Pictures are uninteresting...

No?

How about...
“To me the expression, “Documentary Photography” is so much like a fingernail on a blackboard because it presumes that there is a stable phenomenon out there and that the photographer has a stable relationship to it. You know, that the thing has a certain meaning and the photographer is going to deliver that meaning to you and in truth it’s changing from minute to minute and the photographer probably doesn’t know exactly what it is anyway. And if he did and if that’s what he showed you, he wouldn’t be a discoverer any more at all. He’d become an illustrator”.
- L.R. (Feb. 2011)

Leo Rubinfein talk at Stanford University...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGaljgqHr7Q
 
It is difficult and easy topic.

Take boobs&tits and you know for sure it is going to be interesting.

Take something where viewer needs to have imagination of playful brain and you don't need to be sure of anything. It is the game of coincidence and capabilities.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
It is difficult and easy topic.

Take boobs&tits and you know for sure it is going to be interesting.

Take something where viewer needs to have imagination of playful brain and you don't need to be sure of anything. It is the game of coincidence and capabilities.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you said, but it is at least as interesting as the navel gazing quotes that begin the thread, probably more so.
 
I thought it was a very informative talk, and helped me understand Winogrand better. And also, in context, Sontag's On Photography.
 
Thank you, gns. I've always considered Papageorge one of the most enjoyable writers on photography and liked seeing this lecture and its photographs.

If you have not read his book Core Curriculum, I suggest giving it a try.

John
 
“If you’re walking around looking for something, then you have an idea in your head, and what is that? That’s your imagination! You’re imagining something. You don’t photograph imagination! You photograph the physical world. So, if I’m walking around trying to find something that I’m imagining, that doesn’t make any sense to me. But if I have nothing in my mind, if I just clear my mind and I’m not looking for anything, then something stops me. By its own nature, it stops me or turns my head. It gets my attention. And if it gets my attention, I photograph it. So, the soft eyes, is that I’m not looking for anything. I’m just sensing everything in a very democratic fashion and then something catches me and it turns my head. And if I was looking for something, I would have missed that thing that turned my head because it wouldn’t be what my imagination told me I should be looking for”.
H.W. (October, 2016)

Henry Wessel discussing one of his books and his process...
https://vimeo.com/187028231


One thing these quotes share, is the idea that the process of photography is primarily one of discovery. That the camera has an ability to reveal. It’s a different starting point than going at it with the notion of using the camera to illustrate some preexisting idea or vision the photographer hopes to communicate. Photography is a tool for exploration. To my mind Winogrand must have been the purest adherent to this approach, even stating bluntly, “I have nothing to say in my photographs”, but all the photographs I find most interesting seem to come from this recognition.


John, Yes, I have read the Papageorge book. If I like someone’s photographs, I am always interested to hear what they have to say. Robert Adams, Frank Gohlke, Lewis Baltz, Luigi Ghirri, and others have written similar books. Rubinfien has written many excellent things as well, including one of the best essays on Winogrand.
 
gns said:
“If you’re walking around looking for something, then you have an idea in your head, and what is that? That’s your imagination! You’re imagining something. You don’t photograph imagination! You photograph the physical world. So, if I’m walking around trying to find something that I’m imagining, that doesn’t make any sense to me. But if I have nothing in my mind, if I just clear my mind and I’m not looking for anything, then something stops me. By its own nature, it stops me or turns my head. It gets my attention. And if it gets my attention, I photograph it. So, the soft eyes, is that I’m not looking for anything. I’m just sensing everything in a very democratic fashion and then something catches me and it turns my head. And if I was looking for something, I would have missed that thing that turned my head because it wouldn’t be what my imagination told me I should be looking for”.
H.W. (October, 2016)

Henry Wessel discussing one of his books and his process...
https://vimeo.com/187028231


One thing these quotes share, is the idea that the process of photography is primarily one of discovery. That the camera has an ability to reveal. It’s a different starting point than going at it with the notion of using the camera to illustrate some preexisting idea or vision the photographer hopes to communicate. Photography is a tool for exploration. To my mind Winogrand must have been the purest adherent to this approach, even stating bluntly, “I have nothing to say in my photographs”, but all the photographs I find most interesting seem to come from this recognition.


John, Yes, I have read the Papageorge book. If I like someone’s photographs, I am always interested to hear what they have to say. Robert Adams, Frank Gohlke, Lewis Baltz, Luigi Ghirri, and others have written similar books. Rubinfien has written many excellent things as well, including one of the best essays on Winogrand.
Click to expand...

So much good stuff available now, thanks to the Web. Stuff we would never have seen otherwise.

Winogrand's zoo project was deliberate, as was "Women are Beautiful." While I agree that an idea or message need not be precisely articulated, most photographers, I think, will benefit from having a theme to focus their efforts. You can shoot with open, creative vision, even within the context of a theme.

John
 
When I studied photography 40 years ago my photography instructor, a well known photographer, said to the effect that if you get one good photo per roll consider yourself lucky. I find that too many people think that every photo they take is fantastic while in reality they are for the most part dull and repititious.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
When I studied photography 40 years ago my photography instructor, a well known photographer, said to the effect that if you get one good photo per roll consider yourself lucky. I find that too many people think that every photo they take is fantastic while in reality they are for the most part dull and repititious.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your goals and standards. Some of us simply enjoy the process of looking at and recording the world around us, and are not pursuing award winning images.

John
 
Papageorge and Winogrand were solidly in the spray and pray group as far as I'm concerned. Their images are rather boring since there is nothing there except a description. Garry "I photograph things to see what they look like" Winogrand famously left behind thousands of rolls of undeveloped film which is one fact among others that leads me to believe he was totally full of s**t. Seems to me Papageorge is more famous because of position than any photograph he ever took. I saw one book of his that was just horrible. Naked emperors.

I find Wessel to be an interesting character, perhaps a bit underappreciated. I have one of his books, Night Walk, and it is strangely fascinating. The work is of houses at night and predates Hido's color work. Might even be better.

In my opinion, great photographs contain something more than what is there at the surface. Great photographs tend to leave you wondering. Winogrand running around creeping on beautiful women is not great photography. Gibson photographing The Somnambulist is great photography. Ansel Adams, snoozefest. Edward Weston, fascinating. Bresson, bit dull. Kertesz, genius.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
When I studied photography 40 years ago my photography instructor, a well known photographer, said to the effect that if you get one good photo per roll consider yourself lucky. I find that too many people think that every photo they take is fantastic while in reality they are for the most part dull and repititious.
Click to expand...

"Good" in what sense?

That it is technically good? If you are knowledgeable enough, and your camera is functioning in high form, then they should all be technically good.

That it is artistically good? Composition and lighting, plus use of medium (color or monochrome), and filtration all contribute to a "good" photo. Again, more technical attributes that if applied correctly to the entire roll, will produce a good photo repeatedly.

That it is telling a good story? Ah, there is where many photos fall flat. When you can't tell what the photographer is telling you, or there is nothing you can come up with on your own to explain the very existence of the image you are perusing, then the photo is not good enough.

Been there, done that. Maybe a lot. I don't know for sure because you can't get any critique on this forum.

PF
 
johnwolf said:
Winogrand's zoo project was deliberate, as was "Women are Beautiful." While I agree that an idea or message need not be precisely articulated, most photographers, I think, will benefit from having a theme to focus their efforts. You can shoot with open, creative vision, even within the context of a theme.

John
Click to expand...

Right. I think one can have a "Project" or select a subject or direction and still approach it with openness. There is a difference between, "I want to investigate the zoo" and, "I have an idea about the zoo and I'm going to communicate that idea in my pictures. Curiosity vs. self-expression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom