Rather depressing

Its not just in the fine art world. Although some current PJ work is awe inspiring, there are a lot of young digi era photojournalists that desperately want to put an intellectual/serious artist spin on what they do, yet they seem to produce poor, uninspiring work IMHO. I almost get the impresion that the genre has been partially reinvented so photographers don't have to go through what the last few generations did! I am 33 by the way, not 73.

There seems to have become a need to chase novelty and 'unique style' but the end result IMO is work with no substance to it whatsoever. Its a cheap trick IMO to accompany poor work with pretentious artistic statements. Great photography should not and does not need it.
 
If you follow the 'inspiration' link in my signature, you can see and hear Garry Winogrand say that we know too well what a photo should look like.

Far better to just snap away. Far less keepers, but when you do hit the jackpot, its gonna be big quality for sure. Live on the wild side!

I'm fairly new to the concept but like it. I feel Winogrands constant agitated fiddling with the camera and his glasses is part of the approach, he seems harmless to passers-by because he comes across as if he doesn't know what he's doing with the thing. People may have taken him for an unskilled amateur, out with the camera for the first time.

But, that was back in the seventies, since then we have seen so many photos, the internet has increased our exposure to photos as well, it's just so much harder to be original, and genuine!

The West is won, it seems...
 
I saw many contests run here in Toronto during the month long photo festival “Contact”. Many of the contests were won by people who had non arms length relations with the contest sponsor. I won’t get into it but trust me it was going on.

I also know of photographers whose work was over looked on several contests only to discover again the winners of the prizes were ‘students’ of the Contest organizers. Interestingly the book put out from all the “non winners” was somewhat higher quality than the winners. This (not me) photographer was hounded for several weeks by the organizers for an image that had not been awarded a prize. They were irate when a “free” high resolution copy was not available for them to publish in their compilation.

Scratch the surface and most of the images in magazines aren’t there due to merit they are there because of relationships. Put that set of filters onto your reading and it all makes more sense when you see uninteresting shots.

Regarding online pools like flickr, ipernity, jpg these have some excellent work and .. there are no sponsors handing out ‘candy’ to the favoured few.

That’s my cynical take.
 
I suppose its easy to become jaded but I dont think its just this. I had the same experience recently with a relatively new fine art magazine of this sort. The first edition was great - lots of interesting photos including some by classic photographers like Saul Leiter. This edition has lots of bleak photos (wrecked industrial sites or photos of broken "stuff.") that neither interest nor inspire. Other mags are much the same. Its always a battle in my mind in such circumstances - do I outlay that 20 or so bucks just to have a full set on my shelve in the hope that my attitude to this edition will change or do I just flip it off and only buy those with real and compelling interest. The latter makes more sense - it saves me money AND it sends a sharp message to the publishers - find better material! I have to say some fine art folk are pretty tossy and seem to rave about subjects that leave me cold.

But its also common amongst the more popularly oriented mags as well. Another one I was looking at recently had supposedly the best photos of 2008 or whatever. I have to say there were precious few photos there that interested me either - always well executed technically of course but mainly the mag was made up of boring subjects that have been reworked a zillion times and no new take on them. AND THE SHELF PRICE!!!!! A good 70% above other mags.

I suppose one only has to look at the sites that accumulate stock photos and realise that the sort of photos that really sell tend to be the traditionally pretty (the proverbial sunset shot) ofrcute (the sweet little pussy cat.) Whats the old saying? "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the general public."
 
x-ray said:
.....The photographer and I use that term in joking photographed images of dog S**it in the grass and made 50x50 inch color prints. I seem to remember he had a grant to do this.......
Click to expand...

Agree that dog sh1t photos have only shock going for them; and if that is an aesthetic virtue....well, I'll leave that for another rant. But what floors me in this story is that somehow taxpayer funds were offered to produce the stated project. That imbues the phrase 'holy sh1t' with a new sense of meaning; talk about being taken to the sh1tter ;)
 
Darkhorse said:
Then again you can find more horrifying photos on flickr as well.
Click to expand...

Not in my experience, I think the key is use the search facility, never browse without a direction. I also don't pay attention to their "interestingness" collection. Boring, to me.

Try to search for your favorite lens or camera or film or alternative process. Sometimes you get only gear pictures, but most of the times you'll see gems.
 
Leighgion said:
I haven't seen the magazine in question, but let me ask you this:

Are you sure that everything you like is good?

Are you sure there's nothing you don't like that might actually be good?

Like Roger says, if we're interested at all in cultivating our taste, we can't just run with our knee jerk reactions and stick with them. Other people can have valid points of view and appreciate deserving things that we don't. Not in every case, but even if you give something a chance and decide you still don't like it, you can walk away with a greater sense of why you don't like it, which is still more enriching than immediate dismissal.
Click to expand...

:)

I am rather depressed, because I don't "get" what seems to be the "state of the art" photography nowadays.

I am not dismissing anyone or anything. Just questioning, which is also enriching ;)
 
What I find amazing is the amount of wonderful photography that I constantly see here on RFF!
Im always amazed at how wonderful these pictures are. I dont see this kind of concentration of great shots on Flickr.
 
I do realize I may get in troubles in joining this discussion, but I will give it a try.

First of all - I am not too much involved with arts and I have seen rather few expositions. I do a bit of photography for personal pleasure. But I find it hard not to notice that lot of what is today presented as "art photography" is so shallow and simply not interesting. Many works are based on invading the viewer in some way - like if you get offended by a big guy - you shout up, accept his dominance for a while, finish your beer and go.

There is nothing wrong with being "new and different" - opposite to that, new ideas and innovations are inevitable and necessary, but they are not necessarily always art ...

Now - if we look at our own work. How many of us amateurs (I am speaking to amateurs like me now) would like to reach the point that we would get our work published or presented in some exhibition. Many of us - if the possibility shows - go for it, even if in full honesty we feel that our work needs improvements. I know I would like to have an exhibition, but if I look at my work, I may find a few shots from my last trip that might fit a postcard, but it seems to me that "I am not there yet" (Judge yourself if you wish HERE).

It is simply more than just to get something colorful in the focus. If there was no idea behind when I tripped the shutter, it will be a nice vacation photo at best. Oh - I do not shoot dog left overs or coke bottles during my vacations ;)
 
Here's one example of the result of a small, but quite prestigious contest.

This is more of what I expected in a good contest. No fuss, no muss, just beautiful, interesting and inspiring photos that won the contest. With a blurb about background and technique.

http://www.photoformulary.com/images/2008Newsletters folder/2008_Alt_Photo_winners.pdf

I'd love to get a free tuition to one of the Photographer's Formulary Workshop in Montana :)
 
I actually saw the original dog-turd exhibition in Arles, quite a few years ago. It was an interesting illustration of the disconnect between the 'beautiful picture' or 'precious object' and the subject matter, but I felt at the time than one print would probably have made the same point as well. Or indeed a mere statement of the fact that subject and picture quality are not necessarily related.

Incidentally, I don't know if the photographer received any grants for it or not, but it is worth remembering that far from all grants involve taxpayers' money.

And I'll be in Arles again in 8 days...

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Last edited:
Dear Fred,

Sorry, no recollection of the photographer's name. It would take a long time to find and go through my old catalogues, and even then, as I don't have them all, I'd not be sure of finding it. It was a long time ago; it may even have been the first or second year that the old SNCF workshops were used as gallery spaces.

I recall them as big colour photos -- 16x20 inch/40x50cm or maybe even bigger -- taken in his garden.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
x-ray said:
I don't remember trying to prevent anyone from seeing his work. Where did you come up with this. I simply said I didn't like his images and they leave me void of any feeling. I'm not trying to dictate anyones taste. It seems to me you're saying I or anyone who doesn't like his work is artistically challenged. Also what does graduating from Yale have to do with anything?

Now I remember why I hardly ever post here.
Click to expand...

It's good to see you back, x-ray. I for one appreciate your posts and your absence was not a 'good thing' as far as I am concerned - I am sure there are others who feel the same. Its important to have balance and we all know RFF can lurch towards the kit fondling and twaddle at times, which you helped conterbalance.

Formerly 'turtle'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom