Can anyone take a good photograph?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

> That's too literal for me. It's about communicating concepts and nothing
> needs to be 'real' to do that. The needle opens the image up for wider
> interpretation than a bandage would.

Possiby it does. But as the image first got a hold of all my neurons that say
"this doesn't make sense" then the other neurons never joined the game.


> I very much like all of those 'cept for 'Great Wall'. You and I just have
> different tastes in photo's

Well, I would hope there is some overlap as well as areas of disagreement.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:uKKud.34330$bD6.1511501@wagner.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>>I understand all that. And if it was shot genuinely, then it is as
>>>cliché a pj shot as they come. And if staged, then moreso. I would
>>>certainly never take a photo like that of someone close to me. I could,
>>>I suppose, take that photo of someone I didn't know if there was someone
>>>needing the image, but I would do so reluctantly. pj's whether at
>>>standoff distance or 3 feet away, will shoot the shot that their editor
>>>wants, cliché or not. Iconic or not.
>>
>>
>> I agree it's a cliched PJ image. But I really can't label it a cliched
>> image per se.
>
> That's splitting it ... but who but a pj would take such an image...?
>
>> If we begin to view such imagery as cliched then has not Helmut Newton
>> cliched erotica and is James Russell shooting cliched lifestyle?
>
> Today we might look back at HNs style and call some of it cliché, however
> as it entirely his style, his shots can't be labled that way. Many of his
> nudes in ordinary everyday settings where nuditiy is not typically
> encountered, in your face nudes/eroticm with a huge dollop of societal
> critique are still great to study. The French "PHOTO" issue dedicated to
> him (last Spring, IIRC) you'll get a great cross-section of his work.
>
> Erotica? I don't see most of HN's photos as specifically erotic.
>
> James Russell I'm not famillar with.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

HN covered a lot of ground. From pure fashion to pure erotica (with S&M
overtones). I do not view his imagery as cliched in any. What I was
suggesting is that he set the foundations for what may be considered cliche
in photographic erotica (not pornography) today.
James Russell's site is http://www.russellrutherford.com . I'm an admirer of
his photography (and his teams sets, casting & production), but I could
still class the lifestyle stuff as cliche given your parameters. This sort
of imagery is all over Getty, Corbis, etc. That's the point I'm trying to
make. Cliche within a given field of photography, when looking at a
photographers body of work, is almost unavoidable. To me that's not cliche.
To you it is. It's just an issue of definitions
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102923493.553798.287690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "The D. Nitsche collection on pbase and at his website is a very cheesy
> tour."


That's a POV I can't understand. It'd be interesting to see your collection
to see how you differ so much photographically to take such a view
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Aerticulean Effort wrote:
> Paul Bielec wrote:
> Hmmm OK, I'll jump in with the obvious
>
> What is a Good Photograph?
>
> It can be good to the photographer and immediate peer group or family
> but may be not good to the judges at a competition
>
> Q1 - So how can nthe same photo be both good and not good at or about
> the same time?
>
> A1 - the term 'good photograph' must be a relative value.
>
> Q2 - whadya mean 'relative value'?
>
> A2 - I mean that some people think its good some other people think it's
> not good so it must be a value attributed by the people in question.
> Change the people = change the judgement
>
>
> Q3 - is there ever an absolutely good photo?
>
> A3 - course there is, and of course there isn't - it is a relative term :)
>
> Aerticeus

ABSOLUTELY!
It's entirely in the eye of the beholder...As it should be.
Who should I believe, a judge or my eyes?
Have you ever watched a Miss America or similar beauty contest with a
group of people? Did you notice that opinions of the most beautiful,
varied all over the place?
Everyone knows what THEY consider beautiful in a young woman, but
evidently there is no criterion that satisfies everyone.
It it a very internal, personal thing. And even you may not know what
quality it was that made you choose A over B.
Bob Williams
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes anyone can take a good photo. But it takes talent to "create" a good
image.

Gary

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:43:41 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>>I understand all that. And if it was shot genuinely, then it is as cliché
>>>a pj shot as they come. And if staged, then moreso. I would certainly
>>>never take a photo like that of someone close to me. I could, I suppose,
>>>take that photo of someone I didn't know if there was someone needing the
>>>image, but I would do so reluctantly. pj's whether at standoff distance
>>>or 3 feet away, will shoot the shot that their editor wants, cliché or
>>>not. Iconic or not.
>>
>>
>> I agree it's a cliched PJ image. But I really can't label it a cliched image
>> per se.
>
> That's splitting it ... but who but a pj would take such an image...?
>
>> If we begin to view such imagery as cliched then has not Helmut
>> Newton cliched erotica and is James Russell shooting cliched lifestyle?
>
> Today we might look back at HNs style and call some of it cliché, however as it
> entirely his style, his shots can't be labled that way. Many of his nudes in
> ordinary everyday settings where nuditiy is not typically encountered, in your
> face nudes/eroticm with a huge dollop of societal critique are still great to
> study. The French "PHOTO" issue dedicated to him (last Spring, IIRC) you'll get
> a great cross-section of his work.
>
> Erotica? I don't see most of HN's photos as specifically erotic.
>
> James Russell I'm not famillar with.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
 

jeremy

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
347
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C12989.2080406@cox.net...
>
> It it a very internal, personal thing. And even you may not know what
> quality it was that made you choose A over B.
> Bob Williams
>

Let me add a bit to what you've written. Even a photograph judged to be
good may, in time, tend to lose its luster. I am referring especially to
all those artsy images taken by every budding photographer--the ones with
the "interesting angles." You know the kind I mean--buildings shot with
wide angle lenses to distort their straight lines. Bright colors that jump
off the page. That sort of thing. I recently looked over some old photo
books from the 60s, and I found all those distorted images to be quite
boring.

What confuses people is the relative ease with which a typical amateur can
now produce images that are properly exposed, with well-saturated colors,
and sized a lot bigger than the 3x5s that amateurs used to make. Only
problem is, most of them are far from artistic.

Erwin Puts, on his Leica web site, notes that most users of Leica cameras
are not artists. In other words, the images may be of good quality from a
technical standpoint, but they are otherwise not noteworthy.

I was one of those photographers--I did a credible job with the technical
end of things, but my images (those "interesting angles" that I spoke of
earlier) were never going to hang in a museum. Then I discovered straight
documentary photography, and I spent a lot of time pondering all the various
subjects that are transitory, and would soon change or disappear entirely,
and I dedicated my efforts to stopping time by preserving their images on
film. It has been a most interesting use of my camera and my photographic
skills. And who knows how well my images of places and things that no
longer exist will stand the test of time, versus those artsy, colorful
images that are being turned out every day by the millions by amateurs all
around the world?

Too bad I won't be there to find out . . .
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103070460.401565.238780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Argh. I had written a lengthy reply but google screwed up with a server
> error message when I previewed it to check the links and when I
> back-browsed the dialog box had vanished!! Damn Google Groups Beta!
> Damn it!
>
> Anyhow, the gist of it, though I feel exhausted, is this: While his
> technical and digital "darkroom" equipment and skills are evidently
> good, I find his work artistically sterile. Wannabe-Artsy in a most
> superficial, 1980s' tasteless-burgeouise corporate-cubicle or
> posters-shop pop culture, yes, and at that it is a travesty of a
> travesty, but artistic, no, not according to my budding understanding
> of that formal discipline. As such, there's hardly an image on his site
> that I wish I had taken or that appeals to me much, and I don't find
> him someone whose work I wish to follow.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we've claimed 'art' for
Dave's photo's. It confuses me when people claim art for mine. In fact the
only thing in Tate Modern I really enjoy is a lunch at their restaurant. Art
to me is Rembrandt. Dave's talent (technical aside) lies in very clearly
communicating concepts and emotions with objects. That's a talent that can
earn a photographer a lot of money if he knows how to market the images.
That's what admire about his photo's, pipes included. I can say
hand-on-heart that every piece of 'fine art' photography I've seen hanging
in London gallery's this year (all with hefty price tags) has struck me as
immensely dull and very often inept. Take a look at...
http://www.frithstreetgallery.com/riddy.html ...and please tell me what the
point is?


> I'm not necessarily averse to digital artistry complementing
> photography. For example, during the life of this thread I have come
> across an artist, Sarah Sweeney, whose recent series are just that. She
> bought 22,000 slides documenting the life of one family from an ebay
> auction (for $17!) and then transplanted the snapshot objects into a
> digital imaging software.
>
> http://tinypic.com/wobkm
> http://tinypic.com/wo3v4
> http://tinypic.com/wobo7
> http://tinypic.com/wobp4
>
> In my opinion, a single image of hers contains more substance of art
> than an entire site by D Nitsche, or any number of his for that matter
> if he remained as such, and it's probably no coincidence that she has a
> post-graduate degree in fine arts from an Ivy League. D Nitsche's work
> lacks substance, lacks sublimity, and lacks subtlety, and lacks much
> else too.

This thread is now all about tastes and opinions. The first three images you
posted there to me are completely devoid of any interest. I will forget them
all by tomorrow morning. If I took pic's like these I'd delete them unless
they were of my nearest and dearest. They certainly would never grace a Web
page. The fourth is interesting but I cannot see anything more than a smart
compositional piece.
Call me a philistine, I don't care. 'Pure' (created for pleasure)
photography for me is chiefly about visually striking imagery (the 'wow'
factor) and this means that art, under its modern definition, doesn't come
into it
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:53:34 -0000, "Simon Stanmore"
<nomail@thanks.com> wrote:

>I can say
>hand-on-heart that every piece of 'fine art' photography I've seen hanging
>in London gallery's this year (all with hefty price tags) has struck me as
>immensely dull and very often inept. Take a look at...
>http://www.frithstreetgallery.com/riddy.html ...and please tell me what the
>point is?

It must be a conspiracy to rip people off. Either that or it's a joke
website.

Not only are the pictures rubbish, they've used that *extremely
annoying* CROPPED thumbnail web navigation thing to go to the main
pictures - on clicking one of these expectations are crushed as a
small, dark (and DIFFERENT) picture appears before you. It has to be a
joke, right?

--
Owamanga!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103176528.027521.327240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone take a good photograph?
>
> Let's see. Here are immensely iconic images that captured the mood of a
> certain generation and defined their youth, taken somewhat casually by
> a then unkonwn, recently self-taught, 23 year old former model who'd
> acquired a modest camera and photographed a yet unknown, 14 year old
> model whom she identified with, and though they were starkly at odds
> with the then still prevalent taste of late 1980s the images were
> accepted for publication in the July 1990 Third Summer of Love issue of
> the British magazine The Face.
>
> http://tinypic.com/wu16t
> http://tinypic.com/wu1a8
> http://tinypic.com/wu4qw
>
> These seminal photographs were a pioneering series for the 'grunge'
> movement of intimate realism, and more than a year later, towards the
> end of 1991, Nirvana's Nevermind Album would unseat Michael Jackson's
> Dangerous from the top of the US music charts in a potent symbolism of
> a fringe aesthetic in arts gaining mass appeal and declaring the end of
> the 1980s, and Kate Moss, the model in these images above, would in
> 1992, and for years to come, become the face of Calvin Kline, one of
> the most widely advertised brands during that era, and the
> multi-billion dollar corporation of design would simply choose to
> imitate the sensibilities originally chosen by Corinne Day when she
> photographed her.

This is of genuine interest to me as you're clearly illustrating how a
modern art appreciator views the world using subjects I understand. I don't
though believe that Nirvana's rise and dominance of popular music in the
early 90's has anything to do at all with some pic's of Moss. I don't even
think their success has anything to do with any 'movement'. From the late
eighties 'til '97 I was a guitar playing young man gigging, jamming and
listening to all this stuff all the time. I saw these bands live all the
time. So I know a little bit about this subject via direct experience. I
actually 'dropped' the guitar for the camera. To claim a genuine and
influencing link between those pic's and Nirvana's success is IMHO nonsense.
Their success has everything to do with Cobain creating perhaps the
catchiest riff in hard rock ever when he wrote Teen Spirit. That song's the
aural equivalent of what I love in great (my great - not yours) photographs.
It's striking, powerful and obvious. It burns itself into your brain. The
single was backed-up with a tip-top video. This is what defined grunge to
the masses. When that single came out Nirvana went mainstream overnight. If
he never came up with that riff Nirvana would have remained a hardcore
listeners band. The grunge movement would very likely had remained fringe
too as a result. Do you really believe those pic's of Moss had any influence
at all over all of this? Cobain was a disaffected youth from some backwater
outside Seattle who got his kicks from listening to punk and goth bands.
What do the pic's, Face, and Calvin Klein ad's have to do with him and his
music in any real influencing way? More specifically, what do they have to
do with that Teen Spirit riff?


> Anyhow, back to the original question, or questions.
>
> Are these above good photographs? and why?

They're not good. Better than snaps, but nothing very special. The portrait
is the strongest image but suffers from very poor printing. You have to look
past the fact that they feature (discovered?) a young supermodel. I believe
you when you tell me these shots are 'iconic'. I think I've heard of them
before. They're not iconic because they're good photo's though. They're
iconic because they feature a half naked, painfully thin, 14yr old girl
snapped by a member of a certain section of society. Other members of said
section of society thought were cool and avant guard (hardly a regular
subject is it). These are likely the same section - certain art directors,
stylists, mag' editors - that brought to the world heroin chic. A look that
everyone I know (normal'ish peeps) abhorred. I strongly suspect that most of
us just find two of these three pic's a bit painful and awkward to view and
all three eminently forgetable as images. Their content is memorable but not
the actual visual.


> How would this example affect the question "Can anyone take a good
> photograph"?

It doesn't.


> How would it affect the question "what should a serious amateur concern
> himself with"?

It doesn't affect this question either.
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:


>
> HN covered a lot of ground. From pure fashion to pure erotica (with S&M
> overtones). I do not view his imagery as cliched in any. What I was
> suggesting is that he set the foundations for what may be considered cliche
> in photographic erotica (not pornography) today.
> James Russell's site is http://www.russellrutherford.com . I'm an admirer of
> his photography (and his teams sets, casting & production), but I could
> still class the lifestyle stuff as cliche given your parameters. This sort
> of imagery is all over Getty, Corbis, etc. That's the point I'm trying to
> make. Cliche within a given field of photography, when looking at a
> photographers body of work, is almost unavoidable. To me that's not cliche.
> To you it is. It's just an issue of definitions

Sorry for late reply... this just made it to my newsserver today... (sighs
heavilly).

I think were more or less in sync re HN.

JR's shot at that website strike me as very high quality, fantastically lit,
wonderfully posed product shots for power tools... er, fashion shots. Even the
shots of the soccer players, while less studio looking are really so highly
contrived as to be overdone. cliché: handsome soccer players all wet and muddy
in their contest (complete to backlit 'rain'). The profile of the black girl in
the brown beret is striking, but still is highly directed. This fellow is
obviously a top fashion photographer... I'll call it "fashion cliché" for the
most part.

HN's photography was (or appeared) less structured, more impromptu and
visionary. Less technical detail than JR, more vision. Models were expressive
and they were beautiful but could project ugliness, scorn, anger in their poses
and facial expressions as well as sensuality. (Sigourney Weaver shot in wet
dress and cigarette comes to mind). JR's models would never be allowed that
expression...

Sorry, while I appreciate the quality of the work (JR), it's just not for me.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103233606.978447.136870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Stan,
>
> There are many points of irony in your post.
>
> It's good that you acknowledge Rembrandt; someone who's undeniably a
> master. A good measure would be what if Rembrandt was resurrected
> today, what would he acknowledge as art that he can read into? I can
> almost assure you that he would acknowledge the John Riddy photographs
> you linked to, or the Sarah Sweeney images I linked to, all of which
> are true to tradition and are far from what is loosely known as "modern
> art", much of which in turn is actually closer to the Dave Nitsche
> work, in that it is being driven by an uneducated taste; it would have
> been difficult for what some call "modern art" to gain any ground
> without the market economics of the nouveaux riches en masse. (for an
> aside, the mid-1980s film "Hannah and Her Sisters" has a scene in which
> Michael Caine's accountant character brings a popstar client who's
> interested in buying 'art' to his brother-in-law's studio, played by a
> Swedish actor of Ingmar Bergman's fame, and the genius of a Woody
> Allen's script manifests in the discordant exchange between their
> tastes, where the buyer asks if he's got any big paintings and the
> artist takes great offence and says that he doesn't sell his paintings
> by the yard, and then yet again the popstar manages to offend the
> artist whom we hear yelling something to the effect of 'you don't buy a
> piece of art because it matches a couch!')
>
> Also, 'purity' is an artistic virtue, in fact, it can be argued that it
> is the essence of art. It's ironic that you would use the term it to
> refer to a photography that is devoid of art.
>
> I think it would be good if you read a book or two about for a start;
> The Visual Dialogue: An Introduction to the Appreciation of Art by
> Arthur Knobler is a good one. I have it though it may be out-of-print.
> You may find it in a library.

There's irony in your post for me too Mike. When I was 18 I had places open
to me at St Martins and The Royal College. I saw what the students did at
these places and I went to work instead. I'm hardly going to spend my spare
time reading such a book am I. An educated understanding of modern art is
something I really have no desire to possess. If ever get seriously involved
with fashion photography I'll make some effort, but until then it's a waste
of my time
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103347680.965803.90550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
> Fiercely anti-deconstructionist, aren't you?

I don't know. I think I'm just realistic.

> I might've also said that in 1992 Bill Clinton won the US elections on
> a compassionate agenda that promised to address the basic needs and
> social concerns of the American majority, thereby cementing the end of
> 12 years of the Reaganite Eighties that favoured the exuberant
> profligacy of the few (the British were characteristically sluggish in
> abandoning Thatcherism, but they did eventually and emphatically).
> Would it have been that these photographs did that too?

Nope.

> Kurt Cobain was certainly a great artist. To say that his greatness can
> be reduced to the riff of "teen spirit" is absurd,

Yes it would. I said that Nirvana's popularity and subsequently grunge's
rise into popular conciousceness can be reduced to the riff of Teen Spirit.
I stand by that. I'm not the only one with such a view...

"Smells Like Teen Spirit" was the song that brought Nirvana and grunge music
to the attention of teenagers around the world. While melodically and
harmonically simple, it featured a minimalistic, moody verse with stream of
consciousness lyrics rising to a ferocious chorus, and Kurt Cobain's voice
showing its range from tuneful melancholy to primal scream. It is vaguely
based around a riff using four power chords (F-Bb-Ab-Db) with more than a
passing similarity to a section of Boston's AOR classic "More Than a
Feeling", as well as Blue Öyster Cult's "Godzilla".
...from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smells_Like_Teen_Spirit

> especially that you
> should know there was nothing new about that riff, as it was a Pixies'
> riff, famous years prior, and Kurt Cobain said the whole song was a
> private attempt at writing a Pixies song that he was later persuaded to
> include in the album.

I knew about the Pixie's thing but I didn't know the riff was a direct
rip-off. Clapton took an Albert King riff and sped it up for Layla. This
reminds me of discussion I was having on cliche earlier in the thread with
Alan. See that reference above to the Boston & Oyster Cult pieces too. How
Cobain got that riff is irrelevant to the fact that it's the riff that
carried Nirvana and grunge to the masses.

> Yet it remains a decidedly Nirvana song, sharing
> much with the others, though perhaps my least favourite. The hallmark
> of his greatness is how consistently fine, in an artistic sense, his
> work was. I think a more representative Nirvana song from the same
> Nevermind album would be "Drain You". Other songs of Nirvana I prefer
> are "Lithium", "radio friendly unit shifter", "milk it", "in Bloom" and
> almost all the rest! Many one-hit-wonders have come and gone, yet over
> a decade later his legacy as a whole remains one of the best in popular
> music. His songs were the essence of poetry.
>
> What do the photographs have to do with Kurt Cobain or his music?
>
> Corinne Day's experience was not much different from that of Cobain's;
> both were equally troubled in origin, and equally disaffected. Remember
> that when these photographs came out the prevalent taste was that of
> cosmetic excess and capitalist fabrication. These photographs were a
> premonition of an emerging yet achingly estranged aesthetic of a
> libidinously-confused and reticently-confessional youth that sought the
> truth of itself and its world in all honesty however bleak it was. And
> it had to be truth because they lacked the means of cosmetic
> fabrication, and indeed, for its protagonists, who arrived ashamedly
> deprived of economic esteem in a world that highly valued it however
> constitutionally-innocent they were, it was bleak.

Do you really believe that? I believe that kids loved Nirvana because Teen
Spirit rocked, the cheerleaders in the vid were hot, and the fashion was
cheap. Almost every teen of every generation's an angst ridden little misery
at some stage.
As for the pic's, they have nothing to do with grunge music at all. Now I've
read a bit about Corinne Day on the Web I see I was right about the heroin
chic connection. The people that created and promoted that nasty little
fashion episode really have nothing to do with Seattles 90's music scene.

> Remember the cover image of the Nevermind Album?
>
> http://tinypic.com/xd028

Now that's a good photograph - have always loved that shot. You know what,
if Dave Nitsche used people in his images I wouldn't be surprised if he came
up with something like this.

....I'm snipping the lyrics because this could end up real OT...

> All these were no ordinary songs; deservedly the 'voice' of a
> generation. Those were no ordinary photographs; deservedly the 'icons'
> of a generation. Albeit seemingly simple, and unabashedly 'ugly' for
> some, they were the epitome of perfection in beauty, and epiphany of
> prophecy in revelation. Judged objectively as art, and regardless of
> personal taste, they are as empathically effective as can be.

Yeah, but to me they're junk distasteful photo's. Most of 'their' generation
never saw these pic's and you can bet that most of those that did see them
soon forgot them. I've just a looked at some of the photographers other
stuff and remain hugely underwhelmed. Take a look at what Mario Testino did
with Kate Moss, that was good imagery
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103389853.458115.29110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1103347680.965803.90550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Simon Stanmore wrote:
>> >
>> > Fiercely anti-deconstructionist, aren't you?
>>
>> I don't know. I think I'm just realistic.
>>
>> > I might've also said that in 1992 Bill Clinton won the US elections
> on
>> > a compassionate agenda that promised to address the basic needs and
>> > social concerns of the American majority, thereby cementing the end
> of
>> > 12 years of the Reaganite Eighties that favoured the exuberant
>> > profligacy of the few (the British were characteristically sluggish
> in
>> > abandoning Thatcherism, but they did eventually and emphatically).
>> > Would it have been that these photographs did that too?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Oh Dear! Look at this for example, you're still not getting my hint
> that you should extrapolate in the opposite direction. Unfortunately
> you made similar and other critical fallacies in the rest of your
> reply.

I'm not surprised you respond like this. At least I took the time to reply
to all relevant parts of your post.

> Okay, I tried to explain to you because I thought you said you had a
> "genuine interest",

My interest is in gaining a small insight to the POV's of a modern art
appreciator. My interest isn't in agreeing with or becoming one.

> but I see that we encountered a limitation, so I'll
> leave it there, but I'll just make an honest advice; personal
> preference in taste is entirely different from objective appreciation
> and judgement of art, so be very careful in what you say towards art
> that you don't understand, and I see that you probably won't understand
> most credible works of art, because in some situations where you'll say
> 'it's inept' or 'it's rubbish' you will effectively be saying 'I'm
> illiterate'. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it's evident.
> Personal preference in taste may be an individual thing, but objective
> appreciation and judgement of art had been formalised for centuries if
> not millennia. Don't "take pride as the king of illiterature" to use
> Kurt Cobain's phrase.

I take pride only in being honest with myself and others. I gauge
photographs by values that I hold dear not those held by others. Using these
values I will always give my honest opinion of a photograph.

> Otherwise, if you must, I suggest you study art first, and then study
> the work of materful artists, and one example of a masterful artist of
> modern times was Stanley Kubrick, whose stills from the 'Shining' I'll
> reference in two images below, and who was a photographer before he
> became a filmmaker. I don't want to go into it in detail because I've
> written too much and you probably won't get it, but just in case
> someone else is reading this, or you want to see an example of how art
> is appreciated by someone else so that you believe it, and how your
> understanding of it may be severely limited right now, I'll just link
> you to some site and hope it'll help you appreciate more the depth of
> detail and immensity of meaning in the work of a masterful artist.
>
> http://tinypic.com/xeoso is referenced by http://tinypic.com/xdh1w
> (find him in the image!)
>
> http://tinypic.com/wu16t (Remember Nirvana's 'bruises on the fruit,
> tender age in bloom') references http://tinypic.com/xeoox (New World
> Nativity)
>
> And the butchering of the new world nativity explained in the links
> below, along with this http://tinypic.com/xeqtk reference an older
> butchering of an older world nativity http://tinyurl.com/3w9jv by a
> past Empire.
>
> See for example this site
>
> http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html
> http://www.drummerman.net/shining/duality.html
> http://www.drummerman.net/shining/synopsis.html

I didn't wade through the whole of that thrird link but thats vaguely
interesting. I don't need to know any of this stuff to enjoy the film
though. I love the starkness of the visuals and Nicholson's performance in
The Shining. That's enough for me. Life's too short to be dwelling on the
intricacy's of a film directors creation
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103425008.253186.257600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see what you're saying.
>
> I suggest you be careful then in what you say about the work of
> artists; "I don't understand it" is a good and safe phrase, "immensely
> dull and very often inept" or 'tasteless junk' are not.

If that's what I think it is then that's what I'll call it. I have my own
standards and a visual awareness that I devoted on a daily basis to making
images since before I could walk (apparently), and for the next 17 years. I
continue now to constantly scrutinise light, shadow, expression, posture,
colour, etc. to deeply understand their dynamic and composition. I now seek
to understand the keys to producing highly salable commercial imagery. So
when I say a photo is junk I am applying my awareness, standards and values,
not those of the modern art world. In turn that world so often sneers at
imagery that I respect and admire. It understands it in the only way it can:
A way that does not know what I've experienced or what I value and
appreciate. I do not suggest it say "I don't understand it". I let it have
its opinion and its say
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:YVZwd.31787$CK4.1839195@wagner.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for late reply... this just made it to my newsserver today... (sighs
> heavilly).

No apologies required - Neither Usenet or I demand prompt replies.

> I think were more or less in sync re HN.
>
> JR's shot at that website strike me as very high quality, fantastically
> lit, wonderfully posed product shots for power tools... er, fashion shots.
> Even the shots of the soccer players, while less studio looking are really
> so highly contrived as to be overdone. cliché: handsome soccer players all
> wet and muddy in their contest (complete to backlit 'rain'). The profile
> of the black girl in the brown beret is striking, but still is highly
> directed. This fellow is obviously a top fashion photographer... I'll
> call it "fashion cliché" for the most part.
>
> HN's photography was (or appeared) less structured, more impromptu and
> visionary. Less technical detail than JR, more vision. Models were
> expressive and they were beautiful but could project ugliness, scorn,
> anger in their poses and facial expressions as well as sensuality.
> (Sigourney Weaver shot in wet dress and cigarette comes to mind). JR's
> models would never be allowed that expression...
>
> Sorry, while I appreciate the quality of the work (JR), it's just not for
> me.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.


I can understand all that you say here Alan. JR's work is almost pure
commercial and that's always gonna be too much cheese and cliche for some
(and often for the photographers that take the stuff)
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Xns95B8D7025E1Dklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>Most artists are following more rules than they
>are breaking.

Some artists are *making* rules.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote in news:4m73t0tmmmkjbull40grqgm02l1p8lgf49@4ax.com:

>>Most artists are following more rules than they
>>are breaking.
>
> Some artists are *making* rules.
>

I see nothing in conflict in that with what I wrote.

A little side note - it is not the artists that *makes* the
rules. If no one cares - they are no rules. At least not
rules of any value.


/Roland
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Lathrop wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
> > "There is not art without breaking the rules."
>
> A catchy trendy phrase as full of meaning as
> a toy balloon.

I agree. It's nonsense.
 

Tony

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2001
478
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There is not art without breaking the rules.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CDC746A93FEklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> JPS@no.komm wrote in news:4m73t0tmmmkjbull40grqgm02l1p8lgf49@4ax.com:
>
> >>Most artists are following more rules than they
> >>are breaking.
> >
> > Some artists are *making* rules.
> >
>
> I see nothing in conflict in that with what I wrote.
>
> A little side note - it is not the artists that *makes* the
> rules. If no one cares - they are no rules. At least not
> rules of any value.
>
>
> /Roland
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> "There is not art without breaking the rules."

A catchy trendy phrase as full of meaning as
a toy balloon.