What to think when you don't "get" an exhibit?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/01/2006 03:04:04 PM · #1

This question came up on Wednesday and I thought it would be good for a discussion.

I had a meeting in a fancy hotel in downtown Portland. I had left to go to the bathroom and noticed that the foyer to the conference rooms (not the main hotel foyer) was decordated with maybe 10-12 B&W photographs. I went to take a look at them and was fairly unimpressed. They were all by the same photographer and may have been placed on consignment (they were for sale). Anyway, the pictures weren't bad; it was obvious the theme was geometric shapes and designs, but weren't great. They were mainly shot "backstage" of a set and there were lots of ropes which made repeating patterns, etc. Another, for example, was of a series of pipes laid in parallel which curved and so made another geometric design. However, the B&W tonality was nothing special and many of the pictures seemed to become hybrids of candids with people working on the set in the background (and even foreground) etc. which didn't seem to mesh with the geometric theme.

Anyway, I came to one of the following conclusions:

1) Well, I'm a photographer and a good one. Maybe I'm "beyond" these shots, but what are they doing in a nice hotel? Someone really got taken in.

2) Well, I'm a photographer, but maybe not as good as I think. In fact, I'm such a beginner that I can't even see the "genius" of the exhibit.

3) I'm a photographer, but these are merely not in the genre I tend to like. Lots of other people would "get" this and appreciate it.

Which do you typically think when you see photography you don't "get"?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

12/01/2006 03:05:45 PM · #2

None of the three.

silverfoxx

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/01/2006 03:09:34 PM · #3

I begin with the 2nd one - indeed, I am a beginner and it's nothing to be ashamed of.
but then my self-esteem wakes up and I move to the 1st one.
it all often ends up (at this period of my life) with the 3d variant.
I try to take photos in all genres and all styles while searching for my own. I want to try all:) so the final though would probably be:
hmmm, I still haven't tried this style/manner/use o light/whatever...maybe I should next time to see how I can use it in my future work?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/01/2006 03:11:56 PM · #4

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

None of the three.

OK 'shroom, give it up. What do you think?

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

12/01/2006 03:13:11 PM · #5

It would be as simple as like, indifferent, or don't like.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

12/01/2006 03:15:09 PM · #6

I like to think I know the real deal when I see it. I can recognize artistic value even if it isn't something I like.

For example, I don't care for country music, but I can acknowlegde the fact that there are talented people that write and play country music.

In photography, technique and artisitic license do not extend to poor printing and bad display.

That said, I think I fall in a combination of 1 and 3.

Message edited by author 2006-12-01 15:15:23.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/01/2006 03:16:49 PM · #7

I tend to agree with silverfoxx in that I'll look at something I don't like and try and figure out what it is that makes it appealing to others and if it's not just "name appeal" then I might see if that is something I can incorporate into my work if it isn't already there.

However at the end of the day I usually just stick to what I do and if what I find is fascinating flies over most people's heads then so be it.

Message edited by author 2006-12-01 15:17:05.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/01/2006 03:20:34 PM · #8

I agree with TechnoShroom in that if I see a piece of work I will most likely either like it, not like it, or be fairly ambivilant about the whole affair. And really, if I don't like it or I'm not fussed either way then I probably won't bother to analyse the technicals or find a "message".

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

12/01/2006 03:28:11 PM · #9

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Anyway, I came to one of the following conclusions:

1) Well, I'm a photographer and a good one. Maybe I'm "beyond" these shots, but what are they doing in a nice hotel? Someone really got taken in.

2) Well, I'm a photographer, but maybe not as good as I think. In fact, I'm such a beginner that I can't even see the "genius" of the exhibit.

3) I'm a photographer, but these are merely not in the genre I tend to like. Lots of other people would "get" this and appreciate it.

Which do you typically think when you see photography you don't "get"?

#1 is an attitude that you should try to avoid. It's simply arrogant. There are so many possibilities that could explain why those photos are there. The photographer may be a friend of the hotel manager.

#2 and #3 will generally be the case.

When I see something I don't 'get', I try to figure out why I don't get it. Sometimes, it's very simple. As you stated, these photos may just be simple studies of shape and texture, which in itself, is a genre of photography. If all of the photos are indeed part of a theme, it may be a portion of a larger body of work that defines the photographer's interests. You may have seen 15 or so images out of a set of 100. If this is the case, the photographer may have a deep interest in the subject matter, and without you understanding his appreciation for that subject, you won't 'get' it.

Part of understanding art IS understanding the artist who created it. Hemmingway's writings become more meaningful when you know a little bit about Hemmingway. Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' becomes more meaningful when you know a little about Van Gogh. Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyrie" becomes more meaningful when you know a little about Wagner.

Postcard images stand on their own. Fine art does not always do this.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/01/2006 03:36:48 PM · #10

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Postcard images stand on their own. Fine art does not always do this.

Awesome point John. I should especially remember this because although I consider myself a good photographer, I am a master of, as you put it, "postcard images". I am far from a master in "fine art".

Photonurd

Canon EOS-40D

12/01/2006 03:37:51 PM · #11

I guess there must be some sort of line between liking an image and "getting" an image, assuming to "get" and image means to understand the message/mood its creator meant to express.

Looking at an image I don't understand usually makes me look and study it harder. As important as a viewer is to art/photography and as easy as it is to start comparing one's own abilities to the exhibiting artist's, in the end, it's not about the viewer and his or her expertise in the field.

In most cases, it's about the subject depicted/illustrated, or in other cases, the creator and what he or she is trying to express. It kind of makes me want to meet the creator and ask him or her what the work means.

I try not to consider my own skills or what I would or wouldn't have done in the mix. Afterall, if it were about my vision and aptitude, I would be the one with the prints on display.

BMacD

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

12/01/2006 03:45:12 PM · #12

I share a lot of your thoughts...but at the end of the day, their pictures are on display, not mine!

Message edited by author 2006-12-01 15:45:29.

Jacko

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

12/01/2006 03:45:42 PM · #13

Hehe. I think someone who knows more than me put them there? Then I go buy a Maxim for "real" art.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/01/2006 04:19:35 PM · #14

Originally posted by Photonurd:

Looking at an image I don't understand usually makes me look and study it harder.

The problem with this particular exhibit was that the harder I looked, the less I liked. It was clear to me at the outset that the theme of the exhibit was the geometric shape and pattern produced by ordinary things (ropes, pipes, etc). However, the pictures appeared "sloppy" because there were lots of extraneous elements which did not enhance the given theme. The workers (on things like hydraulic lifts) or scattered tools, only served to distract, especially when they were slightly OOF with motion blur. Maybe the guy was friends with the hotel owner like John said.

Nefir

Canon EOS-30D

12/01/2006 04:25:41 PM · #15

I don't consider myself anywhere near professional, so it doesn't take much to humble me.

When I feel a work is not doing it for me, I usually chalk it up to it being way over my head.

When I can clearly say that I do not like a particular work - it is not because of its lack of skill, but rather because it doesn't strike me as anything interesting.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

12/01/2006 04:52:08 PM · #16

Well...you were observing these photos in a hotel lobby and not the "Louvre" so..as John put it...hard to tell how those photos got there.

You know the bad thing about being a photographer....it seems like you automatically become a critic of photography and not a simple consumer of art. The real question is, if you were not a photographer...would you have even stopped to look at the photos?

I guess I am in the shroom camp, like it, hate it or move on.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/01/2006 04:58:16 PM · #17

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Photonurd:
Looking at an image I don't understand usually makes me look and study it harder.

The problem with this particular exhibit was that the harder I looked, the less I liked. It was clear to me at the outset that the theme of the exhibit was the geometric shape and pattern produced by ordinary things (ropes, pipes, etc). However, the pictures appeared "sloppy" because there were lots of extraneous elements which did not enhance the given theme. The workers (on things like hydraulic lifts) or scattered tools, only served to distract, especially when they were slightly OOF with motion blur. Maybe the guy was friends with the hotel owner like John said.

It almost sounds like you are describing this picture

digitalknight

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

12/01/2006 05:25:47 PM · #18

The world is full of mediocrity for sale - (don't believe me? Eat at a McDonalds)

There are those that are good at their craft

There are those who are good at marketing their craft

Rarely are these two in the same person.

I would wonder what steps the photographer went through to get his/her work on display. I would go ask someone and try to learn more about marketing -

I'm surrounded (in my market) by artists that are better at schmoozing than design - I used to resent the fact that they make more than me. Now I'm just trying to learn what they do and copy them. :-}

Message edited by author 2006-12-01 17:26:27.

lynnesite

Canon EOS-1D X

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

12/01/2006 05:34:38 PM · #19

Oh, digitalknight, I am absolutely in agreement on all points. Except the last, I seem to be much too lazy.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/01/2006 05:46:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

It almost sounds like you are describing this picture

Well, on the surface, yes; but on further inspection, a definite no.

This picture is not about "the ropes". This is clearly a photojournalistic or candid picture depicting an event in an artistic way. The ropes add to the composition with an interesting element, but do not dominate and provide a supporting role only.

banmorn

Nikon D750

12/01/2006 05:48:29 PM · #21

My reactions are:

1. WoW!
2. Wish I took that....hey I did...just different.
3. Who did they sleep with?

Message edited by author 2006-12-01 17:48:43.

RKT

Canon EOS-60D

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for Canon

12/01/2006 05:50:01 PM · #22

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Photonurd:
Looking at an image I don't understand usually makes me look and study it harder.

The problem with this particular exhibit was that the harder I looked, the less I liked. It was clear to me at the outset that the theme of the exhibit was the geometric shape and pattern produced by ordinary things (ropes, pipes, etc). However, the pictures appeared "sloppy" because there were lots of extraneous elements which did not enhance the given theme. The workers (on things like hydraulic lifts) or scattered tools, only served to distract, especially when they were slightly OOF with motion blur. Maybe the guy was friends with the hotel owner like John said.

It almost sounds like you are describing this picture

I wonder how Stieglitz would score here...I'm thinking not very well...