Why is it????????????

[venchka]

Good, Bad or Ugly, a scene like the ARCO station no longer exists. How many stand alone filling stations and S&H Green Stamp signs did I pass in my youth headed to places to take pictures? Never thinking that I was passing golden photo opportunites?
Dumb. Living with a camera in one's hand and USING it constantly is the answer.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

When somebody famous does this, it is wonderful.

William Eggelston.

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?

It's like Sting: if he "sings", it is wonderful. When others do it, it's just horrid. 😉

 

[Andy Kibber]

you guys are so funny

Absolutely.

I've never seen much point in wondering why a photographer took a picture of a particular gas station or snowy street.

Some folks are inclinded to get their back up about the ART WORLD having one over on them. As if every photo William Eggleston or Gregory Crewdson made takes gallery wall space away from them.

 

[Sparrow]

I find this revisionist thinking a bit odd, not just Eggelston but all this Art that requires me to "understand" it, to "get it" rather than explaining itself to me, implying I'm somehow lacking in some way if I don't.

I'm tired of people insisting their opinion is as valid as anyone else's, that all art is equally valid when it clearly is not.

 

[Steve M.]

It's a bad shot no matter who took it. Even Picasso made bad stuff, but I think he had the good sense to tear it up and start anew.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well, I do believe that everybody is entitled to their opinion (it may or not be valid), but Art is as valid as the person observing/creating/absorbing it. There's good Art, there's crappy Art, and then there's an assault on Art.

We all have the right to decry something as not being Art, as much as others do to say otherwise. Art, I'm afraid, is a complicated Democratic monster. While the Greeks created it for its own sake, others didn't have any idea what they did was.

The Emperor's Clothes are as much Art wearing them as it is spotting them.

As Yoda would say: A pickle this is, I'm afraid.

 

[Sparrow]

The trouble is if one decides everyone's opinion is valid, then that train of thought would have to conclude that all artworks are is equally valid, if someone somewhere has a high opinion of it ...

 

[tlitody]

Well, I do believe that everybody is entitled to their opinion (it may or not be valid), but Art is as valid as the person observing/creating/absorbing it. There's good Art, there's crappy Art, and then there's an assault on Art.

We all have the right to decry something as not being Art, as much as others do to say otherwise. Art, I'm afraid, is a complicated Democratic monster. While the Greeks created it for its own sake, others didn't have any idea what they did was.

The Emperor's Clothes are as much Art wearing them as it is spotting them.

As Yoda would say: A pickle this is, I'm afraid.

For me Art is the chronicle of culture and that is how I judge it when I need to. A photo of a gas station is purely a document of its existence and as such is a very basic level of Art. Should that warrant an elevated status to its maker. I think not. I can walk from my house and photograph a few gas stations. Will they be better photographs? Maybe, maybe not. Their worth as art will only be in 50 or 100 years when people are interested to see what my little town was like all those years ago. They will have purely historic value. Their worth as art today is zero. Now someone please tell me what the artistic value of that photo is to you personally. I'll enjoy reading your answers which may enlighten me. But then again maybe not. We shall see. Even allowing for context I think it'll take a long stretch of imagination to make it something of significant artistic value today or tomorrow.

 

[jsrockit]

I think that anyone has the right to like or dislike a piece of art and one opinion is as valid as the next. This idea of the anointed is just rubbish.

Well, I'm of the opinion that you probably know more about photography then my mom, so I'm more likely to trust your opinion. That is what I meant. Mine was not some high-brow statement... it's just a matter of considering the source when someone doesn't like your photo.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Hi Stewart,

I think, practically, you and I are in agreement. But your use of the word "valid" makes me pause. When Eggleston make his gas station photograph he very likely intended to make art. That's all the validation I need for the photo to be art. Whether the photo is an interesting or engaging piece of art is another question.

Many folks consider the word "art" to have positive connotations. "Art" is good. It takes skill and talent to create and it causes the viewer to pause and reflect about the world and the viewer's place in it.

That, of course, is absurd. There are piles of horrible, sophomoric, boring, poorly-conceived, pooly-executed art out there. Some crappy art is in galleries and some is hanging in Aunt Augusta's living room. So it's always been and always will be.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Hmmm, the photograph is pretty perfect IMO. The traffic lights all Yellow, the line in the snow from the car tires, the man walking on the sidewalk, the woman sitting in the restaurant, the lighting, the composition, etc. The photo is just well done plain and simple. It is deceptive in its simplicity. I agree with d_ross.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Hmmm, the photograph is pretty perfect IMO. The traffic lights all Yellow, the line in the snow from the car tires, the man walking on the sidewalk, the woman sitting in the restaurant, the lighting, the composition, etc. The photo is just well done plain and simple. It is deceptive in its simplicity. I agree with d_ross.

I tend to agree. Crewdson isn't my favorite but his pictures certainly look nice. They are impressively composed and technically very well-executed. Deriding Crewdson's work as merely documentry strikes me as very strange. It's about as far from a social document as you can get. Every detail of the photograph is managed and arranged.

That said, I don't have much of an emotional response to Crewdson's photos. Mostly becuase they're too perfect. Like most posed, film-still style photogarphy, the photos have an artificiality that disctracts from the content. It's like watching certain actors who never let you forget that they're ACTING.

 

[Sparrow]

Andy, I used "valid" as I have concluded art is not a democracy and there has to be a hierarchy involved, I could argue who has the greater validity between say Michelangelo and Torrigiano, but to argue between Lucian Freud and Tracey Emin would seem perverse

 

[hteasley]

Isolating one gas station photo is seriously doing an injustice: does every single creation need to fully justify the reputation of the creator? Does every single creation of the artist need to be equally and fully explicable to every viewer? That's a terrible burden to ask of all art.

Further, context is incredibly meaningful, and separating one element from a large body of work is not just putting it at a disadvantage, it is deliberately misrepresenting it. Bernd and Hilla Becher are photographers I've loved for years, and it would be amazingly easy to pull one photo out of, say, Framework Houses, and say it's trite and boring. But when you look at the whole series, you find that the concept is much deeper and more interesting than any single element in isolation would suggest. The work is an aggregate, and needs to be looked at as such.

What the reputation of an artist should do, when you encounter something that seems initially inconsequential, is cause you to look more carefully, to see if you can discover why someone who has produced so much other consequential work saw something consequential in this. It would be nice to say that all work should be so looked at, but we just don't have that kind of time.

 

[d_ross]

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.

OK I'll give it a go, from a purist photography perspective, for whom it was never made for I'll add, it is good because every aspect technically is perfect, is it not? Focus, exposure, (all 11-15 of them or however many went to make it up) the verticals are perfectly straight, there is no camera shake or unwanted motion blur etc etc.

From an art perspective it is good for perhaps all those reasons also, but most importantly to those who look at it from a wider art interest there are many reasons. For one look back at the old master painters, take your pick, many worked with crews of painters under the masters guidance, so there is a relationship there with a contemporary artist with a similar methodology, Crewdson uses almost a full movie crew. And, as others have pointed out here the motionless relationship between the car and the man, the woman in the restaurant, the lights all orange and the overall colour balance created by blending several times of the day, all this goes to creating a tableau that among other things forces us to look at certain aspects of human behaviour.

In other words art appreciators will appreciate it because it is designed to appeal to their sensibility, photographers who share those sensibilities will also appreciate it, and those who don't probably wont. So if you look at this genre of work from the perspective of someone who loves say HCB and try to find why it's good your set for disappointment as the only connection there is the use of a camera.

I'm not big on American sport, if indeed you are American, but I guess it's a bit trying to understand why such a great shortstop wouldn't be a great linebacker 🙂

 

[SciAggie]

Thanks d_ross.

One of the characteristics of this forum that I appreciate is the courtesy and respectful communication of most of the people who post. I find that I am learning more about what I like and what my "style" is as I read other's posts. Some people have suggested that it is necessary to study an artist or a genre in order to appreciate their work - I appreciate your efforts toward that end.

 

[d_ross]

your very welcome SciAggie, I have found the same with this forum, whenever I use films, that I haven't previously used and need some processing help etc, the help-advice given here is always spot on and happily given!

What I have found over time is the more I learn about and understand different genres of art and photography, rather than dismissing them as crap, the more I understand my own work and where I want to take it.

 

[daninjc]

+1


(10 characters)

Isolating one gas station photo is seriously doing an injustice: does every single creation need to fully justify the reputation of the creator? Does every single creation of the artist need to be equally and fully explicable to every viewer? That's a terrible burden to ask of all art.

Further, context is incredibly meaningful, and separating one element from a large body of work is not just putting it at a disadvantage, it is deliberately misrepresenting it. Bernd and Hilla Becher are photographers I've loved for years, and it would be amazingly easy to pull one photo out of, say, Framework Houses, and say it's trite and boring. But when you look at the whole series, you find that the concept is much deeper and more interesting than any single element in isolation would suggest. The work is an aggregate, and needs to be looked at as such.

What the reputation of an artist should do, when you encounter something that seems initially inconsequential, is cause you to look more carefully, to see if you can discover why someone who has produced so much other consequential work saw something consequential in this. It would be nice to say that all work should be so looked at, but we just don't have that kind of time.

 

[Spyro]

ok here's another:

can somebody tell me if they like it and why, and if they think it is worth photographic fame? I will divulge the background details later, for now all I can say is that it is taken with a plastic Diana camera 🙂

 

[tlitody]

When somebody famous does this, it is wonderful.

William Eggelston.

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?

Now post one of your images and lets see what the critiques say...