pmun Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share #101 Posted June 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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[ATTACH]147381[/ATTACH] A lot of things are uninteresting if you refuse or fail to engage with them. The statment is part of a 1000 word essay describing the project in some detail, available as a word document from the same page. But then you probably don't want to read it or even attempt to understand some of the issues involved. Why have you posted that photograph? Do you think it's particularly special in anyway? What would you say are its qualities? http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2009 Posted June 17, 2009 Hi pmun, Take a look here Non-classic shots with an M8 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pmun Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share #102 Posted June 17, 2009 Agreed - if you'll agree that the subject and the subject matter are also separatate (nice word!). So if you agree that Margate (subject matter) and the photograph of Margate (photograph) are entirely seperate as objects, can you explain why people are struggling to see beyond the subject matter of urbanpaths and look at the photographs. http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 17, 2009 Share #103 Posted June 17, 2009 So if you agree that Margate (subject matter) and the photograph of Margate (photograph) are entirely seperate as objects, can you explain why people are struggling to see beyond the subject matter of urbanpaths and look at the photographs. I can't explain it, at least not in terms acceptable in semiology or critical theory. And doing so would surely be against the spirit of deconstructionism. What I think is that when people look beyond the subject matter (and I believe most if not all of them do) they conclude that the photographs themselves are simply too dull and undistinguished as photographs to deserve much attention. Basically I feel that way myself: I don't find it easy or rewarding to try and see the photographs as you see them (or as I believe you want me to see them). I've read your urbanpaths essay and it hasn't helped me: too much influenced by professors whose pride prevents perspicuous prose. But I can believe that there's a category of gallery-goers who would nod approvingly over the essay and then put in the effort to make the repetitive form so "obvious and predictable" that it becomes invisible and the "subtle yet considerable variation" dominates. The pictures might work better on a gallery wall - or as a slide show in a blacked-out room where you could really bombard people with them until their eyes glazed over and they got the point:). BTW, I've nothing against series, but I lack your staying power. St Leonards-on-Sea . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share #104 Posted June 17, 2009 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 My pleasure Steve, thank you for the compliments. Yes I find the grouping interesting as well, the culture between London, Brighton is different and they are completely different from Seoul, but the legs/surface hardly reflect that. As far as walking is concerned I suppose there isn't much variation in terms of paving and attire between these great urban centres. I'm basically concerned to question what a photograph is, so in terms of subject matter, I've deliberately created the impression of repetition and predictability to promote the actual photograph. The irony is that to the astute or willing eye, the photos are far from repetitive; there is considerable variation that only photography can accurately and faithfully reveal. But for many people to see this (or to want to see it) in our image-obsessed age, it either needs to be a central feature or spectacular. As stated earlier, the Internet hardly encourages contemplation. On the whole, I’d say people have been patient. This isn’t really the place to talk about this sort of thing – but look how many people have taken part and how many have viewed! http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share #105 Posted June 17, 2009 I can't explain it, at least not in terms acceptable in semiology or critical theory. And doing so would surely be against the spirit of deconstructionism. What I think is that when people look beyond the subject matter (and I believe most if not all of them do) they conclude that the photographs themselves are simply too dull and undistinguished as photographs to deserve much attention. Basically I feel that way myself: I don't find it easy or rewarding to try and see the photographs as you see them (or as I believe you want me to see them). I've read your urbanpaths essay and it hasn't helped me: too much influenced by professors whose pride prevents perspicuous prose. John, thank you for taking the time to read the essay and for discussing these issues with me. http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share #106 Posted June 17, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 18, 2009 Share #107 Posted June 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A lot of things are uninteresting if you refuse or fail to engage with them. The statment is part of a 1000 word essay describing the project in some detail, available as a word document from the same page. But then you probably don't want to read it or even attempt to understand some of the issues involved...I've read it and my problem with your project, apart from what I've written earlier, is that your writing speaks more eloquently than your photographs in these series. Narrowness of focus and view can be fine but ultimately there has to be something that engages the viewer more than what I see in the photographs, and that's why I mentioned Mark Rothko earlier, in terms how "narrow" but essentially engaging his paintings are. —Mitch/Bangkok Wild Beasts of Botswana Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 18, 2009 Share #108 Posted June 18, 2009 John, thank you for taking the time to read the essay and for discussing these issues with me. It's been a real pleasure to get away from the "great capture, colour, light, shade" etc. that's the norm here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share #109 Posted June 18, 2009 I've read it and my problem with your project, apart from what I've written earlier, is that your writing speaks more eloquently than your photographs in these series. Narrowness of focus and view can be fine but ultimately there has to be something that engages the viewer more than what I see in the photographs, and that's why I mentioned Mark Rothko earlier, in terms how "narrow" but essentially engaging his paintings are. —Mitch/Bangkok Wild Beasts of Botswana Thanks Mitch for reading it. Rothko is a totally different kettle of fish, his paintings depend on the sublime for dramatic effect. Conceptually, urbanpaths is closer to the high modernism of artists such as Frank Stella 60s period (Six Mile Bottom). They were interested in reducing paintings to their fundemental and underlying 'objectness'. In wider terms, minimalism is also an influence; especially the beat infused ambient dub music of artists such as Vladislav Delay and 'glitch' music. Of course, no matter much I defend urbanpaths, there's always a possibility that it will not be at all well recieved. But I'm excited about how the project has progressed and the potential it has. In post 58, David said 'At least you have a good excuse for taking essentially the same picture over and over, unlike the rest of us'. He's right, and the advantage of that is that you can virtually forget about your subject matter, and concentrate on the photography. http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted June 18, 2009 Share #110 Posted June 18, 2009 I've tried one of this just for fun! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/87693-non-classic-shots-with-an-m8/?do=findComment&comment=936516'>More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share #111 Posted June 22, 2009 http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share #112 Posted June 23, 2009 If you're still there Mitch and for fear of milking this one - just had a thought. Talking of Rothko's drama - Imants fits the bill there. His photos although a lot more overt, also rely on drama. http://www.urbanpaths.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 23, 2009 Share #113 Posted June 23, 2009 pmun, I referred to Rothko in terms of the how engaging his best work is despite the narrowness of the subject matter — and the size of his paintings also helps: if he presented 500 30cx20cm paintings they wouldn't have the effect of 10 of his 3x2m ones. But I feel the concept to which you've shackled yourself is much to restrictive and agree with the view of Jon in post # 100. —Mitch/Bangkok Wild Beasts of Botswana Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share #114 Posted June 24, 2009 pmun, I referred to Rothko in terms of the how engaging his best work is despite the narrowness of the subject matter — and the size of his paintings also helps: if he presented 500 30cx20cm paintings they wouldn't have the effect of 10 of his 3x2m ones. But I feel the concept to which you've shackled yourself is much to restrictive and agree with the view of Jon in post # 100. —Mitch/Bangkok Wild Beasts of Botswana Yes, I'm well aware your position on urbanpaths by now and its relationship with Rothko. I looked at an imants today and Rothko jumped in to my head. I just thought I'd share it with you, wondered what you thought (or anyone else for that matter) - that's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted June 24, 2009 Share #115 Posted June 24, 2009 Dear Pmun, I've looked back at this thread again to see why it keeps lengthening in words. I'm left with two questions: Is there anything one might say that could persuade you that your photographs are not of interest to many or even most visually intelligent people? People who didn't fail to 'get it,' but got all there was to get & then got bored? If so, what is it that they might say? Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share #116 Posted June 24, 2009 Dear Pmun, I've looked back at this thread again to see why it keeps lengthening in words. I'm left with two questions: Is there anything one might say that could persuade you that your photographs are not of interest to many or even most visually intelligent people? People who didn't fail to 'get it,' but got all there was to get & then got bored? If so, what is it that they might say? Kirk Most people on this thread have been very clear that they find the project boring, repetitive or dull. I’m well aware of that position. So there’s probably not much more they can say on that basis. One of the ways I define intelligence is the keenness to learn and understand. That has been lacking on this thread. Again a typical response to that is ‘people don’t ask questions because the project is boring’. But a lot of things are boring if you don’t understand them. So if you are interested in the point of view of ‘visually intelligent people’ then you should not be looking at more statements, but instead questions that may shine light on the project. However, sometimes it is much easier to be judgmental and dismissive than thoughtful or inquisitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted June 24, 2009 Share #117 Posted June 24, 2009 OK, you just want words-words-words to go on-on-on, as a sign that you're "thoughtful & inquisitive"? Those who disagree about either the work or the discourse are "judgmental & dismissive"? An odd view of both photography & criticism. Perhaps the thread itself is a kind of performance art to you? K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 24, 2009 Share #118 Posted June 24, 2009 Yes, I'm well aware your position on urbanpaths by now and its relationship with Rothko. I looked at an imants today and Rothko jumped in to my head. I just thought I'd share it with you, wondered what you thought (or anyone else for that matter) - that's all.I've seem Imants' work, which I like, but I don't see a relationship to Rothko — now Imants is going to write that every morning before he goes out shooting he studies a few Rorhkos... —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Street Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share #119 Posted June 24, 2009 Thanks Mitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.