not 'getting' an image

elven

I think there's a misconception that the stuff that hangs in galleries is always higher quality than what you or me may be creating.

The stuff that hangs in galleries is created by people with friends in the right place, with an ability to market themselves to the right audience, with the skill of matching what they are creating to current trends in the art market, with the money to 'buy' a solo exhibition, with the right educational background, with the loudest voice... you get my point.

That's not to say that it automatically worse than our stuff either, it just isn't a measure of quality, in itself. A bit like having an L distinction, really

Covey

elven wrote: »

I think there's a misconception that the stuff that hangs in galleries is always higher quality than what you or me may be creating.

The stuff that hangs in galleries is created by people with friends in the right place, with an ability to market themselves to the right audience, with the skill of matching what they are creating to current trends in the art market, with the money to 'buy' a solo exhibition, with the right educational background, with the loudest voice... you get my point.

That's not to say that it automatically worse than our stuff either, it just isn't a measure of quality, in itself. A bit like having an L distinction, really

I wouldn't agree with all of that.

I think the stuff in galleries is comprised of the good the mediocre and the plain awful, much as on here or anywhere else.

Anyone who attended the Spanish exhibition earlier in the year would hardly come away saying there is no great stuff out there. It was jaw droppingly good!

Chorcai

I like it. Says no more

superflyninja

elven wrote: »

A huge amount of what you get out of looking at an image comes from what effort you're prepared to put into it, i think.

Most of the people who come along on threads like this and cry "why is that in a gallery, i wouldn't hang it on my wall, it's crap, there' blown highlights" etc aren't looking for much beyond being wooed by pretty colours and composition that fits with their own personal aesthetic taste.

To me that photo is a snapshot. Hailing from Kerry originally Im no stranger to country living. I just think that (from the little photo presented in this thread obviously out of context) as a photograph it struck me as lazy and very poorly executed. I could post a photo here of a peg hanging on a washing line covered in jam and people would debate whether its art. Id be curious though to see the exhibition just see if i am wrong.

elven

That's kind what i meant - quality of work is not the single factor dictating its position on a gallery wall, so you can get everything from the worst to the best up there, for all sorts of reasons.

Covey

For anyone who wants to see some of the next generation of exhibitors,

The Griffith College Photography Students Christmas Exhibition,
Tonight 7.00 pm AF203

http://www.gcd.ie/index.jsp?1nID=108&nID=283&aID=2247

JackKelly

I think a lot has to come down to which order you've approached creating the image.

Have you:
a) Gone out to that muddy road, snapped a photo and then built an artistic framework around it (in which case it's a pretty poor attempt at art)

or b) Sat down and thought up a concept, and gone out with the full intention of capturing that concept (in which case there is a lot more to be said for the photo)

I've noticed that will almost all of my photos, while I am happy with a lot of their composition etc, they have been down to being in interesting surroundings. Yes taking a technically good photo is a skill, but I would personally like to start trying to go out with certain ideas in mind, and get photos that reflect that, like this person may or may not have tried to do.

That said, there is a happy middle ground - and photojournalism comes to mind - where there is a perfect mix between having interesting surroundings, yet having to compose a photo to reflect the zeitgeist

Promac

sineadw wrote: »

So I was in at the Jackie Nickerson exhibition yesterday in the Gallery of photography...

Is that the one in meeting house square that's mostly made up of various chavs in different awkward poses in rough looking parts of limerick?

If so, I absolutely agree with the general opinion - it's all muck. I saw nothing of any value here. It was like a study in unremarkable images.

trishw78

after reading almost all of the posts. I'm quite intrigued by this exhibition when is it on till. might pop up during the Christmas break...

Covey

January 24 2010

sineadw

oops - just back from college... Firstly, I don't think its fair to judge just the one image - I didn't mean for that to happen. Its very much part of a series. I still don't know how I feel about it TBH.

Secondly - the one of the 'Chavs' some of you have referenced is the Eoin O Conaill Common Place exhibition I mentioned in the OP, not Nickerson. I actually loved those images, but only on second viewing and only when I'd gone away and had a good think about it

Reading through all the responses I wanted to thank just about all of them - even the ones that were opposing :P I'm learning a lot this year, and trying very very hard to consciously move myself past the 'there's no focal point' or 'its not exposed correctly' mindset that can creep in here or in camera club. The New York exhibition in IMMA was very refreshing in that regard. These ones I did struggle with. Maybe its what Elven mentioned though about the whole 'luvvies' thing. And the fact that I'd agree that an image shouldn't have to have an explanation?

Someone here mentioned that it's not fair to judge the print in such small scale. Its true that the artist obviously thought the scale of her images were important to the concept - they're all printed very large. I read a quote somewhere recently though that really good images should work just as well in small scale. Which I think ironically is what's bugging me about this exhibition - the artistic message is about simplicity and the beauty of the ordinary, yet the whole thing is on this grand scale. Actually - yep - that's exactly it I *knew* there was something! :rolleyes: lol

Mr. Grieves

I think it's interesting that the last 3 exhibitors in the gallery - Eoin O Conailll, Simon Burch and Jackie Nickerson - all share a similar style of plain, subtle portrait/documentary images. (Maybe it's the fashion at the moment, I don't know much about these things) It's an aesthetic that's incredibly refreshing coming from the attention-grabbing world of photography on the internet. There's subtley to these pictures which can only really be appreciated when seen printed LARGE and part of a set, I think.

I was kinda dissapointed with the Jackie Nickerson show though. Preferred the convent ones. I really liked Simon Burch's exhib. It was called Under a Grey Sky - lots of images of overcast scenes, something you never see in traditional landscapes.

Really though, judging a photographer on one 400 px jpeg - I don't remember any blown highlights in the print, but that could be because I wasn't looking for them :rolleyes:

outspann

Wow! An actual discussion about artistry (or lack thereof) in the photography forum. Happy days!

I think there is a difference between what people are expecting from any exhibit.

It's like listening to a song: some people are more interested in humming along to a catchy tune; others are impressed by the clarity of the singers voice or the precision and skill with which the instruments are played; while others listen to what the song does to them - do they feel sad, or happy, or morose...

It's the same with art/photography: one group of us are looking at the image and are overawed with the beauty that exists in nature. Another group tries to figure out how the picture was taken - with subtle flash, or fast shutter speeds, catchlights in the eyes, thinking about the technique. And maybe others try to listen to how the image makes them feel. Keep in mind that it might be trying to make you feel bored just as easily as another shot tries to make you laugh. The emotion that it generates isn't always positive. I went to see a Paul McCarthy exhibit a few years ago and I can honestly say that I did not like one piece in the entire exhibit, but my God did it generate a (negative) reaction in me. And that was what McCarthy was going for.

So just because a picture of somebody mowing the grass looks boring doesn't mean it has failed - life is made up of mowing grass, or buying milk, or holding a cup of coffee. And maybe by being boring the photo points out to us how banal life can be.

elven

wow. what (s?)he said.

CabanSail

I suppose that going to see an exhibition in a Gallery is a bit like going to a Restaurant. You hope that they will cook a meal better than you can do yourself, or at least do it with a different take on the same ingredients. Maybe introduce you to new flavours. You also get to taste different cuisines that have evolved from other cultures. Some places will excel in this others will not. Food critics will rate places but that is just a guide, at the end of the day it's what you think.

ThOnda

Repeating what was said in short:
What hangs in a gallery is final product - print quality, image quality, size, framing selection of pictures.
There could be (for some) hear breaking story behind it, but pictures should speak for themselves. Bland and uninteresting picture stays bland and uninteresting picture. And the name of the author won't make from it a better picture.

The true honesty of art is to accept that not everything we produce is good. And the same applies on what we see in print, in real, on screens. Once you are able to articulate why you think that it is sh!te, you are more than entitled to have such opinion.

There are only two kinds of art: I like - I don't like. And I don't care what name is behind it. Or who's behind had to be licked to get such product into print/gallery.

Pivot_Al

Great post outspann- agree with you on every point.

kumate_champ07

sineadw wrote: »

It's not whats in the photo, its whats outside the photo! its like a behind the scene look at a landscape, you usually never see the imperfections. the tyre tracks show the mechanical connection of man with earth, the water and mud are like wounds

and thats what I'd say if I was a pseudo art critic

Brian

Neonjack

What I love about this thread is that it proves how subjective art is. One picture, many opinions. Which is exactly how art should be. It's not there to 'be' anything. Positive, negative, angry, beautiful, picturesque, ugly, thought provoking, boring...., whatever. It just is. The beauty of art is in our perception of it. It's mad, but you gotta love it. Or not. Depending on your perception. Or emotion. Or your cat's mood. Or how much rent you owe when you see it. Or whatever.

lee_

can someone post some more form that exhibition

sprinkles

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Oh yeah. I quite liked them aswell actually. The straight portraits didn't do much for me but the interiors and some of the more involved portraits are very good.

I thought the opposite, most of the interiors looked a bit bland to me, although I never really like interior photography. Some/most of the portraits meanwhile had a lot of expression - a cheeky grin on some of their faces which gave them a really human dimension - something nuns can sometimes lack!!

As for the lane..... I have seen far better work here. Far better. I didn't grow up on a farm but I have seen other photos that evoke more emotion on the same subject. I get the feeling looking at this that the artist/photographer was possibly lazy in the assumption that whatever is normal, mundane and comes naturally through the lens can be passed off as art as long as it can be argued that it has a deeper meaning.

I could go outside now and take a picture, badly composed, over exposed and out of focus of a car pulling out of a driveway. That is life. It captures something that we all experience and will no doubt make you think - where is the person in the car going etc. Is it art? Maybe. Would it be a good photograph? I wouldn't bet on it.

dakar

I've been thinking about this a lot (curse you sineadw :shakes fist: ) and I think I've come to some kind of an understanding. It was a slow process, like trying to do a join-the-dots if you don't know the order the numbers come in.

I haven't seen this on a wall so I haven't the sense of disconnect between the perceived quality of the image and the way its presented that Sinead has. But here's the thing. Anyone with a modicum of photographic ability could take a 'better' photo. Any newbie here that put that up for C&C would either get 'meh' or some helpful advice about looking for a better angle, finding some leading lines, texture, something. So why would an experienced photographer go to the trouble of printing and exhibiting what appears to be a snapshot?

Other than having a brass neck, I can only think it's because they wanted to.

I think its an anti-landscape. It defies what the normal expectations of a landscape are. If it had been an interestingly composed image of the same scene, following along a tyre track, full of glorious muddy texture, I think it would distract from It's intended purpose (and generate a lot less antipathy here). The 'landscape' as a homogeneous thing is an artificial construct, something that we photographers like to airbrush the human element out of. But its a manmade thing,a muddled patchwork of fields and tracks where people (like me) live and work. I like the way this photo brings the focus onto this side of things. Humberklog said a photo should stand on its own, I just think this one stands somewhere else.

Right, so I've got the stance sorted, the chin rubbing off to a tee and I can cradle a glass of red like nobody's business, although my noncommittal but vaguely appreciative murmurs need a little work. Where do I sign up to get invites to these luvvie exhibition openings?

superflyninja

reminds me of yoko ono with the apple on exhibition..... ;p

Fajitas!

sineadw wrote: »

I just don't know though? Maybe I'm not looking at it properly. I can see what she's going for, but part of my brain is shouting "it's a picture of a fcuking lane. With mud." I don't want to be someone who NEEDS the spectacular in each image she sees, but then again I don't want to be swooning over an image or collection just because it's by a famous photographer.
(my brain hurts)

Well, first of all, I'd rather see a photo like this in an exhibition than just another f*cking photo of a beggar on the streets. I'd rather see a picture of a muddy lane (whey!) with some concept behind it than another guy with camera out taking photos of people down on their luck.

Another side to this is de-sensitivity - People are used to seeing oversaturated and super sharp/exposed **** on forums/Flickr/camera clubs - They're forgetting about what lies beneath all of that. People are too used to the flashy bits to appreciate a more 'normal' aesthetic.

You see it all the time when Dazftw posts his photographs, they portray a really nice, simple, honest aesthetic. People expect bells and whistles and strobist flashes and pops - But it's not nessicary.

Longshanks100 wrote: »

It got you talking about it.....does that mean it served its purpose? Although i dont 'get it' either

I think getting a debate going in Sineads head, and bringing it onto the forum here - To create the debate it has created, yes, it's served a purpose. And it's rather enjoyable to see people being open minded about it (Well... some of them)...

superflyninja wrote: »

its a muddy lane. and are they blown highlights i see?
in my opinion art or not. its a pants shot.

Yeah, definitely blown highlights. Wtf where they thinking. An IMPERFECT photograph? In a gallery?

If all you want to achieve is photographs' free of blown highlights, you've an easy track ahead of you. I hope you enjoy it.

(Where's that debate on Photography by Numbers gone? :pac: )

CamperMan wrote: »

another one of his shots... a chav doing a bad pose.. this photographer??? should put down his camera and take up shoveling sh!t on the farm!

Actually, a different photographer, and another very enjoyable exhibition - One that should without a doubt be seen in full.

CabanSail wrote: »

I remember going to the Photographers Gallery in London a while back. Took me a while to find it but was looking forward to seeing some really good stuff there. The main exhibition was some of the worst stuff I have ever seen printed ... ever. They were poorly exposed. The composition of the images had little to interest the eye. There was bit of images that needed to be cropped out. It was truly awful.

I spoke to a girl there about these images & she obviously thought they were the work of a genius. I mentioned how I thought that the quality was quite low & she asked had i watched the Video that was on display where the images were displayed. I said I hadn't & she then told me "Well then you obviously would not understand"

I have found an article in the Telegraph with some images from it.

Maybe "Luvvies" get excited by this stuff but it doesn't do a lot for me.

The Gallery of Photography is one of the best, most open minded, conceptual photography galleries going. You don't have to like all the work shown there - That's the point, you can go and make a decision - Don't make it on cropped corners and that sh*te though, make an informed decision, read why the photographer wanted to put together an exhibition.

Of course you wouldn't understand - A book has 300 pages, would you start on page 150, and read to the end and judge it on that? Don't be so silly, if you want to make a critical judgement, then research it.

Tbh, I'm delighted she told you you wouldn't understand it. The staff inside there are great, and honest when a situation needs honesty.

Much better than the shower in Dublin's Gallery of Photography too.

artyeva wrote: »

what is too bad is that instead of questioning our reaction to a piece of work some people feel the need to outright ridicule it and call it ''sh!te''

It is a shame, isn't it?

artyeva wrote: »

the base of my thesis was not that at all. the basis of ''post'' was that every person who looks at an image will get something out of the act of looking. i shared what i ''saw'' when i looked at the image, it's a pity sometimes that people don't have the interest or tools or whatever of engagement to do just that - engage with something and tell me what it is about it that you do/don't like, rather than merely calling it ''sh!te". tell me what you see past the technical details of the photograph. i don't want to know what you see about the blown highlights or the crop fact or the amount of pixels. tell me about the image. what is says to you, if anything. if it doesn't say anything to you, why not just leave it at that, ''it says nothing to me''... not ''it's sh!te''.

+1

dakar wrote: »

I think a lot of the hostility stems from the 'sure any eejit with a P+S could have done that' mindset.

Which raises several questions. Is it art because someone says it is? Is someone an artist because they say they are? Is it just that someone has the neck/artistic vision* (delete as applicable) to attach an artist's statement to a body of work that raises it above a snapshot of a muddy track? For that matter, does anything raise it above a snapshot of a muddy track?

To a large extent, I agree with artyeva in that, when I saw it, it brought to mind lots of associations for me (I spend a proportion of my working days and nights negotiating such tracks). It probably made me think a lot more than most of the picture postcard landscapes I see.

One isolated image is just that, isolated. Context is everything.

Is it art? Dunno.

Do I 'get' it? Dunno what the artist intended for me to 'get' really.

Has it made me think? Yup.

Is this a good thing? Yup

cambo_gueno wrote: »

my antipathy towards it is because I feel that someone is trying to hoodwink me into thinking it is a good image. If I feel (and say) that it's not a good image, them I am laughed at, a philistine.
In reality, I am the boy in the crowd laughing because I know the emperor has no clothes on

I don't think anyone is trying to hoodwink you - Noone is saying 'this is the best thing ever' - you're being left to make your own judgement on it, which is where people do get a bit confused - It dosn't have to be pretty, it dosn't have to be right, if it makes you think about it, then all the better. Noone minds the naked emperor anymore, we all know what he's like.

humberklog wrote: »

Not a big fan of titling a pic and completely against visual exhibitions that need words to discribe the artists intention. Let the viewer be the judge of what the pic is doing and stfu would my instinct. Always wary (and weary) of direction of the viewer...if that's what it's about: then the pics should successfully do it...I don't think this pic fulfills the artist intention to a broad public. It could work in many ways but some fat headed twat thought it neccessary to twoddle on in words, pigeonhole it...there's the rope and there's the lesson in my book.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, an artists statement is rather nessicary - While they might not agree with everyone, it's still showing you what the work is based on. Let the viewer be the judge, but let the viewer be informed.

sineadw

Right, I've decided: I don't know if I like it or not So I'm going in again on Monday. I had to do that with the O Conaill show too. It was so much better the second time. I guess you have to do a bit of work with these images - they're not instantly appealing, and I'm too used to that for my own liking. And if I'm still bugged by the scale thing I'm going to write to her and ask her about it. The worst she can do is ignore me..

I missed the Simon Burch one. It was on up in Rua Red and I walked past the bloody thing every day but never found time to go in. Sick now. I have most of the images in Source but it's not the same.

Covey

I'm sure she might have some asthetic answer on the scale thing, but I'd take bets it's money related.

There are only 3 copies of each and to make anything from that you need big copies.

sineadw

Covey wrote: »

I'm sure she might have some asthetic answer on the scale thing, but I'd take bets it's money related.

There are only 3 copies of each and to make anything from that you need big copies.

ah, you could be right there... Hmmm.. I suppose it all comes down to money in the end.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

Yeah, definitely blown highlights. Wtf where they thinking. An IMPERFECT photograph? In a gallery?

If all you want to achieve is photographs' free of blown highlights, you've an easy track ahead of you. I hope you enjoy it.

that was taking the piss by me.
Im too tired to go cobble together an altogether coherent response!

dazftw

Id actually hang the photo of the muddy lane on my wall, its like what Fajitas said about my photos there simple! That whats I like simple photos.



Sure look at this photo I took: Fully blown sky and im focusing on a tuft of grass :rolleyes: I wouldnt have uploaded this if I didn't like it.

IMHO.. people have there own opinions thats fine and good, but people with solid reasons behind them are better ones.

Covey

Just to divert a minute, I was at the Simon Burch exhibition and the landscapes were great (the other stuff less so imo).

Again they were huge and maybe on one level bland. They were out of my range at €2500 but I would have hung one on my wall for sure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

dazftw wrote: »

Id actually hang the photo of the muddy lane on my wall, its like what Fajitas said about my photos there simple! That whats I like simple photos.



Sure look at this photo I took: Fully blown sky and im focusing on a tuft of grass :rolleyes: I wouldnt have uploaded this if I didn't like it.

IMHO.. people have there own opinions thats fine and good, but people with solid reasons behind them are better ones.

Your photo may be simple, but you obviously put effort into it, and the reward for that effort is there in the image, if you can compare images of similar subjects yours is infinitely better than the one in the OP, which looks effortless, and not in a good way.

democrates

This is all a bit like Ted explaining why he stole Bensons whistle.

The reaction to that photo is largely based on what's in your head (thanks Dolores). For example any fence will remind me of "when the music's over" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2NgNxbXIqU#t=7m05s):

What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?

Ravaged and plundered
And ripped her
And bit her
Stuck her with knives
In the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences
And dragged her down

Jim there doing pr for native Americans. Now I thought of "where have all the flowers gone"...

The longer you sit navel gazing the more you can bring into it be it memories of your time in similar settings, or, how any photo can be co-opted to SYMBOLISE ANYTHING since everything is connected. Like the six degrees of separation idea or how the flap of a butterfly wing cascades up to a storm in chaos theory. Put any photo up here plus any concept or idea and with a bit of thinking a chain of links can be found, just like Ted.

I put it to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a snap of a crying kid holding a balloon on a string can become a controversial attack on the futility of looking for meaning in string theory or membrane theory when life itself is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Just translate that into Artian. A blank white image can be snow or symbolise nothingness or seeing the light and you can take it from there, interpretation is all a carte blanche...

A brief glance at that shot did me, I won't spend time worrying if I "get it" or not. "Am I Arty" = M-I-R-T, transpose to RTMI = Relevant To My Interests. That photo isn't.

The time it took to post this is from my budget for doing things for the common good, a reminder not to waste time on vacuous pursuits at the expense of meaningful worthwhile endeavours that meet real needs. Like that simple hug I'm clearly overdue, and tonight I will slake that emotional thirst with animal passion, all will be well in the world and feeling content I'll chill out and contemplate the meaning of life. Which reminds me, To Arthur!

rig

Hi guys
long time lurker first time poster.Great thread! Prob the most interesting yet.
Its a pity some of you are so narrow minded though.I mean you really have to get past that camera club mentality whereby the first thing you look for in an image is whether its compositionally correct or whether the f*cking highlights are blown! The irony here is that the image has achieved exactly what it sets out to do ,that is to question the traditional assumptions about landscape photography and to challenge our ideas on what type of scene constitutes a beautiful landscape.(its got you all talking about it!) I think also that if you embrace this idea rather than outright reject it then it could open the door for YOU to engage with your own practice on a ,dare i say it - deeper level.Do you just want to take "nice" looking pictures? or do you want to use photography as a means of expression ,a tool to question the world around you and a medium in which you can make a photovisual statement that (hopefully) will make the viewer think about what ideas you are trying to get across?

superflyninja

rig wrote: »

Hi guys
long time lurker first time poster.Great thread! Prob the most interesting yet.
Its a pity some of you are so narrow minded though.I mean you really have to get past that camera club mentality whereby the first thing you look for in an image is whether its compositionally correct or whether the f*cking highlights are blown! The irony here is that the image has achieved exactly what it sets out to do ,that is to question the traditional assumptions about landscape photography and to challenge our ideas on what type of scene constitutes a beautiful landscape.(its got you all talking about it!) I think also that if you embrace this idea rather than outright reject it then it could open the door for YOU to engage with your own practice on a ,dare i say it - deeper level.Do you just want to take "nice" looking pictures? or do you want to use photography as a means of expression ,a tool to question the world around you and a medium in which you can make a photovisual statement that (hopefully) will make the viewer think about what ideas you are trying to get across?

correct me if im wrong but what you just said could apply to this recent one of mine. Blown highlights(intentionally) underexposed areas etc. I get what the photographer in the OP photo was trying to do(or at least i think i do). It just doesnt interest me in the slightest. To me it seems a very common thread. It doesnt mean that i dont understand the photo.

humberklog

Fajitas! wrote: »

Let the viewer be the judge, but let the viewer be informed.

Herrumph*







But do get what you're saying, It's just that my guffometre is very sensitive when given a meandering and detailed explanation of the artists intent at an exhibition. I'm not giving any leaflet's out at my exhibition...I'm spending it all on booze and people can make what they want out of it.
Other than that I agree fully with that big post of yours.

rig

But that's fine if you dont like it.Just because its in a gallery doesnt mean everyone is obliged to accept it as a great work of art.Its just that rather than flat out say its sh*t because it doesnt fit in to what YOU think constitutes a beautiful photograph ,why not look at it ,think about it ,think about what the artist is trying to say and LET it challenge you.Evaluate it on the terms in which it is being presented to you (ie the blurb or the artists statement) and then make a judgement based on that.I mean I personally dont think that the artist hopped out of a car for two seconds and took a quick snapshot of the scene.She thought long and hard about where she chose to photograph and whether it could convey meaning.there is an intention behind the photograph and if you look at it in that context you might think "ah i see what they are trying to do here" "does it work?" "mabye not" Just dont say "thats a load of sh*te sure anyone could have taken that"

humberklog

I kinda prefer to think that she didn't need to think long and hard on it...just took the photo. Kabammm, just as effective. Sure if it's right for what you want then bingo. No more time considering it will make it look nicer.

I like the photo.

rig

superflyninja wrote: »

correct me if im wrong but what you just said could apply to this recent one of mine. Blown highlights(intentionally) underexposed areas etc. I get what the photographer in the OP photo was trying to do(or at least i think i do). It just doesnt interest me in the slightest. To me it seems a very common thread. It doesnt mean that i dont understand the photo.

sorry dude i think i just repeated what you said there
lovely photo by the way

Fenster

My problem isn't with the photo, but with its attached message on how I should interpret this image.

I think this thread should get a mention on Julie's other thread (if it hasn't already). I looked at Jackie Nickerson's photos and I think she is the kind of person who objectively catalogue moments and places. I think that in itself is well and good. But I think that when a photo of a field is accompanied by a spiel about how this photo somehow represents a 'quiet visual poetry...' they are spouting nonsense.

A photo is a photo. We shouldn't have to be told what to expect or interpret. If a strong, single message is intended then the photo should obviously convey this single, strong message. If the meaning is intended to be nebulous and open to interpretation, then the photo should be left nebulous and open to interpretation.

Fajitas!

rig wrote: »

Hi guys
long time lurker first time poster.Great thread! Prob the most interesting yet.
Its a pity some of you are so narrow minded though.I mean you really have to get past that camera club mentality whereby the first thing you look for in an image is whether its compositionally correct or whether the f*cking highlights are blown! The irony here is that the image has achieved exactly what it sets out to do ,that is to question the traditional assumptions about landscape photography and to challenge our ideas on what type of scene constitutes a beautiful landscape.(its got you all talking about it!) I think also that if you embrace this idea rather than outright reject it then it could open the door for YOU to engage with your own practice on a ,dare i say it - deeper level.Do you just want to take "nice" looking pictures? or do you want to use photography as a means of expression ,a tool to question the world around you and a medium in which you can make a photovisual statement that (hopefully) will make the viewer think about what ideas you are trying to get across?

I'd swear that was me posting :pac:

+1

superflyninja wrote: »

that was taking the piss by me.
Im too tired to go cobble together an altogether coherent response!

Phew

/wipes brow

The longer you sit navel gazing the more you can bring into it be it memories of your time in similar settings, or, how any photo can be co-opted to SYMBOLISE ANYTHING since everything is connected. Like the six degrees of separation idea or how the flap of a butterfly wing cascades up to a storm in chaos theory. Put any photo up here plus any concept or idea and with a bit of thinking a chain of links can be found, just like Ted.

I put it to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a snap of a crying kid holding a balloon on a string can become a controversial attack on the futility of looking for meaning in string theory or membrane theory when life itself is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Just translate that into Artian. A blank white image can be snow or symbolise nothingness or seeing the light and you can take it from there, interpretation is all a carte blanche...

Ah, but you're only seeing process a) as opposed to b)...

TimAy wrote: »

I think a lot has to come down to which order you've approached creating the image.

Have you:
a) Gone out to that muddy road, snapped a photo and then built an artistic framework around it (in which case it's a pretty poor attempt at art)

or b) Sat down and thought up a concept, and gone out with the full intention of capturing that concept (in which case there is a lot more to be said for the photo)

Of course anything can be said to be a symbol of anything, but this is where a knowledge* in the subject can either prove or debunk it - Anyone can make up something to suit a photograph after they've taken it, that's easy - But that's not what the artist in this case (and the majority of the time) is doing - This is a thought out and researched concept.


*reading the artists statement, for example :pac:

humberklog

Am I the only person that think's her name is very funny?

Jackie Knickers On...she's lucky she didn't go to my school.

Fajitas!

Fenster wrote: »

A photo is a photo. We shouldn't have to be told what to expect or interpret. If a strong, single message is intended then the photo should obviously convey this single, strong message. If the meaning is intended to be nebulous and open to interpretation, then the photo should be left nebulous and open to interpretation.

Why? What's stopping a photograph having more than a photograph to it?

What if text works with the image? What if there's more to the image, something behind it that couldn't be explained by photographs alone?

Photographs are fantastic things, but at the end of the day, sometimes a photograph needs more than just a photograph to succeed the way the artist wants it to.

Take Sophie Calle's work as an example - She's a fantastic photographer/artist/whatever you want - But one will never be able to appreciate the work to its finest without reading - For example, one of her newest shows, Take Care of Yourself (In the Whitechapel gallery in East London... Or at least I think it still is. Well worth checking out, even if it's overly feminist) would never be understood, it's not something expected or nessicarily explained in the photographs.

Fenster

I feel a photo should be taken on its own because photography is a powerful medium on its own. If you have to resort to supplementary audio/visual material to get across the message/meaning of a photograph, you're doing it wrong. If you are creating a mixed-medium installation, then call it a mixed-medium installation.

superflyninja

rig wrote: »

sorry dude i think i just repeated what you said there
lovely photo by the way

Thanks I think it has a “quiet visual poetry” about it. ;-p

DaireQuinlan

Fenster wrote: »

I feel a photo should be taken on its own because photography is a powerful medium on its own. If you have to resort to supplementary audio/visual material to get across the message/meaning of a photograph, you're doing it wrong. If you are creating a mixed-medium installation, then call it a mixed-medium installation.

That's quite limiting though I think. Even in terms of documentary photography some sort of narrative might be required. Think of that "innocent landscapes" series by David Farrell. Without explanation those pictures would very probably garner the same reaction here as the OPs. WITH the accompanying text though the pieces are much more powerful and unsettling.

rig

Fenster wrote: »

But I think that when a photo of a field is accompanied by a spiel about how this photo somehow represents a 'quiet visual poetry...' they are spouting nonsense.

But why cant a field be poetic? Mabye thats what the photo is about ,the question of whether something so ordinary CAN be poetic? Something may for one person be completely uninteresting but for another have all types of associations attached.Its like the Patrick Kavanagh poems "Advent" and "Canal bank walk" where he talks precisely about seeing the poetic in the banal

Fenster

If you want to convey direct information on the image, on what caused the scene to come about... that is acceptable. But to tell me that a photograph is 'quiet visual poetry' is just out of (my) bounds.

Fenster

rig wrote:

But why cant a field be poetic? Mabye thats what the photo is about ,the question of whether something so ordinary CAN be poetic? Something may for one person be completely uninteresting but for another have all types of associations attached.Its like the Patrick Kavanagh poems "Advent" and "Canal bank walk" where he talks precisely about seeing the poetic in the banal

It can be. But to take a photo meant for interpretation and to deliberately shove your interpretation at me to the exclusion of others is wrong. If a person wants to call it sh!te, amazing, dross, profound, rubbish, incredible or 'just a field' they should be allowed to.

rig

Sorry dude,I didnt think I was shoving my interpretation at you ,I thought I was saying that there were a myriad of ways in which it could be interpreted ,more importantly - that there was an interpretation to be read from the photo in the first place ,good bad or indifferent.As opposed to it being "a picture of a field" and absolutely nothing more than that