Photographers we aspire to??

[craig]

Excellent post. We simply can not call ourselves photographers with out a strong understanding of photo history and the masters.

The photographer that most inspires me is Irving Penn. Mostly for his advertising work. Of course his portraits and editorial work for Harpers and Vogue is unparalleled.

Love & Bass

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Arbus is quite amazing and is in my personal list.
She had this wonderful ability to make the strange appear normal and the normal downright weird. A classic example of a photographer who could externalise their internal world.
Witkin is another. Only where Arbus threw in the towel and committed suicide, Witkin puts it all on paper.

Krims is just wonderful. He earned his place in History for his invention of the indecisive moment. It's just like the 'decisive moment' but there are more of them
He is one of the two funniest photographers living. He shows that photography can be both funny and intellectual. Viewing his pictures can be like doing a crossword where you are given the clues and then have to find where the answers go.
Getting hold of any of his stuff is difficult. Since the 70's he published all his own books so the runs were limited and no reprints possible. And he refuses to reprint anyway.
He still teaches Photography in Buffalo (I don't think he's retired) and at one time we had a Board member who had been taught by him.



Another one to try:
http://ralphgibson.com/gallery/
He's in my top ten as well.

 

[ThomThomsk]

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum and I was just noticing that there seems to be little discussion about photographers and their work.

I feel as an aspiring photographer that this is central to improving our work. Ideas make great photographs and for ideas we need inspiration.

The forum would be a great place to post information for all to learn more about the non technical side of photography.

Excuse me if this is already the case and I have missed it on the forum, if so could someone point me there.

Thanks for starting this thread bapp, it would indeed be good to see more of what you describe. By the way, you mention your lecturers and your location is Blackpool, so I wonder if you are on the photography degree at Blackpool & Fylde?

I'm not sure if I have the knowledge or the vocabulary to join in, but I'd like to talk about two of Tony Chau's pictures. First, the one at the greyhound track. If this turned up in the galleries here, even in the critical analysis section, the chances are that most of the responses would be telling the photographer that the horizon isn't straight, the white balance is wrong and how he needs to get a faster lens or bump up his ISO because everything is blurred. Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance? If so, when can an image stand on its own artistic merits, regardless of technical flaws and what we know about the photographer?

Second, this picture of a young woman. She is obviously from east Asia, perhaps Japan, or of Asian descent and looks like she is a model. However, she is sat in what is clearly a London pie and mash shop - a meat pie and mashed potatoes in front of her, a plastic bottle of malt vinegar, tiled walls. It made me smile because, well, I'm not sure exactly. It's incongruous, but gently so, not heading towards archness or surrealism. It's a simple thing, but imagine how the impact would be different if the same model had appeared in the same pose in a McDonalds, or how the impact must be different for someone who has no idea where she is sat. There's a quote somewhere, probably in a signature line on TPF, about there being two people in every photograph, the photographer and the viewer, and I suppose this is an example of that.

Thom

 

[Hertz van Rental]

...Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance?

I can assure you that Tony knows exactly what he is doing. He was in the same year as me at Bournemouth. Also in our year was Nick Knight.
The College put the stress on knowing what you were trying to do and why, rather than technical perfection. The theory was that the Idea dictated the technique and approach, that is to say once you had a rough idea of what you wanted then you achieved it by problem solving and the technical side of it took care of itself. This ethos had the added advantage of promoting experiment and exploration - a sort of 'let's do this and see what happens' approach. Doing this developed a large resource of unusual tricks and techniques that you could call on as and when needed.
Don't get me wrong, we were as keen on technical perfection as anyone (and often took it to extremes) - it's just that we weren't subservient to it. The visual was paramount.
People who come at Photography from the technical route are apt to find themselves in a creative straight-jacket. Being obsessed with technical perfection means that you tend to avoid things that would 'degrade' the image: out of focus, wrong colour balance, incorrect exposure, wonky framing, et al. We saw them all as an opportunity to try something new, though we kept our critical standards high. Good because it was bad didn't wash. Good because it worked was our motto.
Technical perfection is OK in it's place but it's rather like plastic surgery. The face and body can be flawless and fit the ideal - but the sex appeal just isn't there. It's the imperfections that make beauty, not the lack of them.

 

[bapp]

Thanks for starting this thread bapp, it would indeed be good to see more of what you describe. By the way, you mention your lecturers and your location is Blackpool, so I wonder if you are on the photography degree at Blackpool & Fylde?

I'm not sure if I have the knowledge or the vocabulary to join in, but I'd like to talk about two of Tony Chau's pictures. First, the one at the greyhound track. If this turned up in the galleries here, even in the critical analysis section, the chances are that most of the responses would be telling the photographer that the horizon isn't straight, the white balance is wrong and how he needs to get a faster lens or bump up his ISO because everything is blurred. Those things may be true, but it's still a strong image. Is that just because we know (or assume, since he is a professional) that he knows what he wanted and how to get it, rather than the image just being captured that way by chance? If so, when can an image stand on its own artistic merits, regardless of technical flaws and what we know about the photographer?

Second, this picture of a young woman. She is obviously from east Asia, perhaps Japan, or of Asian descent and looks like she is a model. However, she is sat in what is clearly a London pie and mash shop - a meat pie and mashed potatoes in front of her, a plastic bottle of malt vinegar, tiled walls. It made me smile because, well, I'm not sure exactly. It's incongruous, but gently so, not heading towards archness or surrealism. It's a simple thing, but imagine how the impact would be different if the same model had appeared in the same pose in a McDonalds, or how the impact must be different for someone who has no idea where she is sat. There's a quote somewhere, probably in a signature line on TPF, about there being two people in every photograph, the photographer and the viewer, and I suppose this is an example of that.

Thom

Hi Thom, yeh I am a first year (mature Student) at Blackpool and the Flyde. Studying the BA Hons. I am from Northern Ireland and decided to quit my full time job to follow my passion and attempt to make a career out of it. Blackpool was an easy choice as it's reputation precedes itself many regard it as the Number one Photography course in the U.K. LINK Are you familiar with the college and the course?

Anyway back to the topic, I have not seen Chau's work before and I have not looked at it long enough to really comment on it. However I would offer some advise when viewing an image. Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them.

One of main differences between top photographers and amatures / students is the attention to detail. If we are looking at the work of a top photographer we must assume that everything in the frame has some sort of meaning and is there for a purpose. So if we take Chau in this regard then each little element of this image makes the whole.

The vinegar bottles mirroring each other but slightly off, the two mirrors again slightly off but still hold symmetry. The Blue square framing the Asian girl again it is slightly askew. So are theses elements now creating a context behind the picture. Is this a representation of how this beautiful girl should not really be in this pie shop, she is more likely to be found in a fancy London restaurant, or China whites? It could then again be a reflection of society and it's current cultural and social ideas of beauty and maybe even our social status?? I don't know but I can attempt to draw conclusion HERZT may know more about these images.

I could go on and on, but I wont I just want to show how images can be read, if you do not see it straight away try reading it and deconstructing it.

As regards the technical/ creative debate, In my opinion both have there place as Herzt mention. I think that to be able to experiment with different styles or techniques we should be expert or at very least competent with technical aspects.

But again I go back to my theory of IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS if you have good ideas it wont take long to learn any technical tecniques to create them.

Ohh I'm loving this thread whooop!!

 

[Helen B]

Ah, Les Krims. Until my big clear-out earlier this year, Making Chicken Soup was in my book collection.

I started at about the same time as Herz - late sixties, early seventies. There was a great magazine called Creative Camera. The name was a bit unfortunate, but it was an excellent way to see some of what was going on in photography outside of the stuff that was shown in the mainstream magazines.The quality of the photogravure printing was very high. In '75 they began a short-lived series of excellent yearbooks.

I first saw the work of Raymond Moore in an issue of CC, and it was his work that influenced my change from painting to photography.

There were also Ten·8 and Camerawork which discussed other non-technical aspects of photography. The kind of forum that those magazines provided is also missing here.

I was taught that technique should never, and need never, intefere with one's vision. It should not be something that we are afraid of, lest it diminish our genius. It should never be the reason that our work fails - we should have complete mastery of the aspects necessary for our work. It should not be taken to the point where it dominates the viewer's impression of our work - it should be adequate. I think that the predominance of technical discussions in this forum and many others is that they are, in general easier to have.

The disparate nature of opinions on other issues makes discussion difficult, and the hegemony of the mainstream is maintained. If you think that there is a lack of discussion of other photographers work, what do you make of the discussion of members' work? Compare the amount of discussion of clever spectacle with that of quieter stuff. It's often the quiet stuff that is more unusual, more challenging, than all the more obvious work.

Best,
Helen

 

[ThomThomsk]

I can assure you that Tony knows exactly what he is doing. He was in the same year as me at Bournemouth. Also in our year was Nick Knight.

Just in from the 'Small World' department, I studied at Bournemouth too, although at DIHE, across the road from where the Arts Institute building is now. Mostly English in my case, 1983 - 86. The art students always had the best parties though.

The College put the stress on knowing what you were trying to do and why, rather than technical perfection. [good stuff snipped]
People who come at Photography from the technical route are apt to find themselves in a creative straight-jacket. Being obsessed with technical perfection means that you tend to avoid things that would 'degrade' the image: out of focus, wrong colour balance, incorrect exposure, wonky framing, et al. [more snipping].

That is one of the things that frustrates me about TPF, which has plenty of technical perfectionists, although that is hardly unique amongst internet photography forums. I am striving to get past this in my photography, but it is quite a challenge for an amateur. I think I need to go back to college...

Thom

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I studied at Bournemouth too, although at DIHE, across the road from where the Arts Institute building is now. Mostly English in my case, 1983 - 86. The art students always had the best parties though.

I was there 79-82. And damn right we had the best parties. One Dip show party went on for three days...
And it is a small world - as far as BPCAD students are concerned. At one point I remember someone in London making a reference to 'the Bournemouth Mafia'! :lmao:

 

[petey]

I'm new. I can't say for sure what or who has inspired me. I've been taking photographs for years, but never really gave any thought to it. I met a few people at work who turned out to be pros. They invited me to join a club which I did for a while. I started sharing family portraits and travel pictures and it all snowballed.

I read a few books by John Hedgecoe and Boyd Norton. It started to make me think a lot. A handful of people on this board I have a lot of interest in reading more about. There is some amazing stuff here.

The pleasure of taking portraits for people is a great thing. My day job working in a cube pays the bills, but snapping about has turned into my therapy. Seeing both the technical and non-technical side of photography has me convinced that every last bit of it is art in the end. I enjoy rediscovering things so often overlooked.

It sounds strange but I enjoy a hobby without words. Silence, numbers thought in my head, colors and shapes, lighting - it's enough for me. It's private beauty and I like it.

 

[ThomThomsk]

Hi Thom, yeh I am a first year (mature Student) at Blackpool and the Flyde. Studying the BA Hons. [snip] Are you familiar with the college and the course?

I'm aware of it, rather than familiar. I'm at the stage in my career where I could really do with a change of direction, and I looked around at photography courses a while back, the Blackpool one amongst them. Sadly mortgage, pension and family don't really mix with taking such a big step, not for me anyway.

Anyway back to the topic, I have not seen Chau's work before and I have not looked at it long enough to really comment on it. However I would offer some advise when viewing an image. Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them. [loads of good stuff snipped]

I could go on and on, but I wont I just want to show how images can be read, if you do not see it straight away try reading it and deconstructing it.

This is great advice. As I just said in my reply to Hertz, my degree is mostly in English, so I've done a bit of textual deconstruction, albeit half a lifetime ago! For some reason it never occurred to me to take the same approach with photographs.

In literature, at least at the time I was studying it, the philosophy was that the author's intention was only of passing interest, and that the reader's response was everything. Accepting for the moment your point about the difference between professionals and amateurs being attention to detail, what is the current thinking on this in photography?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

my degree is mostly in English, so I've done a bit of textual deconstruction, albeit half a lifetime ago! For some reason it never occurred to me to take the same approach with photographs.

The danger with this approach is to see images equating to language.
This was the mistake Barthes (and many others since) made.
In order to deconstruct the image it is first described, and then the description forms the basis of the deconstruction.
There is not really another way of doing things when taking this approach.
But the problem is that what is deconstructed is your personal interpretation of the image, and not the image per se. And this is an entirely different thing.

I think there may be a way around this problem - I was supposed to be working on it - but first a framework has to be put in place within which discourse can take place. The current situation is that Photography 'borrows' it's framework from other disciplines and this is far from satisfactory.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

...Many images are there to be read just like text, therefore to enable ourselves to read them we must break them down, deconstruct them.

One of main differences between top photographers and amatures / students is the attention to detail. If we are looking at the work of a top photographer we must assume that everything in the frame has some sort of meaning and is there for a purpose. So if we take Chau in this regard then each little element of this image makes the whole.

The vinegar bottles mirroring each other but slightly off, the two mirrors again slightly off but still hold symmetry. The Blue square framing the Asian girl again it is slightly askew. So are theses elements now creating a context behind the picture. Is this a representation of how this beautiful girl should not really be in this pie shop, she is more likely to be found in a fancy London restaurant, or China whites? It could then again be a reflection of society and it's current cultural and social ideas of beauty and maybe even our social status?? I don't know but I can attempt to draw conclusion HERZT may know more about these images.

First and foremost before I make my own observations on this, I acknowledge that you've only had a short time to study the image in question, therefore I recognise that you are probably know about as much about the photographers intentions as I do. Thus far we are on a level playing field (I think). I can also acknowledge that you have had infinitely more formal training to be making informed comment in the first place (you have had some, I've had none). With that I'll make my own observations.

Insofar as the elements you mention set a context, I'd wholeheartedly concur - there's no doubt in the viewers mind that this is rather traditional British chipshop cum cafe - one that I could have easily found myself in a few years back. On the face of it, the girl doesn't look a natural fit within this environment. In my mind this leaves me with a question - is this a found situation or has the photographer chosen the location as a studio backdrop. Looking at his other work, including the same subject, I can only conclude the latter.

As to what's being conveyed, I'd guess I'm as much in the dark as yourself. What I do feel though, is that it is all a little contrived - attractive subject in (let's be honest) grubby setting. It's not a new tack to be taken by photographers and would suggest that it's very much in vogue at the moment: witness the many 'trash the dress' portfolios here and other places.

Is that what we have here then? Another fashion shoot? Buggered if I know to be honest, but that's the message I'm getting from it. Does that transcend into a piece of art? I'll reserve judgement for now I think.

PS. If I look out the window behind me, I can see Blackpool Tower - wonder if it will freeze again tonight...

 

[plentygood]

I have to say, this is probably my favorite thread I've seen since I joined this forum.

I've never really studied any of the "masters". The only two pros I can ever remember by name without trouble are James Nachtwey and Joey Lawrence. I'm mostly inspired by local photographers because they don't seem so distant like the masters.

There is one college student from my town named Kent that inspires me a lot though (even if I have problems pulling my ideas off). I just love a lot of the work he's produced. Some of it is very creative and some of it is just so well executed. A lot of his stuff is posted on his myspace (http://www.myspace.com/trees_of_life).

Since I know a lot of people won't have myspace, these are some direct links to some of my favorite things he's done.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v38/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30048960_9265.jpg

http://a930.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/24/l_c1c21963bb027537e4acc56033645c81.jpg

http://a717.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/69/l_e5ed044001ef7c2780fa8df7f8849d2c.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v158/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30286240_7659.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v74/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30158957_2584.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v74/91/110/1023540489/n1023540489_30158964_9171.jpg

http://a746.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/71/l_89e3fdddec10351896e3a5e2076980b9.jpg

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Recognising great photographers of the past is one thing. Looking to them for new ideas is another. Personally, I don't understand the looking back to move forward thing. Plenty of truly great photographers I appreciate from the past, but I'll never be looking at their work for inspiration - inspiration comes from the world today, not yesterday.

Far to easy to fall into the trap of imitation.

Current photographers I respect greatly include Thomas Struth and some others from the Dusseldorf School of Art. Looking at much of my own current work makes me think I'm guilty of imitating.

No more looking at photographs for inspiration. Much more looking at the world with an open mind.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

inspiration comes from the world today, not yesterday.

But the present is informed by the past. They are inextricably linked.
Where we are to-day is a direct result of what has gone before so everything that you do contains the past within it. Consciously or unconsciously when you create something - in this case a 'new' image - you reference the work of others. You can't help it. It's the way we are. So everything in the world to-day that we have created references the past.
Taking inspiration from the present you have to recognise that you are being inspired by the past at the same time.
And Time moves ever forward. There is now such thing as 'now'. As soon as you choose a moment it has gone. As soon as you take a picture it immediately makes that moment into history. It is consigned to the past. So you mean 'from the recent past'
But I'm just playing with you and I do understand what you mean, though my point is a valid one and is worth thinking about.
Another aspect is 'inspiration'.
Are you taking it from the image itself - or the approach the photographer has taken?
You can get the latter form of inspiration just as easily from the past as from the future.
Each photographer makes a choice as to the direction their work takes. And if they influence other photographers then that initial choice affects the direction of all these succeeding photographers. Like charting a course through a maze over generations. At some point you may find yourself in a dead end or a sterile area. Examining the history of the journey allows you to see where someone chose to turn 'left' and you can find other, more productive avenues opening up to you.
To write of the past and say it cannot hold any inspiration for you is to cut yourself off from a potential goldmine.