not 'getting' an image

Fenster

I am saying the same thing about variety of interpretations. What I specifically object to is having a neat little placard next to the photo saying something like 'this image is quiet visual poetry - please see it as such, kthx.'

democrates

Fajitas! wrote: »

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:

I'll grant you I've only looked briefly at one reduced photo and agree it's no basis to consider the whole exhibit, I'm not that mad.

Does the sequence of concept/photography determine the artistic merit of the final work though? I find that a stretch, even if the 'quite poetry'/artists statement was composed before any shoots.

I think 'Shoot first and ask questions later' can produce this kind of Art too, just take loads of shots all over the place and later think about the concept.

Actually, this concept, was it images in the mind of the photographer based on memory? If so that's using the brain as a camera so the 'photos' happened first, the concept later....

rig

I am saying the same thing about variety of interpretations. What I specifically object to is having a neat little placard next to the photo saying something like 'this image is quiet visual poetry - please see it as such, kthx.'


yeah I see what you're saying.Thats down to the way the blurb was written I suppose.Sometimes when you are told or given an idea about what you should see in an image it can actually have the opposite effect.Even to the degree that you might see something MORE in the image that makes it even more profound to you but if that reading diverges or strays from the "official" line you end up feeling like its not valid.I think its best anyway to take blurbs (especially when they are not coming directly from the artist but from the gallery) with a pinch of salt.Use them as a guide but never take them as the definative reading

Valentia

The only thing I could think of while reading this thread was John McGahern. His writing was sparse and bare. Nobody ever called it simple though.

I haven't seen the exhibition but can imagine from the example that Sinead has posted that it is possible that it could be quite moving. Not just for people that have come from that rural background but also to others who are prepared to make an effort to experience it. The photo on the OP does all it sets out to do and more in my view.

Nowadays people want explosions, car chases, HDR, simple plots, straight horizons, stuff they can hang on their wall, highlights that are not blown out (who ever said that that should be the case anyway?), stereotypical banality.

I would recommend that anyone who hasn't read "That They May Face the Rising Sun" by the aforementioned McGahern should give it ago. It will broaden more than your literary appreciation. I think.

All that being said I can still jump to a rash judgement like anyone else, depending on the form I'm in. I have discovered, though, as the years have rolled along that that can very often not the wisest thing to do and that there are many things to be learned and enjoyed by trying to understand another person's perspective. Not just in photography either.

daycent

I think that you could find a similar scene to that around every second corner in the countryside. Certainly where I come from you wouldn't have too look to far to find a nearly identical scene. And that's what makes the difference to me. I think there should be effort involved in making art and I'm not convinced there was in this case. Tagging on a half arsed explanation doesn't help either.

On a positive note, if the pic was seen in context as part of a set or something I'm sure it wouldn't seem half as bad!

sprinkles

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.

Good post - although I still disagree with some of the points -that's the great thing about art

I'm not saying that all we should look for is photographs free of blown highlights and I expect that a gallery exhibition should contain expressive photos that tell a story. If blown highlights help tell that story then by all means use them. To me it just looked like this photo was taken by someone with limited knowledge in framing and lighting (like me). Obviously that was the intent but I don't get the point being made by doing so. It doesn't highlight the meaning or narrative of the photo, (which I am taking as the possibly stories behind each track - again, great thing about art is it can mean something different to each person). Therefore I only see a very basic, and flawed photograph with no good reason for the deliberate flaws.

It's not a good photograph. I don't think it's good art either but maybe the context of the other photos would paint it in a different light.

sineadw

daycent wrote: »

I think that you could find a similar scene to that around every second corner in the countryside. Certainly where I come from you wouldn't have too look to far to find a nearly identical scene. And that's what makes the difference to me. I think there should be effort involved in making art...

Funny you should mention that - I was at the artist's talk for the OConaill exhibition, and he stated that was very much his intention. He loved that almost everyone who saw them thought they were images from where they grew up, or that the places were so familiar that everyone thought they knew where they were. That was the whole point - the 'common place'. I'm not sure if Nickerson's intent was the same, but I'm guessing it was probably something similar?

mindundalk

Yep another muddy lane this is not worthy of art.
i know i seem a bit harsh but this has not really got a place in a exhibition.

just my op

Fajitas!

mindundalk wrote: »

Yep another muddy lane this is not worthy of art.
i know i seem a bit harsh but this has not really got a place in a exhibition.

just my op

You also say it's "dull & lifeless" in your header.

Rather than make a statement, one that's incredibly easy to make, explain why it's both not worthy of art/not got a place in an exhibition.

sineadw

If anyone's interested, I went in again yesterday. They *definitely* benefited from a bit of a think and the discussion here (thank you ). The landscapes and interiors made a whole lot more sense. I'm still not sure on the portraits. Anyone who's been - did it not strike you that they would have worked better in the overall aesthetic if they'd been taken in the people's environment rather than a studio? Not meaning to harp on and compare endlessly, but O Conaill's stuff worked much better on that level for me. If the whole point of the exhibition is about community then why remove the subjects from it?

I had a good look through the Burch book when I was in there (I bought the O Conaill and Nickerson ones so that one will have to wait till next time) and I'm even more sick now that I missed it having seen all the images printed well. They had the same quietness and subtlety as Nickerson but for me they just worked a lot better. IMHO

CabanSail

I met up with Sinead at the GOP on Saturday & had a look at the Exhibition as the same time. Looked at the Prints as well as the Projected Images in a small room. Went through it first without reading the explanatory sheet.


"In 'Ten Miles Round', Jackie Nickerson explores the predominately rural community around her home in coastal Co. Louth. In large-scale colour landscapes and portraits, she builds a psycological portrait of her community. the landscapes challenge conventional notions of the picturesque, offering instead a more engaged view of the land. Through Nikerson's lens, muddy, rutted lanes and straggly hedgerows are imbued with the quiet poetry of the everyday. People and place are united by the distinctive, cloud-filtered, northern light. Infused with a subtle grace, the work is a profound meditation on what it is, and how it feels, to belong."


The Studio shots are awkward with the lighting very flat. Most of the subjects have eyes averted & seem disengaged. There is a central print of a Crying Child which has the roll of the studio background featuring. I do not see how the roll of paper adds anything to the image or the project as a whole. It does not show anything about community, it just seems lazy. The rest of the Studio Shots seem very dull & I also do not see how they fit in with the explanation of "People and place are united by the distinctive, cloud-filtered, northern light." as they give a feeling of isolation and uneasiness. I would have thought that to portray community these people should have some type of connection with the enviroment, which they lack.

I did find four of the images quite interesting. There are two sets where at first look it appears that they are one image across two photo's. On closer inspection you realise that while they are very similar they do not match. On set is of a lane with an old barn to the left, the other of hedgerows. To me these make a good that while things may be quite ordinary they are still individual.

Having seen it I "get it" but do not think it succeeds.

Morrisseeee

LOL

"In 'Ten Miles Round', Jackie Nickerson explores the predominately rural community around her home in coastal Co. Louth. In large-scale colour landscapes and portraits, she builds a psycological portrait of her community. the landscapes challenge conventional notions of the picturesque, offering instead a more engaged view of the land. Through Nikerson's lens, muddy, rutted lanes and straggly hedgerows are imbued with the quiet poetry of the everyday. People and place are united by the distinctive, cloud-filtered, northern light. Infused with a subtle grace, the work is a profound meditation on what it is, and how it feels, to belong."

^^ which can also be summarised as "muddy blandness"

humberklog

Had a 2nd snoop about this today and took a lot from it. I'm figuring out exhibitioning and learned a great deal from reading this thread and linking up peoples ideas on it. Big prints, lovely big prints. Prints are lovely BIG. You'd could nearly put anything on a big print and it'll look amazing. Some do...was she? I loved the ideas of some of the hanging and framing techniques. I wasn't gone on the lay out, I thought some pics weren't really working in the positions given and failed to tie it all together because of this.

I didn't read the leaflet. I wouldn't usually either but in this case I had already got the gist from reading about it on here. I wasn't expecting the portraits to look as they did and struggled to connect what I'd read to what I was seeing. I struggled to connect the 'scapes with the people and vice-versa and as a whole it kinda fell away on itself because of what I had been informed of literally.

Yep it's a muddy path, looks well up close and big. Big. BIG. "Is this how deaf people view the world?" I was thinking. Where even the mundane yells silently for attention. Everything must appear big all of the time because everything is shouting and everything is quiet all at the same time.

Good on'r getting this exhibited, there should be space and time given to this genre (or what have ye) but it is something you can see a lot of and it's easy to slip into a previous exhibit a couple of years back taken inside a computer company and a few others I've thankfully completely forgotten about. Of course it doesn't mean to say this style shouldn't be exhbited but when you see a few over a short few years it's hard sometimes not to just see...big pictures saying nothing (but saying it like a scream in space and looking handsomely BIG doing it).

A thumbs up here.

humberklog

Just bumping this as it's about to be reviewed on RTE1's The View.

Edit: Just noticed my above post...I wonder how it'll match up.

humberklog

Very, very generous. My antlers do twitch a bit when there's a big pile in lovefest. Irish luvvies don't dis Irish luvvies too often. They were either genuinely attracted to the exhibition (which is possible) or the photographer has that wonderful magical cape bestowed on well "connected" artists. You don't want some luvvy spitting into your gravy over a fashionable dinner party in Co. Louth;).

And of course because they didn't agree with me then they must be wrong. One of us cannot be wrong.

Covey

We should really have that pint I mentioned

humberklog

Covey wrote: »

We should really have that pint I mentioned

Indeed, but you'll have to agree with everything I say or risk being branded an "insider luvvy"!:pac:

Covey

Of course not, but we'll have a "robust" debate. Might even agree and never remember it :D

sineadw

humberklog wrote: »

Very, very generous. My antlers do twitch a bit when there's a big pile in lovefest. Irish luvvies don't dis Irish luvvies too often. They were either genuinely attracted to the exhibition (which is possible) or the photographer has that wonderful magical cape bestowed on well "connected" artists. You don't want some luvvy spitting into your gravy over a fashionable dinner party in Co. Louth;).

And of course because they didn't agree with me then they must be wrong. One of us cannot be wrong.

Yeah I caught the end of it. Oh I dunno - I might have to go back in again.

On a side note - anyone been to the new(ish) Bacon exhibition in the Hugh Lane? Absolutely fascinating - looks at all the creative processes he had going on. I was completely riveted.

ColmDawson

sineadw wrote: »

On a side note - anyone been to the new(ish) Bacon exhibition in the Hugh Lane? Absolutely fascinating - looks at all the creative processes he had going on. I was completely riveted.

Yeah, I was there on Sunday; it was very interesting.

There was a bit of text on a wall about how Bacon kept referring to pictures of wild animals while painting someone: the person being painted was quite disturbed by this, apparently!

sineadw

I loved that bit too Was really cool to get an insight into what was going on in his head.

humberklog

Yeah I've been a few times. I go to see the Bacon pics regularly and have learned to enjoy this new (temporary) addition. Took me a while to click with it but good on the Hugh Lane, they've really pulled this together nicely.
I think I'll miss its company when it's gone.

Chorcai

Passed the Highlanes Gallery in Drogheda the other day, I knew I seen her name somewhere before, on here ! It was reacking my head, must go in and look.

the_monkey

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?

Yeah , It's like anything these days can be called "art" with the right buzzwords and anyone with a name for themselves associated with it ..

it's like that guy (he must have had some name for himself)
who sold 12 cans of his shít for thousands !!!!!

Is that ART ????

NO IT'S F*CKING SH*T!!

-- literally !!!


edit --- like this
http://www.artnewsblog.com/2009/01/cloaca-****-to-be-auctioned-at-sothebys.htm

unreal .... it's not even funny ... it's annoying ... who BUYS this (pardon the pun again) shít ?

Chorcai

the_monkey wrote: »

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2009/01/cloaca-****-to-be-auctioned-at-sothebys.htm

404'd

the_monkey

OK, try this .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_****


€124,000 !!!!!!!! for cans of crap !


I'd love to have a chat with the person who spent that money....

daycent

the_monkey wrote: »

... who BUYS this (pardon the pun again) shít ?

Gillian McKeith??

She's always looking at peoples ****e!

gerk86

I was at a talk she gave a few weeks back. Very interesting and lovely lady but came out not really understanding her work. For example she took portraits of local people from her village to capture their "essence". All the images were of the subject in an awkward stance, odd composition with them looking past the camera.

Wth is the "essence" of a person and how am i supposed to gauge it with one image?

This annoyed me as other people just lapped it up.

Thecageyone

Amazing the discussion that has emanated from a really bland photo. All this poetry and metaphors and trying to inject some soul into what is, let's be honest, a crap picture of some muddy puddles, is funny.

the_monkey

gerk86 wrote: »

I was at a talk she gave a few weeks back. Very interesting and lovely lady but came out not really understanding her work. For example she took portraits of local people from her village to capture their "essence". All the images were of the subject in an awkward stance, odd composition with them looking past the camera.

Wth is the "essence" of a person and how am i supposed to gauge it with one image?

This annoyed me as other people just lapped it up.

I think honestly people pretend to understand it cos ... again the artist
has established themselves

DougL

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.

I like this a lot better than the photo the OP posted. It shows an everyday scene in an unusual way. It's still just a farm track with a couple of five-bar gates, but I'd never get down and look at it this way.

bertie4evr

Chorcai wrote: »

404'd

Replace the **** in the address with shit

magicbastarder

Sagastipean wrote: »

I like this a lot better than the photo the OP posted. I shows an everyday scene in an unusual way.

maybe the artist in the original photo wanted to show an everyday scene in an everyday way? if you want a photo to be representative of the subject, you would easily argue that her photo succeeded.

not that i'm saying that carries an awful lot of merit.

DougL

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe the artist in the original photo wanted to show an everyday scene in an everyday way? if you want a photo to be representative of the subject, you would easily argue that her photo succeeded.

not that i'm saying that carries an awful lot of merit.

As an art consumer, what I want is more important to me than what the artist wants. I don't need to go to an exhibit to see a muddy track. Of course, the artist has a right to do whatever she wants, but we get to decide whether or not we like it.

magicbastarder

one one level, what you say there is so obvious it borders on facile.

but on another level - i find that sometimes you're more informed by things you don't like as you are by things you do like.

Simplicius

Reading this, insightful though it is, I think I’ll stick to my tried and tested formula for “art” appreciation.

Does it do or say anything to me? Yes or No

If no – goto Exit or if wine is on offer, quaff loads and bull**** some strangers by discussing in great detail how the ruts in the lane are symbolic of life’s journey to the horizon and afterlife. Confide in them that you know that the artist did it themselves with a selection of tyres she got and rolled out the patterns, “sure didn’t she buy one chunky tire from my uncle mick”. She photoshopped out the footprints don’tcha know. While their jaw is still down on their chest pondering this, hit them with the sucker punch that it transcends photography and really is non permanent earth sculpting installations captured on camera and that she is a great sculptress and ask them whatthey think of it as a sculpture. Enjoy trying this on with as many who will listen while closely monitoring the wine bar. When wine runs out or victims dry up. Leave get a safe distance away throw head back, and howl “****e!” at top of voice ,then laugh and get on with life.

If yes – stick around and try to figure out what you like best and why.

Unwritten rules: ignore any nonsense about sharpness or lack, highlights blown etc, that might be deliberate. Look at it as a whole.

As for Jackie Nickerson’s Muddy lanes, one portrait was passable, the rest did zip for me. I told the guy in the GOP the same thing. That I thought it was ****e… He showed me a volume of her work of portraiture in Africa .. excellent stuff, lots of very good portraits, high hit rate off mmm’s when flicking through it.

One muddy lane does not a crap photographer make, that is what I learned from this. Looking at her Africa work she is deserved of her reputation. This still though as a body of work on her locality does nada for me.

sineadw

magicbastarder wrote: »

i find that sometimes you're more informed by things you don't like as you are by things you do like.

Most certainly true for me in this case - it made me really *think*

Chorcai

I went and seen her stuff in the Drogheda Highlanes Gallery, it did very little for me. Apart from two photos one of a girl in a blue dress the other an interior shot of house. Seems the photos where taken in and around a village close to me called Annagassan.

I got talking to the girl works in the gallery, seems not a lot of people like it others do. She is ment to have taken over 4000 pictures and picked these, there are better things around this area to photo other than a muddy lane. I get the whole 10mile thing, anyone could do it to an extent but to me everything was, well to be honest, dull and not the slightest bit intersting apart from two photos ! Maybe that is what she is saying that her area is dull but I would disagree.

Just my few thoughts on it.

Freddie59

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Generally I am a huge fan of debunking the bullspit that surrounds this kind of 'art'. I think in essence you have it absolutely correct, Sinead. It's a picture of a muddy lane. It's not imbued with poetry. It's not a physcological portrait of her community. It's a picture of a muddy lane.

There's only one thing that's imbued, and that's the description of her work - that's imbued with bullspit.

+1 to that. If it was posted by a beginner (and I don't think even a beginner would post that) here it would be castigated - and rightly so.

mehfesto

Would love to see what ye boardies think of the works of say Nan Goulden - one of the world's most respected photographers.

Or Richard Billingham either.

Fajitas!

Billingham is fantastic - 'Ray's a Laugh' is brilliant like.

I do like Goldin, but moreso her older work.

Don't expect the same opinions from the the masses though, they'll want jazz hands, L lenses, HDR and strobism before it's art.

Effects

I love both Billingham and Goldin, I'm also a huge fan of Martin Parr. I know he gets a huge amount of abuse on here. I think there's a lot of people who just want an image to look good, regardless of what it actually means. If that makes sense.

superflyninja

Fajitas! wrote: »

Billingham is fantastic - 'Ray's a Laugh' is brilliant like.

I do like Goulden, but moreso her older work.

Don't expect the same opinions from the the masses though, they'll want jazz hands, L lenses, HDR and strobism before it's art.

and not a blown highlight to be seen...................:P

sineadw

Been looking at Goldin and Billingham a lot this year. One of the girls in the class is doing a series on her grandfather and another on night workers so its some of their source material. I love it.

There's one guy who's work is similar and for the life of me I can't remember his name. He did an amazing book called "The Parents" with images of his mam and dad, and xray stuff (which I've unashamedly copied for the vet project I'm doing). Google is just giving me page after page of family portrait links though. Anyone?

Edit - Colin Gray - the x ray bit helped. I can never remember his name for some reason! His website is down.. Hmmm..

Fajitas!

?

sineadw

Was just looking at that one

magicbastarder

nan goldin never really did anything for me. i like billingham's stuff, but it's not the sort of thing i'd hang on my wall...

i think my favourite current 'art' photographer would be gregory crewdson.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

nan goldin never really did anything for me. i like billingham's stuff, but it's not the sort of thing i'd hang on my wall...

i think my favourite current 'art' photographer would be gregory crewdson.

Hmmm. I think crewdson is probably the antithesis of the above though. His shots are carefully staged and managed to contain a wealth of detail and atmosphere. Every single little detail of a crewdson shot has been planned and meticulously arranged. If anything his shots probably deliberately set out to try and manipulate your head

thebaz

cambo_gueno wrote: »

It's a picture of a muddy lane. It's not imbued with poetry. It's not a physcological portrait of her community. It's a picture of a muddy lane.

do you not see the deep hidden meaning , maybe just the Elite can see this , maybe the muddy lane is a methaphor for the financial mess we are heading into ,
actually maybe its just a muddy lane , if it was a painting with real fealing i'd perhaps understand the Art snobbishness of it all

Fajitas!

thebaz wrote: »

...if it was a painting with real fealing i'd perhaps ...l

Photographs never have real fealing. Fact.




:pac: