What's wrong in the gallery?

[Marc-A.]

From the master, Mr.K. A perplexing image in his oeuvre that makes one wonder.

One has seen it eventualy, the one is Ray! Thank you Ray to pick it in the "Pick of the week" thread. Thank you Kully for your comment.
In the flow of comments, this picture has been superbly ignored, which is a bit worrying.
Remember that picture by HCB who had been dismissed on Flickr; I wanted to see if the same would happen on RFF. Unfortunately, it happened.
This picture is from Exiles by Joseph Koudelka. A wonderful picture that says: "my home is nowhere, my home is everywhere on earth".
[edit: needless to say that I love this picture, the more I see it, the more I love it]

I admit it's unfair to have done that, apologies; but that's something I wanted to do for a long time . Some thoughts?

 

[emraphoto]

is it possible that this is a gear site vs a photo site? i most certainly DON'T intend that as a critique... just fact. i understand it and suffer the desire to wax the gear on occasion myself. when i want inspiration photography wise i look elsewhere admittedly.
my wife often reminds me that not everyone has the skill and motivation to present images on par with koudelka, wall, towell, abbas etc etc... they do of course have all the right in the world to enjoy and pursue the hobby without hoping to change the world with a photograph. i suffer from the "change the world" syndrome yet understand and often appreciate the company and input of the other side of the coin.
as far as the "what does it say" line of thought (and i was well aware of and followed the bresson/flickr debacle)... i don't know. does it say anything? does it need to say anything? as it is easy to critique a photo some call masterful... so is it to critique those not in the know i suppose.
camera's are objects and we all have a deep appreciation of the craftmanship, ingenuity, design etc. involved. i reckon this site is just a little more myopic in that regard. and when i need to feed that side of my love for cameras/photography it's here i come knocking.
kind regards
john

 

[RayPA]

I think it was a perfect pick to float through the gallery, Marc. This is one that has always stood out for me as the odd image in Koudelka's work, but your read is a good one. This is an image I always skip right over on my way to the next great Koudelka image. Thanks for pulling it out and holding it up.


.

 

[Pherdinand]

Some thoughts?

The fish i like much better.
Sorry, i just don't like it that much, this image. I don't know koudelka very much, or actually, almost not at all, but if it's all like this, well then, i stay with the overhyped HCB or Capa

 

[emraphoto]

well i would suggest you check koudelka out a wee bit more as he is really quite good. head over to the magnum site and look under photographers

 

[tetrisattack]

Well, art needs context, and by posting it here you sort of neuter it. You've effectively removed it from its author and siblings and transplanted it into the domain of the lowest common denominator, where it should be no wonder it was passed over -- objectively, it might as well have been a lens test.

In other words, you've revealed that some of the qualities that make a photograph great depend on the context in which the image is presented -- Koudelka's photo needs the viewer to think metaphorically, something not typically expected in the RFF gallery, but something gallery curators and book publishers can easily assume.

The golden era of photography has left behind a legacy of fervent dogma, one that I think ultimately hampers many photographers. HCB, robert capa, robert frank, all those people with Eugene somewhere in their name... they forged ahead, but their individual works aren't accompanied by some intrinsic Master Qualities that somehow overcome the passage of time and the avenue of display.

Post an anonymous HCB image to flickr and you get comments very much about the aesthetics of photography in the 2000's. Post a Koudelka image to the RFF gallery and get ... basically no attention whatsoever. Seems about right.

 

[RayPA]

ooops, there is a gallery? hm, maybe it's time to check it. I'm sorry, but I've never been in the gallery. Even if so I wouldn't leave a comment or rating - too much to do, too little time :bang:

I think Marc's mission is accomplished!

.

 

[emraphoto]

i remember a little documentary i watched... the idea was to take one of the "worlds best violinists" (i realize the futility of such a comment) and place him in one of the buisiest subway stations in north america. surely, the planner thought, the public would eventually notice and plop their change in his case en masse. as i'm sure you have guessed NO ONE noticed (well two ro three folks did). is the populous entirely oblivious or is the value of contex to easily overlooked... i don't mean to hijack the thread but i suppose i'm just in aggreement with the "context" crowd.

 

[Pherdinand]

emra: i am sure he made lots of good shots. i intended no offense on koudelka or anybody who likes koudelka.
it just did not happen to me to "check him out" yet, and it just happens that i don't like this image particularly.
Maybe tetrisattack is right and it's the out of context what makes it less appealing to me.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I usually like Koudelka's work, but I've never seen this one and it didn't seem anything special.

 

[Sparrow]

One has seen it eventualy, the one is Ray! Thank you Ray to pick it in the "Pick of the week" thread. Thank you Kully for your comment.
In the flow of comments, this picture has been superbly ignored, which is a bit worrying.
Remember that picture by HCB who had been dismissed on Flickr; I wanted to see if the same would happen on RFF. Unfortunately, it happened.
This picture is from Exiles by Joseph Koudelka. A wonderful picture that says: "my home is nowhere, my home is everywhere on earth".
[edit: needless to say that I love this picture, the more I see it, the more I love it]

I admit it's unfair to have done that, apologies; but that's something I wanted to do for a long time . Some thoughts?

Are you surprised that knowledge of the photographer alters people’s opinion of the photograph? I would be surprised if you were.

 

[chikne]

This picture is from Exiles by Joseph Koudelka. A wonderful picture that says: "my home is nowhere, my home is everywhere on earth".

My thoughts on this are, that pictures are taken in a split of a second, So the possibilities for the photographer to tell him/herself such a thing when they're out shooting are, IMO, nil.

Strangely enough I looked at the picture when you posted it and thought that you were wearing funny shoes =)

 

[kully]

He he, you're quite the sneaky one Marc

I was worried about commenting what old-style clothing / shoes you wore in France in case you took offence ;-)

The gallery is a slightly crap way of displaying photographic wares, I always miss photos that I would have liked to see but which never 'stood out' in the thumbnails. Luckily the weekly pics thread is a good way of hoovering these up.

That it was missed meaning anything? No. My tent is just as messy at Tracy Emin's but it ends up in sodden fields rather than exhibitions. When faced with a myriad of photos in the gallery, you have to sift through the photos of gear (I hate this), photos which do nothing for me to find anything interesting, when going to a specific exhibition or looking at a specific book I know that I can spend time on each image determining why it was chosen for display.

 

[Marc-A.]

Well, art needs context, and by posting it here you sort of neuter it. You've effectively removed it from its author and siblings and transplanted it into the domain of the lowest common denominator, where it should be no wonder it was passed over -- objectively, it might as well have been a lens test.

In other words, you've revealed that some of the qualities that make a photograph great depend on the context in which the image is presented -- Koudelka's photo needs the viewer to think metaphorically, something not typically expected in the RFF gallery, but something gallery curators and book publishers can easily assume.

My point exactly Without the context - as a art museum gallery - art is drowned into digital floods of images. A photograph makes pieces of our world visible by framing them; but photographs need in turn to be "framed" in order to be visible. Here, it lacks a relevant frame.
More broadly, I wonder if the web is the best media to appreciate photography as it should. It's not a matter of screen size, or pixel resolution or other technological shortcomings. I guess the issue is time, the time of contemplation, of thought, maybe of dream. We see pictures over pictures, and the ones with some "effects" or 'tricks" (blurry motion, reflection, swirly bokeh etc.) draw our eyes; the other ones are just invisible for the most.

I think it unrealistic to expect everyone to recognize or even like the work of other photographers, even if they have made some name for themselves. Why are you surprised it was passed by? Do you think all art has some kind of universal intrinsic quality that uniquely identifies it as "art?" Or that most people have a broad background in art and artists?

Hi Sitemistic,
I should make it clear that my point is not at all to say: 'well, you guys don't know anything in art since you haven't recognized a picture of one of the greatest photographers'. I didn't expect anyone to name the one who took the picture since I prentended to be the photographer. (Ray is just a bloody scholar who knows everything ). However, I expected - or hoped - that more than 2 members would comment this picture, which would have shown that a strong picture like this is not only one image in the online flow of images.
I can't discuss the "intrinsic quality" of artworks; I'm not a fan of the "all subjective" theory or relativist aesthetics. Of course, art is about taste, preference (not sure about that), but it's also about some objective values, if not universal, at least which can be communicated. Otherwise we could discuss about pictures we like or dislike.

 

[Marc-A.]

The fish i like much better.
Sorry, i just don't like it that much, this image. I don't know koudelka very much, or actually, almost not at all, but if it's all like this, well then, i stay with the overhyped HCB or Capa

I usually like Koudelka's work, but I've never seen this one and it didn't seem anything special.

This picture has no trick that makes it "instantly digested", you're right, but it is "special".
The composition is superb, with three diagonals meeting in the lower fourth point of the golden rectangle. Tones and textures are just splendid, as Kully commented. But the most important is that this picture is a whole poem of its own. You don't have to have a particular poem in mind to appreciate this picture, but it's like a Rimbaud poem (Rimbaud wrote "Ma bohème", Koudelka, the Bohemian, took this picture).
etc etc.

 

[OurManInTangier]

It completely passed me by too. I think Kully makes some very good points on this though - the gallery is a slap-dash way of viewing images. I often find that images that contain more intricate detail or simply look better viewed large rarely get many views let alone comments.

I've posted photographs that I really like ( big headed, I know) but they just don't get any views because they don't fit the 'street' thing that is predominant in our gallery or because they just don't stand out as a thumbnail...then there are the lousy photographs that I've posted that quite rightly get passed over!

I also think that some people often check out photos by those posters whose pictures they know well and check out far fewer images by other posters they know less about unless the thumbnail really stands out. To illustrate my point I remember Mauro Scacco posted a lesser known HCB image several months ago to the same effect. I viewed it simply because I quite like some of his work, however I'd never seen this image before and honestly didn't think all that much of it. I didn't post a comment as a result and only realised what he'd done when Tuna told me.

I do keep meaning to check out Koudelka but I've spent so much on books recently that I'll have to visit Magnum's site.

 

[Marc-A.]

Are you surprised that knowledge of the photographer alters people’s opinion of the photograph? I would be surprised if you were.

Hello Stuart,
I'm not sure to understand your point as it could be interpreted in two ways:
- a bad picture taken by a famous photographer becomes a wondeful picture when we know the name of the photographer?
- a good picture taken by an unknown photographer remains underrated because the photographer is not famous?
In which category does Koudelka's picture fall when it is posted by me who prentended to be the photographer?
Not sure I'm clear here
Best,
Marc

 

[Marc-A.]

I do keep meaning to check out Koudelka but I've spent so much on books recently that I'll have to visit Magnum's site.

Simon,
"Exiles" is worth the money, you won't regret it
Cheers,
Marc

 

[Dektol Dan]

Just For The Laughs

Just For The Laughs

Marc:
I think that you would like to join the 'elite', 'trained', 'dedicated', 'impassioned', 'inspired', 'artsy', 'crazy for' crowd of photography geeks. Niether Flickr nor this site has many of those (although they are here and there now and then). Many don't respond as they are only passing through just for the laughs. Some do because they want to help or have spent some time with project that could help others out.

This said, this is not a site for artists, arty types, artsy discussions, or art historians. Why? Because this is a site for gear collectors and hobbyists. This isn't a bad thing, but they don't speak your language. Of course this always gives birth to some sort of perceived class war and snobbery, but even a professional photographer of 30 years may so specialized in his field he knows squat about arty subjects or the history of photography.

You have proven that even the best can't be found in a large crowd, and that the purpose most of those who submit to Flickr, or this site, is for the vanity of seeing their work in public (something only experienced by the published elite
before the internet). The others (the hens) do it for the idle banter and friendship.
I'm sure this forum could not support, or be supported by, only roosters.

 

[RayPA]

I don't find it to be a bad thing that the image passed through the gallery unnoticed. I think we should all get a lift out of it. We should make it a habit of randomly posting more images by the masters.