Photography:
June 26, 2007 12:50 PM Subscribe
I guess no one is interested in visual stimulation right now, oh well. Maybe the illegals like good photography? Thanks for the pics viomeda.
posted by Viomeda at 3:13 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by Viomeda at 3:13 PM on June 26, 2007
The North Korea is really nice, and the presentation is really good. Thx for posting it. Didn't have time to check out the rest, sorry.
posted by micayetoca at 5:33 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by micayetoca at 5:33 PM on June 26, 2007
Thanks for the pics viomeda.
posted by Viomeda
Eh?
Anyway. So I'm going through the "young talent" link, and I'm gonna say something which sounds an awful lot like the idiot in the modern art gallery who says "aw, my five-year-old could'a painted that!" But bear with me, because I (hope I) mean something other than that.
A lot of those photos -- the majority, even -- the artistry is not so much in the composition or lighting or implied narrative; they're more "here are some unusual people, sitting around in their unusual environment." They look like snapshots. They are snapshots. The interest in them comes from what they're snapshots of, whether it's working class new england or Brooklyn suburbanites or downmarket strippers or utterly unremarkable college kids.
Basically, a lot of these people are taking snapshots of their families or of their buddies, and presenting them as art. I'm not saying they're bad photos, just that their value has less to do with technique than with subject. And I'm not saying that's a new phenomenon -- it's been a genre since photography became a mass medium -- but... doesn't it just seem irrelevant these days? When for any one of these "art" photos, you could find five hundred examples on flickr of photographers documenting the same subcultures, at the same level of detail and technical expertise, posted not as art but just as 'here are some snapshots of my buddies'?
I guess what I'm saying boils down to: there's not much point in documentary photography when the thing you're documenting is already quite happily documenting itself. In the age of flickr et al, you need to do more than find somebody who looks weird and shoot a photo of him, because that weird-looking guy probably already has his own flickr stream and cafepress t-shirts available.
Is this just me? Am I totally off base here?
Now what I would find interesting is finding out if any of those 25 "up-and-coming" photographers from three years ago actually up and came.
posted by ook at 7:49 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by Viomeda
Eh?
Anyway. So I'm going through the "young talent" link, and I'm gonna say something which sounds an awful lot like the idiot in the modern art gallery who says "aw, my five-year-old could'a painted that!" But bear with me, because I (hope I) mean something other than that.
A lot of those photos -- the majority, even -- the artistry is not so much in the composition or lighting or implied narrative; they're more "here are some unusual people, sitting around in their unusual environment." They look like snapshots. They are snapshots. The interest in them comes from what they're snapshots of, whether it's working class new england or Brooklyn suburbanites or downmarket strippers or utterly unremarkable college kids.
Basically, a lot of these people are taking snapshots of their families or of their buddies, and presenting them as art. I'm not saying they're bad photos, just that their value has less to do with technique than with subject. And I'm not saying that's a new phenomenon -- it's been a genre since photography became a mass medium -- but... doesn't it just seem irrelevant these days? When for any one of these "art" photos, you could find five hundred examples on flickr of photographers documenting the same subcultures, at the same level of detail and technical expertise, posted not as art but just as 'here are some snapshots of my buddies'?
I guess what I'm saying boils down to: there's not much point in documentary photography when the thing you're documenting is already quite happily documenting itself. In the age of flickr et al, you need to do more than find somebody who looks weird and shoot a photo of him, because that weird-looking guy probably already has his own flickr stream and cafepress t-shirts available.
Is this just me? Am I totally off base here?
Now what I would find interesting is finding out if any of those 25 "up-and-coming" photographers from three years ago actually up and came.
posted by ook at 7:49 PM on June 26, 2007
In fairness, now that I've read the introduction to that collection, it seems that what I'm reacting against was actually a deliberate curatorial choice:
These photographers [...] use their privileged access and personal perspective to take on subjects they are passionate about. It took me many years to come to this realization and return to my own culture
So, yeah, maybe it is just me. Or maybe what Lauren Greenfield is looking for in photography is just not what I'm looking for. Which, hey, big world, plenty of room for everyone.
posted by ook at 8:02 PM on June 26, 2007
These photographers [...] use their privileged access and personal perspective to take on subjects they are passionate about. It took me many years to come to this realization and return to my own culture
So, yeah, maybe it is just me. Or maybe what Lauren Greenfield is looking for in photography is just not what I'm looking for. Which, hey, big world, plenty of room for everyone.
posted by ook at 8:02 PM on June 26, 2007
Thanks, I truly enjoyed the "Top 25 Under 25" link.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 10:45 PM on June 26, 2007
posted by flibbertigibbet at 10:45 PM on June 26, 2007
LOVE the North Korean set!
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:13 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:13 AM on June 27, 2007
The 25 under 25 set is going to confuse and irritate people simply because it contains just that: work by young artists done in a new style. Their images aren't going to look like traditional photos.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:21 AM on June 27, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:21 AM on June 27, 2007
I'm confused. Did Lauren Greenfield curate 25 under 25, or did she just write the introduction? Because a lot of the photographs remind me strongly of her work. Not just the fact that they are documentary photos - some of the artist's seem to be strongly influenced by her.
This style isn't terribly new - at least not to me. I appreciate the spontenaety and directness, but it feels like everyone works in this vein now, and it tends to make me more critical of the quality of the images, and the quality of the subjects.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:02 AM on June 27, 2007
This style isn't terribly new - at least not to me. I appreciate the spontenaety and directness, but it feels like everyone works in this vein now, and it tends to make me more critical of the quality of the images, and the quality of the subjects.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:02 AM on June 27, 2007
Hmm.. it looks like Tom Rankin curated.
And.. "artists." No apostrophe. None.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:06 AM on June 27, 2007
And.. "artists." No apostrophe. None.
posted by louche mustachio at 5:06 AM on June 27, 2007
With all sincerity, there are so many photographers these days and so many have lots of talent, technical, artistic and otherwise. The business of photography has changed so much that it's practically like baking pies, everyone can do it and will then call themself a photographer. We are no longer dealing with the obsure Arbus who likes to hold and camera, go to central park and take pictures that miraculously look ingenious.
Photography is a mjor business and you really have to know your stuff to be in the business. Even when you know your craft your lucky if you can land an assistant position. I don't exactally know what holds the 25 and under above all the rest. As someone who plays around with old cameras as much as I can I do understand how much shooting it takes to get a really bold shot and one that you want to look at for the rest of your life. The 25 and under collection expresses a maturity and understanding of the lense that I don't always find in my buddies work on flickr simply because I doubt the subjects were just the photographers friends. When I was at Pimlico for this years Preakness and I was taking shots of ladies in big hats fluffing themselves in the bathroom, pissing most of them off with my overt lense, I would contest to how difficult it is to get a beautiful shot of a stranger and not feel like you have to beg for it.
Who knows why they're so damn good but then what makes National Geographic so terribly original, they are all just perfecly amazing shots. I don't think that every photographer is going for the fine art award everytime they load some film, finding a decent subject with the right light in the right place then acctually capturing the image of what you see technically well is enough for me.
posted by Viomeda at 10:24 AM on June 27, 2007
Photography is a mjor business and you really have to know your stuff to be in the business. Even when you know your craft your lucky if you can land an assistant position. I don't exactally know what holds the 25 and under above all the rest. As someone who plays around with old cameras as much as I can I do understand how much shooting it takes to get a really bold shot and one that you want to look at for the rest of your life. The 25 and under collection expresses a maturity and understanding of the lense that I don't always find in my buddies work on flickr simply because I doubt the subjects were just the photographers friends. When I was at Pimlico for this years Preakness and I was taking shots of ladies in big hats fluffing themselves in the bathroom, pissing most of them off with my overt lense, I would contest to how difficult it is to get a beautiful shot of a stranger and not feel like you have to beg for it.
Who knows why they're so damn good but then what makes National Geographic so terribly original, they are all just perfecly amazing shots. I don't think that every photographer is going for the fine art award everytime they load some film, finding a decent subject with the right light in the right place then acctually capturing the image of what you see technically well is enough for me.
posted by Viomeda at 10:24 AM on June 27, 2007
Yeah, whoops -- I misspoke on curator vs introducer. Doesn't change my basic point, though.
The 25 and under collection expresses a maturity and understanding of the lense that I don't always find in my buddies work on flickr simply because I doubt the subjects were just the photographers friends.
Quite a few of those photographers say outright that they are taking pictures of their friends or family.
Look, I'm not saying that all flickr snapshots are better than all art photos. Of course not. What I am saying is that quite a lot of "non-professional" work on flickr and similar sites is stylistically identical to much of the work shown here, and that much of it rivals the "professional" work in quality and technical expertise.
Part of this is because the particular aesthetic means that a lot of what would normally be the signifiers of "professional" work -- staged lighting, traditional composition, etc -- are absent. But part of it is because, as you say, there are just so many people out there doing this kind of work; just having a camera and knowing how to use it isn't enough anymore.
It's just my opinion, of course, but I guess what I'm saying is that this style of photography is so ubiquitous by this point that it's basically redundant.
They're fine photos, but I wonder how much of your reaction to them is based on their context instead of their content. If you came across these same shots in a random flickr stream instead of a glossy art book, would they still look so amazing? Or would you flip past them without a second glance? It's all subjective, of course, but for me, for the most part, I'm not seeing much here that really stands out on its own terms.
I realize I'm setting a high standard here, and I feel a little bad for dumping on student work (which is what most of this is.) I wasn't snarking when I asked if any of those 25 have since matured into successful artists; I'm honestly curious.
posted by ook at 12:25 PM on June 27, 2007
The 25 and under collection expresses a maturity and understanding of the lense that I don't always find in my buddies work on flickr simply because I doubt the subjects were just the photographers friends.
Quite a few of those photographers say outright that they are taking pictures of their friends or family.
Look, I'm not saying that all flickr snapshots are better than all art photos. Of course not. What I am saying is that quite a lot of "non-professional" work on flickr and similar sites is stylistically identical to much of the work shown here, and that much of it rivals the "professional" work in quality and technical expertise.
Part of this is because the particular aesthetic means that a lot of what would normally be the signifiers of "professional" work -- staged lighting, traditional composition, etc -- are absent. But part of it is because, as you say, there are just so many people out there doing this kind of work; just having a camera and knowing how to use it isn't enough anymore.
It's just my opinion, of course, but I guess what I'm saying is that this style of photography is so ubiquitous by this point that it's basically redundant.
They're fine photos, but I wonder how much of your reaction to them is based on their context instead of their content. If you came across these same shots in a random flickr stream instead of a glossy art book, would they still look so amazing? Or would you flip past them without a second glance? It's all subjective, of course, but for me, for the most part, I'm not seeing much here that really stands out on its own terms.
I realize I'm setting a high standard here, and I feel a little bad for dumping on student work (which is what most of this is.) I wasn't snarking when I asked if any of those 25 have since matured into successful artists; I'm honestly curious.
posted by ook at 12:25 PM on June 27, 2007
Sure sure and I too would be curious to know who goes onto a major carrier, my guess would be not many.
I have seen some great work on flickr and would sure consider some participants of the same caliber as those in the book, professional or not.
I guess this is all about time then, time for the publishers and the collaborators. they probably don't have time to sift through flickr to find worthy work then contact a bunch of people to see if they want to participate in a book. (although that's a great idea). I think it's easier to take the best students from top schools using references from their professors and put something together.
I rather like this series of books maybe because it gives young art students alike a moment in the lime light and there is no tour du force from any one artsit imparticular. Without a prodigy to lead the way do we really expect all the young photographers to come up with something totally originial? Although it would be nice, I appreciate them because they give a comment on where fine art is today; they're experiementing on what is current. There is a spark of something original that is hightened by their command of the technical aspect of the camera. They take good, clear, interesting shots in nice light and what jaw-dropping originality they have may come later.
posted by Viomeda at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2007
I have seen some great work on flickr and would sure consider some participants of the same caliber as those in the book, professional or not.
I guess this is all about time then, time for the publishers and the collaborators. they probably don't have time to sift through flickr to find worthy work then contact a bunch of people to see if they want to participate in a book. (although that's a great idea). I think it's easier to take the best students from top schools using references from their professors and put something together.
I rather like this series of books maybe because it gives young art students alike a moment in the lime light and there is no tour du force from any one artsit imparticular. Without a prodigy to lead the way do we really expect all the young photographers to come up with something totally originial? Although it would be nice, I appreciate them because they give a comment on where fine art is today; they're experiementing on what is current. There is a spark of something original that is hightened by their command of the technical aspect of the camera. They take good, clear, interesting shots in nice light and what jaw-dropping originality they have may come later.
posted by Viomeda at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2007
« Older Farms Fund Robots to Replace Migrant Fruit Pickers | Peak Suburbia Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Postroad at 12:54 PM on June 26, 2007