|
Search this group's discussions
|
The "Rochester Style"
|
In a recent City Newspaper article, Shirley Dawson writes:
"These are pretty pictures. They are technically good. They are non-confrontational and non-political. They would not inspire heated arguments at any dinner party, nor be objectionable to even the most conservative decorator. These are indicative of the Kodak (Rochester) School of Public Art and Photography.
During the last few years Rochester - never exactly a hotbed of artistic experimentation - has retreated from anything that smacks of controversy. We seem to prefer art comfort food, the Rochester signature.
From what I've seen, both on Flickr and in shows (not that I've been to all that many,) I agree with her. It seems to me that much of the local photography leans towards technically perfect, and easy to look at, but unremarkable and unchallenging.
So what do you all think? Is your work Art, or comfort food?
Have you consciously adopted a style, or just drifted towards one? (Do you even have a style?)
Does a photo have to challenge the viewer in some way to be considered Art, or is it enough that it's aesthetically pleasing?
Is Rochester a conservative dead zone for artistic photography? And, as the article implied, is the typical Rochester photographer an engineer by day, instead of a "real" artist?
(please note that I am in no way claiming to be a "real" artist...)
Originally posted at 10:59AM, 23 August 2007 PDT
(permalink)
Mikros edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
I can't say I fully understand what she is saying, but I think of what I do as an expression of the photographic artform - my own interpretation, if you may. I don't think my images ever really flow with controversy. The closest thing I have to that is a picture of a banner stating to impeach the president in Ithaca, NY.
As far as style, I'd say I'm a depth-of-field fanatic - the shallower, the better. I'm a macro lover as well. Beyond that, I can only tell you what I like to shoot and see what style comes out of each picture.
I think a photo can challenge a view on a number of levels - challenge their beliefs/ideas or challenge the way they look at an object (ie. 5x macro of a fly). For me photos challenge me by saying "try this next time you have your camera with you".
Well...I'm an engineer by day :) - but I'm also an artist as I've deemed msyelf to be one. Whether others think I am artist is of little to no concern to me.
To be honest, I'm not really sure about the 'deadzone' question...I'll have to think about that one a bit
Interesting article, Mike - thanks for posting it.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i am by no means a photography expert so i can't judge who's photo is art and what is not.
In fact, who really can? Those who call themselves "critics"? When they don't like a particular piece of art, it's not that it isn't art, it just isn't the critic's view of art.
Personally, my photographs come from the unexpected. I shoot when I see something that says "Snap this". The problem becomes what I envision in my snapshot and what I can actually accomplish what I have. I get frustrated over the number of shots that I take that don't come out the way that I want. But I do sit back and smile at the rare few that do. It makes me feel it's worth it to take hundreds of shots for those beautiful few...
I think all photo's challenge a person in some way. For myself, I think I "challenge" people to figure out WTF I was shooting that picture for :p
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmmm. So the article you linked sounds very jaded, like the tired writings of someone who thinks she's seen it all and isn't likely to be impressed. She compares being wowed by the Eastman house to being bored by Image City gallery. I don't think those two venues are particularly comparable, but hey, they're on the same street.
As for her take on Neuberger's photos at Image City, I guess I agree about them being pretty, technical, and non-confrontational, and I think that most of Image City's photos fall into similar territory. I don't agree that that is such a bad thing.
Your question about style and how we Flickrites fit in is a good one, and one that I've thought about a bunch. Personally, I do too much exploring and experimenting to have nailed a consistent style. Perhaps I will someday, but I am not in a rush to do so. ROC-Flickr is turning into a very interesting community, and one that we should nurture and develop. Many of us are engineers/accountants/zombies by day and photographers when we can be, and such a combination doesn't usually command a ton of respect in the art world, or at least at the pen of an art critic. Ah well, I won't lose sleep over it.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Personally, I do too much exploring and experimenting to have nailed a consistent style" - yes, I totally understand that. Do you think that if you find your style it will be a sign that you are moving away from pursuing photography as a hobbyist, and towards pursuing it as an artist? Is a definable style a part of "art"?
By the way, I'm an computing-data analyzing-engineering type myself, so don't anyone feel slammed by that!
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love the fact that you guys aren’t artists by day. Having gone to art school, I found many artists to be annoying and very full of themselves. They drove me out of my first major, which was film studies.
It’s very refreshing to get your points of view on many things, and fun to talk tech.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I went to art school too, but was driven out by myself....
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like Neuberger, I'm a chemist.
The art definitions and defenses are tough for me.
So to claim to be an artist without the words (for me)
is difficult. I may have to join y'all for to discuss face to
face this fall. Did I mention, I'm weak with words?
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I took this award-losing photo:
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a great thread, Mike. Thank you for stirring it up. It's had me thinking all night.
Let me begin by saying that I have never referred to myself as an artist, but I know people who insist on the title. You know, it looks good on their business card.
But, having been exposed to a few true artist that live in Rochester, I know there is some amazing talent in this city. It's not the lack of talent that makes people shoot for the mediocrity that Shirley Dawson describes in her piece. It's the patronage.
If you go to Image City, you should expect to find something that you would hang on a wall in your house. It's a place of business, a gallery. In short, a store. Would you go into Wegman's and only find exotic foods that you wouldn't or couldn't cook? Would you go Kohl's or Macy's and only find designer clothing that you couldn't afford to buy, much less be caught wearing?
I think that my photos all reflect one thing: Day to day life. I have always tried to show the things that people know are there, but sometimes never notice.
If you notice, my latest stuff is all about produce. There is a reason for that. We go out and shop for food, but how many of us can see the beauty contained in a basket of pears or in a bunch of turnips? We pass these things in the store everyday, but we never see them. I want people to see them, to feel them, to taste them. If you look at my photo of an eggplant and think, "What could I make with that?" or it makes you salivate then I've accomplished what I set out to do when I shot that eggplant.
Is it in any way provocative? Probably not. I'm not looking to do that. I would rather that my work be called evocative. Especially the portrait work. I prefer to work with people. I want to get to know them, find something special in them and attempt to capture a moment of that spark of life. I had the most fun taking the portrait of Smita at the divinity school. And shooting at weddings that I'm not paid to shoot. This is when I get my best stuff. And have the most fun!
I shoot for the love of shooting. Most of us do. When you shoot for a living, your perspective tends to change. I think that those of us who are attempting to make a little money with this craft feel that. You can see the shot you want to take, but you take the shot that will sell.
I hope that with this digital medium, we as a creative community can take the time to take both shots.
I think that "style" is about marketing. What category do you fit into? I don't want to be pigeonholed. If you want to label me a street photographer or a wedding photographer, that's okay. But I don't want people to know where to find my work, I want them to ask where it can be found. I want someone to tell me that they saw something of mine and were compelled to ask me for that shot or a portrait sitting. Will I sell a lot of pictures this way? I hope not. But I would rather give that person what they asked for than sell them something that I have a dozen of because I need to bring down my inventory.
But until any of us are able to make the money we want with that camera, we will fall back to the standard shot. You know, the one that sells. The one in the window at Image City or in the frame section at Target.
I think that I may have put in more than my two cents worth. You can bill me.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It's not the lack of talent that makes people shoot for the mediocrity that Shirley Dawson describes in her piece. It's the patronage.
Word!
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Joe, you've said well what bothered me about her criticism: she seems to blame photographers for producing boring art, but doesn't take into account the reality of the local art market. Stereotype holds that art patrons out here in the provinces tend to be more conservative than those in cosmopolitan big cities.
I find the art market analogous to Flickr's "interestingness". You can figure out pretty quickly how to game the algorithm: produce shiny pretty pictures, and rotate them through groups. I was initially pretty happy that I got a bunch of photos on the Interesting page, but producing photos that I thought other people would enjoy was ultimately unfulfilling. I've got one sunset in particular that just pains me (Anyone want a free print?)
My 'art' (if you can call it that), let's just say my self-indulgent photography - the street stuff that gives me such a rush, is totally worthless commercially. But I like doing it. Fortunately I have a day job.
Here's my question for fellow flickrites: Assuming we've gotten over the thrill of being #187 on interestingness, and given that we're not selling our work, what's stopping us from really going out on a limb and producing stuff that challenges people? I mean, we're free from one of the big constraints that commercial artists are saddled with. The "only selling what the market will take" excuse doesn't really fit, here.
I also must say that I do agree with Dawson when she pans current photography trends: "black-and-white stills of graffiti walls, lonely parking lots, ramshackle buildings, elegant landscapes, and overall textural abstracts" by singling out as Petronio's "Cristina, 2006," as the show's stand-out. You mean that he photographed... -gasp- a person?
Originally posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
Mikros edited this topic 58 months ago.
|
|
|
You got all the way up to #187 in Interestingness? You rock! I don't even know how to check my interestingness. Although, if you ask my girlfriend, she'll tell you that I have none. That's why she broke up with me.
(RIMSHOT)
Ho, thank you very much!
Anyway, I think that we as a community can help to nurture the creative endeavor. The question is, what do we want to do? I want to shoot more portraits. Mikros might want to shoot more intimate scenes on the street. Get your heads out of the gutter, I mean closer and more involved.
We all have our interests. And I think that we should explore what limits all of us. Is it composition, exposure, flash set up, macro, event photography? Where do we want to go? I think this is the question that we should be asking. What challenges us as photographers? Until we face that demon, I don't think that we can expect to challenge anyone else. Sure, we are free (for the most part) to experiment with our work, but what are we doing that expands our knowledge and skill set. Where do WE need to grow to show our progress as "artists"?
I like the idea, Mike. I like where it can take us. MJM came up with the critique session last month. I think that we should continue with that project. I think that we should also get together and shoot. Perhaps we should make this part of our meet ups. I love our meet ups, I have fun at them. I think that we can make it a learning experience, too. If that's what we want to do as a group. If not, then we could schedule time before or after to go out and try something new.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm bummed that I missed that, I think it's a swell idea - kudos to MJM.
You can check your interestingness rank at bighugelabs.com/flickr/scout.php
But don't. It will get inside your head....
I've had #1 a couple of times, but it's largely a reflection of how effectively you whore your photos...
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I appreciate the link, Mike. But I think that my interestingness has nothing to do with Flickr. ;-)
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I remain interested in this topic. It's better done live, eg. at a meet. Weds is usually NG for me but I'll keep tuned to the Sept meet thread for possibilities.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For those of you who were interested in the "developing a personal style" part of this discussion, there's a pretty good article at TOP:
theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_in...
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, Mike. My thought is this: how can one both have a consistent, recognizable style AND continue to grow and develop as a photographer? And if those options are mutually exclusive, which one is a better choice?
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mikros, thanks for the link. Awesome read. An eye-opener and extremely helpful.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i dont know if a style is good or bad.
i had a style when almost all of my serious work was nature & landscapes. i shot purely transparencies on medium format and made damn sure my exposures where perfect. i picked out the good ones and had them printed as the slides showed them. if it wasn't perfect, i wouldn't try to save it, i would simply move on. all my shots i showed where perfect focus, right spot, right time.
after film to print services pretty much disappeared from the armature market, i was essentially lost for a while.
recently, with a DSLR and raw process, i have begun a new explosion of photographic exploration. I am shooting in cities, i am shooting at night, i am lighting with strobes and flashlights, and still looking for more ways to branch out.
I want to start picking out work from the last year to put together into some sort of exhibit but to my dismay, i can't seem to find around 20 photos to represent a year of work that all fit together. there are only small clusters not more than half a dozen each that look like they where done by different photographers.
on the topic of if rochester is a dead zone? well, i wont try to convince anyone, myself included, of if i am creative or not, but i will say that rochester has not held me back in creativity. i say thats in the photographer, not the location.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Follow up article on technical style, also very good.
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer...
MJM: a favorite quote from the discussion:
"Why did the Ramones make a dozen (or so)records that are all in large part exactly the same? And why did Talking Heads not do that? Did the Ramones find their "true self" and did Talking Heads quit while still searching?"
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Because the Talking Heads had such great hits like "Psycho Killer" and "Burning Down the House"
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Documentary from 1984, "Stop Making Sense"
Thursday, October 18th, 8:00 pm at the Dryden Theater
George Eastman House on East Ave.
No band characterized ’80s new wave sounds and styles more than the Talking Heads. Director Demme’s concert film, photographed over one evening’s performance, captures the band, particularly frontman David Byrne, at the pinnacle of their creativity.
Posted 56 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Rochester /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Rochester discussion threads
