NYT Story on troubled girls & photography

[wlewisiii]

So it's digital and not film, in this case I can understand why. Be sure to check out the slide show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/a...ex=1152072000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

William

 

[boarini2003]

Interesting to read, although I didn't really see the point to the article. The photos were lacking in my opinion.

 

[sychan]

You're joking, right?

 

[boilerdoc2]

That was some really good stuff! Amateurs or not. Proves that we all a vision buried, suppressed, somewhere inside. Letting it out is the tough part.
Steve

 

[boarini2003]

The problem that I find with that kind of "art" (by today's definiton) is that it's merits aren't based on the piece itself. Instead, it's artistic value is determined by the intentions, circumstances, feelings or ideology of the artist. I like a photo because I like the photo, because it speaks to me, not because I feel for the artist.

 

[Nick R.]

Thanks for the link, William.
Interesting that the photos are all of a studio portrait nature. I find it touching that girls from such a hard environment would choose a style that most would consider lightweight.

 

[sychan]

I think you've interpreted the article in entirely the wrong context. The context isn't "high art generated by troubled teens", but the use of photography as a means of personal expression, and its role in social work.
In the same way that you like a photo because it speaks to you, those kids would take a photo because it spoke to them, and it spoke for them. It is a useful tool to break patterns of anti-social behaviors, not a competitor to Salgado.
Photography social work or education is an interesting field - the movie "Born into Brothels", the Literacy Through Photography program http://cds.aas.duke.edu/ltp/ , the Fifty Crows project http://www.fiftycrows.org/, PhotoVoice http://photovoice.com/ and the Witness Project http://witness.org/ are all examples of interesting work in the field.

 

[BillBingham2]

A friend out west (SF area) uses photography to show kids from this type of neigborhood that there is a way out. Many have gotten jobs using the skills and self confidence they have hearned in his class.

His rate of dead cameras is very high, but his rate of dead kids is very low. It's not the answer to everything or for everyone, but it is an interesting approach that works.

Great to see that ICP Midtown is doing something for the less fortunate.

B2 (;->

 

[morgan]

The problem that I find with that kind of "art" (by today's definiton) is that it's merits aren't based on the piece itself. Instead, it's artistic value is determined by the intentions, circumstances, feelings or ideology of the artist. I like a photo because I like the photo, because it speaks to me, not because I feel for the artist.

I think learning the artist's intent can really alter how I view art. For example, the Wyeth exhibit is at the Philadelphia art museum right now. I've never been a huge Wyeth fan really, just not my thing. But when I listened to the audio commentary about a painting of a rock on a hill, i learned that it wasn't just a rock on a hill, but it was a portrait of his deceased father, and how he had a barrel chest (like the rock) and stoic manner, and that Wyeth had never painted his father while he was alive. Suddenly a nice but rather boring painting of a rock had a history and emotionality to it that you'd never get without knowing the context.

 

[BillBingham2]

Roland,

I wish the world had a few more Babas. I will pass along an invite.

Do you think if I put out a challange for not used cameras to be passed along to Baba's Kids it would be OK?

B2 (;->

 

[amateriat]

I think learning the artist's intent can really alter how I view art. For example, the Wyeth exhibit is at the Philadelphia art museum right now. I've never been a huge Wyeth fan really, just not my thing. But when I listened to the audio commentary about a painting of a rock on a hill, i learned that it wasn't just a rock on a hill, but it was a portrait of his deceased father, and how he had a barrel chest (like the rock) and stoic manner, and that Wyeth had never painted his father while he was alive. Suddenly a nice but rather boring painting of a rock had a history and emotionality to it that you'd never get without knowing the context.

Funny you should mention Wyeth. I saw an exhibit at the Whitney several years back that literally rocked my expectations, given all the backhanded compliments Wyeth has received throughout his career (more or less inherited from his father, N.C. Wyeth). In my case, I didn't need much in the way of interpretation: the work, "in the canvas", as it were, spoke quite well for itself. In such a seemingly interconnected world as ours is (or pretends to be, depending on your perspective), creative works, by and large, really need to be absorbed up close (as a truly rough example: am I the only person who was rather shocked to discover, when finally face-to-face with Mona Lisa, unmediated, in the Louvre, just how damn small the painting really is?). You can't get the gestalt of a work, the minor stuff as well as the major, off your monitor, unless, perhaps, it was created with that medium in mind. What was it that John Cage once said, that just because you possess the recording, it doesn't mean you own the music?


- Barrett

 

[morgan]

Funny you should mention Wyeth. I saw an exhibit at the Whitney several years back that literally rocked my expectations, given all the backhanded compliments Wyeth has received throughout his career (more or less inherited from his father, N.C. Wyeth). In my case, I didn't need much in the way of interpretation: the work, "in the canvas", as it were, spoke quite well for itself. In such a seemingly interconnected world as ours is (or pretends to be, depending on your perspective), creative works, by and large, really need to be absorbed up close (as a truly rough example: am I the only person who was rather shocked to discover, when finally face-to-face with Mona Lisa, unmediated, in the Louvre, just how damn small the painting really is?). You can't get the gestalt of a work, the minor stuff as well as the major, off your monitor, unless, perhaps, it was created with that medium in mind. What was it that John Cage once said, that just because you possess the recording, it doesn't mean you own the music?


- Barrett

I agree, especially with paintings and drawings, for which it's difficult to get the full effect in a book or on screen. Seeing a Rothko in a book is nothing like absorbing his work in person. The size and scope, the subtlety, is just lost in a 800x600 screen or 8x10 page. I do think photography seems to work better in books, but nothing replaces the gallery experience.

 

[wlewisiii]

I find it's especially true of Wyeth because he uses tempura rather than oil paint. The look of that is so much different than anything most people are used to seeing that they don't have the proper reference to understand it.

William