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

[Flyfisher Tom]

Given the wonderful diversity of RFF, I thought it might be helpful to try this experiment.

There are some photographers (as with painters, sculptors etc) that we simply don't get. Yet they are appreciated obviously by others.

Who are the photographers you DON'T GET ? And if you happen to be an admirer of one of these, could you explain why you appreciate his/her work?

I'll start the ball rolling :

1) William Eggleston;

2) Ralph Gibson



PS: this is not a solicitation to who is better or worse, or who is art and who is crap. It is about seeing things from someone else's perspective and perhaps learning something you didn't know or appreciate before. At least I hope to.

 

[Rafael]

Great idea for a thread Tom! You can add my name to the list of those who "don't get" Eggleston. I really don't connect with his work at all. I do find it to be a bit depressing. And I understand how he sought to monumentalize the commonplace. But I'm not really sure what that means (apart from the obvious). So I would be very grateful to anyone who could help me to better understand Eggleston's work.

 

[Chaser]

William Wegman...
I just cannot appreciate that guys work at all.

 

[Chaser]

Ralph Gibson has a few shots that really do it for me, he has whole books which don't, but some of his shots like Baby's Hand with Guitar I find stunning..

http://www.ncf.ca/~ek867/gibson.guitarhands.jpg

 

[RayPA]

William Wegman...
I just cannot appreciate that guys work at all.

Thank you, Chaser! I was having a hard time coming up with someone whose work I don't get and don't care to see, but you nailed it for me.

I'll contribute a list of those phototgraphers (of "stature") whose work has always tended to underwhlem me:

Tina Mondotti
Jerry Ulesman
Duane Michaels

🙂

 

[ghost]

i just want to know if anne geddes and steve mccurry are evil incarnate or not.

 

[RayPA]

i just want to know if anne geddes and steve mccurry are evil incarnate or not.

she's somewhere in line behind Wegman. 🙂

 

[vladhed]

Re: Geddes and McCurry

I think everyone "gets" them - the former takes "cute" contrived baby photos and the latter takes exoticised travel photos, both of which I find to hackneyed to bother looking at.

Egglestone's work to me seems like a response to contradict the images put out by mass culture; it documents the real scenes passed over or the results of mass consumerism - yes depressing mostly.

Gibson has struck me as being more of an all round photographer - he's done documentary style work, fashion and street photography. Always trying to look at things differently - but a mix of contrived and serendipitous images.

 

[rool]

Oh! Eggleston is one of the first photographer who helped me understand photography.
I do understand why people who don't like his pics though and I can't really explain why I like them.
Just looking at them makes me feel good, what he does with colour is amazing and how he frames the common things is almost genius to me.
The problem is that a lot of people imitated him after because what he does seems really easy.
Replaced in the context of when he made his important work, I think he is a really important photographer and a really good one.
He moved a lot of things in the photo world in his time (with a few others like Harry Callahan) by stopping shooting b&w and I can only be grateful to him for that as I love shooting colour!

Keep at looking pictures of him (a lot, not only a few ones), I am pretty sure you'll "get it" if you are interested in photography and know how to appreciate it.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Just thought of another one ...

Martin Parr

HCB was reportedly livid when he saw Parr's exhibit and found out Parr was a new Magnum nominee.

 

[bobomoon]

Ansel Adams.

 

[dreilly]

Wegman and Geddes occupy the same realm of distasteful for me. Though my daughter has a box of Wegman puppy postcards that she loves. Geddes is worse I think and actually disturbs me...what, a baby in a hollowed-out head of cabbage? Didn't Nixon find some microfiche in there, or was that a pumpkin? Oh, Geddes has a baby in there too.

The others mentioned above, I have to google and learn more about.

 

[Chaser]

Just thought of another one ...

Martin Parr

HCB was reportedly livid when he saw Parr's exhibit and found out Parr was a new Magnum nominee.

I really like Bored Couples by Parr. For me HCB and Parr fill roles similar to that of Pablo Neruda and Charles Bukowski respectively. Somedays it is nice to sit down and read masterfull poems about love and the sea and somedays you just need Ham on Rye. Hope that's not too metaphoric.

 

[Chaser]

I had a hard time understanding why people loved Edward Weston so much untill i actually went to a gallery and saw a hundred or so of his prints and Kodachromes.

 

[oftheherd]

Thank you, Chaser! I was having a hard time coming up with someone whose work I don't get and don't care to see, but you nailed it for me.

I'll contribute a list of those phototgraphers (of "stature") whose work has always tended to underwhlem me:

Tina Mondotti
Jerry Ulesman
Duane Michaels

🙂

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.

One who I never got was Mapplethorpe. To me he was just someone who got famous for taking male porn. I don't like female porn either. If he had any good photography that didn't follow that theme I haven't seen it. I am not putting down his life style. Everyone has to decide that for themselves and I am not their judge. I just never saw anything by him that I didn't think was simply porn. Male, female, adult or children, I just don't dig porn.

Just me of course, don't start any flame wars about lifestyles. That as I said, isn't what it's about. It is his subject matter.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

... and somedays you just need Ham on Rye. Hope that's not too metaphoric.

Exactly, in art as in life, there is a sandwich for everyone.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Given the wonderful diversity of RFF, I thought it might be helpful to try this experiment.

There are some photographers (as with painters, sculptors etc) that we simply don't get. Yet they are appreciated obviously by others.
Who are the photographers you DON'T GET ? And if you happen to be an admirer of one of these, could you explain why you appreciate his/her work?
I'll start the ball rolling :
1) William Eggleston;
2) Ralph Gibson
.

To be honest, I do not worry about "really getting" a photog or not,
Either he "talks" to me or he doesn't. If so I do not waste a thought about the why.
Eggleston talks to me. Which does not say anything about how his photos make me feel. That is another story. Parr talks to me too and I do like what he tells me.
Gibson doesn't talk to me at all. But that does not make me feel that I miss anything.

Fitzi

 

[KoNickon]

I suppose I "get" Helmut Newton; I just don't see the point. I guess I'm a prude.

Richard Gere (yes, that Richard Gere) published a book of out of focus pictures from Tibet a few years ago. Somehow I don't think any of us would find a publisher if we submitted those photos.

 

[chris91387]

ah, some of you beat me to it: Wegman and Geddes! blech! and to think of how much money they've made. geez! they're the thomas kinkade's of photography.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Heather Angel is too literal for me, but other people love her work.