non-photography

[ksmattfish]

it is no doubt a refreshing change from the traditional approach which some of you seem to be stuck on.
maybe you just don't get it. maybe you don't want to get it.

remember to keep an open mind!

To me what she is doing fits well within "the traditional approach"; flip through any photo history book, and you can find numerous examples. When a photographer uses the direct flipside of some supposed rules, that's still being guided by the rules.

Her photos are fine, and anything that floats the boat of a particular photographer is fine by me. I just didn't dig the "I'm breaking all the rules" hoo-ha.

 

[Wade2go]

There's no hoo-ha. actually she says somewhere on her site that studying the rules in order to breakthem is another form of limitation.
maybe you shouldn't take it all so seriously. I use her site for inspiration everytime I am stuck.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There's no hoo-ha. actually she says somewhere on her site that studying the rules in order to breakthem is another form of limitation.
maybe you shouldn't take it all so seriously. I use her site for inspiration everytime I am stuck.

All seems like hoo-ha to me. If she was serious about being 'anti' then why have a site to promote her 'world view'? Not to mention the books. Looks very much like she's just trying to find a hook to sell herself and her work.
As for studying the rules being a form of limitation - my contempt knows no bounds for that statement. It shows the incredibly narrow and blinkered view of someone who hasn't really thought through their philosophy. If you don't know what the rules are, how do you know if you are breaking them? You don't, with the result that you rarely - if ever - break them. This is just as much a limitation as knowing the rules - probably more so.
She should stop trying to write about what she is doing and just get on and take the pictures. If you have to explain what you are trying to do with your work then it ain't working.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of what she is trying to do. And I really like her pictures. And if you get inspiration from them - brilliant. What I dislike is the half-baked pseudo-intellectual clap-trap she wraps them up in. Her pictures don't need it.

 

[ksmattfish]

Here are the examples pointed out as non-photography:

no balance
more than one story
subject is missing
no main subject
too far
too blury
too busy
subject moving out the frame
subject is centered
no background
odd cropping
negative space
no eye contact
over exposed
under exposed
out of focus
impossible grounds
ground level
tilting the camera
at night
in the rain
against the sun
in the fog
panning
reflection
high contrast
blurring motion
silhouettes
long exposure
close up
shallow depth of field

Possibly with the exception of "subject is missing" you will find all of these concepts, and more, in any half-way decent beginners' photography book or class or even on this forum. Apparently the TPF photo gallery is full of non-photography.

 

[Wade2go]

If I understand it correctly she is NOT 'ANTI' anything. It seems to me she's only trying to show there is another way. you don't have to do it her way if you are comfortable or set in your own way.
I'm glad she posted her website and she talks about non-photography because it is interesting to understand how she does it. why is it wrong to 'promote' her ideas? reading through her guestbook it seems that a lot of people like the fact that someone talks about it and agree that there are too many restrictions out there.
The bottom line is that you should be open to other ideas. you don't have to adupt them, but I wouldn't dismiss them so casually, especially if the end result (her photos) are as good as they are.
by the way Hertz I would love to see your work too so we can fairly compare the different philosophies.
-W

 

[Alison]

Apparently the TPF photo gallery is full of non-photography.

Looking at the site I have to agree with ksmattfish on this one. For some, photography is merely a way to record and document an event, for many others it is an art form. My personal approach is to shoot for emotion. Sometimes that means a busy background, sometimes it's a bold cropping or composition. Am I breaking "rules"? I don't think so. There are guidelines for photography, suggestions if you will, but to me photography is art and it is up to the artist to determine what makes an image. TPF is composed of a wide variety of photographers which is why I enjoy the site so much, and I wouldn't say we are stuck in our ways as I think we are all here to share work and learn from each other.

 

[ksmattfish]

They do say that ignorance is bliss. I don't buy it though.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If I understand it correctly she is NOT 'ANTI' anything. It seems to me she's only trying to show there is another way. you don't have to do it her way if you are comfortable or set in your own way.
I'm glad she posted her website and she talks about non-photography because it is interesting to understand how she does it. why is it wrong to 'promote' her ideas? reading through her guestbook it seems that a lot of people like the fact that someone talks about it and agree that there are too many restrictions out there.
The bottom line is that you should be open to other ideas. you don't have to adupt them, but I wouldn't dismiss them so casually, especially if the end result (her photos) are as good as they are.
by the way Hertz I would love to see your work too so we can fairly compare the different philosophies.
-W

This is becoming a pointless discussion. Largely due to the fact that you have a closed mind on this subject and refuse to listen to what I am saying.
If you read my previous posts you would have seen that I like, and agree with, what she is doing. It is the rhetoric I do not like. What she says is at odds with what she does*.
You would also have seen that I was experimenting with 'non-photography' techniques in the late 1970's. Possibly before the two of you were born. And I was not the first by any means. So I think you owe me an apology for accusing me of being casually dismissive or of not being open to new ideas. But I won't hold my breath.
As to my philosophy - it is obvious that you have absolutely no idea what this is. And I'm not going to tell you.



(*If you cannot see this for yourself then you are welcome to start a new thread in the Photographer Discussion section where I will explain it to you. Here is not really the place.)

 

[thebeginning]

to me, any form of photography as an art is acceptable, for i believe art is what you make it. but obviously for commercial photography (at least for now) many of these 'non-rules' have yet to be recognized. i think i would like the site more if she just said that this was her style and what she liked to do instead of trying to present it as something others should try. If someone wants to try it, they can do it themselves in their own unique way.