emraphoto
Veteran
I suspect a case of mistaken identity is at play. Stephen Mayes, at least this version, is the managing director of VII, a board member at World Press Photo and the admin of the Tim Hetherington fund. RIP
john_s
Well-known
The new photography is like the new music.
Ranchu
Veteran
Check.
Nobody had that idea though, nice try. You do seem pretty focused on who he is, rather than the content of what exactly he says. We shouldn't listen to him because he couches a few minimal opinions in such a grand wash of sludge. At least, that's why I don't.
Attachments
easyrider
Photo addict
No. It's a boring pontification. Yes, the method of creating photos has changed but the basics remain the same. A good photo is a good photo!
emraphoto
Veteran
Well there you go. All sorted
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
A very long time ago (25 years or so) I read Time Magazine every week -- to learn English and to get an impression of what/how Americans think. Had good photography, too.
Can't remember why exactly I stopped reading it.
Can't remember why exactly I stopped reading it.
mwoenv
Well-known
These types of articles, especially from a source such as Time, apply to the mass market, which always must be fed new products to buy. Proclamations of the "end" of anything are meant to prep everyone to throw away what they've been using and spend on the next new products.
But obviously there are still many people who find traditional photography, including film photography, a meaningful medium, as evidenced by the millions of cameras in use and the widespread conveyance of images.
But obviously there are still many people who find traditional photography, including film photography, a meaningful medium, as evidenced by the millions of cameras in use and the widespread conveyance of images.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
I read the first paragraph and then switched off. Art historian feed. Not anything people who like to take photos should be concerned with.
emraphoto
Veteran
i most certainly made point of WHOM the author of the article was in response to claims against his legitimacy...
"I'll admit to never having heard of Stephen Mayes before today, but it's apparent he's been in the game long enough that several here are willing to defend him. From the outside looking in, I'd say the guy needs to let someone edit his work if he wants to be taken seriously by those of us who don't know enough to be in awe of him".
the idea that i stand in 'awe' of him is insulting at best.
there are a few crowds in photography, that i have witnessed and/or met;
THOSE WHO LIKE TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS, for me, includes many of my colleagues, gallery owners, editors, book publishers, 'instagram'ers' and so on. the folks that have dedicated their lives to pushing, stretching and ALWAYS considering what photography can be and how it remains relevant as a form of communication in our times. many of the same prominent photographers that we take to trial, judge and sentence on Rangefinderforum . in some circumstances, these are close friends. some are with Magnum, some are with VII and some are involved on the desks of outlets like Time. in almost all circumstances i have remained silent about what are mostly wildly incorrect statements about the individuals.
in this case, i merely attempted to hint that perhaps not all who were commenting knew what the authors connection/relativity was. i made no insults, i made no judgement and i spared all as much hyperbole as possible. perhaps i slipped on a sentence or two
i try to refrain from impersonating Yoda daily. perhaps you could indulge my weakness today?
The Forest for The Trees seems apropos here. the author, not to be confused with Hemingway, remains a guiding figure in how we present, interpret and reward photography as a form of recording/documenting our time. an issue discussed heatedly, regularly and at length here. often the overall narrative is summed somewhat akin to the art world exchanges. whilst we toss about here, judging the writing of someone who has neither professed to be one nor has a well fleshed out history of doing so, i believe the overall message and internal complexity of the apparatus of World Press Photo and Photojournalism is overlooked.
please refrain from mistaking the words above as a form of dogmatic reverence, as it is not coming from anywhere near that turnoff. i am HUMBLY trying to suggest that perhaps there is a greater message to consider, that there seems to be an overall ignorance of who the author is (not a writer by profession) and that frankly, the rush to micro-critique is passé.
'I read the first paragraph and then switched off. Art historian feed. Not anything people who like to take photos should be concerned with'
sorry Peter. i care deeply about it (photography) and i am concerned with it. i have many friends that feel as strongly, if not more so, about photography and they care. i also believe 'the end' was not the belief of the author.
emraphoto
Veteran
i am not on a high horse and my feathers aren't ruffled. please, are we able to communicate without the personal assumptions?
Ranchu
Veteran
Once again, I don't care who the writer is.
emraphoto
Veteran
it's folks like you that keep me asking 'why do i come here'? usually within about a week of returning.
i will leave you to it.
Ranchu
Veteran
goamules
Well-known
emraphoto, try the Ignore setting for people that are antagonistic. I did it a couple years ago, and all I ever see are tiny, insignificant blank posts, that read "post by xyz is hidden, on your ignore list" It's really nice and relaxing, and you can focus your comments on the important people.
emraphoto
Veteran
At no point was I trying to be anything but respectful. Anyone that knows me will echo my absolute commitment to empathy, respect and manners.
This has obviously been misread by a million miles and I refrain from further comments. My sincere apologies and good evening.
This has obviously been misread by a million miles and I refrain from further comments. My sincere apologies and good evening.
Ranchu
Veteran
Whoa, that's passive aggressive! No apology is necessary, thanks.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
This is a terrible idea. It is simply filtering out what you do not want to hear, and enabling what you want to hear. Sort of like sticking your head in the sand with your ass in the air. You hear what you want to hear, and never, ever, a dissenting voice will you hear. The world is so full of this. And it is a problem.
I read the article. Not much value in it.
emraphoto
Veteran
I'm not going to sully Mr. Gandy's website replying to you mate. Find some other member to troll.
nongfuspring
Well-known
In the aperture article there are quite a few examples of what the author describes as good use of metadatalogical photographic techniques, and also instances where photojournalism has used non-literal/factual techniques (such as the staged recreation of events in a studio by soldiers that won the award). Naturally wether or not these are successful or not is an entirely different conversation, but the strategies that he talks about have certainly been realised.
I'm a bit unclear with what you mean by "modern" thinking, since the Dadaists were usually antagonistic towards modernity and had no significant commitment to abstraction (which the author brings up a few times, which I don't think actually aligns with his argument but whattever).
There are no claims being made of their being anything new being invented here, what the article is about is a general cultural shift in the way we use/interpret photography. This is where the Petapixel article misses the forest for the trees. The Petapixel article interprets the Time piece as claiming that abstraction in photography or photo manipulation is something new, which of course it isn't and the article is not claiming; what the article is claiming is that photo manipulation is now used so heavily and frequently that it is changing the way that we relate to photography as a medium to deliver truth, and is forcing photojournalists to rethink they way that they deliver images.
Really I think this is quite an obvious change even over the past few years that personally has been very clear to be in the blogosphere and social media. Previously there were a lot of "unbelievable" pictures of improbable or incredible situations that became viral, now this is really not the case since we automatically assume that if something is too unusual to be true it usually is. I think this is because of our better understanding of digital media. This "burden of truth" IMO has shifted more towards short smartphone videos, which are generally much more difficult/time consuming to manipulate.
Our faith in the photograph is wounded, and for the most part photography is gradually loosing the burden of truth in the same way that painting did after photography became common. What the author is suggesting is that because of this photojournalism is moving away from didactic event representation and branching outwards.
As I mentioned before this is really a truism, and shouldn't have at all three pages of heated debate after it. Worst of all is that in nearly every single post in this thread not one has actually referenced specifics in the article - this is just vague mud slinging and blind egos.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.
By "modern" I was referring to what I think technically would be termed post-modern thinking, apologies for not being clearer. I mention Dadaism because techniques to dislodge linear rational thought and responses to art - like collage, use of found or made objects, superimposition of images in a plane, visual nonsequiturs, and so on in the visual arts - were embraced by the movement and were influential. I think that what we now call metadata and its use in media may have part of its origin in these elements of the Dada movement, that's all.
I did refer to specific text earlier, but my negative reaction to the article had more to do with the author's tone, or my perception of it. As you say, nothing really new here, so I would prefer the author say so clearly and maybe (even better from my viewpoint) acknowledge the historical precedent. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't feel that way.
Regarding the burden of truth in making and using images, I have nothing but a sense that photography as "didactic event representation" is a cultural myth that has never been stable anyway. Useful for photojournalists and media producers for some time, yes. But the viewer brings the reference point, pretty much pre-determined. So, photos can equally be experienced as fine art, as proof/truth-telling, as recollection, as amusement, or what-have-you, or in combinations of same, like any art really.