The joy of photography

[snusmumriken]

My must some things be discarted with a lapidary

Are you using AI, Alex?

 

[nikos79]

Again with the judgement and the hierarchy... Why does one thing always have to be better or worse, or more or less, than the other? My must some things be discarted with a lapidary and dismissive verbal gesture? You can't have this gatekeeping and at the same time desire enrichig conversations.

I meant poor in the sense that a film can tell you a whole story, a book the same, a painting takes months to complete and is rich to look at, a photograph is instant and innately cannot tell you much is just a glimpse. It is not an aphorism it is a fact

 

[Don_ih]

I meant poor in the sense that a film can tell you a whole story, a book the same, a painting takes months to complete and is rich to look at, a photograph is instant and innately cannot tell you much is just a glimpse.

So, a photo is an abstraction from the reality on which you say it depends (since it "cannot tell you much" about that reality). That conflicts with what you said earlier but is a bit more reasonable. A photo can generate a number of "stories" - photos do that all the time.

Different people will make up different stories about this photo. To some extent, a photo challenges the viewer's own imagination more than a movie or book does.

I'm interested to know what painting you're thinking of that's "rich to look at" and what that means.

 

[nikos79]

So, a photo is an abstraction from the reality on which you say it depends (since it "cannot tell you much" about that reality). That conflicts with what you said earlier but is a bit more reasonable. A photo can generate a number of "stories" - photos do that all the time.

View attachment 396000

Different people will make up different stories about this photo. To some extent, a photo challenges the viewer's own imagination more than a movie or book does.

I'm interested to know what painting you're thinking of that's "rich to look at" and what that means.

True a good photo can make you imagine many many stories. It is actually one of my very personal evaluation criteria upon a photo. Btw great photo is it Bresson or Ronis cannot really remember.
But this is just an aftermath of our artistic reaction to it.
I cannot tell the story of WW2 with one photo you are asking too much of it.

A painting can have many many details upon it (think the angels in Renaissance famous painters) which were also sometime painted by other painters (apprentices).
A photo cannot include smaller photos it works as a whole I think.

 

[snusmumriken]

A photo cannot include smaller photos

Oh yes it can, and painted elements too. Check out Oscar Rejlander.

 

[Don_ih]

A photo cannot

In general, you'll find disagreement with however you end that statement. You are putting too great a restriction on what a photo can/cannot do/be.

A painting can have many many details upon it

And a photo can't?

(Crewdson)

 

[nikos79]

In general, you'll find disagreement with however you end that statement. You are putting too great a restriction on what a photo can/cannot do/be.



And a photo can't?

View attachment 396004
(Crewdson)

Definitely it can, but in my opinion the less elements a photo has the more powerful it is. Because it works as a whole

 

[nikos79]

I also have to say that I dislike the Crewdson photo for many reasons

 

[nikos79]

I think the most confusion arises for when I talk about photo. Indeed I restrict my view upon it a lot, to a very small subset of photos which I, personally consider creative photographs. So that's it the very subjective term that caused all this confusion

 

[koraks]

That's part of it, I think. Another part of it appears to be some very solid preconceptions (prejudice, dogma) about what different artforms are, how they're used, regarded and what they can 'do'. Those views are IMO so restricted that they continuously get you into trouble trying to define what you see or feel. Part of the reason I suggested earlier to go to a more analytical approach is to make those assumptions explicit and then account for them - either by putting them out there as a starting point (on a take-it-or-leave-it/agree-to-disagree basis), or, more productively, to see if perhaps you can develop your own views further. Putting it very simply, I think you're missing out on a lot by disregarding it from the get go. That's your loss, of course, so you can take that or leave it as you desire.

 

[nikos79]

That's part of it, I think. Another part of it appears to be some very solid preconceptions (prejudice, dogma) about what different artforms are, how they're used, regarded and what they can 'do'. Those views are IMO so restricted that they continuously get you into trouble trying to define what you see or feel. Part of the reason I suggested earlier to go to a more analytical approach is to make those assumptions explicit and then account for them - either by putting them out there as a starting point (on a take-it-or-leave-it/agree-to-disagree basis), or, more productively, to see if perhaps you can develop your own views further. Putting it very simply, I think you're missing out on a lot by disregarding it from the get go. That's your loss, of course, so you can take that or leave it as you desire.

I am open to relax my views and get more from what you know guys.
Especially for other art forms which I have to admit I know very little about.
For photography it might be harder as I already have some predefined views that have matured over me so to challenge them will be tougher as I will need to change the very personal way I see photography.
For example I don't think I will ever come to appreciate photographers such as Antoine D'Agata, Cindy Shermann, or (late) Mapplethorpe the way I do Bresson, Kertesz, or Lartigue since that will need a major reshift of my own understanding of photography and personal taste.

 

[koraks]

What do you hope to achieve with discussions like these?

 

[nikos79]

What do you hope to achieve with discussions like these?

I guess secretly to find people that have similar views upon photography.
On another level to understand how a very different point of view works for some other.
But not in any way to persuade or convince

 

[koraks]

Then I think it's needed to formulate your views in such a way that they can be understood by others. I believe part of that would be to avoid qualifications that end up being tautological, and perhaps also trying to refrain from absolutes that create friction and shift the focus away from where you want to go. It seems to me you're spending a lot of time defending your views while this doesn't appear to contribute to the goals you've stated.

Btw, I very, very much prefer the conversation now that the AI complication is out of the way. I can now much more easily understand where you're coming from. The AI stuff made things totally opaque and meaningless. Thanks for your willingness to set it aside for a bit.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Always felt Meindert Hobbema's The Avenue (1689) could have been painted by Carter-Bresson...

Are you using AI, Alex?

"Lapidaire" is commonly used in French. Guess not so much in English...

 

[nikos79]

Oh I am glad you enjoy the conversation more now, I was afraid it had become dull or something without the AI, good to know!
Yes I will take your suggestions seriously and try to do that from now on. I think part of why I feel a little bit sometimes passionate about it is because it has to do with my very own personal journey, for example I know that myself few years ago would probably not understand Cartier-Bresson at all and very likely be impressed by Cindy Shermann or David LaChapelle

 

[nikos79]

Always felt Meindert Hobbema's The Avenue (1689) could have been painted by Carter-Bresson...

"Lapidaire" is commonly used in French. Guess not so much in English...

True

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Then I think it's needed to formulate your views in such a way that they can be understood by others. I believe part of that would be to avoid qualifications that end up being tautological, and perhaps also trying to refrain from absolutes that create friction and shift the focus away from where you want to go. It seems to me you're spending a lot of time defending your views while this doesn't appear to contribute to the goals you've stated.

I'm with Koraks 100%. Except that I would say that, contrary to what you think, you are not expressing points of view, but stating your opinions as facts, and as absolute — "Kubrik is a very good master of the art but mediocre director that always resolves to his cheap tricks to impress (same as Hichcock)" being a good example. Not only do such ridiculous statements distract the conversation and make impossible any meaningful exchange of ideas, they make you lose all credibility, which is regrettable, since you seem to have curiosity about understanding photography and art.

As I mentioned, you do too much gatekeeping, i.e., too much standing in front of the gate, deciding who can come in and who's excluded from the club, all this according to criteria that belong to you alone but that you state as absolute. The problem with that is that you're not doing any kind of meaningful criticism, you're just validating. Other problem is you're not learning anything because you refuse to deal with those excluded, and refusing to deal with the fact that if they are exluded, it's only because you don't understand them.

 

[koraks]

I think part of why I feel a little bit sometimes passionate about it is because it has to do with my very own personal journey, for example I know that myself few years ago would probably not understand Cartier-Bresson at all and very likely be impressed by Cindy Shermann or David LaChapelle

Well, that's great and something I think many of us can relate to. Our preferences can change over time and if you also practice the art (or craft), this will definitely interact with development in taste. Hey, maybe there's still hope for Mappelthorpe, even! In any case, maybe the exploration can become even more purposeful, if you shift focus to questions like "why do I like this particular work so much, and what would I like to take from that into my own photography?" To an extent, stuff like that can be discussed (meaningfully). As to the notion of mere appreciation...IDK. I'm no expert and certainly no art critic or art mediator. What I do believe is that someone can point your nose into a certain direction and explain to them what they like in what you see. Whether something then happens behind the nose in question - it depends. Maybe, maybe not, and maybe only later. That's OK. Either way, if you want to talk about what you see and what it does with/to/for you, I think there's no way around trying to identify very specifically what it is that you're seeing in terms that are well-understood by others. Terms like "joy" may not cut the mustard, since they're too far removed from the work in question.

As to the Hobbema/Cartier-Bresson thing - yeah, there's a parallel in subject matter that also came to my mind. But the negative space in Cartier-Bresson's photo is not filled with any texture and as a result strikes me as more dominant, and the low values of the trees make such a strong contrast with the sky that for me, the effect of the image is totally different. Funny enough, this particular example also goes counter to the earlier statement of the degree of detail in photos vs. paintings.

Except that I would say that, contrary to what you think, you are not expressing points of view, but stating your opinions as facts, and as absolute

Well, that's what I think is creating the problems here that I'm trying to put my finger on. I think he's expressing his viewpoint alright, but doing so in an unfortunate way that creates a diversion that seems to go in an entirely different direction than where he wants to go. In terms of gatekeeping - I don't think he's doing that; he just has an unfortunate habit of loitering in front of the gate (maybe in search of the door) and it tends to annoy people who are trying to walk that road. It's probably not intentional.

 

[nikos79]

I'm with Koraks 100%. Except that I would say that, contrary to what you think, you are not expressing points of view, but stating your opinions as facts, and as absolute — "Kubrik is a very good master of the art but mediocre director that always resolves to his cheap tricks to impress (same as Hichcock)" being a good example. Not only do such ridiculous statements distract the conversation and make impossible any meaningful exchange of ideas, they make you lose all credibility, which is regrettable, since you seem to have curiosity about understanding photography and art.

As I mentioned, you do too much gatekeeping, i.e., too much standing in front of the gate, deciding who can come in and who's excluded from the club, all this according to criteria that belong to you alone but that you state as absolute. The problem with that is that you're not doing any kind of meaningful criticism, you're just validating. Other problem is you're not learning anything because you refuse to deal with those excluded, and refusing to deal with the fact that if they are exluded, it's only because you don't understand them.

I get all that and thanks for pointing out some flaws in my argumentation.
But before resorting to a calmer discussion and more open exchange I have one final question for you.
How can someone who likes Cartier-Bresson also like Helmut Newton?
I can really understand if the one likes one or another but if he likes both to me there is a clear signal that deep inside he likes Helmut Newton and not Cartier-Bresson and used the latter as gaslighting. Because I cannot understand that you may like so different aesthetically things. Not to mention that the photography of Cartier-Bresson is very difficult to understand. And by appreciating it means you already made a big step to move away from easy to understand/single dimensional photography as Newtons. For me is the same thing as saying greatest directors for me are Bergman and Tarantino.

 

[Don_ih]

I think he's expressing his viewpoint alright, but doing so in an unfortunate way that creates a diversion that seems to go in an entirely different direction than where he wants to go.

He has a tendency to use harsh condemnation of one artist/art form to praise another. If he'd started out this thread just talking about joy and Lartigue, there would have been no problem.

 

[Don_ih]

How can someone who likes Cartier-Bresson also like Helmut Newton?

How can someone that likes liver also like bananas?

 

[nikos79]

How can someone that likes liver also like bananas?

Sorry maybe not like, let's say appreciate or consider great because I also like Bergman and Rocky but I have no illusions about which is entertainment and which art

 

[nikos79]

He has a tendency to use harsh condemnation of one artist/art form to praise another. If he'd started out this thread just talking about joy and Lartigue, there would have been no problem.

I will refrain from it. Although I believe that by criticising the work of photographers is what can make us appreciate their flaws and which ones we like and why.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

How can someone that likes liver also like bananas?

Dang ! Beat me to it...

Sorry maybe not like, let's say appreciate or consider great because I also like Bergman and Rocky but I have no illusions about which is entertainment and which art

Why can't entertainment be art ?