Non-classic shots with an M8

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I looked at this thread rather like an anthropologist, curious not about the images but about the thread itself, wondering what in the world made it go on so long.

 

What's unusual is the photographer arguing over & over about his work. I haven't seen that before, here or elsewhere as far as I can remember, & apparently it provides a kind of bait for endless responses (such as my own).

 

What I have seen before is the argument that the concept is interesting even if the artwork is not. But nobody has suggested that the concept grabs them.

 

Initially Imants said, in effect, "the emperor has no clothes." Nothing worth looking at for very long (which is IMO true). Maybe there's a was in which low visual interest itself generates discussion - which is interesting because it's counterintuitive.

 

Still very puzzling.... Hard to understand or explain.

 

Kirk

[pmun]

I looked at this thread rather like an anthropologist, curious not about the images but about the thread itself, wondering what in the world made it go on so long.

 

What's unusual is the photographer arguing over & over about his work. I haven't seen that before, here or elsewhere as far as I can remember, & apparently it provides a kind of bait for endless responses (such as my own).

Kirk

 

Photography is a discourse with fundamental issues at stake - the way people look at and perceive things. It's worth discussing.

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[earleygallery]

What I have seen before is the argument that the concept is interesting even if the artwork is not. But nobody has suggested that the concept grabs them. Kirk

 

A couple of people have commented positively to be fair, and I was sincere when I said IMO the 'concept' might have more value if another medium was chosen i.e. video. You would then have the movement, as well as the sounds of each different place (without obvious identification of where you were). Anyway I'm bowing out of this one now.

 

Can you imagine it as a coffee table book?

[giordano]

As we're now in the photo forum, here's some more urban detritus:

 

Still life with Champagne 2 (Oxford Sunday Morning)

 

Q: is it still street photography if you frame the shot and then stand there for ten minutes until the right pedestrian comes by?

[chris_livsey]

 

Can you imagine it as a coffee table book?

 

Yes, there are many photobooks out there that have central concept or idea that is "challenging".

[pmun]

Thanks. I like it too, but would not like to see twenty variations of it with different locations and people. And most people are not going to agree that it expresses morem or that it helps the viewer to appreciate its form more, than the following portrait (M6, DR Summicron, Tri-X):

 

 

 

You seem to want to isolate the "formal elements", that is, the underlying form of a picture. Certainly you could do that by turning to abstract photography, but lets consider abstract painting.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

 

I’m also a painter – abstracts. With painting the subject is a given – paint, you can then just get on and do things with it without having to worry about its relationship to other things. For me a fundamental question is how can a photograph be of its self, even though it is indelibly linked to other things.

 

We had the same problem with painting and still do, where people can’t see the paint clearly because the subject gets in the way. With photography, attempts to escape from the subject often meet with derision. People are conditioned to seeing spectacular things in photographs such as a beautiful flower in a field, a dog with a hat on or a moody portrait such as this.

 

I find the tension between the subject featured in a photograph and the photograph itself compelling. I get the impression that most people on this forum don't even make that distinction.

 

This photo transports me away from itself to a different space – that of the woman’s emotions, which overwhelm the actual photograph. It is the woman who is expressive, not the photograph. Having said that you’ve captured her expression beautifully.

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[pmun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think there is more to this project that the photographs. No offence to pmun but I get the feeling this is 'work in progress' and something interesting might yet grow out of it.

 

It's an avenue of enquiry and I applaud pmun for it.

 

Yes it is a work in progress, about half way through - another two years to go. Thank you for your encouragement.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[pmun]

As we're now in the photo forum, here's some more urban detritus:

 

Still life with Champagne 2 (Oxford Sunday Morning)

 

Q: is it still street photography if you frame the shot and then stand there for ten minutes until the right pedestrian comes by?

 

In terms of urbanpaths this would be a reject even if it was taken from behind the figure. There's something clumsy about having one foot off the ground. In every urbanpath both feet are on the ground, it shows each stride at its best. Besides - far too much going on there.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[pmun]

if you are interested in the crease in the trousers behind the knees then you may want to close in on this until these forms predominate and you're on the verge, or in, an abstract photograph.

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

I don't think there is such a thing as abstract photography, besides the trouser creases is only one aspect. I’ll leave the viewer to zoom in on those, if they so wish.

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[giordano]

I’m also a painter – abstracts. With painting the subject is a given – paint, you can then just get on and do things with it without having to worry about its relationship to other things. For me a fundamental question is how can a photograph be of its self, even though it is indelibly linked to other things.

 

We had the same problem with painting and still do, where people can’t see the paint clearly because the subject gets in the way. With photography, attempts to escape from the subject often meet with derision. People are conditioned to seeing spectacular things in photographs such as a beautiful flower in a field, a dog with a hat on or a moody portrait such as this.

 

I find the tension between the subject featured in a photograph and the photograph itself compelling. I get the impression that most people on this forum don't even make that distinction. <snip>

 

"With painting the subject is a given - paint..." I disagree, and suspect that most painters over the millennia would if they had the chance. Paint is not necessarily the subject of a painting any more than chromogenic dyes are the subject of a colour print - though painters can if they like create works in which there is no subject but the paint itself.

 

Photographers generally don't have this luxury because the damn lens persists in casting an image of whatever's in front of it. I think most of us here understand the distinction between the subject of a photograph and the photograph itself. Certainly I do, and often have this in mind when pressing the button, with more or less success.

 

(Mind you, in many if not all of the best photographs, just what the subject really is tends to be ambiguous.)

 

Where I think you're doomed to be in a minority is in using unimportance and repetition to reduce the significance of the subject, denying yourself the use of formal composition that could build tension between subject and photograph, and hoping this will force viewers out of desperation to see what you want them to see in your images.

 

More power to your elbow if you can bring this off. For myself I'd rather make the subject earn its living as part of the picture.

 

Margate, September.

[pmun]

"With painting the subject is a given - paint..." I disagree, and suspect that most painters over the millennia would if they had the chance. Paint is not necessarily the subject of a painting any more than chromogenic dyes are the subject of a colour print - though painters can if they like create works in which there is no subject but the paint itself.

Yes you're right, I was wrong on that. I should've said 'with abstract painting the subject is a given - paint.'

I think most of us here understand the distinction between the subject of a photograph and the photograph itself. Certainly I do, and often have this in mind when pressing the button, with more or less success.

How would you define the distinction?

More power to your elbow if you can bring this off.

Thank you. I love the space in your photograph and the contrast between the sand and sky and those two set it all off wonderfully.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[steve kessel]

I read the thread before I looked at your pictures. Perhaps because of this, I was pleasantly surprised. It's a fine piece of work and partly explains why you've been able to handle the responses with forbearance and good humour, within the spirit of your enquiry. I was charmed by the "variety within a particular type" idea - "wow look how that ankle sets off the paving grain".

 

Lurking around as I looked was your quest to identify the photograph behind the subject, the reminder that what I was looking at was not just ground and legs but something else.

 

Lots of the pictures are delightful, whether as you've grouped them (that they don't readily report "Seoul feet" is another layer of intrigue),and as a slide show with striking montage effects. It does require more concentration than I could muster but extra effort may prove worthwhile.

 

Thanks for showing and explaining.

 

Steve

[giordano]

How would you define the distinction?

I don't find it easy to put into words, not least because of the ambiguity about "subject" and would be interested to see your definition. Let's start with something we both seem to agree is a satisfactory picture:

 

 

The photograph is basically a simple arrangement of colours, textures and shapes with the two figures at a reasonably strong point in traditional compositional terms - and that was part of my intention when I pressed the button. Look closer, and it gets more complicated, in ways that I didn't consciously appreciate at the time. For example there's a tension between the "strong" position of the two figures and the way the expanse of sand draws the eye away from them.

 

The subject of the photograph is - to me at least - ambiguous. Is it Margate seafront, a land/sea/streetscape with two figures in it? Is it two old friends? Is it a comment on the decline of the traditional seaside resort? All those things are in the photograph and were in my mind as I framed it, along with the beauty of the sky and JMW Turner's love of the Margate light.

 

Almost I feel that you want to reveal the photograph by subduing the subject, while I try to achieve the same objective by complexifying it.

 

Here are a couple you may not like:

 

Amsterdam

 

Asia and jumping Dad

[pmun]

Thanks Girodano for explaining. I agree about the colour being an element of the photograph (also part of the subject). As for texture, the texture of a photograph is essentially the surface. The texture of the subject matter renders a pattern on the photograph.

 

The subject matter of this photograph is Margate, two people, some cars and the sky above it. The photograph has a smooth texture on my computer screen and features a range of colours arranged in shapes that realistically depict the scene before the camera.

 

Put simply, the photograph is the actual stuff it's made of - usually pixels, ink, paper, plastic or glass (screen). The subject matter is what it is representing. Most people do confuse the two linguistically, for example they may look at a photograph and proclaim, what a beautiful flower! It is not; it is a photograph of one.

 

Of course in general terms, it doesn’t matter because we all know what that person means. But for anyone who is interested in actual photographs, it is important to make this distinction. I think photographs are too interesting and important to always defer to their subject matter.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[pmun]

 

The subject of the photograph is - to me at least - ambiguous.

 

one more thing, I think I've made it easier by changing my original term 'subject' to 'subject matter'.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[giordano]

Thanks Girodano for explaining. I agree about the colour being an element of the photograph (also part of the subject). As for texture, the texture of a photograph is essentially the surface. The texture of the subject matter renders a pattern on the photograph.

 

The subject matter of this photograph is Margate, two people, some cars and the sky above it. The photograph has a smooth texture on my computer screen and features a range of colours arranged in shapes that realistically depict the scene before the camera.

 

Put simply, the photograph is the actual stuff it's made of - usually pixels, ink, paper, plastic or glass (screen). The subject matter is what it is representing.

 

I feel this too reductionist. It seems to mean that looking at a photograph per se is the same as looking at a blank sheet of photographic paper (or white screen or whatever): after all, in most photographic processes the surface is the same regardless of the image. It also excludes the photographer's intention. And I suspect you may be pulling a fast one - perhaps inadvertently - by switching from talking about "the subject" to "the subject matter".

 

Most people do confuse the two linguistically, for example they may look at a photograph and proclaim, what a beautiful flower! It is not; it is a photograph of one.

 

And it can be a poor photograph of a beautiful flower.

 

Of course in general terms, it doesn’t matter because we all know what that person means. But for anyone who is interested in actual photographs, it is important to make this distinction. I think photographs are too interesting and important to always defer to their subject matter.

 

I think we're agreed on that though we differ about its implications.

 

Alas, the day job calls. More later, if time and brianpower allow.

[pmun]

And I suspect you may be pulling a fast one - perhaps inadvertently - by switching from talking about "the subject" to "the subject matter".

I did that to remove the ambiguity.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[pmun]

I feel this too reductionist.

 

Yes - it may seem too reductionist to define an object on what its made of. I'll put it another then, as objects, the photograph and Margate are entirely seperatate.

 

http://www.urbanpaths.net

[giordano]

Yes - it may seem too reductionist to define an object on what its made of. I'll put it another then, as objects, the photograph and Margate are entirely seperatate.

 

Agreed - if you'll agree that the subject and the subject matter are also separatate (nice word!).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JE]

But they just look like random shots of people's lower legs in the street. No matter how much to try to talk them up that's all I see.

 

Steve's right on here. All this talk about re-presenting common images...if that's all you're doing, RE-presenting them, without anything new, without some distinct/original/interesting coign, then you're slight (over-used) play on words dies alone. Representation is more than re-presentation. Adding a hyphen adds nothing (in this case) except an announcement of banality.

 

An idea is worth nothing unless it is strong or can lead to something strong, something that can withstand criticism (constructive or otherwise).

 

Just having an idea and going out and trying to photograph/paint/write that idea does not make the idea worth anything at all...the photograph, the painting, the writing will or will not succeed---I am sure that have been many great ideas that failed in the execution.

 

The series is uninteresting because the idea behind it is uninteresting.

 

" Are the textile creases behind the knee evidence of movement or lines that pierce the gray softness of blurred pavements?"

 

This is not even an interesting question, and it's p(resented) as the one offering under "meanings" on your site.

 

Jon

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!