Photographers you don't really "get" ... and why you should

[amateriat]

how is what sally mann did with her kids awful? i think it's a terrific thing to do.

That's another third-rail issue: I think she was rather nervy, while others regard her as heartlessly exploitative, skating just north of child abuse. Even with the best of intentions, certain subject matter is going to cut close to the bone regardless. For me, some can strike that nerve and get at least grudging respect from me, albeit with some misgivings (Witkin comes to mind here, among others), but sometimes you don't like the idea of having your personal nightmares sold back to you, so to speak


- Barrett

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Yes, sort of like "grok" (yes, now I drag Heinlein into this mess), which is, perversely, probably closer to what I try to mean with all this. I also take to hear Simon Larby's remark about reducing one's personal take on a given artist to a Siskel & Ebert "thumb(s)-up/down" contest, even though we're all dangerously clost to doing just that here). Reducing one's response to another's work to a twenty-words-or-less snapshot is truly asking for it, but in a forum like this, I like to think the exercise can be a springboard for someone to consider (or reconsider!) an artist he or she might have brished off before really getting to know them. Art is at least as messy as politics, but fewer people get shot in the process (Andy Warhol notwithstanding).


- Barrett

Barrett, yes in essence that is what i'm saying - to profess to "know the work" or "get the work" i think you need to have seen the prints and if the opportunity ever arrises - to meet the person - to really begin to get an insight into what their works and take on life is really about - to make the sort of judgements that seem to have been banded about in this thread. It does feel a bit like a thumbs up or thumbs down - forgive me if i've got this wrong here.

Interesting that when we view artists' works be it photographic or any other art forms we are always looking at a past event - something where their mind was not always where their mind is in the here and now - Much more so if they are no longer with us! if that makes any sense? 🙂

 

[AOI Photo]

Yes, sort of like "grok" (yes, now I drag Heinlein into this mess),

- Barrett

Okay I don't mind understanding in fullness, but I refuse to embrace canabalism.

 

[amateriat]

Okay I don't mind understanding in fullness, but I refuse to embrace canabalism.

Well...agreed. 😉

 

[ghost]

normal cannibalism is fine. it's the freaky-deaky psycho killer cannibalism i can't get behind.

 

[kshapero]

:bang:

Ansel Adams.

Serious? He is photography by definition.

 

[steve garza]

Wegman's work is very annoying. It always reminds of those old velvet paintings of dogs playing poker. A very strange one is Ralph Eugene Meatyard (yes, that's really his name). Photos of people with paper bags over their heads and such. I do enjoy surrealism when potrayed in the context of real life. But not when it's too contrived. As far as I'm concerned, Gibson is a master of the medium. I love his work. Especially the shots he did for the Leica lens catalog.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The photographers at The National Inquisitor. I don't really "get" it. Should I?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm very ambivalent about "Adams" (not Gomes, the other one, Ansel).

He's all very technically precise and all that...but then again, the photography is all technique, and the "artistic" photographic value comes more posteriori. Like watching well-executed flower photography: nice nature...but was there really a "vision" he had other than placing values in the right zone, having the chemicals at the right percentages and temperature, and the heftiest tripod?

I'm not knocking technique. I'm wondering what else is there from Ansel's photography than the technique? I'm just pondering on "photographers I don't really 'get' and why I should".

Unless I'm reading the title of the thread incorrectly...

 

[jan normandale]

Some days I don't even get photography and think I should toss the whole thing and go back to artists materials and tools. I find the same response to many photographers work. Some days their work is amazing and then the next day their work is pedestrian.

Sort of like pop music. One hit wonders are not a unique event in the arts either in writing or music. So why would it be much different in photography.

I could probably find shots in any portfolio that I like and the balance were uninteresting.

 

[Dracotype]

He's all very technically precise and all that...but then again, the photography is all technique, and the "artistic" photographic value comes more posteriori. Like watching well-executed flower photography: nice nature...but was there really a "vision" he had other than placing values in the right zone, having the chemicals at the right percentages and temperature, and the heftiest tripod?

I'm not knocking technique. I'm wondering what else is there from Ansel's photography than the technique? I'm just pondering on "photographers I don't really 'get' and why I should".

Unless I'm reading the title of the thread incorrectly...

You bring up an interesting point. His Moonrise over Hernandez is probably the best example. The story he tells about making it is a prime example of instinct over technique. He guessed the exposure. He developed the film by his instinct. And the print was a pain in the posterior to make. So much for being the greatest technical photographer to have lived.

Ahhhh, Diane Arbus. I know her photos are supposed to be parodys of snapshots. But that almost makes it worse. Parody by drawing, such as political cartoons, displays reality in exageration. But with a parody of photography, you can't tell the difference. Her "snapshots" look the same as ordinary people's snapshots. Rather pointless in my opinion.

One of the most underrated photographers in my opinion is W. Eugene Smith. His work is poingiant, rough, and revelatory. His artistic reportage is something I aspire too.

As for William Wegman, I have mixed feelings. His photos are excellent in the technical sense. Some are good shots, others I don't like. Eh.

Yet another amateur throwing out his opinion. 😀

Drew

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You bring up an interesting point. His Moonrise over Hernandez is probably the best example. The story he tells about making it is a prime example of instinct over technique. He guessed the exposure. He developed the film by his instinct. And the print was a pain in the posterior to make. So much for being the greatest technical photographer to have lived.

Given all his technical knowledge and expertise, his "guess" would be a more accurate approximation than I would from using my Canon SLR.

What a "guess" is to card counters in Vegas, it's mind-reading at my neighbourhood's fair.

 

[James Brannan]

Some days I don't even get photography and think I should toss the whole thing and go back to artists materials and tools. I find the same response to many photographers work. Some days their work is amazing and then the next day their work is pedestrian.

Sort of like pop music. One hit wonders are not a unique event in the arts either in writing or music. So why would it be much different in photography.

I could probably find shots in any portfolio that I like and the balance were uninteresting.

I've enjoyed this post more than any other in this thread. It is the point that I will commit to memory. You really do make sense.

Let me add that I'm not familiar with most of the photographers mentioned in this thread. It's a very educational thread for me. Thank you all.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

No. There are artists I find overrated and get, and those I don't get and do not think are overrated.

I find Arbus both, because I don't get her, and I think she is bad technically. I don't get a lot of Adams, but he is clearly achieving what he sets out to. Just most of what he does doesn't speak to me.

Watching the work of the "famous" crowd a robust self consciousness is absolutely useful, the younger the photogs are the more often it happens that one has to suspect them to be "made" artists, made by those who want to
make money with their pics.

To keep something as overrated what one does not get is contradictional tho.
If you don't get something you cannot rate it. You just can put it in the "does-not-concern-me" box. Therefore i said "it does not speak to me".

"Overrated " or "overestimated" introduces an element of objectivity , out of place in this case anyway, because there is no real rating system for photos. And based on simply not-getting it "overrated" would be plain, ego centered arrogance, a fine opportunity to embarrass oneself.

Therefore I personally would prefer to leave the word "overrated" out of the discussion . I can't see what right I have to rate anything in this context ?
That is my POV at least.

Fitzi

 

[FrankS]

Fitzi, Ithink in the context of this thread that "over-rated" refers to the general public. That is, Diane Arbus is over rated by the general public. Maybe not general public, but those expressing an opinion.

 

[jan normandale]

I'm very ambivalent about "Adams" (not Gomes, the other one, Ansel).

He's all very technically precise and all that...but then again, the photography is all technique, and the "artistic" photographic value comes more posteriori. Like watching well-executed flower photography: nice nature...but was there really a "vision" he had other than placing values in the right zone, having the chemicals at the right percentages and temperature, and the heftiest tripod?

I'm not knocking technique. I'm wondering what else is there from Ansel's photography than the technique? I'm just pondering on "photographers I don't really 'get' and why I should".

Unless I'm reading the title of the thread incorrectly...

FWIW I have seen about 3 different " Adams/Moonrise" photographs. I would say the most compelling and attractive to me is not the shot that represented what he photographed. He had strong light when he took that shot even though he stated that his light was going to be gone , it didn't mean there would be darkness. The original is quite light. There are copies showing the work of a master in the darkroom where the shot looks far more "contrasty" (is there such a word?) which was the result of dodging and burning the original. This is the one I like best however it is also technically not what Adams exposed on that day.....

At that point Adams was also using staff to produce his work, much like Dale Chihuly uses staff to make "his" glass. So whose work was it??

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Fitzi, Ithink in the context of this thread that "over-rated" refers to the general public. That is, Diane Arbus is over rated by the general public. Maybe not general public, but those expressing an opinion.

Frank,
What I meant is that the word "overrate" says something about the absolute worth of a work. And that is not acceptable IMHO.
I'd prefer to say something like " I have no clue what makes so many people feel so enthusiastic about Diane Arbus " and so I keep it all relative to my person and don't put a price label on it.

I've seen several threads like this in other forums , those were titled yet as "The most overrated photog ever" and I found the arrogance of some folks really annoying. Tom wisely avoided that and asked for the photogs we don't get but I noticed that this "overrating" thing appeared again and I felt the need to comment it.
In general I think each of the famous shooters earns a certain respect which does not allow any of us to say something about the worth of his work.

BTW also we among each others should not rate our pics with a number, that is silly IMO. If we like a photo or not, we should do the extra mile and describe clearly and detailed why we do so. This information , positive or negative, has a certain worth for the photog, different from marking the "2" and going away without saying a word, thinking "there you got it, wannabee !".
Rating no, criticise yes. Rating is more popular tho, no risk to uncover the own limitations while verbally shredding somebodies photo ! 😉

Regards,
Fitzi

 

[Al Patterson]

Today I saw an exhibit celebrating 50 years of "Aperature" magazine at the Dayton Art Institute. They had an HCB, Diane Arbus, Man Ray, and maney others. The only picture I "got" was bu O. Winston Link. Must be the railfan in me.

I also do like Helmut Newton, ever since I saw his photos for the movie "Eyes of Laura Mars".

Trains and nudes I get. Some of the street stuff makes me wonder why they even took the shot. Guess I need to hang around here a bit more.

 

[steve garza]

I'm not so sure it's public

I'm not so sure it's public

Fitzi, Ithink in the context of this thread that "over-rated" refers to the general public. That is, Diane Arbus is over rated by the general public. Maybe not general public, but those expressing an opinion.

who does the rating. Rather, it is the professional "critics" who have the power to present to the public the photographers they wish the public to see.

 

[oftheherd]

With Jerry Ulesman you have to like surrealism. I would guess you don't see much to Dali either. I have always liked Ulesman (is that the correct spelling?) But then I like surrealism. He usually nailed that pretty well. Not everyone does like surrealism though, and Dali or Ulesman will seem very weird in that case.

Who doesn't impress me? Lots to tell the truth. In fact I saw someone who mentioned Ansel Adams. Some would think that almost sacriligious. Now he had some that did impress me, but not everything by any means. I don't drool just because he took a photo. That may be my failing.

...

QUOTE]

On the contrary. I love Dali and surrealism. I just don't see Jerry U. as anywhere near Dali's level. I wouldn't mention him in the same discussion of great surrealist artists, like I would Dali 🙂 To me, Jerry U is more about technique and maybe something like mysticism. I just don't get much inspiration from his work. 🙂 If you do, that's great! 🙂

Sorry Ulesman doesn't impress you also. But hey, we all have our tastes. He could be seen in a mysticism way I suppose. But you aren't all bad, you like Dali. 😀

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 .... )

No, I have not. I will have to look for that. Thanks for the info.


FWIW - while looking for some of the phgotographers mentioned here that I couldn't remember as much as I wanted, or just didn't know, I ran across this site; http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/index.html which has some short essays on the listed photographers and some of their photos. Not exhaustive by any means, but some interesting things anyway.