Art Appreciation 6 (!!!) - DPChallenge Forums

12/16/2002 11:32:35 AM · #1

It's been 2 months since I posted one of these! I just went looking for them to refresh my memory, even though there's no search function yet on the forums (eep). All I did was hit a random page number at the bottom of the Q&A forum, found number 3, and then clicked forward and back to find the rest. Here are the links to all the old ones:

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I'm going to edit them to make the links to each other and the img tags work. It's mostly for my own benefit, since I'd like to revisit them every now and then.

Anyway, back when I was writing those I had a mental list of other photographers I wanted to write about. One of them was Rineke Dijkstra. She's a Dutch born photographer who specialises in a particular kind of portraiture. One of her series in the early 90s involved photos of adolescents on beaches around the world, standing awkwardly in their bathing costumes. Here is one from Belgium:

And another two smaller images from the US and Ukraine:

These portraits are often described as formal and classical. This is because they're centred, the subjects are formally posed, and the backgrounds are very plain. They are also taken with a large format camera, from a low angle, which creates a kind of studio effect in these outdoor scenes. But there are a lot of interesting tensions in these photos.

I find them intriguing. The subjects are vulnerable and isolated. They are stiffly posed, but standing awkwardly. Somehow all the formalism of the photos and the simplicity of the low horizons increases the impact of their vulnerability. I find myself connecting with these kids in a really direct, personal way. They tap right into my own memories of being on the beach in a bathing suit as a teenager, being self-conscious about my body, feeling like I didn't belong.

The photos are overall aesthetically pleasing, but made confronting by a few, very subtle elements. It doesn't take much to create an emotional attachment between the subject and the viewer in a portrait, and yet it's so easy to break it. Shots where the subject has a fake smile, is overly made up and posed to look sexy, etc. have no personal connection for me. But take these kids and pose them so their shoulders slope, they're knock-kneed, their hair is straggly and damp, and their expression is sullen, and I can immediately feel a connection. And yet, the formal composition of the photo lifts the emotional content to another plane... it becomes focussed, symbolic to the point of being surreal.

I'd like to see what other people think of these.

aelith

Olympus C-3020Z

12/16/2002 11:56:48 AM · #2

The other major connection between the pictures is that there is nothing to say where the kids are from. They are universal youth. In a place without boundrys. All standing beside the same big pond.

(adolesence is a distant memory but antiwar is very much on my mind, sorry)

12/16/2002 02:53:39 PM · #3

Part of the reason that these photographs look so different is in the technical details. You can tell that a big external flash is used, especially in the photographs of the girls. The dual light source look on a beach photo is difficult for our brains to get around. The quality of the optics on the camera used in the bottom two photos is exceptional. The ability to get such a narrow DOF on a subject at a significant distance is reserved for big, fast lenses which most of us don't use on a regular basis and, therefore, looks very different. Even in such small images they scream professional.

Yeah, but the biggest issue in these photos is the pose - I don't think a North American girl would hold her hands flat to her thighs in a pose like the shot from Belgium, and I know that the boy's lack of self-consciousness in the rather frumpy bathing suit is something that a westerner would never pull off. They're universal shots, but also very telling.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/16/2002 09:47:48 PM · #4

Anyone else?

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

12/16/2002 10:48:14 PM · #5

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Yeah, but the biggest issue in these photos is the pose - I don't think a North American girl would hold her hands flat to her thighs in a pose like the shot from Belgium, and I know that the boy's lack of self-consciousness in the rather frumpy bathing suit is something that a westerner would never pull off. They're universal shots, but also very telling.

Wow, that is quite the stereotypical statement. I would like to hear your reasoning behind this. Is it because North Americans are 'too cool' to pose like that? Has the media been so effective in portraying the American Teen as the 'perfect' teen that you can no longer envision one posing in a 'not-so-perfect' way?

...just an interesting observation, that's all...

clicker

Canon PowerShot G2

12/16/2002 11:01:01 PM · #6

She does capture a period of time that we would rather not go back to.
Insecure, self-conscious, not belonging...

I think she also captures how we can react to a camera lens. How our emotions and body language changes when viewed (invaded?) by strangers with a camera that can "pierce the thin coat of false maturity" that noone knows about, and still looks deeper. Something so important to us to be "somebody" and yet so stripped away so easily by just a lens of glass.

I feel uncomfortable approaching someone and asking them if I can take their picture. Why? Is it because my camera intimidates? And if I take that picture, will I see body language in that picture that says I was looking too deep?

I see that in her pictures...

Kimbly

Canon PowerShot G2

12/16/2002 11:33:30 PM · #7

Originally posted by zadore:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Yeah, but the biggest issue in these photos is the pose - I don't think a North American girl would hold her hands flat to her thighs in a pose like the shot from Belgium, and I know that the boy's lack of self-consciousness in the rather frumpy bathing suit is something that a westerner would never pull off. They're universal shots, but also very telling.

Wow, that is quite the stereotypical statement. I would like to hear your reasoning behind this. Is it because North Americans are 'too cool' to pose like that? Has the media been so effective in portraying the American Teen as the 'perfect' teen that you can no longer envision one posing in a 'not-so-perfect' way?

...just an interesting observation, that's all...

Don't think that Jimmy meant to say that north american's were 'too cool' or 'perfect'. There's just a difference in the way that people from different countries dress and act and this is also reflected in their body language. Not sure when these pictures were taken, but it we're talking fairly modern, I am sure that there are very few american teenagers who would wear the bathing suits that the Belgian and the Ukranian are wearing. The american girl in this photo wears a pretty plain suit, but there are lots of bathing suits (and other clothes) that american teens may wear that belgians or ukranians wouldn't be caught dead wearing cause it wouldn't be "cool" for them. It just has to do with culture and all that. Same way that when I was in Europe I could tell a lot of Americans before hearing them speak (cause they looked dorkier!)

As for the posing, yeah, it probably does have something to do with the media. Just cause maybe american girls are more likely to be barraged with millions of media advertisements and fashion magazines with perfect airbrushed cover girl poses, none of which pose with their hands flat on their hips. I don't think that Jimmy was trying to pass a value judgement on this fact, more as just noticing its difference, which I also find interesting.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/17/2002 12:31:31 AM · #8

Indeed...not cool at all...and not meaning to stereotype anyone. I was pointing out just the opposite, actually. The American girl looks very self-conscious to me. Arms out, unsure look on her face, one leg bent. Compare that with the confident pose of the Ukranian. I find it interesting that other cultures are so open and lacking in self-consciousness not only in body image/perception issues but also in behaviours associated with those more open attitudes. I remember visiting France when I was younger and watching entire German families at the beach (purely for sociology's sake, I assure you) strip naked and play in the ocean together. Can you imagine a British, Canadian or American family doing the same thing? You'd be hard-pressed to get a brother and sister to hold hands for too long around here, let alone run around naked with each other. Which is healthier? You tell me. The media has had a really strong effect on how we choose to dress and act. What we're seeing in the Belgian and Ukranian shots is a product of self-worth and not self-image. There's a huge difference.

Message edited by author 2002-12-17 00:38:06.

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

12/17/2002 08:26:37 AM · #9

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Indeed...not cool at all...and not meaning to stereotype anyone.
What we're seeing in the Belgian and Ukranian shots is a product of self-worth and not self-image. There's a huge difference.

:) Thank you for the clarification.

I do agree with you that people in Europe (and in most of other countries) are less self-conscious than N. Americans. I was born and raised in Portugal, where I saw perhaps 'too many' naked Germans at the beach :) In a recent visit to Dominican Republic I also noticed the same thing that you have pointed out...Europeans have no problem getting comfortable in front of a crowd (even the 55 year old 260Lb women), going topless and all, while Americans and Canadians seemed alot more 'tense' walking around, even in their t-shirts.

I do think that these photos have no borders (not literally). They talk more about the teen phase in life. I see these kids running around the beach, not caring about what people think UNTIL someone points a camera at them, stares at them, and makes them THINK about what they really look like, hence making them more self-conscious. It seems like the photographer told them that he was going to take a great photo of them with a big smile and all, but took these photos during the 'prep' time, while the teens were thinking about how they should pose, how they should smile.

I really like these kinds of portraits, as they make me think about what was going through the person's mind when they were taken.

zadore

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/17/2002 08:37:41 AM · #10

Originally posted by zadore:

[quote=jimmythefish]Yeah, but the biggest issue in these photos is the pose - I don't think a North American girl would hold her hands flat to her thighs in a pose like the shot from Belgium, and I know that the boy's lack of self-consciousness in the rather frumpy bathing suit is something that a westerner would never pull off. They're universal shots, but also very telling.

The main aim in these I think is to capture the gawkiness and uncertainty that is universal in teenagers. The photographer posed these subjects then tried to capture the moments of discomfort inbetween
the 'formal' portraits and casual snapshots, when people are not really
ready.

I find it interesting to see these here, after seeing the prints in person yesterday in the Guggenheim museum. The real prints are slightly larger than life size and have a much more dramatic and involving impact.

Also saw quite a few prints from Robert Mapplethorpe. All the sexual
comments in his flower pictures suddenly make perfect sense. The context of his other work hanging beside these 'innocent' little lily pictures made them almost pornographic.

Some great flower macros in that museum too :) The whole 'Moving Pictures' exhibit is well worth a visit.

Message edited by author 2002-12-17 08:46:02.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/17/2002 08:54:08 AM · #11

Yeah! I saw the Moving Pictures exhibition back in July when my boyfriend and I were traveling around the US. A few of the people I've posted about in the AA threads were completely unknown to me until then (Sam Taylor-Wood, Gabriel Orozco and Rineke Dijkstra). I just wish I'd had more time to wander around, we went through it in a bit of a hurry.

aelith

Olympus C-3020Z

12/17/2002 10:01:08 AM · #12

(((Gordon))) thank you very much for the Guggenheim link. Wonderful.

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

12/17/2002 12:29:17 PM · #13

Originally posted by clicker:

Amazing, I was thinking exactly the same things!! It's the total capture of that teen awkwardness.

lisae also mentioned that the photos had a kind of studio effect, and I find that so fascinating - is that intentional (the studio "look"), or is it simply a by-product of the lighting, etc.?

linda

12/17/2002 06:43:34 PM · #14

Seems odd to me how these three snap shots can get so many reviews and be analized so deeply by so many people simply because they were done by someone well known. Let an unknown enter them in a contest...."sorry, looks like a snapshot to me"....."but you have good equipment". Go figure

12/17/2002 08:33:10 PM · #15

well, context and presentation are important in photography, too, as in any art form. look at the catcher in the rye, or jackson pollock. a story about an idiot kid or a few drizzles on a page could be overlooked if not for their historical context. these images are the same. regardless of their technical merit they garner attention and foster discussion because of their context in fashion, youth culture, sociology etc. to me this is successful art.

what's your definition of a 'snapshot' anyways? to me it's a decisive-moment type shot pulled off rather poorly, typically with cheaper cameras. these certainly aren't. ask yourself why this person is well known - it's because they produce good images.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/17/2002 09:33:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

.....why this person is well known - it's because they produce good images.

Yep, but even their snapshots get rave reviews but for no reason except folks think they 'see' where the photographer is coming from and, in many cases, the photographer's explinations. I am not saying their work is not good, just that some of their work is nothing short of 'just another snapshot' would it not be the producer known.
......'they garner attention and foster discussion because'... of who took the shot, otherwise there would not be a second look.

zadore

Canon EOS-5D

12/17/2002 11:02:13 PM · #17

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

...this person is well known - it's because they produce good images.

...and sometimes photos are labeled 'good images' because the person is well known. :)

I agree w/ david to a certain extent. The photo of the girl from Belgium would get an average vote of 3 - 3.5 on this site. You would get comments like "composition is too centered", "overexposed on the chest, arm and upper legs", "uninteresting snapshot".

I'm sure these create a different effect if they are indeed printed to almost life-size....but the 'web-versions' posted are nothing more than average photos, IMO.

12/17/2002 11:18:59 PM · #18

You have to allow for the fact that when artists put their work online, it is ALWAYS in the form of a degraded image. The larger the image, the more degraded it is, which is why the one from Belgium looks washed out and overexposed. It's the same with all the artists I've talked about in my previous posts. The photos I can find online are blurry, overly compressed, and lack tonal depth, all of which is intentional.

As to the "snapshot" vs. "high art" distinction, it's something only amateurs make. I've never called a photo here a snapshot. We had a discussion a few months back about William Eggleston, a phototgrapher who is well enough known to have his own page on Masters of Photography, and yet whose photos intentionally resemble snapshots. The resemblence is there to make a point about ordinary urban life. The same thing is true in my 2nd Art Appreciation discussion.

If I personally saw one of these photos in a challenge here I would rate it very high. I don't object to central composition when it has a purpose in a photo, and I always appreciate photos that capture a real expression or personality more than a technically excellent but lifeless portrait. I would feel that way even without knowing who took the photos. My point in posting these AA threads is to discuss these kinds of things, help people to analyse their response to art and question the way they vote here (although the usual suspects who comment on these threads are all very open minded already :)). So I guess my point is... if you dismiss these photos as "snapshots", you should ask yourself why you make that distinction, and why you don't look deeper into a photo to find out if all those "flaws" you perceive actually support the photographer's intention, or create an interesting effect that you can appreciate.

12/17/2002 11:21:52 PM · #19

...which is why I mentioned context. You're seeing these selected piecewise from a larger exhibit which may only really have an impact when put together as such. The original posting was meant to put them in such a light. Photographs aren't necessarily meant to stand on their own without some frame of reference. An art exhibit often is the statement itself. Could you take one small corner of a painting and critique it as if it stood alone? Five seconds of a song and tear it apart because it means nothing to you? So what if it would get torn to shreds on this site! That's not the point. It was never meant for this forum, nor, as is clearly the case, for it to be appreciated in this forum. To trash these photographs when they've been slapped up on a website, resized, resampled etc. is tantamount to trashing Mozart 'cause some dork screwed it up on a street corner with a $100 violin. Would the Sistine Chapel's roof look the same rollered up on the ceiling at WalMart?

aelith

Olympus C-3020Z

12/17/2002 11:51:06 PM · #20

And please add to the context that the poitraits are part of a series with all that which implies a theme and subtext plus variations. These are works of art because of intention.

It occoours to me that another subtext that could be read in this is anti commercial imagery. Superstar bods on the beach are used to sell everything. That's fantasy. these pictures are reality.

12/18/2002 07:23:42 AM · #21

If my dog took a dump in your yard you would yell at me.
If Mozart's dog took a dump there you could sell it on eBay.(with enough proof it was actually Mo's dog's poo)

12/18/2002 10:08:42 AM · #22

I really don't know what point you're trying to make, David. The shot of the boy from the Ukraine was actually used as part of the advertising for the Moving Pictures exhibition at the Guggenheim. It's a good enough photo to put up on signs, posters, billboards, etc... the kind of exposure that only a strong photo that stands alone without knowing who the artist is could withstand. When I first saw it on a poster outside the Guggenheim, I thought it was a striking photo and wanted to see more by that artist.

I really do think that only a certain kind of amateur photographer would call these images "snapshots" - someone who has just enough knowledge to think that everything should be on thirds and if someone looks naturally posed it must just be a "grab" shot with no effort involved. It takes learning, observation, questioning and practice to get over that stage.

12/18/2002 11:13:26 AM · #23

Well Lisae, my point is, if those signs had said "If Your Pictures Look Like This, Please Come To Our Photo Workshop For Help", that picture would have had a totally different meaning.

Message edited by author 2002-12-18 21:27:42.

12/18/2002 11:28:29 AM · #24

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well Lisae, my point is, if those signs had said "If Your Pictures Look Like This, Please Come To Our Photo Workshop For Help" that picture would have had a totally differant meaning.

That just doesn't wash with me. I know the mainstream DPC voter would probably agree with you, but I very rarely see photos the way those people do. I came to photography after being interested in art all my life, whereas a lot of people here came to art after buying a camera. Obviously, I see photos very differently to them. I look for meaning first and technique second, and I don't question technique unless it undermines meaning. Others take a formulaic approach and regard any breach of the "rules" to be bad.

So to me, it doesn't matter who took the photo. If I see kids like these and make an emotional connection, all other issues are secondary as long as they don't break the connection. The composition, lighting and exposure of these photos support the meaning very well, in my opinion.

If you doubt me, you can look at all the comments I left on last week's members challenge and find that I take the same approach to those photos, even though the scoring is anonymous.