Quality of photographs

Seriously, I don't know where this idea that there is no more life in the streets now is coming from. Not to mention the "actors playing their favorite character", and the fake ethnic neighborhood thing. Perhaps we hang out in different places.


GSNfan said:
When Robert Frank shot his famous book, the world was a different place. People hadn't become media conscious, and more importantly there was life on the streets... So, all he had to do was point and shoot and the subject authenticity did the rest.

These days people have become extremely media savvy and image conscious. When you see people walking on the street, everyone is fitting a type and they're all like a bunch of actors playing their favorite character... Secondly, life is in the shopping malls and no longer on the streets. You can visit a few ethnic neighborhoods but they're also fake in that they maintain that rustic look to appeal to the public as a tourist area.

I think its about time we stopped obsessing with Robert Frank and his legacy, he was a product of his time and that was 50 years ago. The same applies to Ansel Adams who's even more outdated.
Click to expand...
 
GSNfan said:
Going back to the original post about the work of RF and AA.

I'm a hardcore street photography fan but when it comes to repeat viewing and taking pleasure by looking at a photo, I find myself enjoying AA's works more and don't I get tired of repeatedly viewing his work.

I can hang a AA picture and never get tired of it, but I get tired of Frank's work very quickly, in fact I have not gone through The Americans in years. I know most of the pictures in it by memory and looking at them again does not make much sense to me.

So, which is has content and quality for me as one of the 'audience'? I'll be honest, Ansel Adam's work has more longevity and it gives me pleasure looking at it. I like to be where those photos were taken. Frank's work on the other hand feels a little preachy (for all the right reasons) and about a distant time, a time that I cannot identify with.

I stand corrected, imo, its Robert Frank that feels outdated while Ansel Adams work still gives enjoyment looking at them.
Click to expand...

Interesting. For me, AA's work has less and less substance as I get older. Increasingly, I feel I've seen through what he was selling, and how he was selling it. That's not to denigrate his talent or to pretend I could do as well, but I'd rather see good, new photographers. Then again, I'm pushing twice your age. To quote Dr. Johnson from memory, Our tastes alter greatly. The young man does not care for the child's rattle, nor the old man for the young man's whore.

Frank I never cared for (I agree that he's far from timeless), and I'm not sure about Martin Parr. But Raghu Rai, or Willy Ronis...

Cheers,

R.
 
I don't hold much affection for either of them ... but, I find it odd to treat two artists as if they were in competition. It isn't like it's a WWF franchise, easy to digest pap to give the plebs the security of knowing who's best and what to think.

They can each be valid artists without the other being invalidated ...
 
I personally love Frank and Adams, i'm sort of surprised that most of you seem not to.

It comes down to what you are setting out to capture, and how well you capture that. Adams didn't want his own narrative in the picture, he wanted straight photography. He obviously thought that to do this to the best of his ability he would have to be an absolute master of the technical aspect of photography, and I think in this he was correct. Frank had a very different vision, but equally accomplishable without needing to have technical precision that Adams did, because his narrative was of a different kind.

For me the artistry comes when someone has an artistic vision and they are able to realize that, through whatever means, technical or not.
 
Very well put efirmage.

I don't think that Adams is better than Frank or vice versa. They are both excellent photographers in their chosen genres. It's just that the quote by Elliott Erwitt rang true for me. I get a lot more out of a great street/documentary picture than a great landscape - I like them both but I enjoy the former more, I get more out of it.

This is, of course, just my opinion!

Simon
 
Last edited:
sar-photo said:
I don't think that this is specifically about Adams and Frank. Isn't it more about content vs technical perfection?
Click to expand...

To me it's not a dichotomy. Why must they be exclusive? By me stating that, it doesn't mean that they must be inclusive.

People who don't have technical talent will deride technical perfection. People who don't have talent for content will deride lack of technical perfection.

I prefer to see both in a photograph. It doesn't mean I don't like it if one or the other is more "prominent".

Schoenberg created a system for 12-tone composition; most people hate it, because they don't understand it. There are also some who deride Mozart for being "mechanical" or "boring". Which to me it's the same as accusing Shakespeare of being obsessed with rhyming and being mechanical in his Sonnets.

Everybody thinks they know the Truth and go about evangelizing; and if you disagree with them you're a ---insert derogatory term(s) here---.

If you (as in general "you", not you you) think that Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of music, that's your opinion. The contestants that go into America's/Brittain's Got Talent also have a high opinion of their artistic values, and sometimes no matter how horrible they are, the public will cheer them.

There is no right or wrong unless you apply rules. And we all know today's generation hates rules, because they're so "restrictive" and it's all Me Me Me Me, entitlement, etc. We are all guilty of double standards and nobody's ever going to agree with everyone. Once in a while a dictatorship shows up and...ok, tangent alert.

Anyway...a Philosophy is just that: a philosophy. Some people like to make religion(s) out of it. Others just take it as a guide. Do what you will with it, just as long as you don't hurt anybody. That's my Philosophy. :cool:
 
I like Erwitt's work more than either Frank or Adams.

The technique and technical attributes of a photograph should be sufficient to convey the ideas and image that the photographer intends. Anything else is just gratuitous.
 
Sparrow said:
I don't hold much affection for either of them ... but, I find it odd to treat two artists as if they were in competition. It isn't like it's a WWF franchise, easy to digest pap to give the plebs the security of knowing who's best and what to think.

They can each be valid artists without the other being invalidated ...
Click to expand...

Yes indeed.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
To me it's not a dichotomy. Why must they be exclusive?
Click to expand...

Exactly, but what I don't like is this "HCB is God" or "Frank is God" or whatever. They are all photographers, and of their time. We don't have to say, "I like barbecue so much that I'll never eat pizza again," or "I can't get clotted cream here so I won't eat creme fraiche", so why do we need to set so many photographers on such high pedestals for all time? It's the 'for all time' that gets me.

Cheers,

R.
 
Bill Jay called them the "naturalistic" vs. "humanistic" approaches. The key distinction being that the former is about the scene and the latter about the photographer's inner self. Personally, I feel little poetry in the work of Adams and other naturalistic photographers. It's true, an Adam's print in person is a sight to behold. But standing before an Adams' print, I feel more science than art. The lyricism in Frank's work is something altogether different and sublime. My favorite photographs are those that achieve that form of expression, regardless of technical merits.

John
 
I think that the degree to which you connect (or do not connect) to AA's images depends on the degree you connect with nature.

If you can appreciate the beauty of a natural scene, surely you can appreciate the beauty in a technically well done image of the same.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
I think that the degree to which you connect (or do not connect) to AA's images depends on the degree you connect with nature.

If you can appreciate the beauty of a natural scene, surely you can appreciate the beauty in a technically well done image of the same.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

I'm FAR from conviinced by that argument.

If you really appreciate nature, in all its chaotic reality, maybe you won't necessarily be so keen on an LF B+W image that is stylized to the point of being ritualized.

You may appreciate it for its own sake, but I dispute strongly that this is anything to do with nature. To reverse the argument, I love some of Mapplethorpe's prints, regardless of how I feel about the subject.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've read and thought about your opinion Roger, and we'll have to agree to disagree. Ones appreciation/love of nature would act as motivation for ones imagination to enliven the image and place oneself into the (imagined) real scene.

"Stylized to the point of being ritualized" is a subjective view that some will agree with, and others just as rightfully, will not, or perhaps not agree that it's a bad thing.
 
FrankS said:
I think that the degree to which you connect (or do not connect) to AA's images depends on the degree you connect with nature.

If you can appreciate the beauty of a natural scene, surely you can appreciate the beauty in a technically well done image of the same.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The problem with comparing nature and (lets call it) street photography is that - street is about human relations while pure nature photography is about aesthetics. They are almost incomparable.

I believe that nature is far better portrayed by film (ex. BBCs "Planet Earth" BlueRay), which much better can deliver the grand three dimensional feeling that is impossible to fully recreate in a photograph. This grand scale is not necessary in street photography and therefore photography is much better suited for that.

While nature photographers only really have Ansel Adams to use as an example of their field, street have dozens of greats. To me that leads to the conclusion that there are far more artistic possibilities in street than nature.
 
Last edited:
Erwitt's comment develops into a "landscape vs. street shooting" debate and I don't see the point of that.

Adams could just as easily have said that Frank's use of 83 images out of 28,000 taken for The Americans illustrates no more artist talent than random statistical probability would provide.


.
 
Last edited:
rkj66 said:
I completely disagree. The problem with comparing nature and (lets call it) street photography is that - street is about human relations while pure nature photography is about aesthetics. They are almost incomparable.

I believe that nature is far better portrayed by film (ex. BBCs "Planet Earth" BlueRay), which much better can deliver the grand three dimensional feeling that is impossible to fully recreate in a photograph. This grand scale is not necessary in street photography and therefore photography is much better suited for that.

While nature photographers only really have Ansel Adams to use as an example of their field, street have dozens of greats. To me that leads to the conclusion that there are far more artistic possibilities in street than nature.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. I've seen quite a lot of velvia landscape that have both content and technical quality. Tim parkins is one example among others. I'm not really in to super zoomed portaits of birds of prey and all that, it feels too much photoclub for me, but nice landscapes in both B&W and colour appeal more to me than the endless helicopter sweeps and close-ups of animals that most nature documentaries consists of. We're all different I suppose.
 
bigeye said:
Erwitt's comment develops into a "landscape vs. street shooting" debate and I don't see the point of that.

Adams could just as easily have said that Frank's use of 83 images out of 28,000 taken for The Americans illustrates no more artist talent than random statistical probability would provide.

.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Robert Frank, his selection was not based on 'pretty pictures', but pictures that helped the narrative in The Americans.


Frank's work is pure genius, its just that like all works of genius it cannot be replicated. So, it makes sense to admire Frank's work but not try to emulate him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom