dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 5:04 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
I thought Thomas Kincade was a photographer, a photographer of...light!
Photographers you don't really "get" ... and why you should
- Thread starter Flyfisher Tom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 7K
hth
Well-known
Good thread! I must admit that I had not encountered Jerry Uelsmann before, way cool! I had to bookmark his site. I love it!
I have not anyone that really springs to mind, except maybe Helmut Newton.
/Håkan
I have not anyone that really springs to mind, except maybe Helmut Newton.
/Håkan
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
oftheherd said:
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
oftheherd said:
Did you ever look at his flower pictures .....? Mapplethorpe also made the most appealing floral pictures/ still lifes of any photographer in history. And he made tons of them ..
Try to lay your hand on a book of his called "pistels" .. you will be amazed!
He also did some extraordinary "normal" portraiture.
(i also do not like his homo-erotic work at all btw .... )
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
hth said:
What I did find interesting about Uelsman was his darkroom. He had something like 6~10 enlargers all setup for his mulitple exposures. He was doing photoshop layers decades before photoshop ever appeared. I think there's a picture of it on his website. 🙂
🙂
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Joel Peter Witkin.
I'm not ashamed to say I think his work is amazing and genius, but at RFF, I suspect I may be in the minority.
I'm not ashamed to say I think his work is amazing and genius, but at RFF, I suspect I may be in the minority.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
tetrisattack said:
no one's mentioned him yet, so maybe you're not. I casually collect the Phaidon 55 series photobooks and the one I REALLY want is Witkin's, and it is never available at any store. Search here on RFF for witkin we discussed him in a thread about photographers whose work scares you (or something like that). That was a good thread too.
.
AOI Photo
Established
Diane Arbus.
My vote for most overrated photographer of all time.
My vote for most overrated photographer of all time.
rool
Well-known
Geddes... I didn't even know she was considered a photographer...
Arbus, overrated?! Wow, this thread is full of surprises! I like it.
Arbus, overrated?! Wow, this thread is full of surprises! I like it.
Vagabond
Accomplished Malingerer
Nobuyoshi Araki.
Other than the photograph of the girl and the watermelon, everything else seems to exist on shock value alone. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Other than the photograph of the girl and the watermelon, everything else seems to exist on shock value alone. Maybe I'm missing something here.
darr
Member
JOEL-PETER WITKIN
I don't get AND I do not want to get!
I don't get AND I do not want to get!
RdEoSg
Well-known
No one has mentioned Joyce Tenneson yet? Her work does nothing for me. Technicaly she is very good. She definatly has a look that one can always tell, but I just don't care for it.
But then Mapplethorpe is my favorite photographer so uh... 😛
But then Mapplethorpe is my favorite photographer so uh... 😛
JOE1951
Established
Lee Friedlander is someone "I don't get", but damn, I like his stuff. I can't verbalize why I like it, but I do find I think I take photos like him a lot of times.
I'm surprised people say Ralph Gibson as I think his work is pretty straight forward. He seems to more of a graphic designer than a photographer.
William Eggleston I don't get!! Stylistically, he is similar to Freidlander but I think it's his emphasis on colour that throws me. I've come to the conclusion that "colour" is the domain of painting and colour photography just doesn't have as rich a palette and generally seems weak to me. I know its a debateable comment, but I've seen very little colour photography that has really grabbed me, (there are exceptions, this is just a generalization). Photoshop could/should change this, but then too much digital manipulating tends to throw he photo into the realm of painting and should be looked from the perspective of painting, in my opinion.
I've never thought much of Usellmann's work either. His work seems so incredibley dated with the prescence of photoshop, despite his technical prowess in the darkroom.
Duane Michals takes a daily dump of surrealism that Usellmann couldn't muster in a lifetime!!!!! (Sorry about that, I'm a big fan of Michals)
Under-rated photographers, IMO, Wynn Bullock, Daido Moyirama, William Klein.
I'm surprised people say Ralph Gibson as I think his work is pretty straight forward. He seems to more of a graphic designer than a photographer.
William Eggleston I don't get!! Stylistically, he is similar to Freidlander but I think it's his emphasis on colour that throws me. I've come to the conclusion that "colour" is the domain of painting and colour photography just doesn't have as rich a palette and generally seems weak to me. I know its a debateable comment, but I've seen very little colour photography that has really grabbed me, (there are exceptions, this is just a generalization). Photoshop could/should change this, but then too much digital manipulating tends to throw he photo into the realm of painting and should be looked from the perspective of painting, in my opinion.
I've never thought much of Usellmann's work either. His work seems so incredibley dated with the prescence of photoshop, despite his technical prowess in the darkroom.
Duane Michals takes a daily dump of surrealism that Usellmann couldn't muster in a lifetime!!!!! (Sorry about that, I'm a big fan of Michals)
Under-rated photographers, IMO, Wynn Bullock, Daido Moyirama, William Klein.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
a few names came up that I do "get" and admire ... I'll do my best to explain why 🙂
Helmut Newton
His work, particularly the personal nude (as opposed to his commercial fashion work), breaks social conventions ... and that is what I like about it. Frequently juxtaposing a nude in situations of formality where it stands at odds to our expectation, our sensibilities, or our decorum. In much of his work, I sense he is taking a fanciful poke at people who are easily offended, embarassed, or too socially or politically rigid in his estimation. I enjoy his barbs at these folks.
There have been critics (some feminists among them) who take issue with what they perceive to be misogynistic motifs in his work. However, looking at his Big Nudes work, I'd respectfully disagree. That project embodied women who seemed utterly confident in their stride and in their bodies. Hardly misogynistic in my opinion.
Contrast his nude work to Jeanloup Sieff (another of my favorites) and you will see a clear difference in the work of Newton (irreverent) and Sieff (reverent). Both work well for me.
Nobuyoshi Araki
At first glance, you might be tempted to think Araki is a 3rd rate porn peddler with a point & shoot (camera I mean). But there is a claustrophobic quality about his work that is very revealing about both the Japanese living condition (e.g. overcrowding and city density), and their schizophrenic view of sex (sporting both a very conservative traditional culture and views on women and decorum, yet very openly misogynistic view of women in their popular media). Many would argue that the US sports a similarly schizophrenic view of sexual morales and culture (open and conservative at the same time). Araki captures this dichotomy for me.
Technically he is no master of geometry.
Helmut Newton
His work, particularly the personal nude (as opposed to his commercial fashion work), breaks social conventions ... and that is what I like about it. Frequently juxtaposing a nude in situations of formality where it stands at odds to our expectation, our sensibilities, or our decorum. In much of his work, I sense he is taking a fanciful poke at people who are easily offended, embarassed, or too socially or politically rigid in his estimation. I enjoy his barbs at these folks.
There have been critics (some feminists among them) who take issue with what they perceive to be misogynistic motifs in his work. However, looking at his Big Nudes work, I'd respectfully disagree. That project embodied women who seemed utterly confident in their stride and in their bodies. Hardly misogynistic in my opinion.
Contrast his nude work to Jeanloup Sieff (another of my favorites) and you will see a clear difference in the work of Newton (irreverent) and Sieff (reverent). Both work well for me.
Nobuyoshi Araki
At first glance, you might be tempted to think Araki is a 3rd rate porn peddler with a point & shoot (camera I mean). But there is a claustrophobic quality about his work that is very revealing about both the Japanese living condition (e.g. overcrowding and city density), and their schizophrenic view of sex (sporting both a very conservative traditional culture and views on women and decorum, yet very openly misogynistic view of women in their popular media). Many would argue that the US sports a similarly schizophrenic view of sexual morales and culture (open and conservative at the same time). Araki captures this dichotomy for me.
Technically he is no master of geometry.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
AOI Photo said:
aaarrghhh! Say it ain't so! She's One of my favorites! 🙂 BUT, I know people who share your opinion! 🙂
🙂
RdEoSg
Well-known
I know I am going to get stoned for this.. but its true...
up until recently I couldn't stand HCB... there I said it!
I have see the error of my ways though and realized I can seperate the art from the man. As a person I thought he was a snaughty, obnoxious, and down right rude person. But I can't deny his work.
It took several times of viewing his work in person to change my mind!
up until recently I couldn't stand HCB... there I said it!
I have see the error of my ways though and realized I can seperate the art from the man. As a person I thought he was a snaughty, obnoxious, and down right rude person. But I can't deny his work.
It took several times of viewing his work in person to change my mind!
FrankS
Registered User
Flyfisher Tom said:
Ditto.
(Great thread, too.)
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Flyfisher Tom said:
Great post, Tom! I like both Newton and Araki. Newton's work ALWAYS looks GREAT (and I'm not talking about the subject matter). I like what you said about the claustrophobic quality of Araki. That's a good read.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I like the work of the English photographers, like Bert Hardy, Roger Mayne and Tony Ray- Jones.
the stuff Duane Michels does , seems to hold no appeal to me.
the stuff Duane Michels does , seems to hold no appeal to me.
telenous
Well-known
I am not as well versed as others here on the entirety of the work of specific photographers. Most often, when someone drops a name, I pick my little Phaidon Photo Book and search for a sample of the work of the photographer in question, to form a quick opinion. However I ‘d like to write a couple of things, as they come to mind.
I have much less difficulty of "getting" a photographer's work if I see it as a whole. Very often a single photo fails to convey the unifying principles upon which some photographer may draw inspiration. That's why it seems to me better to see someone's work in an exhibition or in a book, where one has the time to make the necessary connections. Patterns will eventually appear because humans are hardwired to look for them.
However it is a much more personal thing whether one empathizes with the patterns suggested by the photographer – or the unintended ones that one discovers for oneself. So that it is possible to "get it" but not "connect" with it. Once in a while I see the work of some photographer with which I can connect. And then it is as if you hear a story that somehow sounds interesting, plausible, and explanatory (instead of contrived, unbelievable and irrelevant). This is a quite rare experience, and it is perhaps not an exaggeration to describe it as near mystical (precisely because it is strictly personal).
There's also something else: like most art, when photography reached a stage of maturity, it seems to have turned into itself, in a kind of metacommentary about its place and function in the world. It so happens that I do not have much interest about that, so that's where most of the work that I cannot connect is coming from. Most of the names that have been mentioned in the thread leave me cold (with the exception of HCB and perhaps Gibson and Weston). The acid test is whether I ‘d spend good money to own a book of these photographers and the answer is I wouldn’t. It’s not so much I do not get what they are doing or that I wouldn’t enjoy a conversation about the merits and demerits of their art but I just wouldn’t want to pay them for it.
I have much less difficulty of "getting" a photographer's work if I see it as a whole. Very often a single photo fails to convey the unifying principles upon which some photographer may draw inspiration. That's why it seems to me better to see someone's work in an exhibition or in a book, where one has the time to make the necessary connections. Patterns will eventually appear because humans are hardwired to look for them.
However it is a much more personal thing whether one empathizes with the patterns suggested by the photographer – or the unintended ones that one discovers for oneself. So that it is possible to "get it" but not "connect" with it. Once in a while I see the work of some photographer with which I can connect. And then it is as if you hear a story that somehow sounds interesting, plausible, and explanatory (instead of contrived, unbelievable and irrelevant). This is a quite rare experience, and it is perhaps not an exaggeration to describe it as near mystical (precisely because it is strictly personal).
There's also something else: like most art, when photography reached a stage of maturity, it seems to have turned into itself, in a kind of metacommentary about its place and function in the world. It so happens that I do not have much interest about that, so that's where most of the work that I cannot connect is coming from. Most of the names that have been mentioned in the thread leave me cold (with the exception of HCB and perhaps Gibson and Weston). The acid test is whether I ‘d spend good money to own a book of these photographers and the answer is I wouldn’t. It’s not so much I do not get what they are doing or that I wouldn’t enjoy a conversation about the merits and demerits of their art but I just wouldn’t want to pay them for it.
