Jacob Langvad.

November 6, 2002 4:56 PM

Jacob Langvad. Crucial work from such a young talent.
posted by plexi (34 comments total)

if the site appears with an annoying T shaped grey section that forces you to scroll down the page, make your browser window wider..... (grrr).
posted by andrew cooke at 5:06 PM on November 6, 2002

Derek Gomez, Becky Nunes, cecilia jardemar, life through a lens,
posted by randomblondeboy at 5:18 PM on November 6, 2002

I don't get it. What's so great about these photos?

I'm serious, not trolling.
posted by billsaysthis at 6:16 PM on November 6, 2002

I'm with bill. I take photos. What? I'm a young talent, too??

The photos I see here are small, grainy, and not terribly interesting. Sure, they're cute on the web, but they're definitely not something I'll remember in the morning.
posted by devbrain at 6:18 PM on November 6, 2002

Yawn.

I'm sorry, this is not crucial work.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:19 PM on November 6, 2002

Now here's a question: what would be crucial work? I'm coming at this from a layman's position -- I like photography, like taking pictures, but I have no education and haven't put out any effort to learn or study it.

Jacob's stuff has nice composition. I thought the shot of the man pouring wine at the table was sort of striking. That's the sort of commentary I can put out, as an Average Josh, and I suppose most folks are in the same neighborhood.

So what is and isn't crucial in photography? Do we have resident graphical geeks who can shed some light?
posted by cortex at 6:28 PM on November 6, 2002

Heather Firth

I also really like John Ball's Images of France. His pictures are not artsy or affected and/but they are well documented.
posted by wobh at 6:29 PM on November 6, 2002

I rather like the pictures, as a whole--some more than others, and some decidedly less than most, but overall I find them interesting. But good lord, what is going on here?
posted by Acetylene at 6:38 PM on November 6, 2002

Crucial... I don't particularly like that word, so for the rest of this comment I'll use 'groundbreaking' instead.

These pictures aren't groundbreaking at all, in fact in my art critic snobbish opinion they suffer from the Gallery effect (when you take something out of context, you view them with more reverance). They're almost all pretty flat, same tripe you're seeing in fashion mags from last quarter. Very little insight into the depth of the subject matter from my viewpoint. Very nicely executed, little emotion. Remarkable pieces of photojournalism, but as far as groundbreaking art, not even close. But then, photojournalism isn't about art is it?

I'm also a tech geek, so I would consider groundbreaking would be a new process discovery, a new way of taking photographs. In the artistic sense, I would consider groundbreaking to offer insight into subjects underexposed (pardon the pun), or a completely new way of looking at common subjects.

All of these shots of these subjects have been done.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:38 PM on November 6, 2002

I could never condem a man for his music. Because no matter how much I hate Hootie and the Blowfish or whatever fucked up group is in question, groove is in the heart. So with that philsophy in mind I say to the other posters.... I definitely respect your opinion and can see some of your points. But.... I think that if you look through his work some more you'll at least have to admit the boy has some real talent and even more he has huge potential. I wouldn't write it off as the same ol' shit right away, I think he could develop a lot more.
posted by jasenlee at 6:39 PM on November 6, 2002

The cecilia jardemar link posted by randomblondeboy has some very cool stuff.
posted by stbalbach at 6:44 PM on November 6, 2002

One need not be groundbreaking to be of importance.
posted by plexi at 6:51 PM on November 6, 2002

Ok, i'm going to jump on the whiny critic bandwagon and yell "K10KFILTER". I see about 10 sites like this every day.. clean, nicely executed, but not terribly exciting.
posted by dvdgee at 7:00 PM on November 6, 2002

Agreed stbalbach (and randomblondeboy), those are very nice photographs.
posted by josh at 7:01 PM on November 6, 2002

But then, photojournalism isn't about art is it?

Of course not.
posted by four panels at 7:04 PM on November 6, 2002

yeah, but one does need to be important to be crucial.
posted by jcterminal at 7:25 PM on November 6, 2002

To those of you still trying to figure it out, these are some good examples of crucial photography.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:52 PM on November 6, 2002

Although Civil_Disobedient's examples are mostly 'right place, right time' I will concede that a major part of that is 'right person.' I've always have been amazed by my photojournalist friends who have a knack (talent/uncanny voodoo) to being exactly where they need to be to get that beautiful shot.

And a major portion of photography isn't just in the shooting, its also in the art of selecting the right shot. Many photographers shoot hundreds of rolls just for a handful of pictures, and the filtering and development process is an incredible art. I believe that's where the 'artistic' aspect of photography truly comes in. Choosing a photograph that can impact even the common layperson with universal themes and clearly communicating "what's not seen" about the subject manner is where 'crucial' lies. Sure, you can shoot a portrait of your mother, but can you clearly communicate by choosing the right picture that shows that she's mourning the death of her husband?

It's tough.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:03 PM on November 6, 2002

plexi, you got a discussion going. cortex, I really liked your questions & the issues you raise - I too am a "layperson" in terms of photography, design, art. I've been fortunate in having many designer and photographer friends who have helped to hone my critical thinking and my powers of discernement, but I am still and will probably always be a student. It helps to have professionals not just point out what is good or bad, but to explain why. Stan Chin does some of this. Sometimes it's just learning the language to use to discuss something - we may be viscerally attracted but have trouble explaining why. Plus tastes evolve and refine over time....much of the artwork I loved as a teen now seems trite.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:08 PM on November 6, 2002

And, to stay on topic, I don't see very much that's provocative in Jacob's shots. He frequently uses the environment to define his subject matter. I'm not knocking this method, it's just been done before.

Does this mean that you're lesser for enjoying these pictures? Of course not. I really love singing along to N'Sync, but around the company of friends I bullshit about Sigur Ros. If it brings enjoyment to you by all means enjoy it, but unfortunately in the art critique world, we must be very wary on who we elevate.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:13 PM on November 6, 2002

I agree the word "crucial" may be an overstatement, but some of the pictures really made doubletake. I take that as a good thing. There is some spillover into the larger question of what makes good art/photographs. But saying "I don't get it, it must not be good" doesn't make sense.


Also a statement like All of these shots of these subjects have been done. Just begs for at least one comparison/example. I am zealous in terms of seperating what is original for what is really not, but without examples, a statement like that seems too general.
posted by bullitt 5 at 10:10 PM on November 6, 2002

I thought Nikki S. Lee's self-portraits from a while ago were clever.
posted by hama7 at 10:42 PM on November 6, 2002

Sorry: Nikki S. Lee's self-portraits from a while ago were clever, that is.
posted by hama7 at 10:44 PM on November 6, 2002

Stan - your comment suggests you have a somewhat underdeveloped personality. i dont mean to be rude, but you must learn to trust that people will respect you for who you are. do you feel that people will respect you more if they think you like SR rather than Nsync? Are you constantly trying to prove yourself intellectually worthy?

My suggestion is to find friends who are also into Nsync. Beware though, trying to make friends with 14 yr old girls can get you into all sorts of trouble.

On the topic - i think you're all a bunch of dilettantes, Jakob is crucial beyond belief.
posted by carfilhiot at 3:14 AM on November 7, 2002

your comment suggests you have a somewhat underdeveloped personality.

Whaaaa?

i dont mean to be rude

Whew.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:14 AM on November 7, 2002

Alfred Stieglitz is a truly 'crucial' photographer, while we're on the subject -- technically and artistically innovative, to say the least.
posted by josh at 8:21 AM on November 7, 2002

Jacob doesn't appear to have a whole lot to say about his subjects, IMHO. While they're good in a "pretentious nightlife/style" magazine kind of way, they don't communicate-- to me-- a single thing about how Jacob feels about his subjects, or how his subjects feel. These photos don't really involve their viewer; they don't draw, or stimulate.

Crucial? I think that's overstating things a bit. Talented? Maybe. There are a couple of shots that have some interest, but most of it is pretty bland in my opinion. He certainly has technical skill, particularly in choice of film stock for particular subjects and in the darkroom (assuming he printed the pieces himself).

Hey, you asked. Didn't you?

carfilhiot: Maybe you didn't mean to be rude, but you were unconscionably rude nonetheless. Your own statements reveal you to be an elitist snob; you evince the opinion that those who don't agree with you are lacking in taste ("i think you're all a bunch of dilettantes"). Further, you denigrate the tastes of others by calling it juvenile (alluding that only 14-year-old girls like the music of N'Sync) which is another common tactic of the snobbish. But you would probably think that anyone who points out that your own snobbery is indicative of a lack of emotional well-being and self-confidence overcompensated for by indulging in a habit of lording oneself over those perceived to be plebeian would be rude as well.
posted by Cerebus at 12:47 PM on November 7, 2002

Uhm... yeah what he said.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:02 PM on November 7, 2002

your comment suggests you have a somewhat underdeveloped personality. i dont mean to be rude, but you must learn to trust that people will respect you for who you are. do you feel that people will respect you more if they think you like SR rather than Nsync? Are you constantly trying to prove yourself intellectually worthy?

carfilhiot is on the money. A lot of people 'pretend' to like certain things more than they really do simply to 'prove themselves intellectually (or artistically) worthy'. Of course, this is a normal human trait, but a rather annoying one.

I have no problem with admitting I listen to Britney Spears (her latest album was great), while at the same time admitting I'm a Philip Glass and classical music freak.

You should like what you like, and not dismiss things from perceived values. A lot of people would dismiss Britney not because of her singing/dancing/songs, but simply because they believe she's an 'engineered pop icon'. That's just wrong.
posted by wackybrit at 4:48 PM on November 7, 2002

Gee, my original question was crucially misunderstood. I was asking plexi, as a layperson, just what it is we're supposed to see that makes these photos crucial. I look at most photos and, unless it's a pretty scene or pretty person, ask the same thing. Is there a book on this?
posted by billsaysthis at 10:35 PM on November 7, 2002

I listen to Britney Spears (her latest album was great), while at the same time admitting I'm a Philip Glass and classical music freak.

Exactly. Why pretend? How many chances do you have to live your life?

The hell with the rest: Nobody else has the unique perspective that you do, and there will never be another person like you, whoever you are.
posted by hama7 at 2:30 AM on November 8, 2002

Unless you happen to be George Bush.

(Godwin's WackyBrit's Law: Any MetaFilter conversation has hit the buffers when George Bush is mentioned.)
posted by wackybrit at 4:19 AM on November 8, 2002

Cerebus - your own statements reveal you to be a moron. IMHO.

now thats unconscionably rude. what i said to Stan was not unconscionable at all.

Furthermore littering your posts with words-of-the-day does not make you literate.
posted by carfilhiot at 4:34 AM on November 8, 2002

of course i could be wr|BUFFERS
posted by carfilhiot at 4:38 AM on November 8, 2002