Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


64 Photos by 64 Photographers
January 2, 2013 7:27 AM   Subscribe

64 Photos by 64 Photographers From Booooooom. Here are 64 photos by 64 photographers that I came across in 2012. These photos weren’t all produced this year, I just encountered them at some point in the last 12 months. Enjoy.
posted by OmieWise (23 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
These are great. Thanks.
posted by odinsdream at 8:09 AM on January 2, 2013


These photos are terrible out of context like this. Most of these were never meant to be exhibited as a singular image.

You have to click on the artist links below to see the photos in the context of their series.

Just scrolling through these individual photos and calling it a day is worthless and a disservice to the photographer.
posted by j03 at 8:55 AM on January 2, 2013 [4 favorites]


Tough crowd.
posted by odinsdream at 9:13 AM on January 2, 2013


I disagree with j03. Showing these as stand alone gives their content a very authentic feeling.
posted by dry white toast at 9:28 AM on January 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


You have to click on the artist links below to see the photos in the context of their series.

Then do that.
posted by Chutzler at 9:33 AM on January 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


Just scrolling through these individual photos and calling it a day

What makes you think anyone is doing that?
posted by OmieWise at 9:38 AM on January 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


I did that. I'm just strongly suggesting other people do the same.

The very first photo in the series is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Without viewing the photo in the context of the series, you cannot even understand what the artist was trying to communicate much less appreciate it.
posted by j03 at 9:39 AM on January 2, 2013


There are two* possible responses to any MetaFilter thread about photography:

1. "These are great!"

2. "These are horrible!"

* - I am including "This whole site is just link-bait!" as a subset of #2.
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:47 AM on January 2, 2013


Without viewing the photo in the context of the series, you cannot even understand what the artist was trying to communicate much less appreciate it.

Because, of course, there is always exactly one correct way to appreciate art.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:49 AM on January 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


What makes you think anyone is doing that?

1. It's presented as a list of 64 individual photos.
2. The photos themselves aren't clickable links.
3. There's no indication that these photos are indeed isolated parts of series.
4. This is the internet. People are in a hurry.
5. dry white toast's comment.
posted by j03 at 9:51 AM on January 2, 2013


Because, of course, there is always exactly one correct way to appreciate art.

If you call a walk through a museum wearing a blindfold "art appreciation" yeah, I reserve the right to say you're doing it wrong.
posted by j03 at 9:54 AM on January 2, 2013


5 came after you started scolding everyone at large, so really isn't germane to why you originally thought you should start that scolding.
posted by OmieWise at 9:55 AM on January 2, 2013


Thanks for your input, j03. I disagree with you, but it was good to consider that there may have been another context in which to view these pictures. Let it go now, yeah? You're sort of venturing into "someone is wrong on the Internet and I must correct them" territory.

These are my favorites.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 10:11 AM on January 2, 2013 [2 favorites]


As someone who has put quite a few of photography posts here on the Blue, I think these are fantastic as stand-alone images, and find their presentation as such perfectly reasonable; they might be more meaningful as part of they series, but the absence of context is a feature, not a bug. The randomness lets me create my own narrative surrounding the circumstances of the photos creation, and, in its own way, that becomes a different kind of art.

If I want to seek out the real story I can, or if I want to enjoy them on their own, I can do that too.

Which is to say; had I found this before OmieWise, I wouldn't have hesitated for a moment before posting it; it's lovely and interesting, and I'm deeply jealous I didn't find it find it first.
posted by quin at 10:22 AM on January 2, 2013 [6 favorites]


Just scrolling through these individual photos and calling it a day is worthless and a disservice to the photographer.

It sounds like you had a show where no one read your artist statement.
posted by Staples at 10:40 AM on January 2, 2013


I hate artist's statements. The work should speak for itself.

But a single photo randomly removed from a series of photos is not the art work just as the Mona Lisa is not the result of a single brush stroke.

These photos, in the context of their whole series, is the artwork. Taking one photo out of the series and ignoring the rest is like chopping the nose off Michelangelo's David and presenting it in an exhibit with a few flakes of paint from the Mona Lisa and the first few bars of music from Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

Can these things be appreciated independently of their whole? Sure. Knock yourself out.

But that has little to do with the artist's intent and results in an inferior experience for the viewer. The viewer of such an exhibit, not having experienced David or Mona or the Seasons would be deprived of a greater, more rewarding experience.

This may or may not the case for each of these 64 photos, but it is the case for many if not most of them.
posted by j03 at 11:22 AM on January 2, 2013


But what if, like, this list of pictures was a new piece of art, man.
posted by odinsdream at 11:36 AM on January 2, 2013 [4 favorites]


> Taking one photo out of the series and ignoring the rest is like chopping the nose off Michelangelo's David

You do know that Michelangelo's David was conceived as one of a series of 12 statues, right? By your argument, it's worthlessly inferior placed outside of its context like it is and you might as well chop off his nose.

Unless you are the artist (and even then...), any viewer will have an inferior experience of any given work due to someone's perceived lack of sufficient context. That's why you click the links, learn a bit of art history, and undertake many other rewarding activities in response to exposure to something interesting enough to do so.
posted by cogat at 1:26 PM on January 2, 2013 [3 favorites]


I never said that ALL photos and ALL art works can ONLY EVER be appreciated in the appropriate context. I'm saying some works of art and especially many of the photographic works of art contained in this particular link DO require the context of the series' other elements to be fully appreciated.

Of course SOME works of art work well as an individual piece. David, however, was NOT conceived by the artist as part of a series, even though the church bureaucrats planned it that way. According to your wikipedia link, Michelangelo was given charge of a huge, damaged, expensive piece of marble that had been sitting around the church yard for far too long. He turned it into one of the most impressive *singular* works of sculpture in history.

But for sake of argument, let's say that Michelangelo had conceived of David as a part of a series of 12 sculptures to be viewed together as a whole. Would you really be here arguing that "Oh just viewing David is good enough, you know, you get the gist of it."

I don't understand why suggesting people click a few links to gain some context on these photos is so controversial. Context is really really important to Art!
posted by j03 at 2:28 PM on January 2, 2013


It's not what you say it's the way you say it.
posted by OHenryPacey at 4:42 PM on January 2, 2013 [1 favorite]


I didn't like all these equally but found most of them interesting. Photography always gives me mixed feelings though; the best images involving people are usually the most transgressive. I always feel a bit guilty at seeing someone's unguarded moment on display.
posted by emjaybee at 6:02 PM on January 2, 2013


You do know that Michelangelo's David was conceived as one of a series of 12 statues, right?

This is why I love Metafilter. I learn things.
posted by crossoverman at 6:07 PM on January 2, 2013


I hate artist's statements. The work should speak for itself.

I hate artist statements too. But if this was literature WikiSummaries would not be a recommended way to read a book.

So why is a link on Booooooom art wannabe gold?

I'm saying some works of art and especially many of the photographic works of art contained in this particular link DO require the context of the series' other elements to be fully appreciated.

So click on the freaking artist name and go to their website dude!

If you are a young artist and Booooooom is featuring your work at all you are grateful for the one photo (think of it as a mini visual WikiSummary) because the click throughs on a picture on Booooooom is worth a thousand clicks to your website (the actual content of one's arty book, as they want it displayed) where you can rant on about how meaning full your work is.

I know, Jeff featured my stuff and it netted literally thousands of hits to my website where I get all deep about context and meaning and blah blah. Are you mad at group shows for not dedicating 20,000 square feat to each artist to see it in context?

It's the freaking internet! A freaky spasm of porn and 20% off deals on Amazon and chainsaw instructional videos and line ups of photos out of context!! Nothing is in context!!

Long live Uncontexted!!!
posted by Staples at 10:22 PM on January 5, 2013


« Older What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on Janua...  |  Microbiology's Scarred Revolut... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments