| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2011 07:56:48 AM · #1 |
An interview with David Bailey.
A couple of choice snips:
Interviewer: "Are photographs less powerful now because there are so many of them in the world?"
Bailey: "No, it just makes the good ones even more powerful. Digital and Photoshop just moved mediocrity up a stop, that's all. They're still mediocre - they just look better."
Interviewer: "...I think photography is an art."
Bailey: "So do I. Well, it's not an art. There's that cliche that my old mate Duffy used to use: photography and painting aren't art. It depends on whether the person doing it is an artist."
A splendid read! |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 09:08:10 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 09:34:47 AM · #3 |
I like this one too....pure gold!
Interviewer: "Did your influences have an effect on you, visually? On how you, in practical terms, framed a shot or thought of a shot?"
DB: "You know, I don't think things like that count really. I've never understood all that nonsense about composition and framing, it's all b------." |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 09:49:07 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I like this one too....pure gold!
Interviewer: "Did your influences have an effect on you, visually? On how you, in practical terms, framed a shot or thought of a shot?"
DB: "You know, I don't think things like that count really. I've never understood all that nonsense about composition and framing, it's all b------." |
If I did say that, DPC would walk on my dead body. I disagree with him. Maybe his eyes are very good, he naturally gets the composition and framing, this doesn't speak for all... it's B...S...t |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:02:38 AM · #5 |
| Love his description on B&W vs Colour. Brilliant |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:05:13 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:07:42 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by RianBotes:
Love his description on B&W vs Colour. Brilliant |
"When you look at a colour picture you see the colour before you see the message."
Try that with blood...
By the way I like BW too. However, I believe photos have stories more than messages. Stories are told either in colors or BW. BW makes it more dramatic. So, this guy had three strikes from me, that includes the foul-mouth attitude. Foul-mouths usually people who thinks they are above else (Such as Charlie Sheen), or they don't give a rat of anything. Respect to those kinds of people, even if they are great what they do, is pretty much going under them... which I refuse to do, unless if they change.
Message edited by author 2011-04-05 10:15:48. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:23:47 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I like this one too....pure gold!
Interviewer: "Did your influences have an effect on you, visually? On how you, in practical terms, framed a shot or thought of a shot?"
DB: "You know, I don't think things like that count really. I've never understood all that nonsense about composition and framing, it's all b------." |
If I did say that, DPC would walk on my dead body. I disagree with him. Maybe his eyes are very good, he naturally gets the composition and framing, this doesn't speak for all... it's B...S...t |
An artwork composition is generally studied by viewers, students, disciples, critics, teachers unless it was sought by the artist intentionally and made it clear as a goal. In school we were endlessly taught to analyze paintings of the great masters, apply the golden rule, dissect the geometry ... we understood later that the purpose was to form our eyes. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:34:45 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by mariuca:
An artwork composition is generally studied by viewers, students, disciples, critics, teachers unless it was sought by the artist intentionally and made it clear as a goal. In school we were endlessly taught to analyze paintings of the great masters, apply the golden rule, dissect the geometry ... we understood later that the purpose was to form our eyes. |
Great masters probably have better eye and talent, but they too study and practice over the years until they become great. After all, whatever masters do, "people" who look at their work are the last word, not the masters themselves. So, having said all that, his comment gives wrong impression. He's an old man now, he really don't care what he says, that's other thing we, or new people who are trying to get into photography, have to be careful to listen. Don't make masters "Gods", take their works as inspiration but don't get stuck with their limits.
So, composition and framing are very important things in photography, even in post process. They are probably the most important elements for photography or painting. saying "not paying attention to those" totally wrong message (with his words) |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:47:40 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Originally posted by mariuca:
An artwork composition is generally studied by viewers, students, disciples, critics, teachers unless it was sought by the artist intentionally and made it clear as a goal. In school we were endlessly taught to analyze paintings of the great masters, apply the golden rule, dissect the geometry ... we understood later that the purpose was to form our eyes. |
Great masters probably have better eye and talent, but they too study and practice over the years until they become great. After all, whatever masters do, "people" who look at their work are the last word, not the masters themselves. So, having said all that, his comment gives wrong impression. He's an old man now, he really don't care what he says, that's other thing we, or new people who are trying to get into photography, have to be careful to listen. Don't make masters "Gods", take their works as inspiration but don't get stuck with their limits.
So, composition and framing are very important things in photography, even in post process. They are probably the most important elements for photography or painting. saying "not paying attention to those" totally wrong message (with his words) |
This is precisely what I was saying also. In this particular case, trying our hand at photography, we do what I did in the art school to form the eye. One might be born talented but the rest ... is perspiration. In Bailey's case, as is the case of artists in general, the eye was trained and trained, and trained ....
He said: "photography and painting aren't art. It depends on whether the person doing it is an artist."
And from a talented person to an artist there is a long road (Mozart and a few others is a case apart) |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 10:50:43 AM · #11 |
| He seems pretentious to me. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 11:05:25 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
He seems pretentious to me. |
From David Bailey's 'PDN Legends Online' bio: (note in particular the quote at the end, which nicely addresses the question of pretentiousness)
Bailey's career and personal life seemed to thrive during the Heyday of the "Swinging Sixties," and while at times the public seemed more interested in his colorful exploits than in his photography, it is his work which really speaks for itself and withstands the test of time. In the past, he's cited Picasso as being his greatest inspiration. "The first half of the century belongs to Picasso and the second half belongs to photography. These days everyone is called an artist from Madonna to someone who can hold a paintbrush, but it is Picasso who really started the whole thing off and made me want to go and take pictures." And in the past 40 years Bailey has held steadfast to the way in which he takes pictures: Black-and-white, minimalist, very graphic with high contrasts between lighter values and darker tones, and shot on a variety of formats. "I take the same approach today as I did when I started. I've always hated silly pictures and gimmicks, which is all I see these days, or, to put it another way, 'the Avant Garde has gone to Kmart." |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 11:27:48 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
He seems pretentious to me. |
often, and sadly imo, the greats in any field are. take for example one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. When discussing how he came to work with Gentry Lee on the Rama series he said "I was told I must meet him because he had great new ideas, but there are no new ideas in science fiction and if there was I would have thought of them" |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 11:39:40 AM · #14 |
| Only he's right. Sci-fi really has no new ideas. Just tropes. I think all literature and art is bullshit, or at least, mere repetition. Everything's been heard, done, seen, and redone before. The species has reached critical mass, and everyone's saying, doing, the same thing, and everybody's tired. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 11:56:54 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... The species has reached critical mass, and everyone's saying, doing, the same thing, and everybody's tired. |
One of the sci-fi movies (DS9) there was an episode with a guy who thinks we get old and die because our cells are doing same thing all the time, they get bored and stop producing... thinking "what's the point". So, he creates a machine to entertain the cells, so they get excited again, reproduce to keep body young. Each time I listen an old person talking, give up of everything, and gives crap about stuff, I remember that episode.
We might very well end up disappearing before world is destroyed by a big rock, or explosion of the sun. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 12:02:31 PM · #16 |
| HEY!!!!! Are you saying I'm OLD??!??!? |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 12:09:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Louis:
HEY!!!!! Are you saying I'm OLD??!??!? |
David Bailey and alike :)
Actually I was talking in general. Most old people (rightfully) have different view than young people. They always seem like "done that, been there and I don't care anymore" attitude.
However, maybe if we find the fountain of youth, this might change. I want to live forever, and learn many new things, and maybe see new worlds... forever should be enough... but without getting old :P |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 12:28:31 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 12:44:27 PM · #19 |
To summarize in pseudocode:
IF creator = David_Bailey
Photography = ART
ELSE
Photography = CRAP |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 12:51:21 PM · #20 |
What a character!...Loved reading this article. Thank you for posting!
My favorite part:
"DB: I never thought "wow" about anything because you can always make it better. But I knew they were pretty good. The accident is very important, too. In fact, the accident is the thing that makes creativity because if you're painting and a drip goes, you think:"S---, I never thought of that drip there." |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 01:01:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
What a character!...Loved reading this article. Thank you for posting!
My favorite part:
"DB: I never thought "wow" about anything because you can always make it better. But I knew they were pretty good. The accident is very important, too. In fact, the accident is the thing that makes creativity because if you're painting and a drip goes, you think:"S---, I never thought of that drip there." |
Gosh, I don't know about that either. I ALWAYS visualize and "see" my photos before I take them. Accidents usually are NOT welcomed, retakes needed. However, I only agree, there might be some good stuff coming out, not often though.
I go easily "wow"... and I say "why didn't I think that?". My WOWs are usually mean respect to others' work and hope to hear from others the same for my work as well (and work on it that way) |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 01:47:52 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Gosh, I don't know about that either. I ALWAYS visualize and "see" my photos before I take them. Accidents usually are NOT welcomed, retakes needed. However, I only agree, there might be some good stuff coming out, not often though. |
LOL...I knew someone would pounce on that! |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 02:49:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
To summarize in pseudocode:
IF creator = David_Bailey
Photography = ART
ELSE
Photography = CRAP |
To quote the article
"But that wouldn't be art. The problem with photography is, people don't really know the difference. They group glorified press photographers and fashion catalogue photographers with people like Cartier-Bresson. It's strange because people would know the difference between Picasso and Beryl Cook. But in photography they don't."
I did not hear him put his own work up as the exemplar, he used Cartier-Bresson. So at least he picks the right heroes.
He came from the world of fashion and style which is concerned with surfaces, of quick impressions. He is of the sixties where the new has value just because its new.
"Pictures don't get better the longer you're around the subject. And you don't want them to be bored with you either because the magic goes. If I go to Delhi, I get off the plane and I start photographing because days later it all starts to look normal."
Compare that with Steve McCurry.
"If you're in a train compartment six hours, eventually people will become bored. A lot of it is just having the patience to wait it out, because there's an initial period where people are curious and they crowd around. Part of it is just being patient and waiting until people decide to look somewhere else or get bored with you." ( from a very nice Utne reader interview of McCurry)
So Mr Baily takes picture of his interest with a subject and Mr McCurry takes picture of a subject not interested in him.
Both are good photographers and if I wanted a shot for Vogue I would not choose Mr. McCurry.
Message edited by author 2011-04-05 14:51:42. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 03:08:20 PM · #24 |
| Somebody else said (paraphrased due to poor memory): Being open to accidents, mistakes enhances creativity. Artistry is knowing which mistakes to keep. |
|
|
|
04/05/2011 03:15:34 PM · #25 |
| those pompous art folk must be outraged with this guy |
|
