| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2010 01:03:55 AM · #1 |
i amn not sure that i have ever seen the home page looking so samey (yes the wording has changed, i was drunk and i apologise)
how about -
stuckist photography manifesto
- anyone fancy a stuckist side challenge next month ?
Message edited by author 2010-09-06 10:09:44. |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 05:33:54 AM · #2 |
| Ah, the quite brilliant Billy Childish. |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 10:15:54 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by idp:
i amn not sure that i have ever seen the home page looking so samey (yes the wording has changed, i was drunk and i apologise) |
Maybe not the MOST "samey", since the "misquotes" winners make an interesting visual line, but "yellow" and "seven" do show somewhat of a poverty of imagination on the voters' part IMO, yup :-(
That "stuckism" is interesting, although, curiously, when you look at the work of their founders you seem to see a similar degree of "sameness", just a different flavor of sameness than DPC... Hard to tell though, since the portfolio/image links don't go anywhere so we only have thumbs to work from.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-06 12:34:12.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2010 10:31:35 AM · #4 |
"Sameness" in art is the natural progression in groups. People see who is winning and try to shoot like them and then begin to vote that way. Mostly done unconsciously but still done. The only way to change the pattern is to constantly bring in new blood with new views. But with such a large and consistent core group here, it is difficult to do. It's no different in other art forms and isn't some grand conspiracy, just a natural outcome to workshopping, which this is.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2010 10:34:46 AM · #5 |
| i think anything which has a measure of thematic or stylistic continuity must be samey to an extent - nothing is more presdicatable than the need to be constantly shocking or out of the box - i followed links to quite a few of these photograpjers work and many make a virtye of repeating the same image many times, almost identically - but they are interesting and would make a good side challemge |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 12:01:32 PM · #6 |
| I don't get it. Stuckism seems to have begun as a reaction to conceptual art. It's for painting. How do these principles apply to photography? |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 12:47:05 PM · #7 |
That seems to have been a problem for the authors too - but what I am taking them to mean is that their photography involves a deliberate turning away from artifice and a concentration on photographing things which are real and emotionally involving.
These pictures are wonderful Larry Dunstan
|
|
|
|
09/06/2010 01:04:12 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by idp:
That seems to have been a problem for the authors too - but what I am taking them to mean is that their photography involves a deliberate turning away from artifice and a concentration on photographing things which are real and emotionally involving.
These pictures are wonderful Larry Dunstan |
Well, in that particular link a fair amount of it IS "artifice" in the sense that it involves very skilled blendings, in photoshop, of two aspects of the same face or (to give one example) an animal's face onto a human body.
The rest of it is undeniably "real", I guess, but it's almost exclusively photographs of what used to be called "freaks", various maimed or otherwise damaged humans, mostly. From my perspective, this also is "artifice", a deliberate glorification of the bizarre and disturbing, no less an artifice than the glorification of beauty that dominates photography now.
Personally, I'm much more interested in glorification of the BANAL, in forcing people to re-examine everyday objects and scenes.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-06 13:43:02. |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 01:40:50 PM · #9 |
| Well said, all of it, Bear_Music. |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 03:08:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by idp:
what I am taking them to mean is that their photography involves a deliberate turning away from artifice and a concentration on photographing things which are real and emotionally involving. |
ewwww ... if that's the case, count me out. I didn't really get that from their manifesto or portfolios, though. |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 04:12:36 PM · #11 |
Yeah, not very interested in a movement that's trying to distance itself from the rest of photography because their work is emotionally involving. Give me a break.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Personally, I'm much more interested in glorification of the BANAL, in forcing people to re-examine everyday objects and scenes. |
Like wine glasses and water drops? |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 06:50:46 PM · #12 |
More like old lawn furniture, worn shoes, pink flamingos, plaster kitsch; in a word, "junk" :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2010 07:57:47 PM · #13 |
| candy wrappers, rust, cobwebs, blubber.... |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 08:40:05 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 09:35:13 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
09/06/2010 10:19:26 PM · #16 |
... all the detritus of inexorable fate ...
|
|
|
|
09/06/2010 11:45:19 PM · #17 |
... the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune ...
 |
|
|
|
09/07/2010 12:13:44 AM · #18 |
| The proud man's contumely... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:53:01 AM EDT.
