Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Tim, I agree that I was a bit too hasty when I included the "uninteresting things" comment. You are right, many great photographs have been made of seemingly banal objects or scenes. After all, one of my favorite photographers is Martin Parr who has taken banality to an art form. But his images are technically exquisite. What I was objecting to are the images that are technically inferior without any thematic justification for disregarding technique. As for size, I have nothing against big prints, I certainly enjoy them, but a big print of puke on the ground is not better than a small print of puke on the ground. Nathan Tim Atherton wrote: > > known better. How can I continue to be taken in by the art > > community!! I > > need an immunization shot of some kind. > > Yes, and of course it's all in the eye of the beholder (and I know there are > plenty here who will gag on some of these... :-) ) but here is a small > list of (living) artists whose work I personally feel worth looking at, that > perhaps challenges either what we understand when we call something > photography or what we understand of the world around us. > > Nathan I agree with your last three they are generally really just gimmicks > > >preferably tilt the camera, mis-focus and the more garish the colors, > >the better > > But the first one I'm not so sure about > > >It seemsthat to be an Artist in our medium you must photograph totally > uninteresting > >objects > > An awful lot of the world around us seems to be made up of what, at first > glance, appears to be uninteresting objects or places - it's probably what > makes up 95% of our daily lives for most of us. Does that mean we shouldn't > photograph it? Only looking for the wonderful light or the dynamic > geometrics or the "decisive moment"? If so it leaves out an awful lot of the > real. What it seems to me is that many photographers do who "photograph > totally uninteresting objects" draw our attention to those things that we > might otherwise simply fail to pay attention to, things we overlook and > consider boring - Blake put it best; > > "The tree that moves some to tears of joy > Is in the Eyes of the others only a green thing > that stands in the way." > > I often feel that a photograph that gives me everything at fist glance is > really rather unsatisfying - a sort of visual premature ejaculation. Much > better a photograph that you have to languish a bit more time and effort on. > > Anyway - a few photographers who are artists (or artists who are > photographers) - completely in exhaustive (and mostly working in the area > that especially interests me - social landscape)- > > The Bechers, Basilico, Geoffrey James, Lynne Cohen, Thomas Struth, Candida > Hoefer, Sally Mann, Jeff Wall, Arni Harraldson, Eggleston, Misrach, > Sternfeld, Shore, Beahan & McPhee, Jim Cooke, Sugimoto (I defy anyone to go > see his 2xinfinity architectural photographs and say a] it's just a gimmick > and b] they had no effect on you...), Elger Essers and plenty more... > > tim > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands e-mail: n.wajsman@chello.nl Mobile: +31 630 868 671 Photo site: http://www.wajsmanphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html