|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2009 08:53:23 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Intelli:
When I orignally critiqued the photo, I had virgin eyes..and I assumed it was a modern photo, and I judged it for what it was. It doesn't impress me much.
But for some reason, I want to look at it..and it sticks with me. |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Hence the term art. |
Art is sticky? |
Well, where's he been sticking his fingers? Maybe it's Godzilla drool. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 10:18:40 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Intelli:
This is exactly what I'm talking about.. the photo's I have seen so far in this thread by the famous Henry, all seem like they could be easily reproduced and god forbid..made better?
When I orignally critiqued the photo, I had virgin eyes..and I assumed it was a modern photo, and I judged it for what it was. It doesn't impress me much.
But for some reason, I want to look at it..and it sticks with me. |
First of all, my image pales in comparison to HCB's Gare Saint-Lazare. Not even in the ball park. More important to keep in mind is that it's easy to reproduce images when you know what to look for. That has NOTHING to do with this conversation. A monkey could do that.
The HCB images posted launched an entire genre. Try doing that. Not only are they strong images but almost everything we see today is a derivative of those shots (or those of his contemporaries). In fact, given the thousands of dollars I and others have spent on gear...digitally engineered lenses with VR, ergonomically designed camera bodies, AUTO FOCUS (!!!), the ability to take thousands of images a day, in-camera metering, computerized editing etc. his (HCB'C) stuff still blows the shit out of all the crap I see littering the internet, today. I doubt any of us could do much better technically without all the advantages we have.
It isn't sharp? Does it matter?
Is that the best people can come up with...?
A lot of folks seem to be high on camera steroids. This discussion is akin to comparing Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth. |
That's your opinion. I have seen a lot better photography, in my opinion, than anything I've seen from HCB. That bike image, for example, has been bested by people ON HERE, a hundred times over.
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 11:09:44 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
A lot of folks seem to be high on camera steroids. This discussion is akin to comparing Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth. |
That's your opinion. I have seen a lot better photography, in my opinion, than anything I've seen from HCB. That bike image, for example, has been bested by people ON HERE, a hundred times over.
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
Manny Librodo, Joey Lawrence and hundreds of other new gunslingers can out-McCurry, Steve McCurry at this point but even they know or tip their hats to the guy (as Manny has done a few times), knowing they are standing on the shoulders of a giant. Check out Jeremiah Ridgeway's Afghanistan work and you'll see what I'm talking about. It simply boils down to class and education. I have enough sense to know and admit what or who inspires me and I'll go out on a limb and say those who have "bested" (that term makes me sick, btw) HCB, according to you would admit to the same. I'm also surprised how you can't seem to fathom the ease of what it takes to copy other peoples work, style....concept (?) when they did most of the thinking for you...and me. Shit...Joey made a video and if you look at his old images he posted his camera settings. How much frickin easier can it get these days? You'd have to be a world class putz these days not to be able to do a grunge shot...and maybe even out-Joey...Joey.
"Right place, right time?" That seems pretty dismissive of images that DID launch a genre, while thousands of other guys were snapping away during the same period, left without a whisper.
I suppose if you don't appreciate, understand or at least respect what HCB did (which I don't think you do) you're the guy the OP and all these internet things are making fun of. This isn't about hero worship and nobody ever said everything HCB has done is the absolute best (unless I missed that post?). You seem to chalk it all up to snobbery, pretension...or worst of all, personal taste. I've always found the "personal taste" argument to be a thin veil for lack or education, in many of these particular discussions. We all have our personal preferences and tastes, of course but that's rarely at the core of these disagreements. And why does all this have to fall into the category or supercilious, pretense anyway? Isn't it possible there is something of depth that exists and you just don't get it?
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Amen, to that and I'll also echo my lack of respect for so many viewers. If only they would leave my images alone and go on their merry way, I'd be a much happier guy.
In reponse to  smardaz post below...
McCurry's Afghan Girl shot is pretty easy to digest. It doesn't require much work or thought on behalf of the viewer. He pretty much served it up, as it was and her stunningly, beautiful eyes alone, tell quite a story. In other words..."a no brainer". Whereas, Street work, when done well engages the viewer on a different level. Not so easy to digest...kinda like broccoli or brussel sprouts...?
If anything that's the testimony to todays viewer. Sad...sad...sad...
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 12:08:41. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 11:24:32 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That's your opinion. I have seen a lot better photography, in my opinion, than anything I've seen from HCB. That bike image, for example, has been bested by people ON HERE, a hundred times over.
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
i'm of the same thought, i don't know if this thought has already been thrown out there, but if a picture is put out there and no one is told who took the shot, and a majority of people are unimpressed by it, does that say more about the shot or the viewers?
I'd be willing to bet that a 100 years from now, when no one knows who Steve McCurry is, they will still appreciate his Afghan Girl Shot.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 11:25:01. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 12:54:46 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That's your opinion. I have seen a lot better photography, in my opinion, than anything I've seen from HCB. That bike image, for example, has been bested by people ON HERE, a hundred times over.
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
Originally posted by smardaz:
i'm of the same thought, i don't know if this thought has already been thrown out there, but if a picture is put out there and no one is told who took the shot, and a majority of people are unimpressed by it, does that say more about the shot or the viewers?
I'd be willing to bet that a 100 years from now, when no one knows who Steve McCurry is, they will still appreciate his Afghan Girl Shot. |
I dunno....thing is, that particular shot had the distinction of being on the cover of NG......anyone who was around will always remember that shot.
On that note, take this shot:
This discussion immediately made me think of this shot from  Melethia because I know that she has that thing that enables her to capture people.
Yeah, it didn't make NG, but I'll bet that there are quite a few people here who have this riveting look from this woman etched into their memories just like it did with me.
Right place, right time, right person, right scenario......all of these things work together to gain exposure for some images.....and others only get to be enjoyed, but no less, by fewer viewers.
I will bet that the quality of the viewers is higher relative to "eye training" for Deb's image statistically.......8>)
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 01:04:44 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
McCurry's Afghan Girl shot is pretty easy to digest. It doesn't require much work or thought on behalf of the viewer. He pretty much served it up, as it was and her stunningly, beautiful eyes alone, tell quite a story. In other words..."a no brainer". Whereas, Street work, when done well engages the viewer on a different level. Not so easy to digest...kinda like broccoli or brussel sprouts...?
|
I've always thought about it like this. On one hand, photography as an artform can be used to capture the interaction of light, shape, and texture much like a painting. Portrait artists and Landscape artists look to this for their inspiration. Can we get that tree to perfectly frame the haystack in the background? Can we capture the mysterious beauty of the human face? However, photography can also be used to capture a moment in time. The ephemera of life. Street photographers like HCB looked to this for their inspiration. Because this second aspect is one of split-second timing, compositional details that consume the landscape artist or the portrait photog simply cannot be controlled beyond a rudimentary level. However, they are less important.
I think many people who pick up a camera for the first time think with the idea of making "art" gravitate to the compositional aspect (light/shape/texture). Because of this they often respond to a Street Photog picture with this mindset.
Once in a while you find a picture that excels at both composition and capturing that ephemeral moment. Usually one of the two was by accident which is why these pictures are so rare (the landscape with the eagle swooping down to catch a fish or the moment of life which happened to take place in a spot that offers exceptional composition). The landscape photog looks to composition but happens to be in the right place at the right time to capture "the moment". The street photog looks to capture the moment but happens to do it in a wonderful light.
Anyway, my rambling two cents. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 01:38:19 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
Hoooo, boy, is this ever inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 01:58:09 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
Hoooo, boy, is this ever inaccurate. |
Agreed - photography has been "saturated" since the 1800s, just because everyone can do it doesn't mean that creativity ceases to exist or proliferate.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
This isn't about hero worship and nobody ever said everything HCB has done is the absolute best (unless I missed that post?). You seem to chalk it all up to snobbery, pretension...or worst of all, personal taste. I've always found the "personal taste" argument to be a thin veil for lack or education, in many of these particular discussions. We all have our personal preferences and tastes, of course but that's rarely at the core of these disagreements.
And why does all this have to fall into the category or supercilious, pretense anyway? Isn't it possible there is something of depth that exists and you just don't get it?
McCurry's Afghan Girl shot is pretty easy to digest. It doesn't require much work or thought on behalf of the viewer. He pretty much served it up, as it was and her stunningly, beautiful eyes alone, tell quite a story. In other words..."a no brainer". Whereas, Street work, when done well engages the viewer on a different level. Not so easy to digest...kinda like broccoli or brussel sprouts...?
If anything that's the testimony to todays viewer. Sad...sad...sad... |
I love  pawdrix.
I agree that people who don't appreciate where those who are rallying for HCB here should take it upon themselves to do some real research. The man was a genius - what he achieved was unrepeatable and people who don't make the effort to develop an understanding are missing out on one of the great pleasures of photography. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 02:09:57 PM · #134 |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 02:29:06 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
A lot of folks seem to be high on camera steroids. This discussion is akin to comparing Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth. |
That's your opinion. I have seen a lot better photography, in my opinion, than anything I've seen from HCB. That bike image, for example, has been bested by people ON HERE, a hundred times over.
As for launching a genre. Right place, right time. Of course it's next to impossible to do something like that NOW, when we're so over-saturated, but back then, it was ripe for the picking, and someone had to do it.
There are pioneers for everything, but I refuse to hero worship such people and use their efforts and accomplishments to minimize what people do today. |
Manny Librodo, Joey Lawrence and hundreds of other new gunslingers can out-McCurry, Steve McCurry at this point but even they know or tip their hats to the guy (as Manny has done a few times), knowing they are standing on the shoulders of a giant. Check out Jeremiah Ridgeway's Afghanistan work and you'll see what I'm talking about. It simply boils down to class and education. I have enough sense to know and admit what or who inspires me and I'll go out on a limb and say those who have "bested" (that term makes me sick, btw) HCB, according to you would admit to the same. I'm also surprised how you can't seem to fathom the ease of what it takes to copy other peoples work, style....concept (?) when they did most of the thinking for you...and me. Shit...Joey made a video and if you look at his old images he posted his camera settings. How much frickin easier can it get these days? You'd have to be a world class putz these days not to be able to do a grunge shot...and maybe even out-Joey...Joey.
"Right place, right time?" That seems pretty dismissive of images that DID launch a genre, while thousands of other guys were snapping away during the same period, left without a whisper.
I suppose if you don't appreciate, understand or at least respect what HCB did (which I don't think you do) you're the guy the OP and all these internet things are making fun of. This isn't about hero worship and nobody ever said everything HCB has done is the absolute best (unless I missed that post?). You seem to chalk it all up to snobbery, pretension...or worst of all, personal taste. I've always found the "personal taste" argument to be a thin veil for lack or education, in many of these particular discussions. We all have our personal preferences and tastes, of course but that's rarely at the core of these disagreements. And why does all this have to fall into the category or supercilious, pretense anyway? Isn't it possible there is something of depth that exists and you just don't get it?
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The eye of the beholder, in his view, needs to be trained before its owner should be allowed to pass judgement. |
Amen, to that and I'll also echo my lack of respect for so many viewers. If only they would leave my images alone and go on their merry way, I'd be a much happier guy.
In reponse to smardaz post below...
McCurry's Afghan Girl shot is pretty easy to digest. It doesn't require much work or thought on behalf of the viewer. He pretty much served it up, as it was and her stunningly, beautiful eyes alone, tell quite a story. In other words..."a no brainer". Whereas, Street work, when done well engages the viewer on a different level. Not so easy to digest...kinda like broccoli or brussel sprouts...?
If anything that's the testimony to todays viewer. Sad...sad...sad... |
This is what my point is. YOU have decided what is and what isn't 'the truth' for you, but you insist on making it 'the truth' for everyone else.
I don't buy into it, and I won't buy into it.
Period.
But happy trails, regardless. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 02:42:47 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is what my point is. YOU have decided what is and what isn't 'the truth' for you, but you insist on making it 'the truth' for everyone else.
I don't buy into it, and I won't buy into it.
Period.
But happy trails, regardless. |
I think the problem is that there probably is a truth to master's photography - as sure as there's a pattern of people on this site who get high scores all the time.
I think Bear's comments on this thread are the most pertinent and worthy of everyone's time;
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, nevertheless, there's a lot going on, always has been, that one needs a certain vocabulary in order to decode and understand. This is clearly true in the field of literature, we can all agree on that. If you have no classical education at all, if you're not familiar with Homer, say, then Tennyson's "Ulysses" doesn't mean much, really. And the you come to something like the George Clooney film "Brother, Where Art Thou?" and it is SO much richer of an experience if one understands how every element of the film is a direct transcription into modern times of the travails of Ulysses. |
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 02:53:35 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by JimiRose:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This is what my point is. YOU have decided what is and what isn't 'the truth' for you, but you insist on making it 'the truth' for everyone else.
I don't buy into it, and I won't buy into it.
Period.
But happy trails, regardless. |
I think the problem is that there probably is a truth to master's photography - as sure as there's a pattern of people on this site who get high scores all the time.
I think Bear's comments on this thread are the most pertinent and worthy of everyone's time;
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, nevertheless, there's a lot going on, always has been, that one needs a certain vocabulary in order to decode and understand. This is clearly true in the field of literature, we can all agree on that. If you have no classical education at all, if you're not familiar with Homer, say, then Tennyson's "Ulysses" doesn't mean much, really. And the you come to something like the George Clooney film "Brother, Where Art Thou?" and it is SO much richer of an experience if one understands how every element of the film is a direct transcription into modern times of the travails of Ulysses. |
|
Being able to appreciate something more because of the history of another work is one thing. Ridiculing people about their opinion on works they don't enjoy today because they don't understand who it's from (regardless if that person is a highly regarded 'genius' or not) is completely different. I don't care if you're BumbleButt Tony doing stick figures on cave walls, or Vincent Van freaking Gogh, if someone doesn't like your work, they don't like it, and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. The only reason people decide that it isn't is because they have conned themselves into believing that their opinion has more weight due to whatever 'education' they have received.
Another thing that amuses me is people that use their OWN creations to strengthen an argument. I always see it as, "I'm right because my artwork proves it." huh? lol.
Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and whatever. I'm a black sheep. Whatever.
I have a black velvet painting of a mexican smoking a cigarette to buy.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2009 02:59:58 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I have a black velvet painting of a mexican smoking a cigarette to buy. |
Make sure you get the kind which fluoresces under UV light ... ;-)
I think that people may also be confusing "liking" with "appreciating" -- I can appreciate the artistic merit in some works which I still find personally detestable, and that ability may require training or focused discussion. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:03:02 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Being able to appreciate something more because of the history of another work is one thing. Ridiculing people about their opinion on works they don't enjoy today because they don't understand who it's from (regardless if that person is a highly regarded 'genius' or not) is completely different. I don't care if you're BumbleButt Tony doing stick figures on cave walls, or Vincent Van freaking Gogh, if someone doesn't like your work, they don't like it, and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. The only reason people decide that it isn't is because they have conned themselves into believing that their opinion has more weight due to whatever 'education' they have received.
Another thing that amuses me is people that use their OWN creations to strengthen an argument. I always see it as, "I'm right because my artwork proves it." huh? lol.
Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and whatever. I'm a black sheep. Whatever.
I have a black velvet painting of a mexican smoking a cigarette to buy. |
The opinion might be as valid (as you speak), though opinions are never validated (or validatible if that is even a word, because opinions are not truth statements) but it doesn't carry as much weight or value when one is less than educated in the subject at hand. For example, Bumblebutt Tony might have an opinion on how to build a race car, but I will take the opinion of a certified race car mechanic over his any day. Experience and education always give weight to opinion - deny it if you like, but Art and Photography, are no different from building race cars in that respect. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:08:37 PM · #140 |
I guess it depends on what you class as educated, if experience and self learning is considered to be educated (or at least in the process of becoming educated) then I can almost come to terms with a lot of the arguements made afterall we are all learning daily.
Let's face it BumbleButt Tony might be the best darn mechanical mind that was never discovered ;) |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:14:22 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Being able to appreciate something more because of the history of another work is one thing. Ridiculing people about their opinion on works they don't enjoy today because they don't understand who it's from (regardless if that person is a highly regarded 'genius' or not) is completely different. I don't care if you're BumbleButt Tony doing stick figures on cave walls, or Vincent Van freaking Gogh, if someone doesn't like your work, they don't like it, and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's. The only reason people decide that it isn't is because they have conned themselves into believing that their opinion has more weight due to whatever 'education' they have received.
Another thing that amuses me is people that use their OWN creations to strengthen an argument. I always see it as, "I'm right because my artwork proves it." huh? lol.
Anyway, I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and whatever. I'm a black sheep. Whatever.
I have a black velvet painting of a mexican smoking a cigarette to buy. |
Firstly, I'm not ridiculing anybody. Secondly, I agree that backing up arguments about the greats with your own pictures isn't the way forward - I think those were more of a demonstration of how HCB and others can inspire people.
The reasons I love HCB have nothing to do with my education, I love surrealism, shapes and blocks of light and dark, contrasts - I think that HCB had an amazing knack of spotting and capturing surrealism in the everyday. This is not something I read in a book, I just see these things in his photos.
I agree with the good General - and I'd go further to say that I think you need to appreciate something to make a firm decision as to whether or not you like it.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:21:58. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:14:57 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think that people may also be confusing "liking" with "appreciating" -- I can appreciate the artistic merit in some works which I still find personally detestable, and that ability may require training or focused discussion. |
I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =)
Edit: it's like taking fruit in a basket and taking a picture of it.. only his fruit is a bike rider, and the basket is the street.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:18:54. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:15:39 PM · #143 |
Might be wise to change those acronyms abbreviations to HCB mate ;)
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:17:00. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:19:24 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Might be wise to change those acronyms abbreviations to HCB mate ;) |
Ha! Touché - clearly my education is failing me!! |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:19:54 PM · #145 |
Oh my word - why am I such a muppet today - the quote and edit buttons are confusing me :-P
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:21:19. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:22:21 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =) |
Okay, if not a guy on a bike and a stairwell, what then? A sunset on the ocean? A pretty girl smiling? A flower against a black or white backdrop? A water drop? A splash? What makes them better subjects for photography? The fact that they 'seem' more difficult to capture? The fact that they were created digitally? The fact that they are recently taken? I'm not sure where you are going with this? What is the point of capturing any image? |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:27:28 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =) |
Okay, if not a guy on a bike and a stairwell, what then? A sunset on the ocean? A pretty girl smiling? A flower against a black or white backdrop? A water drop? A splash? What makes them better subjects for photography? The fact that they 'seem' more difficult to capture? The fact that they were created digitally? The fact that they are recently taken? I'm not sure where you are going with this? What is the point of capturing any image? |
I was just about to post something very similar, this gets into the realms of "why photography?" which leads to "what does it all mean, life and stuff?". Good topic, not for this thread methinks. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:29:13 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by JimiRose:
Ha! Touché - clearly my education is failing me!! |
I would never suggest such a thing, only because I do not feel qualified to ;)
On topic:
I do think there's one point that hasn't been mentioned here so far, the original post here was made attacking people for pulling apart a piece of "art" by someone who is above reproach by the layman - ok that might be a bit melodramatic but, the point that's been overlooked is that when people were initially commenting on this image on Flickr most, if not all were misled into thinking that a "Mr Joe Public" was asking for feedback on his own image. I think this debate would have had a lot more meaning had those comments been made with the artists credentials attached to the image from the outset.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:30:29. |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:40:19 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I agree.. and I appreciate his work, and his composition.. in his era. But the photo orginally posted.. it just has the feel of an abstract, well composed with nice lighting, with a really plain subject. I mean.. what's the point of shooting a guy on a bike, rounding a corner in the street. Maybe if he had an anti-tank rocket launcher on his shoulder then I might say the photo is perfect. =) |
Okay, if not a guy on a bike and a stairwell, what then? A sunset on the ocean? A pretty girl smiling? A flower against a black or white backdrop? A water drop? A splash? What makes them better subjects for photography? The fact that they 'seem' more difficult to capture? The fact that they were created digitally? The fact that they are recently taken? I'm not sure where you are going with this? What is the point of capturing any image? |
Anything that has some significance, like I said..if he had a rocket launcher, then that would most likely make him a soldier.. and there would be some storyline. There is a guy riding a bike, he is completely anonymous you can't make out any features.. therefore he is nothing but a guy on a bike. Who cares? Who cares about a water drop? or a flower? or edges of paper..fruit in a basket. IMO that's all silly stuff.. they would be great subjects to learn with, learning about lighting, composition..etc, then use that with a subject that matters.. a moment in history, a photo that has some background..a story, a photo that tells u something. Portraits even have their relevence, they capture their subject in time for everyone to remember forever. There just simply is no point to this photograph. It doesn't even document any significant architechture of his time period. It's like taking a photo of a fruit basket..if you like that stuff, then great. =) |
|
|
|
06/16/2009 03:53:06 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by JimiRose:
Ha! Touché - clearly my education is failing me!! |
I would never suggest such a thing, only because I do not feel qualified to ;)
On topic:
I do think there's one point that hasn't been mentioned here so far, the original post here was made attacking people for pulling apart a piece of "art" by someone who is above reproach by the layman - ok that might be a bit melodramatic but, the point that's been overlooked is that when people were initially commenting on this image on Flickr most, if not all were misled into thinking that a "Mr Joe Public" was asking for feedback on his own image. I think this debate would have had a lot more meaning had those comments been made with the artists credentials attached to the image from the outset. |
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. By showing just the photo without mentioning its author you get more honest reactions as was the case here. It seems like you're saying it's only a good photo because HCB shot it and therefore people needed to be aware of that. I don't know of anybody here that is claiming that. The photo can stand on its own merits with or without HCB as its author.
Message edited by author 2009-06-16 15:53:58.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:07:06 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:07:06 PM EDT.
|
