the emperor's new negatives

magicbastarder

arising from the thread about gursky's photograph, who is the photographer (or who are the photographers) who just leave you scratching your head?

i'd plump for jürgen teller. i'm not saying he's never taken a good image, but he seems to plough a furrow which got tired very quickly. i was given a book of his a few years ago, and there was so much nondescript filler i was actually surprised.

word of warning - if you google image search him, you will need safesearch set high if you're in an office.

Promac

As far as I'm concerned that guy goes straight into the hipster-douchebag bargain-bin.

Could well be the best thing since cartier-bresson though (that wasn't entirely free of irony btw).

smash

You could look at Jürgen Teller like the saw movie franchise... It was nothing new, but it was something that hadn't been done in a while so it was good at the start but now people are fed up looking at it.

gloobag

(Puts on flame retardant suit), Martin Parr

magicbastarder

yep, he was a candidate for me too.

Borderfox

me too (martin parr)

superflyninja

Borderfox wrote: »

me too (martin parr)

thirded!

Borderfox

superflyninja wrote: »

thirded!

Should be turded

EyeBlinks

I love some of Martin Parr's work, but he makes a lot of stuff I hate too!

Thomas Demand would be up there for me.

kfish2oo2

Martin Parr and Jeurgan Teller for me. Parrs work is typical of this horrible wave of "modern art": lazy and showing absolutely no artistic merit, yet lapped up by collectors who praise it solely because of its artistic sounding artists statement. Teller's faux retro style makes me feel physically ill - it just looks ugly. I'm still struggling to comprehend the modern hipster craze that emulates that style.

DaireQuinlan

I really like most of Parr's work. Well known photographers that I dislike ? Galen Rowell would be one, and his ilk. Though they're not really fine art photographers, more straight commercial I guess.

humberklog

Dave la Chapell would be one I'd be willing to pop off the map with my sniper rifle.


I really like Martin Parr:o and never heard of Teller:o:o.

bullpost

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

Parrs work is typical of this horrible wave of "modern art": lazy and showing absolutely no artistic merit

I suppose it depends what you mean by "artistic merit"?

Once you're into the realm of "art" photography then for a lot of artists the "message" is far more important than the medium.
These images were never meant to be hung over a fireplace to be enjoyed of an evening but are intended to provoke a reaction .

EyeBlinks

bullpost wrote: »

I suppose it depends what you mean by "artistic merit"?

Once you're into the realm of "art" photography then for a lot of artists the "message" is far more important than the medium.

Or the process is more important than that which results from the process :rolleyes: Cobblers

kfish2oo2

bullpost wrote: »

I suppose it depends what you mean by "artistic merit"?

Once you're into the realm of "art" photography then for a lot of artists the "message" is far more important than the medium.
These images were never meant to be hung over a fireplace to be enjoyed of an evening but are intended to provoke a reaction .

I suppose my words were a bit harsh, but I've looked at so many of his pictures and not one of them evokes any kind of reaction in me. They're just boring, the framing seems to mostly random and I don't see the message attributed to them. Maybe I'm just thick, or maybe my time living with art students has given me a negative bias, but honestly so much of what they do is just a random mess that they think looks cool and then they make up some rubbish artsy sounding message after they're done. I'll tell you this much: the art college in Limerick does not reward artistic talent, they reward the most imaginatively meaningless artists statements. I've seen more genuinely talented students fail than pass, which says everything really.

artyeva

kfish2oo2 wrote: »

I suppose my words were a bit harsh, but I've looked at so many of his pictures and not one of them evokes any kind of reaction in me. They're just boring, the framing seems to mostly random and I don't see the message attributed to them. Maybe I'm just thick, or maybe my time living with art students has given me a negative bias, but honestly so much of what they do is just a random mess that they think looks cool and then they make up some rubbish artsy sounding message after they're done. I'll tell you this much: the art college in Limerick does not reward artistic talent, they reward the most imaginatively meaningless artists statements. I've seen more genuinely talented students fail than pass, which says everything really.

i don't think that's a fair assesment of LSAD, or indeed any art college. your end of year exhibitions only tell a part of the story - or - to make eyeblinks' ears bleed - the process. no student goes through art college without being questioned and questioned and questioned and then questioned a bit more by external examiners. and studio work is only part of a final mark anyway - i was in the same year as an absolutely talented guy, probably the one you'd have thought would get a guaranteed first. only he never came in, handed in his dissertation late, and made a mockery of the whole examining preamble. should he have passed just cause he has talent? :rolleyes:

anyway this is off topic.

david la chapelle btw. off with his shutter-finger.

Eirebear

I'm a fan of Martin Parr too - not everything he's done is to my taste, but the majority of it i enjoy, i think he's got a great sense of humour in most of his work.

For me Annie Liebowitz often leaves me cold, there's just an air of everything i hate about the worlds she operates in that i can't be doing with.
(Oh, and Dave La Chappelle)

thedarkroom

You must remember that photography. like any art form such as music. film, painting, drawing, etc. is subjective and as such, cannot be expected to cater for all of the audience. As the saying goes - 'You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time'.
Certainly, people should be honest with themselves and not follow the herd, if they don't like something then they should be open about it and not feel they should like it because many others do.
I like Martin Parr, Annie Liebowitz and dave La Chapelle. I don't like all their work, some of it does nothing for me, but that's personal taste. It's subjective.
I like talking Heads, I don't like Daniel O'Donnell. They are both popular artists and though I would not like to admit it, I suspect that Daniel O'D probably sells more than Talking Heads. Does that mean that his fans are clueless and know nothing about music and art forms? He's catering for a very large audience so he's obviously doing something that's appreciated.
Art and art forms are a strange beast. It's not just about seeing, hearing, reading, etc. It's also about experiencing, inspiring, provoking thought and reaction, both negative and positive.
The very fact that this post has been created, I'm sure, has provoked people in to going to Google and searching for some of the names mentioned above. It will most likely cause other people to add more names for more investigations. If this happens then hasn't 'Art' worked, no matter who or what the opinions are? It has for me.
Thanks to the original OP, an inspiration.

melekalikimaka

humberklog wrote: »

Dave la Chapell would be one I'd be willing to pop off the map with my sniper rifle.

I always wonder what peoples distaste for Chappelle is, personally I think he's probably the greatest living commercial photographer in the world, and well his conceptual stuff its also good but not a patch on the commerical.

Parr and some Testino work leaves me very mneh

Teferi

LaChappelles portraits are fantastic. That religiousy stuff he was doing was utter muck though.

thedarkroom

Teferi wrote: »

LaChappelles portraits are fantastic. That religiousy stuff he was doing was utter muck though.

"Utter muck" or just a case of you don't like it. I would consider it to be some of his stronger work as it is particularly divisive, recreating religious iconic scenes, often with celebrities, in modern day settings. They are particularly thought provoking.

magicbastarder

thedarkroom wrote: »

"Utter muck" or just a case of you don't like it.

i see no distinction.
he's perfectly entitled to call it muck; it's just an opinion.

Teferi

Yeah I don't see the difference? I didn't like them, I thought they were bad.

smash

I like the "jesus is my homeboy" stuff he did. I thought it was funny.

Fionn

i was in Berlin recently and right outside the railway station near the zoo in city center is the Museum of Photography featuring Helmut Newton polaroids exhibition and other stuff pertaining to him.
i didn't know that polaroids could be manipulated or made so big!!
didn't understand everything that was there either but it was very good and informative, lots and lots of background stuff about him and his work etc.
a lot of the photographs taken in isolation could be viewed as soft porn almost but in context they could be viewed very differently.
I suppose thats Art eh?

Logical Fallacy

I like the idea behind La Chappelle's big portrait stuff...the finished article rarely gets me but i love the grandiose nature of it all.

Parr just bores me.

thefly

Parr is a God like genius!!!