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
I don't mind this photo at all. It's a nice simple composition with a soft look to it. A bit nostalgic in feel.
I will say that I feel it would only work at the size presented or smaller.
peterm1
Veteran
Thats fine that you agree with d_ross. Not everyone has to agree - especially with art where its in the eye of the beholder.
But my point is not that its a "perfect" photo technically (ie perfectly in focus, perfectly exposed, perfectly set up etc.) Its just that artistically this photo (like many of this photographers) says absolutely nothing to me. Zip, nada, niente! And it would say about the same to me if it were painted in oils or made into a 3D exhibit.
I find it very hard to see the point - apart perhaps from, "I am going to spend lots and lots and lots of money making this photo then demand even more money from art collectors who think they can in turn make even more money still by owning it for a few years and selling it."
But in terms of art that is interesting, art that is exciting, art that says something to me. Nothing.
(At least its better than the photo of the gas station I suppose.)
I can understand that. If it doesn't do it for you, it doesn't.
Definition of ARTISTIC
1
: of, relating to, or characteristic of art or artists <artistic subjects> <an artistic success>
2
: showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution <artistic photography>
There is nothing in there that says we all have to like something the same. How boring life would be if we did.
I just felt the need to stick up for a photo.
peterm1
Veteran
Thats all fine - It think in one sense we agree at least - its all in the eye of the beholder as I keep saying. My comments are very personal - I think its a damp squib, no matter how much it costs. If the photo "does it" for you then thats fine (for you.)
Spyro
Well-known
"Even though it's art, it doesnt do it for me"
Like Peterm1, I often feel like that and I think that's cool. The artist wanted to convey something, that something probably got conveyed, but it just didnt hit a nerve with me, or maybe I'm simply not in the right mood, or the internet presentation is lacking, or I'm not seeing it in context, or I didnt read the artist's statement, or at the end of the day it's just not my thing, I prefer Star Wars the trilogy and popcorn. All valid reasons.
For me the problem starts when some people start working the same logic backwards:
"It doesnt do it for me, therefore it isnt art"
Thats just not cool.
Like Peterm1, I often feel like that and I think that's cool. The artist wanted to convey something, that something probably got conveyed, but it just didnt hit a nerve with me, or maybe I'm simply not in the right mood, or the internet presentation is lacking, or I'm not seeing it in context, or I didnt read the artist's statement, or at the end of the day it's just not my thing, I prefer Star Wars the trilogy and popcorn. All valid reasons.
For me the problem starts when some people start working the same logic backwards:
"It doesnt do it for me, therefore it isnt art"
Thats just not cool.
Spyro
Well-known
I don't mind this photo at all. It's a nice simple composition with a soft look to it. A bit nostalgic in feel.
It's one of my favourite photos of all time by Nancy Rexroth, not a mainstream famous photographer, more of an underground legend. Blake Andrews interviewed her recently
http://blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2011/02/q-with-nancy-rexroth.html
Thanks for the tip.
peterm1
Veteran
Now these city photos I "get". (Without over analysing it, possibly because they are "real" not carefully constructed to try to look real.
W. Eugene Smith - Pittsburgh Project
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_pittsburgh_factory_full.html
W. Eugene Smith - Pittsburgh Project
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_pittsburgh_factory_full.html
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Both Crewdson and Eggelston would benefit from reading RFF and learning from the kind folk here. I mean look at their stuff. Have they ever even heard of bokey? Maybe they just can't afford fast lenses. C'mon guys! Get with the program - the "main stream" isn't main for no reason. It's what people want to see. Anything else is a BIG WASTE OF TIME!
A little advice for Eggleston: Try putting some action in your shots. Use more people, and have them DOING things - interesting things. Look up HCB and try to emulate him, but it's ok if you use color.
For Crewdson: C'mon, really? If you are gonna constantly use the kind of lighting you use, show us an alien - or whatever - once in a while. Take a lesson from Spielberg's Close Encounters. Three years after the enigmatic original, they came out with a version that showed the aliens and the inside of the spaceship. We want explanations bud! Don't tease us with mashed potato mountains.
A little advice for Eggleston: Try putting some action in your shots. Use more people, and have them DOING things - interesting things. Look up HCB and try to emulate him, but it's ok if you use color.
For Crewdson: C'mon, really? If you are gonna constantly use the kind of lighting you use, show us an alien - or whatever - once in a while. Take a lesson from Spielberg's Close Encounters. Three years after the enigmatic original, they came out with a version that showed the aliens and the inside of the spaceship. We want explanations bud! Don't tease us with mashed potato mountains.
Sparrow
Veteran
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
I don't normally do like and dislike but I can tell you what's going on
If one looks at the chiaroscuro (light and dark bits) its pretty easy to see what the major construction/composition lines are; so
.. the edges of those lines carry the eyes along these lines like this, and luckily the black frame edge retains the interest within the area of the bed-covers; like this
... the only difficulty is this point which seems to drag the eyes off diagonally to the right and out of the frame ...
The picture is fairly simple in form, and while it holds the eye well, unfortunately it holds it in an area without much interest.
The imagery of The Bed in art is generally to do with either Death or Sex so in a classical sense one would conclude that the bed-covers hold some significance ...
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
So cynical. I prefer to give the artist the benefit of the doubt.
Did anyone go to the Eggleston site that this image is linked?
http://www.egglestontrust.com/
The image is from the "Troubled Water" series, published in 1980. It is part of an edition of 30 prints. The prints were selected based on color content, more than composition.
And obviously, the series worked.
http://www.egglestontrust.com/
The image is from the "Troubled Water" series, published in 1980. It is part of an edition of 30 prints. The prints were selected based on color content, more than composition.
And obviously, the series worked.
Chris101
summicronia
Pefectly sums up this thread...
Nah. A perfect summation would have included a recommendation for those two hapless photogs to read and learn from Brian Peterson's Exposure. Crewdson especially. He needs to learn how to light the WHOLE scene. And stepping up to, say a Nikon D3x, so that he can bump the iso up a couple stops.
Brian Sweeney: a portfolio is only as good as its weakest image - everybody knows that! Had this one been culled, his series would have been stronger.
An RFF member looked at the image, liked the colors in it. That was the point of the portfolio. The "weak link" to one person is not the "weak link" to another. Personally, I like this image but do not like the first image shown in the online portfolio. It is all subjective. What works for one person does not work for another. After reading some of the comments here, I wonder how much "Group Think" has set in- everyone stating that this is a poor image.
I like it.
I like it.
Looking at the Gas Station- what I miss is the little "Bubble-head" on top of the Gas pumps. Long gone by 1980, but there is still a Gas station on Georgia 85 that kept their's working. Used it a few years ago. I had to pull in and get Gas at that station just to use those pumps. The balls that "floated around" like a lottery machine were very colorful.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Looking at the 9 photos I agree that isn't the weakest of the portfolio, I'm not sure how colour links the series as it seems to veer between over and under-saturation and harmonic and complementary colours quite at random, how do you conclude it worked?
DRabbit
Registered
When it comes to Egg's work, you have to see it in person to really appreciate what he did with color. Also, in context, for the time, it was unheard of for Art Photographers to be doing color work at all. It was groundbreaking.
I'm a big fan of his work. Of course, I don't like every single photograph he ever took, but his photos, to me, are works of art and wonder. That's what makes art so great... it's all very subjective.
I'm a big fan of his work. Of course, I don't like every single photograph he ever took, but his photos, to me, are works of art and wonder. That's what makes art so great... it's all very subjective.
Chris101
summicronia
I know what you mean. It's just garbage.
ps, I have deliberately been leaving the
's out of my posts in this thread.
Chris101
summicronia
Thinking about this - is the purpose of doing art with photography to make pictures that people "like"? Perhaps photos should come with a little check box that says "Like" so we can get a better idea of what is good and what isn't.