|
Search this group's discussions
|
Why no street photography in conscientious
|
You have the link here.
"I got an email the other day from a very angry and very disappointed individual [...] asking, among other things: Why don’t you post any street photography? The short answer is…I don’t like most street photography. I’m sorry, I just don’t. This is not to say that I think street photography is bad, it’s simply my opinion that so much of this type of photography seems to only provide answers instead of questions" (source; my emphasis, because that's exactly how I feel about "street photography")
Jorg is refering to this post in we can't paint.
Posted at 5:39AM, 3 June 2008 PDT
(permalink)
|
(1 to 100 of 226 replies in Why no street photography in conscientious)
|
So wait ! !... did this clown just put up a post where he didn't even have the energy to come up with his own opinion?, he just referenced someone else's intelligent thinking!!
For fucks sake... now he doesn't even type his own text for the links he grabs from other sites; he just copies their text as well...!!
the irony is that Tim Davis does like street photography.. JC in his blog-based wisdom has taken his words out of context!!
I hope all you JC groupies start to ask yourselves what this clown offers you other than a way to find links to other people’s real opinions and real web sites containing real photography.
..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"the irony is that Tim Davis does like street photography.. "
i think tim davis is the reference for the article.. the actual writer is Noel Rodo-Vankeulen...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
flat5 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
further - this is why i avoid blogs (well, a lot of sources for that matter)..
"this type of photography seems to only provide answers instead of questions"
and then goes on to post this as an example of favorites..
wecantpaint.com/log/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/tim5.jpg
well, i guess that one provides questions but who the fuck cares...
[edit] - i don't care how 'conceptual' those example shots are supposed to be but man, i honestly think that's some shitty photography.. i really don't care what these people are saying.. next.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
flat5 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, that's not a street photograph, is it?
The questions/answers thing kind of took me by surprise. One of the things that draw me to street to start with is that most of it is extremely ambiguous. You rarely see such ambiguity in portraits (in general, concrete ones, yes, sure). Also, that lots of street don't try to give you any answers... you see lots of small fragments of narratives or something ambiguous, or something that just looks interesting, but rarely a punchline. Compared with that, this to me just looks a bit cheap: wecantpaint.com/log/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/tim2.jpg
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Dr Karanka edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
"Well, that's not a street photograph, is it?"
no, not by a longshot.. but you'd think after posting the GW shot and saying he's into some street, he'd show some other examples of it that he liked...
instead he shows one sort of street shot that sucks just as bad as the cake.. but hey, it's art right?.. rainbows, beggars, and bitch.. how deep..
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
flat5 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Thank Jeff.. you can see how conversant i am in the world of Blog;… which is why i think i've got this sudden fascination.
this does sorta show what a circle-jerk blogs like JCs are....they all canabilise off each other to such an extent it's hard to find out who's really doing the research and who's just adding posts to their blogs by referencing the information from somwhere else...
some irony there that those two posts came up in light of the slagging jc is gettting from a flickr street group.. hmmmm....
joni, pick up your phone!
..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
pH [浪人] [deleted] says:
@joni: elaborate on ambiguity, please
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@pH: you know, when you look at one of those photographs and you think 'what's going on' till you move to thinking 'I actually don't know, and I rather believe whatever I believe than asking the photographer to find out the truth'.
@Joe: I was in the shower!
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For fucks sake... now he doesn't even type his own text for the links he grabs from other sites; he just copies their text as well...!!
It's anyway better than when he tries to write something by himself. One of his recent brilliant thoughts:
JC: "I found Maleonn's work on Asian Photography Blog, and I quite like it. Here and there, I think I might detect similarities with or at least influences of other photographers, but the large variety makes the work very interesting. "
I can't wait until he posts some work WITHOUT similarities or influences of other photographers. :-)))
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@joni: elaborate on shower, please
;-)
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Marek.. LOL...
maybe we should put him in a room with this commentor on photography....
This photographic masterpiece is not merely the creation of an idealizing imagination that responds to the imperfections of reality with a dream of beauty. Instead, they are the trophies of a hunter who looks for the unusual in the world of what actually exists and discovered something exceptionally good
in fairness to the above person's writing... i would actually like to meet him... but JC?... hmm... he's got Trust-Fund-Kid written all over him,..... instant disqualification...
...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"a hunter who looks for the unusual in the world of what actually exists"
reminds me of the photographic version of the Knight Rider... that's me, right? ;-)
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ Joni
"The questions/answers thing kind of took me by surprise. One of the things that draw me to street to start with is that most of it is extremely ambiguous. You rarely see such ambiguity in portraits (in general, concrete ones, yes, sure). Also, that lots of street don't try to give you any answers... you see lots of small fragments of narratives or something ambiguous, or something that just looks interesting, but rarely a punchline."
Agree 100% of course. Maybe he associates street photography with the gag, juxta stuff, in which case he just doesn't know enough...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
does it matter? its an art photography blog, not a very insightful one but still an art photography blog...his blog his taste...dont take him too seriously, he's an overrated guy with a blog
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Joerg is an almost perfect embodiment of taste in one... photography aesthetic. I think hcsp is an almost perfect embodiment of a totally different aesthetic. It doesn't surprise me at all to find them opposing.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Man you guys are grumpy! Someone has a different opinion from me WHAAA WHAAA! Seriously if you don't like his blog don't read it (that's pretty much what you tell people around here that complain about the moderation of this groupe). I like it because it leads me to a lot of work that I enjoy. I couldn't give a rats ass what his opinion is. But it's in my collection of blogs I subscribe to so I can see what there is out there in the photography world.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
that's sort of like learning about world culture from a racist..
(ok, so that's a stretch but something like that)..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well maybe you won't learn something about world culture from a racist, but you'll learn something about human nature. I guess I tend to not be immediatly dismissive of things that I don't agree with or don't like because I believe you can learn things from all kinds of experiences positive and negative. If you surround yourself with only what you think you like, then you can close yourself off to a lot of things. I usually glance past the posts on Conscientious, but that doesn't mean I haven't run across things that interest me.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
photoniceye edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
From Mike Johnston:
That's the artist talking. "All nature photography is boring" would be a ludicrous critical position. But Evans believed in socially meaningful photography of people and what their surroundings revealed about their condition. For him to give "equal time" to pictures of rocks and trees (or color abstracts, or surrealism, or any other mode of working similarly distant from his own) would be tantamount to him discrediting the centrality of his own concerns in his own work. Show me an artist who doesn't loathe or dismiss whole categories of artistic endeavor and I'll show you an artist who isn't committed to his own art.
(emphasis mine)
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Haha Chris, I remember reading that article a while back thinking to myself, "I guess I'll never be an artist, I'm not dismissive enough."
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If JC is not into street photography, that's fine. Just that his reasons don't really seem to make sense.
(1) His comment about if you want to see a street photograph, just go out into the street doesn't make a lot of sense. As I said in another thread, you could just as well say that if you want to see an Ansell Adams pic, go to the countryside, there's Ansell Adams pics everywhere.
(2) His agreement with the statement that street photography is all about answers rather than questions is 100% rubbish.
But, yes, at the end of the day, who cares...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
can we please stop calling this guy JC.. we all know there is but one true JC...
John Coltrane.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
photoniceye... you've got a point about whinging over a person's opinions... can't disagree with you...
but then again openly and clinically devaluing the myopic thinking of a popular blog is just that... a clinical discussion about a pretty public opinion...
but then again..... and again....when that same blogger makes a post slagging off street photography on the same day the discussion is opened... then that pretty attentive lurker is making it clear the discussion is falling on pretty attentive ears... pretty ironic huh!! :-)
i just wish we could bring the debate to that person's blog rather than looking sideways at it from here...
If he's worth his metal he would be able to actually justify his questions/answer paradigm that he's taken out of context and adopted as his own way of thinking... now that would be an interesting post!!..
Can't help but think about the Emperor's New Coat fairy tale right now...
....
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
a) Tim Davis is great. We Can't Paint is a solid blog. I'm glad the blog featured Tim Davis but I think it's a poor choice to pit against street photography.
b) Colberg has disproportionate influence, because he's been around longer than most of the photo blogosphere and he's prolific. I give the guy credit for consistently bringing solid work to folks' attention. However his tone (when he writes substantial content) is grating.
He all too often voices his disdain for low/pop culture - it's not only self-righteous, but entirely unnecessary considering his audience. I don't think fine art photography enthusiasts need to be reminded how insipid bad fashion photography, reality television, and top 40 music are. They're not even thinking about it, and I don't know why Colberg is.
However his dismissal of street photography is something else altogether. I can understand (and share) a fatigue with some of the more overexposed examples, but at this point it's a genre about as broad as one can get, and to my mind, at its best it is fully about questions, and not answers.
I can't think of any quality street work that isn't driven primarily by inquisitiveness.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
well said.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hey everyone,
First off I want to thank you all for reading We Can’t Paint, I’m glad my opinion has sparked some discussion. I would however like to clear up some misconceptions as well as perhaps lighten the amount of misguided “disagreement” mail I’ve been receiving.
My Tim Davis post, or rather my comments about street photography, was not in any way sparked by the any discussion here on flickr. In fact, I just created and joined flickr today when I became aware of this thread through my stats. I’ve always felt this way about street photography and after I received the email (the email I wrote about on my blog) I thought I would finally make clear my opinions and feelings towards the genre. The key aspect here is MY opinion, one which I feel I do not have to explain at heavy length or with irrelevant examples. Garry Winogrand is good enough for me.
The bottom line here is that I’m not interested in street photography because of the way I feel it “means”, and that is that. You won’t sway me with your thoughts, your examples, or a premise that I’ve somehow slammed what you folks are interested in. If you were to carefully read what I wrote you would find that its function was specifically subjective. Tim Davis was not used as an example of the antithesis of street photography but it was rather an example of what I’m fond of within the photographic medium as a whole. No “pitting against” here.
As for Jörg quoting my post, I think it’s totally valid and not an example of so called “circle jerk” blog abuse. Within any discussion the external related discourse is crucial to one’s own understanding, and feelings, of a specific subject or view. You could even go as far as to say that nothing is original; we borrow en masse to form a patchwork of understanding and subjectivity. I think the term “circle-jerk” is thrown around a little too frequently and without a justifiable context. Specifically in flickr would you not quote an opinion of another poster/individual you agree with? Referencing and/or supporting the community you belong to (whether you like it or not; whether you want to belong or not) is completely justifiable and not self-congratulatory as you all seem so eager to point out.
Again, my “answers and not questions” line is my opinion, it’s what I believe. Thus you cannot say it is wrong or right, just as I cannot declare that your opinion is completely wrong. However, you can enjoy it and agree or disagree with it and the loaded principals it so obviously denotes. Think about it. Lastly, I might clear up what I know all of you must be thinking. No, this is not a defense of Jörg, or me kissing his ass. If you read my blog you’ll note that I don’t always agree with his opinions and I have directly contested them with harsh and accusatory writing in the past. I respect his thoughts and I enjoy the fact that we all can have our various opinions and talk creatively (with intelligence, both carefully and by reading within a context) about the medium we love.
Thank you again for reading, discussing and contributing if far or close to home.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What do you mean street photography provides "answers and not questions". What does it answer? what does that mean? I just don't understand so trying to.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
shveckle edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
shveckle - i'd really like to hear an answer to that as well but noel is playing the smart card..
"The bottom line here is that I’m not interested in street photography because of the way I feel it “means”, and that is that. You won’t sway me with your thoughts, your examples, or a premise that I’ve somehow slammed what you folks are interested in."
that's probably the best way to put it when walking into a heavily biased group such as this.. this thread would turn into a shithole if you were carrying a different attitude..
thanks for chiming in..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Schveckle, it means nothing..its emptyspeak
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am not trying to convince him to like it. It is just when someone gives a very sort of brisk clever kind of statement I don't get it sometimes and would like to know more what he means but for me now if he is trying to give a reason by this statement then it is just going over my head.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Schveckle,
wannabe intellectuals on blogs like JC's or WC'ntP use emptyspeak to sound really smart. I have no idea how one photograph can answer questions while another asks them...but this is the sort of empty discourse you have among these self proclaimed experts and messiahs of art/photography in the blog world. I mean seriously, he isnt trying to answer your question, he is trying to sound smart NOT answering it. read JC's blog...I do, well, I visit for the links...his serious musings are pretty much full of these catchphrases and soundbites and it all adds up to a big bag of nothing.
Does anyone take JC really seriously? he isnt a curator, he isnt a photographer, he isnt a professional..he's a guy who pays 100 bucks a year for webspace and has a blog.
You guys are fuming over nothing. relax.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thank you for asking Shveckle,
When I say that street photography is about answers and not questions, I’m not specifically implying that it answers anything at all. Think about it (see I practice what I preach). However, for arguments sake I’ll indulge you.
For me street photography is about a specific observation, a way of capturing what is already known and thus made obvious through the act photographing. The conceptual content of so much street photography is rooted within a perceived mystical meaning (only on the surface) but is ultimately direct in its meaning, a sort of “here it is, in all its shining dynamic glory”. It doesn’t offer as complex a tertiary meaning and feeling as other photography does.
This is nothing negative of course, it is simply an observation of the traditions entrenched within the genre itself; notions which are so often copied. While I realize that this form of the photographic is beloved by many, I feel as if it is past its revealing function, its ability to form complex meaning. In a sense, those who directly live and experience the situations or events that make up the context of such photography, can clearly see its transparency. It is right outside your door.
Do not confuse this observation with other forms of art photography because it would be misleading. A photographer like Tim Davis is not simply confined within the parameters of street photography, rather he is defined by his own active intention. Davis’ intention is to be complex, multi-layered, titles matter, they are written to matter. Situations are loaded and juxtaposed within the series as a whole, not messily strewn together as a cliché encampment of sentimental imagery.
I also want to make clear that I don’t think practicing or enjoying this photography implies you are dumb or ill-informed, I hope it’s up to you to declare what you enjoy (I wrote a post about this as well). If you like photos of cats, then so be it. You may have bad taste but…just kidding.
In all seriousness I hope this isn’t too much over your head, I mean, describing the function, or what I imply the function of photography to be is a little more complex then a clever quip or quotation. Again, this is only MY opinion. Hope it helps.
[update] !Jinju, I’m not an intellectual, nor do I imply that I’m an expert with some greater understanding of the photographic medium (although I would love to be an expert). I’m simply voicing my opinion and you can take it as it is. If you have a problem with that I’m sorry, I don’t know what I could do to comfort you in light of my threatening existence.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Noel RV edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
well i guess it's on then..
[edit] - i need sleep but i can't help but bring this up...
noel"A photographer like Tim Davis is not simply confined within the parameters of street photography, rather he is defined by his own active intention. Davis’ intention is to be complex, multi-layered, titles matter, they are written to matter. Situations are loaded and juxtaposed within the series as a whole, not messily strewn together as a cliché encampment of sentimental imagery."
this may be true and it may make for a more meaningful or intelligent(?) statement from the artist but the way you showed his stuff on your blog is fully against what you're now trying to make me believe... you picked out single photos from different bodies of work and deemed them as your favorites... fully out of context and fully shit looking..(this is the first i've heard of davis and have explored some of his work since my earlier postings.. my opinion has changed on the guy)... you're definitely talking the talk but come on man..
your favorites thing came out looking like most shit on flickr which in case you haven't noticed is pretty damn bad..
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
flat5 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Thats fine...so Im wandering what questions the photo of the piece of cake asks....what ingredients went into making it?
Noel, oh please, Im usually the one questioning street here anyway, Im not hung up on defending street so your anti-street stance does absolutelty nothing for me either way. However as far as I see a lot of art photography is empty intellectual msturbation, conceptual for the sake of being conceptual with nothing more...the race to see who can come up with he most abstract, strange, nebulous concept has gone overboard as far as Im concerned: see the photo of the cake you show as one of your favorites. in my humble opinion, and hell, i have no blog so take it for what it is, thats just a crap photo, unless it means something within a longer sequence..but as a stand alone, its crap and boring and empty.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Noel, I'm interested in what you're saying, but I don't precisely understand what you mean (no, it's not because you're talking over my head). If you've gone this far, maybe you could illustrate your ideas by showing how they apply to some well-known example photographs? Otherwise, I get the sense that people are going to misunderstand you in 20 different ways and the whole thing will devolve into a useless straw man melee.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thats just a crap photo, unless it means something within a longer sequence
Exactly flat5's point.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
he is defined by his own active intention. Davis’ intention is to be complex, multi-layered, titles matter, they are written to matter. Situations are loaded and juxtaposed within the series as a whole, not messily strewn together as a cliché encampment of sentimental imagery.
These days, I'm looking a lot more at work very far from street. Jem Southam, Jessica Backhaus, and JoAnne Verburg are three recent obsessions for me; I love Tim Davis as well.
That said, I seriously think that your description applies perfectly well to thoughtfully conceived, conceptually rigorous street photography, which does exist. (Papageorge, for example).
But most of all, I think we're getting hung up a genre definition that isn't really relevant nowadays. I don't even know where I'd draw lines around "street" anymore, and don't really care to. I know it's not Crewdson, but it's certainly at least a part of Tim Davis....
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
...also, I don't think we need to pitch some big battle pitting conceptual work against street photography. They aren't mutually exclusive. I don't want to see defense of street photography devolve into anti-intellectualism.
bedtime.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Flat5,
I can see how you might interpret the post that way (the way in which I presented the content), but I can’t totally agree with you. The format of a blog allows for one to rely, in part, on the relevancy of linked content. I was simply posting my favourites from Davis’ body of work, nothing more, just as I said I was doing. It’s up to you to visit his site and make the rest of the connections. If this was your initial “research” in disagreeing with my stance on what I enjoy about Davis (an odd notion itself) then there is the problem.
Here I’ll quote you:
“instead he shows one sort of street shot that sucks just as bad as the cake.. but hey, it's art right?.. rainbows, beggars, and bitch.. how deep..”
Indeed, how deep! Possibly if you looked into Davis’ practice and understood my post, you might have seen that I was in fact actively directing you towards exploring his portfolio…on his site.
Here I’ll quote myself:
“I won’t go into any more detail about Davis’ practice because I would rather you explore and interpret his numerous series yourself.
As always, here is a selection of my favourites:”
Again hope this helps.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Noel, no your explanation doesn't help much as I can see clearly now you don't know much about photography; certainly haven't said much about it in your blog; also, your choice of favorites doesn't encourage me to explore any further -- over my dead body I will go and see more of Mr. Davis' photography so you did him a disservice here -- you either need to post photos that are winners or put that kind of shots in some sort of a context so I can muse over it.
I must then agree with flat although I believe it was a poor choice of words that poor lad got simply emotional you have to forgive him. Then again, we are on flickr and words uttered here carry little weight. Well, I am looking forward to reading YOUR next post.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Photogene,
I think you hit it right on the nose. Any argument (not an exchange of views) surrounding my thoughts is a bit irrelevant, and moreover it seems almost ridiculous for me to explain away every insult tossed my way.
Also, to clear up your point about the importance of Papageorge, I did not say I dismissed all street photography, I said I don’t like most of it. Papageorge is a genius and I’ve also stated that on my blog. I still don’t like most street photography.
Toog_bo,
I understand that you’re still a bit perplexed with my view but I will not go through, step by step, the process of how a photograph functions, it’s simply too complicated within the context of the web. If you are interested in the way photography works, visit a library and check out some literature on the subject. Email me (my blog has the address) and I could suggest some essays and books for you to look at if you wish.
!Jinju,
I refuse to hold your hand and help you understand art. I’ll even go as far as to point out that my initial post (the one we are talking about) has nothing to do with what Rainbow Bread is about. Sorry. As you said, lets just move on.
PS: I’m guessing the ingredients of the cake are as follows:
1 cup (250 mL) butter, softened
1-3/4 cups (425 mL) granulated sugar
4 eggs
2 tsp (10 mL) vanilla
2-3/4 cups (675 mL) all-purpose flour
2 tsp (10 mL) baking powder
3/4 tsp (4 mL) baking soda
1-1/4 cups (300 mL) buttermilk
Red, yellow and blue food colouring
Butter Icing
Orange, green and purple food colouring
1/3 cup (75 mL) yellow (candy) moulding wafers
Nyc_slacker,
See my reply to Photogene.
Thanks everyone.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I cant get into Tim Davis, I dont know it just does nothing for me. I guess my obsession of late is something along Goldin/Strba/barney/Billingham lines certainly not street though I still want a human presence or a human dimension in the work I follow...and Tim Davis' stuff falls short of what I like to see...I simply cant get into concept heavy stuff like that because Im always thinking theres something missing from it, an emotional charge...simply said, it comes off cold and contrived.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
jesus christ, this is just like reading a fucking photography blog.
boring as fuck......
Nice of you to stop by Noel. Now answer toong_bo's question! or better yet....blog about it.
EDIT: ok, he answered while i was posting. not fair...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Gotta love how forking over 100 bucks a year makes people think they are experts. Lovely attitude there Noel, not at all stuck up, eh?
Rainbow bread is what it is, different strokes for different folks, and Im simply saying that for me the photo AND the sequence do absolutely nothing. Do I understand it? Whats there to inderstand, its a simple concept made to order for the current art market: faded colors, simple presentation which nonetheless has an illusion of depth. It follows the recipe perfectly. Fine. But as I said, for me its all rather contrived and cold. But I do understand that cold and contrived are the current trends in the art photography world. Its just not my thing.
P.S. Neither going to York nor especially Sheridan give you much of a license to feel superior to anyone. Now, lay off the fucking personal insults, you are nobody with any weight outside the little photoblog world.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"If you are interested in the way photography works, visit a library and check out some literature on the subject. Email me (my blog has the address) and I could suggest some essays and books for you to look at if you wish."
oh wait, this is good.
because as far as i know james has never been to the library, or read a photography book....
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I didnt know Sheridan college even HAD a library......
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
!Jinju,
Finally, we’re moving past the irrelevant comments. Yes I agree that Davis’ work can be a bit cold. I think the same about an artist like Eric Percher, who is actually an amazing talent himself. This may be the cost of not focusing on people.
However, if it’s warmth you’re looking for try checking out Christian Patterson’s series titled Sound Affects. It focuses on objects and places, much like Davis does, but he is able to impart a sense of “comfort” (if that is even possible), a lazy day attitude which authentically captures the feeling of the environment depicted.
Anyways, I’m off to get some rest.
[Edit] Wow I spoke too soon. !Jinju you would be surprised. York University has an excellent library as well. Very classy buddy.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You get what you dish out, stop with the air of supriority and I wont knock your school. I think you have toong-bo to apologize to, so get to it. THEN we can discuss pictures and art but until then, whats the use? I can understand that sot of attitude from Koudelka....not from a university student.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As far as I know... James doesn't even know how to read...
And I know the man!
(just haven't understood yet why some people call him Professor!)
Joni, can you answer MY phone as well?
Mat, you are totally right...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Noel, I didn't ask you to explain how a photograph works. I asked you to clarify your own opinion (it's your opinion; that's what makes it unassailable, remember?) about street photography.
Or have you published a book about it that I can find in the library?
So that we're clear, I'm not perplexed by your view; I'm perplexed by your poor articulation of it. I politely invited you to elaborate with some example critiques. You could politely decline, but there's no need for you to be condescending about it. Your tone forces the conclusion that you're just trying to hide how little you actually have to say.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
toong_bo edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
!Jinju,
I think you misunderstood my message to Toong-bo. It wasn’t a personal attack but an actual helpful comment. I’m sorry you’re used to individuals being assholes on here, as Flat5 said, it is Flickr). Don’t confuse someone being polite for a direct insult; which you clearly seem to be the master of. I have nothing to apologize for.
Toong_bo,
Again, that is a pretty large request, I’m sorry I don’t have the time or the patience to explain my subjective opinion, I think I’ve been more than helpful in that respect.
And that's it. I'm leaving this topic, it's done. Thanks for your thoughts!
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Noel RV edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Noel,
being polite is the same as being condescending? Please realize that having a blog and JC as a blog buddy doesnt suddenly make you J.Szarkowski. I see though that you are coming into this discussion thinking you are literate and we are not...you'd be surprised. geez, atleast graduate first.
Again, its back to what I said about empty speak. Its clear you are trying to look smart while avoiding having to answer any direct questions. How very bloggish of you.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Again, that is a pretty large request, I’m sorry I don’t have the time or the patience to explain my subjective opinion, I think I’ve been more than helpful in that respect.
------------------------------------------------------
That either means you consider your opinions so inticate, complicated, well formed and deep that you don't actually have the hours it would take to explain it
or
you simply have nothing to explain and are trying your best to hide it
I'm leaning towards the 2nd option.
This it not a personal shot at you but somebody unable to verbalize their own opinons is, well, useless.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Noel, I didn't see it as a "large request". I honestly thought you'd be interested in talking about your ideas, since it was you who first broached the topic with your blog post. But okay, you're certainly at liberty not to speak, though I'm now wondering why you didn't take that option in the first place.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i don't know, i'm no blogger.. but this Noel character comes off as a class A shithead. naturally just my opinion.. though i'd surmise i'm not alone..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"The conceptual content of so much street photography is rooted within a perceived mystical meaning (only on the surface) but is ultimately direct in its meaning, a sort of “here it is, in all its shining dynamic glory”. It doesn’t offer as complex a tertiary meaning and feeling as other photography does."
I like this. I don't know what it fucking means, but I like it...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
bryan,
it means nothing. I swear to god, I hung out with David Alan Harvey for a week, had a 2 hour breakfast with Chien-Chi Chang and also met Alex Majoli...none of them ever even attempted to speak like that. Who the fuck DOES speak like that? It has absolutely no meaning and if you ever tried talking like that to somebody like harvey or Majoli they would look at you funny. So again, who speaks like that? Empty speak, catch phrases, soundbites all designed to make you look smart while you say nothing.
or viti harvey's blog and see the answers Nachtwey gives...now heres a guy who COULD be condescending but never comes across as that. Instead, the condescencion e get is from som KID who hasnt graduated from university yet. Priceless...he does fit well into the JC blogosphere though, doenst he?
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
"If you are interested in the way photography works, visit a library and check out some literature on the subject."
People have written books about photography? Well, you learn something new every day...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i find it amazing that noel 'doesn't have the time' to articulate his opinions on photography, but does have the time to write multiple long, obnoxious posts into this thread.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
from what i understand, you have to email him personally or contribute to his blog in order for him to articulate his opinions...
although he did create an account purely to semi-articulate his opinions, only to back down when he was politely asked to fully articulate his opinions.
simply put, it's not worth his time to articulate his opinions to a bunch of drunken, idiotic fools who've never stuck their noses in the middle of a library book simply for the pleasure of the smell...
Noel: don't be an asshole, it'll get you far in life...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've looked at Noel's Brother series:
www.nrodo-vankeulen.com/
So many questions...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
wow….. what a bunch of banter to wake up to… where to start? not much left to say … but since i instigated this with some strong opinions towards your lemming Noel.... well i’d be no better than him if i hid away silently to let my big brothers and sisters write for me....
first thanks for playing Noel.. i’m not sure how you so quickly learned about this discussion, but i’m glad you did... i’m also glad you quickly changed your flickr name to ‘Noel RV’ from ‘Intellectual Speaker’ honestly Noel, how you could not have thought that a bit self-important makes me giggle. Ordaining yourself that honour as a ticket to join this debate was just silly...
Anyway… you didn’t have to justify anything and you came over here to do just that…so you instantly show more testicular fortitude than the person this thread suggested is the fraud. Were your efforts effective? well i still think that person is a fraud ;-)… but as they say.. you can’t polish a terd…but… were you effective with making the points you wished to make?
Without a shadow of a doubt you’ve made a huge effort to try…. anyone can come to these discussions and sling poorly structured thoughts and quick-to-dismiss ideas... and then…sigh*… there are members of the mob that just sling empty insults…. Noel you consistently attempted to respond to all the people that deserved a response and weather the ones that didn’t. Thank you for that.
Without a shadow of a doubt Noel you’ve consistently taken the time to structure your views and introduce balanced amounts of arrogance and humour to make for interesting reading… but again, did you say anything?….
You know what…. there are enough people that have written above my post that answer that question better than me… but as far as me… i didn’t really learn a thing from what you’ve written Noel… other than i suspect in character you’re a gentlemen. i’d even go so far to say if you were in the UK i would probably seek you out and probably buy you a drink, and probably, if you accepted, have a pretty healthy debate on some of your views…
But I’m not going to waste anymore energy on that… I’d much rather spend my energy…ah* sigh* and probably waste it… imploring you to use your influence to curb the comments of one of your disciples.
Will you please ask your lemming to stay away from abusing his incidental visibility with his own personal opinions?… especially his Hitler-like comments made publicly here... This is pretty much blatantly suggesting the genocide of an entire genre of photography based on a massive mis-understanding of the scope of that genre. It’s this kind of myopic prejudice thinking that makes enemies of photographers that would typically be friends.
Also can you please ask him to stop taking money for portfolio reviews? Think about the mis-direction he could be giving to candidate talent. Even if one of his friends has helped him create a ‘critique by numbers’ template for his ‘customers’ to fill out… he can still do more damage than good based on his lack of ability. Rather than elaborate my personal experience with his inability to understand the concept of an ‘edit’ I will defer to the words on a blog that he’s linked to celebrating his value as a reviewer… “He isn't a photo editor. He isn't a curator. He doesn't run a gallery. He is barely a photographer. His blog just posts links to photographer websites. Why would I pay him to critique my work?”
And for the love of god can you please ask him to stand down from taking people’s money in his upcoming workshop… a workshop to help people find their personal vision.. I mean what if someone in this genre-nazi’s class decides their vision is street photography? Is he going to say, as he’s said in the past… “Street photography”. Puh-leeease!...
I appreciate those requests are a bit ambitious, but at the very least I would be grateful if you asked your mate to stick to what he does show some aptitude for…hunting down websites to link to and for us to look at.
..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you are interested in the way photography works, visit a library and check out some literature on the subject
I refuse to hold your hand and help you understand art.
I’m sorry I don’t have the time or the patience to explain my subjective opinion
Jinju was right from the very beginning. It's just an empty twaddle. This guy doesn't himself understand what he writes, let alone explaining it to the others.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
scribeoflight [deleted] says:
Does anyone else have any information on this guy? He seems so wise and learned.
Google Results for Noel Rodo-Vankeulen.
Interestingly, this thread is the tenth link on the Google results for Noel. I always like my Google search results to be relevant and informative, so lets hope it stays that way.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
scribeoflight edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm hungover. Nice to see that Noel pops by and carries on even in this 'hostile' enviroment. Funny to see James adressed like a schoolboy.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey give Noel a chance - according to his CV, he's still doing his degree.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hahahahahahaha!
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
benroberts edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Oh my geez, another blog post passing judgments without explaining about another blog post passing judgments without explaining onto a link to flickr who is asking for an explanation of judgments passed again to no avail someone trying to explain their judgments who still is not explaining.
Geez this has been probably the most empty and long winded threads, which inluded now 4 blogs, of "empty speak" , as Jinju so wisely said, that I have read in a really really long time.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
so why are you reading it?
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
why not? I am trying to find "reason" amongst all the reasons.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
good luck....
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Joe - I will say that I paid $75 for a review by Joerg and it was worth what I paid for it. I didn't submit any street work, though, because a) my street work still sucks and b) I knew it would fly like a lump of cold shit.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Get somebody who knows about photography to do your review...like a PHOTOGRAPHER maybe?
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Finally, we’re moving past the irrelevant comments. Yes I agree that Davis’ work can be a bit cold. I think the same about an artist like Eric Percher, who is actually an amazing talent himself. This may be the cost of not focusing on people. "
irrelevant? the whole reason this thread even exists is because of what you've said about street photography... people are asking for an explanation but you're wanting to shift the topic into your comfort zone.. a zone which in this context is completely irrelevant..
seriously man, i wanted to think you had something to offer but after seeing your condescending manner, i'm really starting to think you are in fact an empty wordsmith.. suggesting to toong_bo and others to read a book is making you look a fool..
not only are you claiming street photography is simple and unintelligent, you're now coming across as if street photographERs are the same..
fwiw, regarded your earlier response to me - "Flat5,
I can see how you might interpret the post that way (the way in which I presented the content), but I can’t totally agree with you. The format of a blog allows " etc..
the way yesterday went with this this topic/tdavis for me was - spout off as an initial response, explore and gain an understanding for davis' work, retract my statement..
it wasn't because of your blog post that i checked him out.. instead it was at the urging of another group member.. your blog post seriously hurt this guy (well, for anyone that may stumble across it such as myself.. anyone that sees it the way you 'intend' is already part of your little world and you're not bringing anything new to the table for them).. i still think that picking favorites like that is against everything you're trying to claim.. at the very least, you could of posted a series or taken a section of sequence but you way individualized the photos sinking far below the standards you're trying to uphold...
you then go on to imply that street aficionados have bad taste but JC man (j.h.c), those shots are seriously foul.. i can not for the life of me understand how the hippie rainbow shot can be one of your favorites yet the individual photos you see in this group are in poor taste..
paulrussel says "I've looked at Noel's Brother series:
www.nrodo-vankeulen.com/
So many questions... "
and what's with all the rainbow shit anyway?... i guess it's over my head or whatever...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Fair enough TCP.. I'm not going to devalue your opinion, from my readings of your opinions in the past they carry some good credibility. I'm also glad you shared this. It's good to get opinions straight from experience, verses sideways from incidental sources. It makes this more of a discussion than a car crash as some people patronise it to be…
Personally i've taken a personal dislike to your benefactor based on (1) my own encounter with him and (2) the information that i've accumulated since i was left puzzled by that encounter.
And as much as i admire, learned from, and respect Michael David Murphy….the fact that he's great mates and drinking buddies with this guy doesn't change that opinion.
It does make me feel sad that just moments ago MDM dismissed flickr discussions, specifically this one...as a place where car crashes happen.. Edit... Got rid of narky comment
...but it makes me grin when elite bloggers seem to know precisely when something is going on here for them to reference, but make sure to point out they were just 'incidentally passing by....’ in their reference... as if they would be ashamed to say they read the stuff that goes on here... Edit... Got rid of narky comment
it is stating the obvious, don't you think MDM....that live conversations will always reign superior??.. but if the only alternative to live conversations is a bunch of bloggers self-referencing each other’s work… then I’ll take a car crash any day..
since most people take flickr discussions for what it’s worth..which is mostly entertainment….flickr discussions will likely make for better reading...at the very least they exchange original thought verses recycled ones that get passed around the blogs.
..
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
~Joe~ edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
is there no end to the intellectual snobbery !! ?? !!
just posted by one of MDM's mates on his post referencing this discussion....
Um, so why did you decide to point out those piles of crap, to the countless rest of us? They’re not anywhere close to our neighborhoods, so no chance of accidentally stepping in them, had you not shoved them right under our noses. When it comes to crap slinging among morons, even stupid people like me know to simply walk away, without a word to anyone.
car crash.... that comment is a dog's breakfast! Good company you keep there MDM...;-)
..
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's all just really sad isn't it.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love you all
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey, the Internet may be rubbish compared to real life, but if you live out in the sticks, it's the only chance you get to talk total shit about photography.
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
reminds me of the quote from a psychoanalyst that, " Madness is when you cannot find anyone who can stand you"
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
i didn't mean to go to Stoke edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
i don't think it's a big deal that whileseated posted that.. certainly full of truth so.. so what... i read it as funny.. for the most part, we all know what's going on here..
anyway, i think i'm onto the rainbow thing... they're in fashion right now..
source
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wasted a good 30 minutes of my life reading this thread. Time I will never get back.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Joe - I didn't present much of an opinion, so I sure as hell don't think you devalued it. Joerg's review was pretty cheap in my opinion. I don't have much real-world contact with photographers or people that know much about photography (I'm working on this, but it's hard). To get a review for $75 seemed like a steal. He didn't really like my stuff, but his reasons for it were well thought out and although I didn't agree with a lot of things in the review, it made me think. And that's what I paid for.
Although I wouldn't think of him as a benefactor of mine, I do like his blog. About a year ago I decided I wanted to learn more about "fine art photography" and his blog seemed like a good place to start learning. It's a world that I'm not a part of and still don't quite understand, but is somewhat fascinating to me. So blogs like his help me see things I wouldn't see otherwise and hear opinions I wouldn't be exposed to.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In celebration of MDM's observation that Flickr is a car crash, I bring you the lyrics to Warm Leatherette, by The Normal:
See the breaking glass
In the underpass
See the breaking glass
In the underpass
Warm leatherette
Hear the crushing steel
Feel the steering wheel
Hear the crushing steel
Feel the steering wheel
Warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Melts on your burning flesh
You can see your reflection
In the luminescent dash
Warm leatherette
A tear of petrol
Is in your eye
The hand brake
Penetrates your thigh
Quick - Let's make love
Before you die
On warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Warm leatherette
Join the car crash set
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
pH [浪人] [deleted] says:
did i miss something?
love y'all
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Executive summary: Conscientious quotes We Wan't Paint about Street Photography. A fit is thrown here. Noel from We Can't Paint actually shows up and engages the crowd. Good and bad points are made, heroes and villains are identified. Noel writes a lot, exchanges comments, then leaves. Mark sings a song.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh man... I posted yesterday and since then this thread blew up... All I can think of right now is:
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
After all this [and no, I haven't read everything, there's just so damn much], I'm still not sure why I should care about anything on this blog. I never read it before, so...was I missing something?
I miss the old, pre-internet days, when someone at the New York Times could write witheringly about Gore Vidal, and Vidal would spend the next five decades eviscerating "the paper of record". You knew who the players were back then...
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
krameroneill edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah. This whole thing was kinda stupid.
I like Tim Davis' rainbow bread picture, by the way.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"since most people take flickr discussions for what it’s worth..which is mostly entertainment….flickr discussions will likely make for better reading...at the very least they exchange original thought verses recycled ones that get passed around the blogs."
mostly entertainment. yes! but you could cull the collective archives of these discussion threads and create a blog that would be infinitely more interesting than most of the blogs out there...
but there's simply no process in place for editing the interesting commentary in this group. I've casually proposed the idea of a website/blog that aggregates the collective knowledge of the group, but I'm fairly certain there's nobody around here that would want to read through two plus years of HCSP discussions.
the primary point this thread illustrates is the chasm between amateur and professional in the photography world. this has always existed, and will probably always exist. But the web, ah, the web! it's changing every aspect of how we consume and distribute art and entertainment.
what's really aggravating and retarded is the perception that the 'Flickr crowd' is populated by amateur idiots who shouldn't be taken seriously. But I think the fact that Noel posted here and that Joerg lurks on flickr, illustrates that they're seeking something they find interesting, or at least amusing.
most of the photographers i speak to in the fine art community always say that you should never mention flickr in 'serious' conversations with REAL photographers.
you know what? i'm not a fan of flickr. But the prejudice attitude the fine art world has toward it is really nauseating. but that's the fine art world for you....Same story, different century.
my impression is that Joerg and Noel are displaying the standard flickr prejudice. They don't really understand Flickr and are basing their opinions on what they've heard from other people rather than digging in and participating in the community.
and yes, it's funny that he treated Hendrick like a schoolboy! haha! but i'm sure if james were to spend the time to articulate his opinions, Noel would be left with more questions than answers....
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
|
I read all of this, and was going to curse all of you for me being so stupid. Until I saw photoniceye's gif. That's the first gif I've ever liked. And it's proper street.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This thread makes me sad.
And it makes me very sad to think that this is true:
"most of the photographers i speak to in the fine art community always say that you should never mention flickr in 'serious' conversations with REAL photographers."
I'd like to think artists would be open-minded enough to find out what a website is all about before shunning it.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
open-minded... that would be a luxury... at this point in time i would settle purely for curiosity from the established blogging community.... these are people that are supposed to be interested in photography...
Here's another post from MDM's blog today with regards to this group...
But I would like to know what make street photography “hardcore”. Other than the calcification of its practitioner’s minds.
you see rather than actually make an attempt to figure it out.... that person's chosen to just devalue it...
the irony is that this person is telling MDM this in MDM's blog.... MDM has submitted an image and that image is sitting on the front page of this calcified thinking group... Only a quick glance at the images would have maybe shifted his thinking...
it will be interesting if MDM lets that hypocrisy sit..
...
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Reading bryan, dah and so, I'm off to make some "hcsp is not flic*r" t-shirts.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That rainbow cake would make Explore for sure ;-) Ooops, sorry, I meant "multi-layered" cake.
Reminds me of a French expression: "la culture, c'est comme la confiture: moins on en a, plus on l'étale !" Sorry, it's basically impossible to translate, but I'm sure any complex multilayered person can read French ;-)
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
We need to find a suitable more descriptive synonym for HardCore and make it abundantly clear that that's what we mean when we say HardCore.
Personally, I think at least 70% of the time it means "Whole-frame", as in "composed using the whole frame to make a statement".
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This is all so goddamned silly. Pointless battle lines are being drawn for no good reason.
I'm starting to feel silly for being involved at all. I'm a regular reader of every blog mentioned (including Gallery Hopper, the author of which posted the comment Joe mentioned).
I'm also a regular reader/participant here. I get a lot out of both settings, but my expectations are different for each.
There's thoughtful discussion to be found on flickr/HCSP, but it's often buried in a cacaphony, and that can be a waste of time.
But no reason to dismiss the whole farkin' platform.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Hardcore" needs to be eliminated. It's not a useful descriptive; the aesthetic here is more sophisticated than the term suggests. It only serves to confuse people.
Posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
scribeoflight [deleted] says:
It is a little sad.
I was talking to John about this thread earlier and was reminded of stuff I'd studied a long time ago. And then just after reading your post, ..Alex.., I remembered this book:
The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939
I'm not saying that what is here is exactly the same. One big difference is that the people making the art and the people talking about the art are not, generally, the same, right now - not in the world of art photography. But what happened here kept niggling in the back of mind, and the arguments put forward by Carey can be adapted, perhaps, to make sense of what is happening.
The Library Journal review on Amazon summarises things:
"[John] Carey (English, Oxford Univ.) contends that the modernist literature of some prominent English authors writing from the 1880s through 1939 was a hostile reaction to the newly educated mass reading public and its popular culture."
If we substitute Flickr, or "the web!" with its changes to how we "consume and distribute art" for "the newly educated mass reading public and its popular culture", and the English authors of that period with the bloggers and "REAL photographers" and the "fine art community", it makes a little sense of the "hostile reaction", the shunning.
The review continues: "These writings were in styles designed to exclude semiliterate [sic] readers and buttress the self-esteem of literary intellectuals as part of a natural aristocracy."
I don't think that needs much glossing. It certainly illuminates things for me.
The details of the essay escape me, and I can't find a copy online (it is still, I am guessing, in copyright), but Virginia Woolf's essay on Bennett ('Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown' is the name, I think) conjured up an image of how each author, Woolf and Bennett, would describe a person they saw sitting in a train carriage. The argument Woolf puts over is that Bennett would be all surface detail and visible texture ("answers", perhaps), whereas Woolf would be all about the interior currents, the emotions, the invisible forces at work beneath the scene ("question", perhaps).
So, essentially, where Bennett is simple and shallow, Woolf, would be complex and deep; where Woolf reveals insight through investigation and creates ambiguousness, Bennett would reveal nothing, only showing what was there, visible to the naked eye.
The essay is glorious, and there is more to it than this, but that argument transfixes undergraduates to this day, because it is easier to argue defend the dreamy and inchoate with critical language that is dreamy and inchoate than it is to engage, constructively engage, with language that is firmer, less ambiguous, more vernacular.
Arnold Bennett's reputation, partly as a result of Woolf, was shot to hell for a large portion of the twentieth century, and even now he is still regarded as being somehow inferior; yet when I read a novel by either Woolf or Bennett I find both to be satisfying as works of art, and I find both to be, albeit in very different ways, deeply engaged with the human spirit. But because Bennett wrote from the perspective of the working class, of the new, newly literate "masses", the old guard, the intellectuals who were tumbling out of the Victorian era, felt threatened, and thus sought to do all they could do to exclude; because - and this is where it is most relevant to the thread above - an elite can only be a privileged few, never a privileged many.
This, frankly, was a little odious:
Again, that is a pretty large request, I’m sorry I don’t have the time or the patience to explain my subjective opinion, I think I’ve been more than helpful in that respect.
This was worse:
I understand that you’re still a bit perplexed with my view but I will not go through, step by step, the process of how a photograph functions, it’s simply too complicated within the context of the web. If you are interested in the way photography works, visit a library and check out some literature on the subject. Email me (my blog has the address) and I could suggest some essays and books for you to look at if you wish.
He didn't even want to write his email ("my blog the address"), certainly didn't want to engage (we, toong_bo, in that section, were beneath him). He said it was too complicated to go through here, ergo, this arena wasn't suitable for the elucidation of art photography. He spoke for James ("I understand that you're still a bit perplexed [...]"), presuming to know what James was thinking, or not thinking. The register of the language ("if you wish", "simply too", "in that respect") combined with him positioning himself in such a way as to appear hugely intelligent while not saying anything. Jinju twisted Orwell, a little, but I actually wouldn't give this guy the satisfaction of tagging him with a word that connects him, even at one remove, to someone as smart and savvy as George Orwell.
Carey writes:
"The intellectuals could not, of course, actually prevent the masses from attaining literacy, but they could prevent them reading literature by making it too difficult for them to understand - and this is what they did. The early twentieth century saw a determined effort, on the part of the European intelligentsia, to exclude the masses from culture."
Some modernism is fantastic: I was saying to pH earlier this evening that T. S. Eliot's poetry is one of the brightest lights guiding me - I connect to the poetry, and it provides comfort on an emotional level. But Eliot, in many ways, was a complete shit - an elitist shit. When a lot of great modernism was first written it was written from within a clique, for a clique - it was not intended for a mass audience, and the prospect of mass production of a literary work would have been hugely unpleasant for someone like Eliot.
Here, with the art photography thing that prompted the whole debate, the prospect of this deep, meaningful art photography being understood by everyone would be terribly sad - they'd lose their exclusivity, everyone would be writing about it, everyone would want a copy, and then eventually, as this is the land of the five minute blog, the Tumblr, the twitter super-meme, people blogging the way they are now would become less essential - anyone could do what they're doing. If, of course, they understand it.
But we don't understand it. And they - or Noel, here - doesn't have the time to explain it, or can't explain it. So, we have to remain perplexed, and just read what they write and either smile and nod or ignore and walk away.
Frankly, I'd rather not be in their neighbourhood, and am more than happy to be one of the "piles of crap" if it means I'm a pile of crap who is trying his damnedest not to be an elitist prick with more words in his vocabulary than cells in his brain.
[edited for clarity]
Originally posted 48 months ago.
(permalink)
scribeoflight edited this topic 48 months ago.
|
(1 to 100 of 226 replies in Why no street photography in conscientious)
|
HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) /
Discuss
"most of the photographers i speak to in the fine art community always say that you should never mention flickr in 'serious' conversations with REAL photographers."
Feed – Subscribe to HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) discussion threads