bwcolor
Veteran
I don't understand what your point is. I can agree with this in general, but are you suggesting that there is one absolute understanding of art and anyone that differs in this understanding is a fool?
d_ross
Registered User
Sorry, what I mean is that his work was made famous, as has been said in a body of work context, but most importantly it was made famous by and for art lovers, academics, curators and collectors etc, not for photographers. therefor to understand why as you ask, you need to understand the art world. In a What Dave did with his straightening etc of the image turned it from art, as those who appreciate eggleston see it, to just another picture.
d_ross
Registered User
I should have said it is foolish to dismiss that which you don't understand.
Spyro
Well-known
Ι think there is a reason why this type of discussion usually goes round and round in circles until it eventually hits a brick wall. The problem is that many people actually expect someone in a public forum to summarise in 2 paragraphs for them what is art, what isnt, that there is no art, or all art is subjective or something like that, and once this is done the problem is solved forever and they will not have to worry about it anymore. Well, its just not that simple.
I think this type of discussion can be meaningful but only between likeminded people who have some sort of common background, otherwise it just gets too chaotic.
I think this type of discussion can be meaningful but only between likeminded people who have some sort of common background, otherwise it just gets too chaotic.
d_ross
Registered User
Regardless of how or why he made his work, it was the 'art world' for whatever reason that made him famous, therefor one needs to look at his work from that perspective to understand why those people like it!
To look at it from a photographic purist point of view and wonder why they are good, is also foolish, as there is no answer
To look at it from a photographic purist point of view and wonder why they are good, is also foolish, as there is no answer
d_ross
Registered User
peterm1
Veteran
"If an unknown like me or countless others do it, "It's crooked. Straighten up. Crop the left side. The light and S&H sign are distracting."
Why is that?"I
Really think because people are gullible and will follow the mob. If they are told something is wonderful too many simply go along.
I was on the weekend watching a series called "The Genius of Photography". In one episode some apparently famous US photographer (can't recall his name) set up a street shot with a car driving down a snowy almost deserted (and quite ordinary) street, a pedestrian is walking along etc in a twilight setting. Apparently he made many many takes till he was happy. My reaction is "This is crap" but people were raving about it. I am still bemused why a photo that took hours and hour and hours to set up to look like a very ordinary dull and uninspirred snapshot is any better than the ordinary dull and uninspired snapshot it emulates. To my mind it does not. It was a boring dull and uninspired piece of what I said above. And yet because it was known by someone famous, people were in raptures.
I do not get it.
Why is that?"I
Really think because people are gullible and will follow the mob. If they are told something is wonderful too many simply go along.
I was on the weekend watching a series called "The Genius of Photography". In one episode some apparently famous US photographer (can't recall his name) set up a street shot with a car driving down a snowy almost deserted (and quite ordinary) street, a pedestrian is walking along etc in a twilight setting. Apparently he made many many takes till he was happy. My reaction is "This is crap" but people were raving about it. I am still bemused why a photo that took hours and hour and hours to set up to look like a very ordinary dull and uninspirred snapshot is any better than the ordinary dull and uninspired snapshot it emulates. To my mind it does not. It was a boring dull and uninspired piece of what I said above. And yet because it was known by someone famous, people were in raptures.
I do not get it.
Spyro
Well-known
d_ross
Registered User
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]That guy is Gregory Crewdson, actually he doesn't take lots of pictures until he gets a good one, what he does is shoot multiple shots at varying times and exposures on a locked off camera, and then puts all the layers together to create the final picture. He is not really making photographs as much as he is creating images that just happen to utilize the technology of photography. I think those pictures are beautiful especially when seen full size, they are comments on society, not pictures of it, therein lies the difference between what he does, and a ‘photographer’ does
[/FONT]
peterm1
Veteran
I bet it was Gregory Crewdson... oh boy now we're in trouble.
Yep thats the one. I am sorry if I am stirring up a hornets nest (I do not mean to.) But for me the best that can be said of this photo is that its an OK example of a documentary photo. ie If someone wants a representative photo of a very ordinary street somewhere in a working class neighbourhood of a town or city in USA here is a technically competent example of such a photo.
But why would someone hold this up as a wonderful representation of art. Its that I do not get as I see very little art in it.
(Unlike some of the gritty black and white photos of Pittsburg that were also shown in the documentary I referred to. They did inspire me as they seemed to both capture the spirit of the place and had a kind of flim noir aethetic that was appealing. In fact it was that film noir thing that helped convey the spirit of the place.)
Maybe thats part of my problem with this image. Perhaps Crewdson has captured the spirit of this place and its a particularly unattractive and uninspiring spirit. But it can not be that as I have seen lots of Crewdsons work and they all have something of this kind of feel. They feel as artificial as they would if instead of using real people as models he was to set up Ken and Barbie dolls and shoot them in this setting.
Last edited:
d_ross
Registered User
It's important we don't all the like the same things, otherwise we'd all be eating nothing but Mcdonalds We should simply love what we love, and if we don't understand why someone else loves something else and we want to know why, then we need to take the time to learn about that particular genre or sector of the arts. But we should just celebrate all art and photography whether we fully understand it or not.
We should simply love what we love, and if we don't understand why someone else loves something else and we want to know why, then we need to take the time to learn about that particular genre or sector of the arts. But we should just celebrate all art and photography whether we fully understand it or not.d_ross
Registered User
I would challenge everyone who thinks Crewdson's work is like an ordinary picture of an ordinary street somewhere, to try and make one like his from real life.
Spyro
Well-known
hmmmm, gimme a million bucks which is what this set up cost him and I'll give it a crack. Even if I have to stand on that corner for a couple of days
the most difficult bit would be to get the snow fresh and untouched other than one set of tyre tracks. He actually blocked off half the town to get it.
SciAggie
Well-known
I think this image by Crewdson is an example of the question I was asking in the thread with regard to why some images are considered good. I am very sincere in my curiosity. I would like to understand what others find appealing about this image. I don't feel an obligation to like it, but I would like to understand it's appeal. I would appreciate the insight that others here might offer.
Spyro
Well-known
SciAggie I like the photo, I'm just not sure I like it enough to get into that type of photography(?), I still much prefer "found" to "constructed" photos. And I certainly dont like it enough to pay $1m for it, which is how much Crewdson's prints are usually going for. I dont know much about art, but I know enough to understand that talking about art in a way that makes sense requires a certain talent (charisma) that I simply dont have.
Bur for what it's worth I like it for the lovely blue, the twilight, the details like the lady in red, the vanishing point, the unnerving fact that both guy and the car seem standing still for no apparent reason, and I can only imagine how good and full of interesting details the print from large format would look.
Bur for what it's worth I like it for the lovely blue, the twilight, the details like the lady in red, the vanishing point, the unnerving fact that both guy and the car seem standing still for no apparent reason, and I can only imagine how good and full of interesting details the print from large format would look.
peterm1
Veteran
I suppose this is a classic case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I do not see any - you do. I think my point is more, why would someone bother to do set up such a photo. I certainly cannot pretend to comprehend his particular artistic "vision."
And if he is trying to emulate an ordinary shot from life, somehow I think he has failed. The photo (as with many of his that I have seen) comes across as staged and "plastic" (which in fact is what it is). This is partly why I have a problem with it. I don't think its an inspiring scene, certainly not a pretty scene. And t does not really say anything to me about life. So what's left - if it does not even look "real" ie it looks staged and it does not do any of the other things then what on earth is the point of it?
But then again I have to admit - thats just my viewpoint.
Last edited:
Palmer Segner
Member
you guys are so funny
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Show me a dye transfer print as good as those that typically bear William Eggleston's signature, and I might be inclined take the work more seriously.
...and yeah, John Szarkowski ;-).
...and yeah, John Szarkowski ;-).
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
Huh. Blocked off the street to get a perfect photowhateveritis. I wish him luck, though. The picture would be more interesting if there were more car tracks, seems to me. The problem I have here is that the whole game is one of 'how cute did the artiste get with their conception of the work, and have they been cute in a manner that I understand, am not bored of, and appreciate?"
It's just too much bullsh!t for me. Who cares what the artiste does to get off?
It's just too much bullsh!t for me. Who cares what the artiste does to get off?
Last edited:
Spyro
Well-known
I know! LOL