|
suprised Eve Arnold is so low in the ranking
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
all these photographers are great. but all this is just subjective,like all childish polls' "what is the most..?,"which are the100 most .." etc. it's just people's opinions,nothing comes out objective even from the mouth of gods,or their prophets etc
for example i'm surprized that photographers like antoine d' agata,sally mann,daido moriyama,michael ackermann and others are not in the list.they may be more contemporary but i think they have influenced thousands of photographers.but then i come again to what i think that ther's no objective opinion so finally there's nothing to doubt or wonder about
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's just a list and a load of bollocks.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
David Bailey British 1938-
For the portraits, the fashion, the wives, the wise cracks
Wisecracks, Shirley? Can't get the subs these days.
"Winogrand’s approach of not looking through the viewfinder became his trademark"
Eh?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Like I said... ;-)
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
come, just one fucking discussion that doesn't get sidetracked into petty bullshit please!
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What I find absolutely unacceptable is Martin Parr @ # 10, whilst the likes of Levitt and Lartigue sit in the high 90's...
You've got to be kidding, right?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
for a minute I thought I was at "The Dissident Café"
but then again how can you rank influence
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Something like this is alright for someone who is just getting into photography because it will give them some stuff to search out and look at - it almost doesn't matter who is there as long as it leads to a bigger picture.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
how Martin Parr made the list and Joel Meyerowitz didn't is pretty crap
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yup par at 10, also above winogrand and frank. someone as influential as eggleston at number 40, etc etc. it;s how lists are.
but this clearly is a list more tailored to the fashion/portrait photographer. i mean, avedon at one sums that up pretty clearly.
which i find weird: his portraits are absolutely great, no doubt about that, but when i think of medium format black and white portraits the first person i think of is arbus, not avedon. has he really been more influential than that? i never really got his fashion stuff, but maybe that's cause it's most of the times not my thing, maybe it's been super infleuntial.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
123regina edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
Listing the most influential photographers certainly has merit, ranking them makes it sport.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Meh, I deleted my comment, which was immature and reactionary. I didnt realize it would confuse things worse.
Lo: I quit the critique thread, not the group. And I did call you a creep, and I am not particularly sorry. You somehow have Andrew miscatagorized as being some kind of fan or friend of mine. You could not be further from the truth as I am sure he pointed out in his FM. Anyways, your constant bullshit trolling is tiresome and a distraction.
Personally, I Look at it like the top 100 rock songs or whatever. Why quibble over whether Stairway to Heaven or Let it be is in teh number one spot, as long as I wanna Be Sedated makes the list somewhere.
And personally, I am pleased as punch to see Terry Richardson weigh in at 56. I am very proud to call him a friend!
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One of the writers doing the Rolling Stone list of 100 Greatest Guitarists said it was basically choosing one first and ninety-nine seconds; I guess that could work here, too.
As for Parr above Winogrand and no Meyerowitz, the question for the list is really whether Parr has had more influence on professional/commercial photography seen from the perspective of an English magazine. I'd say there's an argument to made there; perhaps there's been more advertising and editorial work over recent that looks like Parr's highly saturated, comical candid period than b+w or colour street work from NYC, and I've never thought of Meyerowitz's Cape Light as particularly ground-breaking.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Parr's last resort - New Brighton shots were good but many were staged / posed
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
whoever said this was a ranked list? a list isn't always ranked and they don't say it is. it's a numbered list people. chill out.
also, parr is a very influential photographer, you can't walk into a university/college environment in the UK without some photographers work being compared to parr.
I've been there, experienced it and thought WTF.
fact is, few photographers have had as much exposure as he, including TV shows, interviews, his style being transferred to moving pictures.
People bemoaning the absence of one or questioning the positioning of another should just realise it's nothing more than someone's opinion. nothing!
if you disagree with it make you're own list if you seriously think you can be arsed. but realise others will disagree with you.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
of course it's not more than an opinion, but it's a nice starting point for a discussion. isn;t that the point of posting somethign like this in a thread (or on the internet to begin with) after all?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@LoWinterSun.
I'd love to read/watch/listen to whatever it is which brought you to the conclusion that many of Parr's Last Resort images were "staged / posed"
or are you just making an outlandish statement to create a discussion and give you a bit of attention?
back it up, or shut it up.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@regina. yea, it's a fine point for a discussion, but I'd expect a discussion to be more than a whining contents!
would love to see peoples list of say 10 photographers who influence their work. maybe discussing individual photographs, I'd even stick that sort of stuff up on street reverb.
but I'd guess no one would do that sort of thing? [nudge]
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
yes that would be a really interesting thread. Go Regina!
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
James, calm down lad, maybe I should have said "some" rather than "many" but the fact remains "some" are clearly posed, actually looking back over the last resort again now it isn't as good as I remember it to have been.
The shot of the girl in the chip shop with the lad looking at her tits is staged/posed, the guy with the dogs is posed etc.
actually James where does Parr say that these were not staged/posed?
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
LoWinterSun edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
James,
I thought the same thing, regarding list/ranking till I read the last sentence of the Avedon summary. The ranking system mentioned above, rate #1 then a list of 99 #2's is probably more the case. Just the same it's sophomoric to rank rank artists of callabor in such a manner.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@village. wow, could have sworn I'd read that before... must have missed it?
@LoWinterSun. we're not to presume documentary photographs are staged as our first thought.
But what you're saying is that parr created the scene, positioned and directed the individuals to create this image:
But then if you see that as a chip shop I'm not surprised you may think it's staged? Funny looking chips in them ice cream cones is all I'm gonna say.
He may have spoke to the subject and then taken their photograph (or maybe he acted like a fly, see this video), but I wouldn't say that it was staged or posed as I feel, despite there being some level of participation from the subject, the scene inherently consists of candid material.
PS: what's posed got to do with anything anyway? you say it as if it should automatically detract from the work?
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Account inactive go to: www.jamesdodd.net (a group admin) edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
James
"whoever said this was a ranked list? a list isn't always ranked and they don't say it is. it's a numbered list people. chill out."
Richard Avedon who is placed number 1 gets a massive write up compared to the others and then they end that write up by saying "Quite simply he is our No.1"
The same applies to Rankin making the final place
they don't state that its ranked however the above would lead me to believe that it is.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
LoWinterSun edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
James,
sorry yes it clearly not a chippy however it does look staged to some degree, the girl is posing for the shot 100%, young lads at the counter and the girl sticks out her chest, who isn't going to look directly at them, to me this is staged, maybe not every element but
a direction to the end result.
honestly I thought that posed like hip shot was a dirty word in SP, thats not me being a smart-ass thats honestly what I thought and have read.
That said I wonder how some of those images would hold up to critique, all the negatives I read in the critique thread are there, posed, hip shot, cut off feet etc.....
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Surely there's a difference between critiquing an image within the context of a documentary project and critiquing an image by someone who's trying to figure out what they're doing on the street. This isn't cut off feet, it's a three-quarter length shot, and I very much doubt it's a hip-shot, as there's nothing to indicate that other than the height. Hip-shots in the critique thread generally have the added problem of bad composition that gives them away. Do you remember there was a discussion a few weeks ago to the effect that no-one actually gives a damn if something is a hip-shot anyway, as long as it's a successful photograph, which this one above is.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Andrew, I wasn't taking about the photo above regarding the cut off feet, hip shot but to other photos in the same book.
I didn't understand why hip shooting was so frown upon in SP until Justin explained it to me, not only then did it make sense but it also gave me a greater understanding of SP.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ah ok, well, I only have a collection of his, not that book, so I'll leave that alone. As for the critique thread, I'd say it's very much a matter of choosing who to listen to and plenty of salt, but a problem in one image can be insignificant in another. Generalisations usually fall in a heap at some point.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"posed like hip shot was a dirty word in SP"
" I wonder how some of those images would hold up to critique"
start a thread to critique the work if you really want or write an essay on it and I'll publish it on street reverb. or stop stirring up shit. it's boring.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
James, regarding the ranked/non-ranked list issue, and with no judgement implied (though I personally think ranking the top 100 whoever in the history of anything is an exercise in futility) I would expect that if this were just a numbered list it should have been in strict alphabetical or maybe chronological order?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
James, I was just stating how those photos appear to me, it was you who asked me to back it up, or shut it up, if you think that I was trying to stur up shit then let me assure you I wasn't, many of the photo's in the last resort are excellent including the one above weather posted/staged its still an interesting image.
I've no intention of starting a thread to critique his work although such a thread to critique some of the more well known street photos would be quite interesting, one photo a week which people could critique and then discus the critique would provide a great deal of insight although I suspect such a thread would require moderating to stop it turning in to a bitch-fest.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
LoWinterSun edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
I'm not against this list. Sure it's just one person's or one publication's version, but it is a useful resource when taken with a grain of salt. Of course there is the criticism of it being a western list but the publication is for western readers. So.. it is biased in this and other ways.
Also, I would love to see Harry Callahan somewhere up there.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Parr's last resort - New Brighton shots were good but many were staged / posed
The shot of the girl in the chip shop with the lad looking at her tits is staged/posed, the guy with the dogs is posed etc.
If you state things as unequivocal facts like this, I think it's reasonable to ask you to support that with something more than, 'well, it looks that way to me'. Stating opinion or conjecture as fact will set off people's bullshit detectors pretty quickly; having no support for your statement makes it look like you're stirring shit just as fast, I'm afraid.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@John: Detroit bias much? ;-)
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
As for The Last Resort, I wouldn't say pictures were staged/posed but that in some cases there was bound to be a degree of interaction with the subject.
Parr did this over three summers, and even in the less paranoid 1980s, a male stranger rocking up with a medium format camera to a small seaside town and taking totally candid pics that included naked kids does not seem like a plausible strategy.
As Parr and his wife had a toddler at the time and lived down the road, I'm *guessing* that they were all frequent visitors and on at least nodding terms with some of the subjects. I think a couple of women appear in several photos (in different years?).
I watched Parr working at a beach and after taking a load of mid-range shots, he got talking to a group of youths (who unkind commentators might label "chavs"). He photographed them for about 5 minutes. His people skills meant he did not get told to fuck off.
At first they were mooning and playing up for the camera, then they started getting bored of that and acting more naturally. He was talking to them all the time. I guess if he had used any of these later photos he would select naturalistic ones and many people would assume they were completely candid.
Are these staged? Not really. Are they completely candid, in the HCB sense? No.
Of course, Parr does natural "looking" stuff that we look at and know is not truly candid, e.g. shots of Tupperware and Avon parties inside people's houses and inside cars and churches. Obviously he did not break into houses, take pictures and leave.
However, having watched him work, it made me less sure of my assumptions about judging the "candidness" of his pictures just by looking at them. Some are completely candid, some have a degree of interaction. He has a very successful box of tricks and techniques.
That's why he is at no. 10 (joke).
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
@LoW:
There is no way i can read a discussion here without that you pestering around and capture the attention just asserting bullshit about street photography, approach and so on..
I believe you are not really interested in photography, it's just an excuse: you could piss everybody off raising semantic controversies also if we were talking about gardening or cooking
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good stuff, Paul; DAH has also written about spending time with people and always being ready to capture 'candid moments'. I mean, I've got photos of my wife I consider candid, I just don't worry about classifying them as street.
I think for 'proper' documentary involving people, there are few other ways to work.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I had noticed that one woman appears in more than one of the photos and I'm sure that I read somewhere that some of the images were staged/posed but for the life of me I can't find it or even remember where I read it but believe me for the past 3 hours I've been looking for it.
thats said maybe all I read was what someone else guessed at
I don't live too far from New Brighton and often visit there on my way in to Liverpool but I do find those photos so alien not just for how the place has changed but how people react to being photographed.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cavalieri, thanks, anyone else want to take a pop at me ? I'll be back later once I've posted a photoshopped image of delia smith and percy thrower getting it on I made in the "at home " forum
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Andrew. Ha!! I had no idea he was from Detroit. Awesome! ;)
(Though, one does have to wonder if there's a subconscious bias going on there though...)
Speaking of my biases: one person who is not on the list is Fred Herzog. Of course, hardly anyone outside of Vancouver knew of him a year or three ago! Since his work was developed in relative obscurity, he would likely never find his work on such a list. Even as groundbreaking as he was, he didn't really influence many people. Vivian Maier is the same. Two great photographers who SHOULD be on a "Greats" list but never will be.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
would love to see peoples list of say 10 photographers who influence their work.
It's a good exercise, I include that (maybe not 10) in the artist statement/project description blurb when I submit for CFEs, and it's started interesting conversations with judges/curators/gallerists more than once. Great way to make a connection.
the girl is posing for the shot 100%,
Posing != staged, posing != posed. I have probably done less street photography than anyone in this thread and even I know this from experience. I'm not saying that or other shots aren't posed, but the logic is faulty here.
That said I wonder how some of those images would hold up to critique
You'll always wonder, but the critique thread only considers one-off images so something like the ice cream shop photo would be out of context. It's not uncommon for a photo in the critique thread to be part of a series and that fact influence the crit; I think recently Frankie's blue tunnel photo was an example, no?
LoWinter, you seem to like talking about others' work, there was a tradition here of "discussion image of the week", maybe you should revive it.
Paul, that's some good insight, thanks.
John, Maier has gotten so much press that in 10-15 years you will probably see her name popping up a lot in lists of influences, think of all the 15 year old kids getting their first DSLRs or using Hipstamatic.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Callahan's work was firmly Chicago-based, but I'll take Detroit too.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Bennett V
"the girl is posing for the shot 100%,
Posing != staged, posing != posed. I have probably done less street photography than anyone in this thread and even I know this from experience. I'm not saying that or other shots aren't posed, but the logic is faulty here."
Yes.
Having said that many of Parr's shots in The Last Resort are probably not truly candid. I would not rule this one in or out as being candid just by looking at it.
The person is reacting to having their photo taken. Parr may have just walked in and taken this, or may have been shooting inside this chip/ice cream shop for 10 min.
As regular visitors will know, Winogrand mentioned that you can't tell anything from one photo. People snarl, then smile, or vice versa.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
Brucey's good but he doesn't like being stalked www.flickr.com/photos/zdenek_lesovsky/6550471607/
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In the ice cream shop photo (above) and in the hotdog shop shot Parr appears to have been inside the shop behind the counter, in a way I guess this is no different than seeing a good backdrop on the street and waiting for someone to walk in to it or for something to happen which interacts with the backdrop
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@LoWinterSun: re back it up or shut it up. seriously, I meant back up your theory with some facts or further insight rather than just saying something along the lines of "I just my opinions". not much to discuss there. I just thought you had heard it somewhere before not come to the conclusion by yourself
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Account inactive go to: www.jamesdodd.net (a group admin) edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
James, I've had the last resort for a few years, as I said I'd either read it online or in a book mag that some of the photos were staged or posed, when I made my comment I thought what I'd read was common knowledge.
I thought that I had backed it up rec the girl posing and parr being inside the shop behind the counter, girl sticks out her chest and the boys check her out while she's looking away, it's not rocket science to setup that up
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but can you say with any certainty that some of them might not be posed to some degree because they do look like it to me
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
LoWinterSun edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
Andy: Detroit!
I've not actually seen any books from HC so it's hard for me to know where most of his work is based. From looking at the MoMA site and others which I've seen in the past, it seems he was midwestern- and family- and nature- and abstract-based. He was kind of all over the place, really, but many of his shots were in Chicago, Detroit, Port Huron and Wisconsin and probably later around Boston though I've not seen much evidence of that. What I like about him is that he brought forth novel views and was an experimenter at heart.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
complete utter rubbish…
no Daido Moriyama, no Fred Herzog, no Larry Towell, no Alex Webb.
WTF?
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Emmanuel Buenviaje edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
No Thomas Hawk...
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
forgive me if this is completely inapplicable:
www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/12/14/143699630/the-20-u...
(stolen from Bryanf)
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ LoWinterSun - did you read my posts above?
Rather than being "staged" or "posed", which makes it sound like stage direction, there is a huge grey area regarding the amount of intervention and interaction with a photographer!
When does it cross over from street to documentary to whoknowswhat?
Bruce Gilden is regarded as a documentary photographer, but you can find videos of him telling his "subjects" what to do.
And you cannot tell anything from one photo.
OK, I will shut up now.
Happy Christmas.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
@E. I won't speak on the others but Fred Herzog wasn't influential to the larger photographic community. Even in Vancouver, it wasn't until his 2007 exhibit at the VAG when people started taking note. Even then, for the most part, those people were only in Vancouver. Thus, one can't be influential unless a photographer's work begins to help transform the work of others. As amazing as he was, I don't think Herzog will ever be thought of as influential, but maybe that makes his work even more profound because he chose a method that he knew could not be shared at the time. Like Maier, Herzog was primarily making photographs for himself.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Paul, sorry I did miss your post prior to mine.
Point taken, I'm still learning and understanding the photographers approach to their subject I find very interesting
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Don't quite get the outrage
Any list is going to have its flaws and you could add missing names to your hearts content:
As prominent examples Gustav Klutsis, Sergei Senkin, El Lissisky, Max Alpert and Ardaki Shaikhet, pioneering Soviet photographers and photojournalists who were enormously influential at home and internationally ... they completely revolutionised the medium as a means of communication ... yet the list mentions only Alexander Rodchenko, who's obvious style was actually less influential than the above.
Its just a list
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Most influential" is always going to be a loaded term. Most influential to whom? And at what time? And what kind of influence? Making this into some kind of definitive ranking is a hopeless task. Far better to use it to explore the work of more photographers and delve into their methods/philosophy.
IMHO the subject being aware of or even reacting naturally to the presence of a photographer isn't the same as staged or even posed. But whatever works, works, as they say. If your photography isn't where you want it to be for some reason unbeknownst to you and someone you ask about it says it might be because you're hip shooting/staging scenes/posing subjects/throwing your camera in the air/whatever, then it's could be that that's not working, and saying "But (famous photographer) did it" doesn't change the fact that for everyone else but (famous photographer) this isn't working for you. But that's really stating the obvious.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@lo who cares a gorgeous photograph is that: a gorgeous photograph.
I enojyed the list it introduced me to many photographers (about 10-15) but upset I didnt see edward weston, also bummed I didnt see Maragaret Boruke White. I like frankies and reginas idea though, as it really does make you think, who inspires you and what images really?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>>> IMHO the subject being aware of or even reacting naturally to the presence of a photographer isn't the same as staged or even posed.
Exactly. Some people think candid photography means "not seen" by the subject. When in fact it means, at least to me, spontaneous and unposed.
I shoot out in the open. Sometimes subjects see me, sometimes they don't. It's all good.
My "street portraiture" of strangers on the street is different. Always engaged and posed...
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Where's Koudelka, Meiselas, Nachtwey, Larrain?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok why doesn't HCSP draw up its list of influential photographers?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
WØRҞING on it. Don't you see the list growing? But even if we did: it wouldn't be any more accurate than Pro Photos. You know: it's still just a list.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The ice cream shop photo feels half staged. Parr probably just asked the woman to turn around for a quick portrait (I'm sure she'd rather be selling ice cream and making money than taking time for a photo shoot, which would explain her indifferent expression). Everything else feels candid, I can't imagine Parr giving directions to those people behind the counter, especially to the kid holding the ice cream.. his expression is priceless.
Lots of great documentary is staged, the problem is when a photographer stages an event and says that it's candid. If nothing is said, then cool, it's up to the viewer to decide if its staged or not, but most of the time the question isn't even relevant.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
johnnyliz edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
robert Capa 95' ????? ahaha jt's a joke..
and, as an italian, i cannot avoid to surprise myself that the most influential ph. is Roversi: and Berengo Gardin and his "social photography" ? and Scianna? and Fontana? and Jodice? and , the worst, Ghirri?
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't know, johnnyliz. My BS meter is screeching.
Who's to say this is staged, half-staged or some other fraction of I don't care? While I might not be the biggest Parr fan, I know that real life often upstages the fictional. That's what makes street photography so magical.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not gonna complain about my favorites photographers not being mentioned because they're my favorites and I'm biased, but honestly I am a bit surprised that Atget wasn't mentioned at all on a list of most influential photographers.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Honestly, Pro Photo should have had an accompanying reader-write-in column to follow up their list. I can't tell you how many times I've read that Atget should have been included since reading this article a few days ago. From what I've seen, he's clearly the community favorite.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@lowintersun- you can always get a feel for a photographer's way of working from contact sheets. If you ever fancy a trip over to Manchester, the Documentary Photography Archive's got a selection by Parr from 1985. There's some Paul Reas and Tom Wood as well. You might find them worth a look.
www.manchester.gov.uk/info/448/archives_and_local_studies...
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
David Loftus at No.65 must be a PR inclusion. I commissioned him a couple of times back when he was an illustrator, and ripping up strange currency. He's a perfectly competent commercial photographer, but his stuff is no more remarkable than anyone else in his field.
On the 'why no...' side of things, I'd add: Gerhardt Richter, Thomas Struth and Berndt and Hiller.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
all, macberns...
Atget is there, just as for each one on the list there are a thousand shadows behind them, not mentioned, but still there.
andy, thx for a good link, def worth a look
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
spingi, I do share your sentiments - but I guess that the key word is influential. My impression is that Gianni Berengo Gardin is relatively little known, and the others - including Ghirri, for reasons I can't figure - even more so. And there would be more, in Italy, equally neglected.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Sadly, Francesca Woodman deserves a spot on that list. When I was in college, mid-90s, every other photographer was making gothic nudes in rundown barns.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Andy, thanks for the info rec the contact sheets I'll have a look once there open again in the new year, I was on the train coming out of Manchester when I read your post, spent 3 hours waiting for the rain to stop but it never did, on the up side those stupid xmass market huts have gone.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You'd think Louis Daguerre and Nicéphore Niépce would get an honourable mention, as the inventors of the process. Pretty influential in that respect.
...and I really wanted to say Hippolyte Bayard. Not in relation to the list necessarily, but just for how it rolls off the tongue.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
On the topic of staged. This is what staged street looks like : )
www.billwadman.com/index.html click on portfolio and click along to image 6 'snowball fight'.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Frankie, I should have been clearer in my blanket statement of parr's ice cream shot, I don't think that the image as a whole was choreographed, just parts of it, setup one element and wait
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow, Bill Wadman has improved since I first met him and he took a photo of me for his first time doing the 365 portrait thing! THanks for bringing him up because I am fired and haven't looked at his stuff for a few years.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just stumbled across this and can categorically state that no shots from The Last Resort were staged or posed. In the case of the woman looking at the camera, she did suddenly turn round to look at me, and it worked. Most times as you HCSP crew know, people looking at the camera is a disaster, unless it is a portrait. But then that's the magic of photography it can really throw you, just when you think you know all the rules. Martin Parr
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm guessing that even that won't be good enough for some.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Actually I think that should settle things pretty well.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Stu / Andrew, given that you both seem rather keen to oil the wheels I'll respond, what can I say I'm a sucker for punishment.
if that's what Martin say's happend then that's what happend however I still stand by my comment and I'll also add that (with reference to the girl in the icecream shop) the body language/stance/position doesn't look like someone who just suddenly turn round, you may also want to watch this before replying www.channel5.com/shows/how-to-take-stunning-pictures/epis... which clearly shows Martin giving direction to people in the street he's photographing for greater effect.
as I already said I do not think that any of the photos in the last resort were choreographed.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Un fucking real.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah tell me about it
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Please just read Martin Parr's response again and let it go. It really should be enough for anyone. Body language can be incredibly misleading when frozen for a fraction of a second. The video proves nothing about the Last Resort.
5...
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
as I said Andrew if that's what Martin say's happend then that's what happend
4...
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
OK,so this group is closing down a thread on which Martin Parr has started to talk about The Last Resort? That really is hardcore!
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
mmmm just when things started to get interesting
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Paul, well I had no intention of replying to Martin's post until Andrew and Stu gave me a poke, why there is so much one upmanship in this group god only knows, Martin made a statement regarding his work and indeed it should have been an end of the matter but it was a statement and I do feel bad if he felt that he had to defend himself or his work, the last resort doesn't claim to be candid SP and I never said it did or tries to pass itself off as such.
This was meant to be a discussion but when people post pointless rebuff's with no substance in a game of one upmanship whats the point in continuing it.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"people looking at the camera is a disaster..."
Eh?! I base my entire street photography reputation on getting 'that all important' eye contact!
Oh fuck!
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Martin Parr:
thank you very much for that unexpected clarification!
If you're still checking this thread I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how spending prolonged periods of time with the subjects (as some have suggested that you visited New Brighton with your family for several summers) may have helped familiarise yourself with the subjects and seem less of an outsider and more, one of them (for the want of a better phrase).
I'd also be interested to learn where you see this work being categorised. is it street photography, documentary, does it matter? Did it change after choosing. Does time turn street photography into social documentary.
probably asking too many questions to be honest.
Thanks again for popping by tho.
@paul: I certainly won't be close down this thread.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Account inactive go to: www.jamesdodd.net (a group admin) edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
Paul, you know I can't close anything, just wanted to indicate I thought a discussion arguing with Martin Parr without any basis seemed less than helpful ('Well if you say so, but I still think it's not true...'). My assumption is also that Martin would post just once for clarification, rather than starting a conversation. Mea culpa.
Will: perhaps you could have posted in response; you know, something like, 'Ok, sorry, I was wrong, and I shouldn't have made categorical statements without any knowledge of the facts.' Just an idea. Better than playing the victim, anyway, for mine.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Andrew, If I thought that I was wrong for having an opinion then I would apologies, I stated my points after being asked to by an admin.
I gave my reasons and provided information, all you have done is bark
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
some seriously inflated egos abound in this thread/group
edit, this post resulted in a ranting pm from LoWinter Sun
is that some kind of rite of passage for this group ?
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
cadd edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
Lo: you made a point (which people may or may not agree with) but then laboured it. If someone makes a criticism of your point you don't necessarily need to rake over that criticism. You can just let it go, trusting that people will be able to weigh up each side of the argument. IMHO
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
By the way, I noticed that parrpolygon often comments on the Martin Parr group (not surprisingly perhaps) www.flickr.com/groups/martinparr/ if anyone is interesting in gleaning insights.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Enough about LoWinterSun's reading comprehension; I'd much rather hear more of Mr. Parr's views on the process and art involved in making these shots.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Frankie, he's also posted from an account under the name lulaj there.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
frankie, I only reply because others have done and let me make myself clear, this is not and has never been an agruement, I'm not on a mission to convince anyone anything, my intention was to discuss the appearance of what I perceived as posed photos, seriously is there something wrong in doing that ?
I'm open to discuss other photos from the same book that have the "appearance" of being posed, if people are not interested in discussing this then fine just don't reply but ffs folks drop the keyboard hero crap it adds zero
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
LoWinterSun edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
|
James
I always think the Last Resort is documentary work, but never forget in the States they have street photography, while our streets are the beaches. That is not to say there has been a strong revival of Street photography in the UK too.
I am doing a book this year to be called " Life is a Beach" and will feature
beach photography all over the planet.
MP
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Martin, now that we have you here(!), I know you've mentioned elsewhere that photographing in public has become difficult due to parents' concerns for their children etc, is that affecting the work on this book at all, would you say? Are there things it just isn't possible for you to get any more, particularly at the beach?
And in terms of American streets versus British beaches, one seems to me to be about everyday life (even if it seems to be in cars these days, except NYC) and the other more about leisure. I'm interested to see you compare the two; could you explain more about how you see the two as in some way equivalent?
And thanks again for dropping in to comment.
Posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Andrew and @ James - apologies for my post about closing the thread down, which was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or semi-humorous, but really didn't convey my intended meaning. I can only blame the post-Christmas Baileys comedown.
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) discussion threads