What/where you shouldn't photograph

[FallisPhoto]

I wouldn't dismiss anyone as a non-photographer, ...

That's pretty much my point. Your guy, Walker Evans, seems to feel free to do so though, based entirely on the subject matter that people choose to shoot.

"Photography is not cute cats, nor nudes, motherhood or arrangements of manufactured products. Under no circumstances it is anything ever anywhere near a beach." Walker Evans..."

I'm just saying it is stupid to say something like that. For one thing, there are too many examples, by master photographers, that can be used against him. For another, the implication is that he's better than the guys who do shoot those things -- and he wasn't even very good when he was shooting his one subject. Looking his stuff up on the internet, he seems to have pretty much only had one or two themes. Apparently, if you are not shooting old clapboard buildings, head-on, in bad light, or if you're not shooting groups of people who are sitting on the porches of those buildings, then you're not a photographer and you're not doing photography. That's just ridiculous. It's like saying nobody who doesn't do Haiku is a poet, or that nobody who isn't doing ballet is a dancer.

 

[lawrence]

I would have thought it was pretty clear that Evans had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he said that. I also think it's somewhat unrealistic to think that you or anyone could appreciate Evans' work from "looking his stuff up on the internet", particularly as quite a lot of it was taken on 10x8. Do yourself a favour and, if you get the chance, take a look at his prints. For me, he was probably the greatest photographer of the Twentieth Century and he was certainly one of the most influential.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I would have thought it was pretty clear that Evans had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he said that. I also think it's somewhat unrealistic to think that you or anyone could appreciate Evans' work from "looking his stuff up on the internet", particularly as quite a lot of it was taken on 10x8. Do yourself a favour and, if you get the chance, take a look at his prints. For me, he was probably the greatest photographer of the Twentieth Century and he was certainly one of the most influential.

Now your changing the basic premise of the post. It started off with you asking us what we thought of the statement he had made that photography was not certain things (nudes, cats, beaches, and etcetera). I told you.

Now I can't run right out to a Evan's exhibit here in Roanoke. I don't imagine many people can. All I can do is look him up in the library and on the internet. I doubt I will ever get the chance to see his work in-the-flesh. However, unless the people who were scanning/photographing his photos were doing an extraordinarily poor job (and I looked at multiple sites), he wouldn't have recognized good shooting light if it poked him in the eye and there is no other angle than dead ahead. I'd have thought that would be an essential skill for a good photographer. He also seems to shoot buildings dead on from the front with the light behind him, which makes them look washed out and kills contrast; he doesn't do a whole lot for me compositionally either. I think this is another one of those photographers whosesubject matter made them historically important. Artistically, I just don't think he's that good. I've seen a whole lot that that was better, from an artistic viewpoint.

 

[lawrence]

Now your changing the basic premise of the post. It started off with you asking us what we thought of the statement he had made that photography was not certain things (nudes, cats, beaches, and etcetera). I told you.

Thanks for adding your opinion -- it's appreciated -- however I fail to see how I have changed the premise of my post. I invited comments and then stated my own opinion -- what's wrong with that?

He wouldn't have recognized good shooting light if it poked him in the eye and there is no other angle than dead ahead.

I think perhaps the subtlety of his vision has eluded you...

Artistically, I just don't think he's that good. I've seen a whole lot that that was better, from an artistic viewpoint.

Which goes to show how subjective the term artistic is. Personally I think he was an artistic genius and is one of my three favourite photographers. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this!

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>
Now I can't run right out to a Evan's exhibit here in Roanoke. I don't imagine many people can. All I can do is look him up in the library and on the internet. I doubt I will ever get the chance to see his work in-the-flesh. However, unless the people who were scanning/photographing his photos were doing an extraordinarily poor job (and I looked at multiple sites), he wouldn't have recognized good shooting light if it poked him in the eye and there is no other angle than dead ahead. I'd have thought that would be an essential skill for a good photographer. He also seems to shoot buildings dead on from the front with the light behind him, which makes them look washed out and kills contrast; he doesn't do a whole lot for me compositionally either. I think this is another one of those photographers whosesubject matter made them historically important. Artistically, I just don't think he's that good. I've seen a whole lot that that was better, from an artistic viewpoint.

I will not debate that photography is a very personal thing and what some like, others may not. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions and I would not dispute them as your preference.

I would just comment that Walker Evans significance and importance as a photographer is indisputable.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Thanks for adding your opinion -- it's appreciated -- however I fail to see how I have changed the premise of my post. I invited comments and then stated my own opinion -- what's wrong with that?

Not a thing, except now you're talling us that the basic statement, the one you wanted out opinions on, wasn't to be taken seriously.

I think perhaps the subtlety of his vision has eluded you...

and I think the subtleties of basic darkroom technique and lighting has eluded both you and him.

Which goes to show how subjective the term artistic is. Personally I think he was an artistic genius and is one of my three favourite photographers. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this!

We certainly will.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I will not debate that photography is a very personal thing and what some like, others may not. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions and I would not dispute them as your preference.

I would just comment that Walker Evans significance and importance as a photographer is indisputable.

No doubt. However, I think what he documented is what makes him important and significant, not any extraordinary skill at doing it. He was basically a documentary photographer, was not particularly skilled at using his camera, and was marginally competent in the darkroom. Looking at what he did, I'd have to say he went about his craft like an unskilled factory worker, not like an artist. Looking at his photos, what makes one, or two, or three of his stand out above a similar photo taken by someone else? Nothing at all.

 

[emraphoto]

Because he's passing a value judgement on a lot of photographers who are a quantum leap more skilled than he is and who have chosen to photograph the very things he condemns. According to his "rules," photographers like Edward Weston, Joyce Tenneson, , Jerry Uelsmann, Wegman, Man Ray, Ansel Adams and etcetera are/were not doing photography and are somehow inferior to him -- and this is just because of the subjects they choose to shoot. Personally, I think the subjects he mentioned are among the very most challenging subjects there are to photograph well.

"photographers who are a quantum leap more skilled than he is"

how do we arrive at this?

 

[lawrence]

Not a thing, except now you're talling us that the basic statement, the one you wanted out opinions on, wasn't to be taken seriously.

I don't see these as incompatible at all. My guess is that Evans was just having a bit of fun while others may come to a different conclusion (and it seems that some have).

and I think the subtleties of basic darkroom technique and lighting has eluded both you and him.

I agree that I still have much to learn as a photographer but that is one of things that keeps me interested. As far as Evan's darkroom technique and camera work are concerned, he clearly wasn't obsessional about the former, however he was competent enough to be the first photographer to be honoured with a solo show at the Museum of Modern Art and he also manged to hold down a job as a staff photographer at Fortune for twenty years. The point about technique, in my opinion, is that you should have just as much as you need and no more. There's nothing more tedious than great technicians who promote themselves as 'artists' on the basis of their technical competence. They are a dime a dozen. What really matters is vision and that is a rarer commodity.

I hope you won't feel that I'm being too patronising if I relate my own story of how I came to appreciate Evans. In the early '70s I spent three years studying photography at art college (wasted time, some may say) and although Evans came to my attention I didn't understand what the fuss was about. However, towards the end of my course I started to realise that his work was surreptitiously having an effect on the subject matter I chose. I didn't think much more of this but in 1976 I had the opportunity of seeing a show at the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford. To see the original prints was an eye-opener and then everything came together. At that point I realised why he was such an influence on so many other prominent photographers like Robert Frank and William Eggleston and why his work was so important.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I don't see these as incompatible at all. My guess is that Evans was just having a bit of fun while others may come to a different conclusion (and it seems that some have).



I agree that I still have much to learn as a photographer but that is one of things that keeps me interested. As far as Evan's darkroom technique and camera work are concerned, he clearly wasn't obsessional about the former, however he was competent enough to be the first photographer to be honoured with a solo show at the Museum of Modern Art and he also manged to hold down a job as a staff photographer at Fortune for twenty years. The point about technique, in my opinion, is that you should have just as much as you need and no more. There's nothing more tedious than great technicians who promote themselves as 'artists' on the basis of their technical competence. They are a dime a dozen. What really matters is vision and that is a rarer commodity.

I hope you won't feel that I'm being too patronising if I relate my own story of how I came to appreciate Evans. In the early '70s I spent three years studying photography at art college (wasted time, some may say) and although Evans came to my attention I didn't understand what the fuss was about. However, towards the end of my course I started to realise that his work was surreptitiously having an effect on the subject matter I chose. I didn't think much more of this but in 1976 I had the opportunity of seeing a show at the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford. To see the original prints was an eye-opener and then everything came together. At that point I realised why he was such an influence on so many other prominent photographers like Robert Frank and William Eggleston and why his work was so important.

I'm afraid that I lean way more toward Man Ray, Jerry Uelsmann, J.K Potter Edward Weston, and so on than i do toward Evans. Now that's art.

 

[emraphoto]

I'm afraid that I lean way more toward Man Ray, Jerry Uelsmann, J.K Potter Edward Weston, and so on than i do toward Evans. Now that's art.

never a big fan of Dali but Odilon Redon!?! now that is art!

 

[FallisPhoto]

never a big fan of Dali but Odilon Redon!?! now that is art!

Yeah, he's pretty cool. The ones I can't stand are the Jackson Pollack impersonators. NOBODY seems to understand what he was doing and they think if you just splash some paint around you've done it.

 

[samoksner]

I don't get why people would not photograph homeless people. I've grown up in Paris, San Francisco and now Los Angeles, so I've seen my fair share of homeless people and I photograph them, however, I do not stand behind a tree and shoot from a distance, I let them know, I interact with them, I let them know that I am not exploiting them or making fun of their situation but rather that I have a respect for the situation that they are in and I do not feel ashamed to look at them.

Is it not more shameful to ignore someone on the street by not looking their way to ignore that feeling of discomfort rather then to connect with the person in distress, even if for just a moment? These are people that feel socially outcast in many ways and having someone treat them like they aren't aliens is sometimes the best thing one could do for them that day. I've met many homeless people, many with amazing stories, many I've been able to help in a small way just by going back and giving them a couple dollars or a sandwich and a print of themselves where they were smiling, or happy or had that glimmer in hope in their eye.

Robert Capa's concerned photography? anyone?

I find it very disrespectful for people to take a photo and walk away from a homeless person, acknowledge them, even if it's just eye contact, it goes a long way, believe me.

-Sam

 

[buzzkill58]

Some times it pays to obey the "No Photography" sign. I was detained in Egypt by the Presidential Palace Guard for taking a picture of the street in front of the Presidential Palace (What can I say... the street was clean! If you been the Egypt, you can understand how unique that is). The guard was armed with a loaded AK-47 with a bayonet attached. Needless to say, I did not argue when he pointed his rifle at me and said STOP. As I was marched to the guard shack, the guard that detained me ordered me not to walk on the freshly cleaned street and stay on the grass, only to be ordered not to walk on the grass by another guard. They were a rather serious bunch... You would think I just shot the Presidential Pet!

After being question for about 30 minutes, I was presented with a confession of my "crime", in Arabic of course, and was told were to sign. After signing my confession, the local police station was called to come get me and haul me off to jail.

The police showed up with lights and sirens going... All very high drama! Until they saw it was a silly American with a camera. We left the Palace with lights flashing and sirens wailing... until we were out of sight of the Palace. I was then subjected to many questions about life in America, tea, and "not worry... no problem."

I was released after spending 4 hours with the local Police after the Lab reported there were no pictures on the film. They were rather amused by the whole situation. Because the Police officer who picked me up, pulled the film out of the canister, rolling it back up, and carefully wrapping it in tin foil. He gave be a big smile and a wink and said "We develop now..."

 

[Jack Conrad]

I think that if people are so worried about being photographed in public they should dress accordingly, like I do.🙄

 

[Renzsu]

Some times it pays to obey the "No Photography" sign. I was detained in Egypt by the Presidential Palace Guard for taking a picture of the street in front of the Presidential Palace (What can I say... the street was clean! If you been the Egypt, you can understand how unique that is). The guard was armed with a loaded AK-47 with a bayonet attached. Needless to say, I did not argue when he pointed his rifle at me and said STOP. As I was marched to the guard shack, the guard that detained me ordered me not to walk on the freshly cleaned street and stay on the grass, only to be ordered not to walk on the grass by another guard. They were a rather serious bunch... You would think I just shot the Presidential Pet!

After being question for about 30 minutes, I was presented with a confession of my "crime", in Arabic of course, and was told were to sign. After signing my confession, the local police station was called to come get me and haul me off to jail.

The police showed up with lights and sirens going... All very high drama! Until they saw it was a silly American with a camera. We left the Palace with lights flashing and sirens wailing... until we were out of sight of the Palace. I was then subjected to many questions about life in America, tea, and "not worry... no problem."

I was released after spending 4 hours with the local Police after the Lab reported there were no pictures on the film. They were rather amused by the whole situation. Because the Police officer who picked me up, pulled the film out of the canister, rolling it back up, and carefully wrapping it in tin foil. He gave be a big smile and a wink and said "We develop now..."

Hah, that's quite an experience 🙂

 

[FallisPhoto]

The point about technique, in my opinion, is that you should have just as much as you need and no more. There's nothing more tedious than great technicians who promote themselves as 'artists' on the basis of their technical competence. They are a dime a dozen. What really matters is vision and that is a rarer commodity..

Nonsense.
1. A master photographer, one of the greats, will have both. If he doesn't, then he has not mastered his craft, and by definition, he's not a master.
2. I think it's pretty evident that Evans' "vison" was of the tunnel variety. In his photos, he keeps repeating himself.

I hope you won't feel that I'm being too patronising if I relate my own story of how I came to appreciate Evans. In the early '70s I spent three years studying photography at art college (wasted time, some may say) and although Evans came to my attention I didn't understand what the fuss was about. However, towards the end of my course I started to realise that his work was surreptitiously having an effect on the subject matter I chose. I didn't think much more of this but in 1976 I had the opportunity of seeing a show at the Museum of Modern Art in Oxford. To see the original prints was an eye-opener and then everything came together. At that point I realised why he was such an influence on so many other prominent photographers like Robert Frank and William Eggleston and why his work was so important.

Why on earth would I think that was patronizing? You tell me that when you took your photography course you chose to waste your time instead of applying yourself and actually trying to make something out of it and you think I am going to feel looked down upon? Quite the opposite. You get out what you put in. When I accidentally found out about advanced darkroom techniques, and how you can be just as creative with a camera and an enlarger as you can be with a brush, that was my eye-opener. I signed up to be a darkroom assistant and spent 5 days a week in there from the time they opened to the time they closed, 8 hours a day or more, and I did that for about 5 years. When the teacher needed to be somewhere else, I taught the course. By the time I left, I knew far more about cameras and the darkroom than any teacher at the school.

 

[martin s]

I like Evans. And photographs of beaches. And plastic flowers.

That is it.

martin