RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
oftheherd said:
Photographers you don't really "get" ... and why you should
- Thread starter Flyfisher Tom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 7K
David R Munson
写真のオタク
So here I go resurrecting a dead thread, but only because I'd like to chime in on a particular photographer.
Nobuyoshi Araki
I am, one could say, a devotee of his work. I love it, and have since I first encountered it in a used book store at age 14. I have spent countless hours exploring his work, interviews with him, commentary on his work, essays he's written, etc. I will be the first to admit that his work is not necessarily the most accessible photography in the world, but if you get it, and you like it, it is wonderful.
He is equally consumed by his love of photographs, his love of living, and his love of women. The way he works is frenetic. To me, his work is best considered en masse. Don't just look at an image or two, immerse yourself in a book or (preferably) a stack of his books. There's plenty to choose from - I believe he's published around 400 of them now.
There is a richness and an energy to his work that I love. It's not remotely all nudes, either. Hell, that's just one facet of his work. Look at his flowers, city shots, cloud shots, portraits, fashion, etc etc etc. I see in his work the reflection of a man who is fundamentally introverted and extremely sensitive, and who has created an exuberant persona of sorts through which he creates his images. It's almost like the only way he knows to fully express the way he feels about life is through his photographs. That said, his essays are excellent too.
Anyway, as for someone whose work I don't get (or like) at all, top on the list is probably Nan Goldin. Yes, I realize she did a book with Araki, but it is among those photography books that I choose not to own.
Nobuyoshi Araki
I am, one could say, a devotee of his work. I love it, and have since I first encountered it in a used book store at age 14. I have spent countless hours exploring his work, interviews with him, commentary on his work, essays he's written, etc. I will be the first to admit that his work is not necessarily the most accessible photography in the world, but if you get it, and you like it, it is wonderful.
He is equally consumed by his love of photographs, his love of living, and his love of women. The way he works is frenetic. To me, his work is best considered en masse. Don't just look at an image or two, immerse yourself in a book or (preferably) a stack of his books. There's plenty to choose from - I believe he's published around 400 of them now.
There is a richness and an energy to his work that I love. It's not remotely all nudes, either. Hell, that's just one facet of his work. Look at his flowers, city shots, cloud shots, portraits, fashion, etc etc etc. I see in his work the reflection of a man who is fundamentally introverted and extremely sensitive, and who has created an exuberant persona of sorts through which he creates his images. It's almost like the only way he knows to fully express the way he feels about life is through his photographs. That said, his essays are excellent too.
Anyway, as for someone whose work I don't get (or like) at all, top on the list is probably Nan Goldin. Yes, I realize she did a book with Araki, but it is among those photography books that I choose not to own.
David R Munson
写真のオタク
Oh, but you're forgetting the drug problems, psych issues, etc. I swear that has to be part of her appeal. Does anyone here like her? I really want to know what people like about her work. Even if I don't agree, I'd like to have some idea of what her fans see in it.
I recently saw part of a "film" she did at an art museum in Houston, TX. I sat through about 10 minutes of it. Failed undergrad art films were more watchable.
I recently saw part of a "film" she did at an art museum in Houston, TX. I sat through about 10 minutes of it. Failed undergrad art films were more watchable.
Belle
Established
When I first saw William Eggleston's work with my family at the Getty Museum, I thought it was a bunch of crap. It was very boring to say the least. But I was curious to see why he was regarded in such high esteem. The more I studies and researched his work, the more I liked it and appreciated it. I would say, Eggleston's work, really help me open my eyes to composition.
Morca007
Matt
Precisely. I see a lot of crap out of those cameras, but I see a lot of crap out of nice cameras as well. Heck, one of my favorite portraits is one I took with a Holga.
Chiming in to say I'm another one who doesn't 'get' Adams. Or maybe there simply isn't anything there to get in the academic sense...
BillP
Rangefinder General
Another "vote" against Nan Goldin. It's not a word I would use often in conjunction with photography, but I find her work stultifyingly boring.
Others I don't "get" I would divide broadly into three camps:
Tedious:
Adams
Wegman
Incomprehensible:
Martin Parr
Sally Mann
Over-rated:
Eggleston
Karsh
Regards,
Bill
Others I don't "get" I would divide broadly into three camps:
Tedious:
Adams
Wegman
Incomprehensible:
Martin Parr
Sally Mann
Over-rated:
Eggleston
Karsh
Regards,
Bill
Harry S.
Well-known
Richard Kern. Seems to me the whole exploitative "pervert with a camera" approach is somewhat irrelevant. I am no prude but I ask myself is he just pleasing (pleasuring!?) himself with the photos he makes?
Annie Leibovitz. I don't see much merit in her shots as much as I see her flaunting her access. Her name dictates her exclusivity to interesting subjects but the photographs that result aren't that evocative in my opinion. Marco Grob does celebrity portraiture so much better.
Hedi Slimane. High Fashion designer for Dior Homme who does photography on the side. His exposures in the 'Stage 7L' collection are interesting but his composition is dull and without feel. He once published a book full of pictures of hotel room curtains and blinds that all looked very much alike. 😕
For the record I love Eggleston. 🙂
Annie Leibovitz. I don't see much merit in her shots as much as I see her flaunting her access. Her name dictates her exclusivity to interesting subjects but the photographs that result aren't that evocative in my opinion. Marco Grob does celebrity portraiture so much better.
Hedi Slimane. High Fashion designer for Dior Homme who does photography on the side. His exposures in the 'Stage 7L' collection are interesting but his composition is dull and without feel. He once published a book full of pictures of hotel room curtains and blinds that all looked very much alike. 😕
For the record I love Eggleston. 🙂
mmikaoj
eyemazer
Miroslav Tichy
Now there is a man whos work I do not understand. Or rather, I dont understand his newly rise to photography indie hall of fame. The work of a lunatic pervert with a home made camera, snapping telephotos of women and making lousy prints.
Sure it is all very "photographic" and material but still.
It just does not seem very concious to me.
Please someone, do contradict my oppinion!
Now there is a man whos work I do not understand. Or rather, I dont understand his newly rise to photography indie hall of fame. The work of a lunatic pervert with a home made camera, snapping telephotos of women and making lousy prints.
Sure it is all very "photographic" and material but still.
It just does not seem very concious to me.
Please someone, do contradict my oppinion!
David R Munson
写真のオタク
Thanks so much for the extended, personal reply. This is why forums *can* be great - I don't know that I'd have gotten a reply like that any other way.
Anyway, I'll probably never be a big fan of her work, but I'll take what you said with me mentally next time I have the opportunity to look at her work.
Anyway, I'll probably never be a big fan of her work, but I'll take what you said with me mentally next time I have the opportunity to look at her work.
R
RML
Guest
I think that goes for many photographers we don't "get".
I always liked Winogrand but when I saw an exhibition of "Women are beautiful" I instantly knew why he is considered one of the great street photographers.
Yet, I also see lots of exhibitions on unknown, mostly local Dutch, photographers, and I still don't get them. Mostly because I find their work repetitive, unoriginal, flat, boring and bland. They all want to imitate Rineke Dijkstra, who I don't get either.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
A vote for Eggleston
A vote for Eggleston
I've always like looking at Eggleston's photos, but didn't really understand why... until I had a conversation with a graphic artist friend about Eggleston recently. For me, his work shows me how important composition is. Subject matter aside, every time I look at one of his photos I find it super educational to see how he structures the frame very carefully... especially his decisions about what to leave around the edges and in the corners. And how things, or colors, in one corner or edge balance something in the opposite.
When looking at my own photos, or many photos I see here on RFF or on other photo-sharing websites, I often feel like the photographer should have re-framed the scene somehow to make it interesting. I know that if the only interesting thing I can say about one of my photographs is that the contrast is nice, or the tonalities are pleasant, I haven't yet created a photo with staying power. Eggleston's photos continue to educate me, even after many viewings. 🙂
A vote for Eggleston
I've always like looking at Eggleston's photos, but didn't really understand why... until I had a conversation with a graphic artist friend about Eggleston recently. For me, his work shows me how important composition is. Subject matter aside, every time I look at one of his photos I find it super educational to see how he structures the frame very carefully... especially his decisions about what to leave around the edges and in the corners. And how things, or colors, in one corner or edge balance something in the opposite.
When looking at my own photos, or many photos I see here on RFF or on other photo-sharing websites, I often feel like the photographer should have re-framed the scene somehow to make it interesting. I know that if the only interesting thing I can say about one of my photographs is that the contrast is nice, or the tonalities are pleasant, I haven't yet created a photo with staying power. Eggleston's photos continue to educate me, even after many viewings. 🙂
steamer
Well-known
mmikaoj thanks for mentioning Tichy.
Miroslav Tichy is my new photographic hero, the very idea of a "lunatic pervert with a homemade camera" is an inspiration.
From the web:
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/81346
These days there are plenty of artists that take photographs. They have the most modern digital equipment and the best computer software. They all try to make their pictures look crude. They want something like a document of a reality. But can you believe a thirty-year-old university graduate? Does he really know what is crude? It is simply impossible, especially in comparison to Miroslav Tichy. He lurks in a horrible worn out coat and - from behind bushes and walls - takes photographs of fragments of female nudity or the steps of a woman walking down a street."
Miroslav Tichy is my new photographic hero, the very idea of a "lunatic pervert with a homemade camera" is an inspiration.
From the web:
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/81346
These days there are plenty of artists that take photographs. They have the most modern digital equipment and the best computer software. They all try to make their pictures look crude. They want something like a document of a reality. But can you believe a thirty-year-old university graduate? Does he really know what is crude? It is simply impossible, especially in comparison to Miroslav Tichy. He lurks in a horrible worn out coat and - from behind bushes and walls - takes photographs of fragments of female nudity or the steps of a woman walking down a street."
