John's post #26.
My worry when I started reading the article was that it would taint further the practice of documentary photography. (I say "further" because documentary seems to me to be in the doldrums right now, esp. when compared to its glorious past.) I was wrong. If anything, Cole asks for more and "better" documentary, in the relevant qualified senses. I can't say I disagree with that.
.
I sympathize with these background assumptions but had to wonder whether Cole starts with some limit cases from photography's past and then generalizes a little too broadly. When reading on documentary photography from the critical tradition Cole hails from, I sometimes get the feeling that photographs are not merely suspect of tacit ideology but also guilty of it, no matter what that ideology may be or the practice behind the making of the photographs. However, Cole's careful not to discriminate against the possibility of good documentary, even from outsiders, (besides Singh, he cites M.E.Mark and - from cinema - Louis Malle), it's just that McCurry doesn't rise (in his opinion) to the standard of their achievement. On this, I agree with him, as well as with John's post #26.
My worry when I started reading the article was that it would taint further the practice of documentary photography. (I say "further" because documentary seems to me to be in the doldrums right now, esp. when compared to its glorious past.) I was wrong. If anything, Cole asks for more and "better" documentary, in the relevant qualified senses. I can't say I disagree with that.
.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Look up Mary Ellen Mark.
BlackXList
Well-known
It's criticism based upon an assumption as to what McCurry's ideology/intent is.
McCurry is still with us, it would have been entirely possible to contact him and find out what his ideology/intent is, but the writer didn't bother.
Therefore the article is of about as much value as my thoughts on the design process of the Apollo 12 rocket, a topic I know nothing about.
Cole has chosen his argument, and then looked for things that fit it.
On the topic of whether the critic has to be a photographer or not, I don't believe they do.
However if/when they are I reserve the right to look at their work and decide if it impacts my opinion of their criticism.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
.Therefore the article is of about as much value as my thoughts on the design process of the Apollo 12 rocket, a topic I know nothing about. Cole has chosen his argument, and then looked for things that fit it. [/QUOTE]
Bingo. Cole is trying to make a living, I just don't find his perspective very insightful.
Bingo. Cole is trying to make a living, I just don't find his perspective very insightful.
FPjohn
Well-known
Who is Mary Ellen MarK?
Who is Mary Ellen MarK?
A good place to find out.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/attitude-portraits-by-mary-ellen-mark/
yours
FPJ
Who is Mary Ellen MarK?
A good place to find out.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/attitude-portraits-by-mary-ellen-mark/
yours
FPJ