Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Boden, Jun 21, 2007.
Explain this one to me.
Sure... there is a sucker born every minute.
I think it means she gets sloppy drunk with her friend Carlo, sits on her porch chain-smoking cigarettes, and taking snapshots.
Might not tho...
Looks like a lot of fancy and meaningless words used to dress up a rather dull and indifferent photo of some birds on a feeder...
Of course, if we believe that the overall theme of the image is to induce the viewer into a state of torpid stupor, then we quite suddenly gain a wonderful insight into the artist's beliefs, and the zeitgeist of that hazy summer of 2003.... etc etc blah blah blah
It is a good example of how words cannot improve the image itself. Also printing on paper does not automatically make fine arts.
The images are not bad or ugly, but I cannot see they are special either. If I had taken them I would not print and frame them. And I would only pay for them if I was a company selling bird feeders.
so is this any better?
ok, it could be called historical, but that would be certainly not a keeper if I had taken it ...
That was another one in the Aperture gallery that made me wonder. I can't find anything at all interesting about it.
There are a lot of photos there that are obviously great, and a few that I recognize as being in a category that I don't understand but certainly appreciate. Then there are what appear to be simple snapshots. Maybe it's an "anti-photography" statement that you kind of have to be there to really get.
Careful, these are critiques by trained critics and mere mortals should not try this at home.
i try worse things at home ... just I do not let those things loose on the general public
The two big problems with critics in photography are these:
a) They are not photographers and they understand nothing about photography. Their education is nearly always rooted in literary criticism and so they do not critique the picture but instead critique their description of the picture. Which is not the same thing.
It also means that they have a penchant for big, obscure words and lots of adjectives - because it makes them sound more intelligent than they are.
b) Critics are extremely well aware that critics in the past have made BIG mistakes, calling something cr*p that later generations have found popular, important and a work of genius. They are therefore terrified of putting anything down in case they are held up to ridicule in a hundred years time. The net result is that everything is super-terrific.
You also have to accept that there is not much of a living to be made as a critic (in the main) so if someone comes and offers you money to say their work is good you just do it (and if you use lots of big words readers will think you know what you are talking about and, not wanting to say they don't understand what you have written, will nod sagely in agreement).
Translation: she likes nature and loves how animals and plants can live anywhere, as well as how they change with the seasons. And, despite being fascinated by how photographs make everything look like it's been frozen in time, she likes to have them printed so they don't look like photographs so you don't confuse them with your Aunt Minnie's snapshots.
In fact I have seen many many photographs in my life so far, and many of them, even many of the so called snapshots, left a deeper impression on me than that particular image.
So do not worry, it is not just you, and it is probably not that we all lack the right background to "understand" that image.
A good image pleases the viewer, or at least leaves a strong feeling with the viewer, even if he does not understand it and cannot appreciate it fully.
With some of the image on that site I feel nothing but the urge to yawn and watch Spongebob instead.
I have a photo of the inside of my lens cap. Maybe I should print it, frame it, entitle it "Forgotten Lens" and sell it for 3000.00 dollars :roll:
Separate names with a comma.