Los Emo Kids by David Gimenez
At first sight, Valencia, located in the Spanish Mediterranean Coast, could give an impression of being a conservative city. But in Fallas, one of the most world popular Spanish festivities, everything changes, especially at night. The mixture of fireworks, typical costumes, food, chaos, friendship, religion, alcohol and drugs give a peculiar atmosphere to the city.
Walking along the crowded “Barrio del Carmen”, the beautiful old center of the city, you can find many interesting people.
One of those nights, I found a group of Emo kids. Fancy dressed teenagers, perfectly eye lined, and tight jeans.
You don’t need to ask them to take pictures of them, actually they will ask you. They love themselves, and for that reason they want to check which shoots are good or not for approval.
This is one of my selected pictures for the final slideshow of the Photo Workshop Fallas 2009, directed by David Alan Harvey, Anton Kusters and Luis Montolio. It’s the first one of a series called “moods” composed by several portraits looking the different moods at Fallas nights.
Website: David Gimenez
What a pity this isn’t an essay submission as I’d like to know more, especially when I am doing a project about youth culture myself. I’d like to see your slideshow, at some point however.
I don’t understand why you’ve chosen to use Black and White either, a subject like this should be in colour surely? I would hope the mood is better suited to being in colour.
Nice photograph David! I love the composition (so would a picture editor, he / she would probably use the left side for a caption or header in a magazine).
I, too, would have liked to have seen more photographs: that’s a lot of text to lay on one photograph. I see no evidence of alcohol or drugs in what you have shown here; just two young people having fun. And it could have been taken anywhere. Not a criticism of the photo David, more of the introduction.
Unlike Jonathanjk I have no problem with the photo in Black & White. You obviously shoot digitally (otherwise the kids couldn’t check for approval) so you had the choice and you chose Black & White: no problem, your choice.
Good photographs on your website, you are not afraid to play and have good use of focus / depth of field.
Thanks for sharing,
Mike.
Enhorabuena David! gran foto.
Pero lo mejor es que sé que tienes más fotos tan buenas como esta.
Un saludo.
Biel.
Hi David,
I like the pic as an image, the shutter drag, the DOF, the engagement with the people etc
As a story telling image it is a different issue, the image above gives us no clues of what you have written in your text, the drugs the alcohol, even that it is during Fallas or in the old town. As there is only one image, we as viewers have no gauge as to what the mood is, to me it looks like a couple of mates having a good time.
You also suggest in your text that these kids ask to have their pictures taken, which is great as it makes your job as a photographer easier (I hope you didn’t give them editorial control) and possibly an easy subject to focus on, I am not saying that all photography should be hard to make it good. I just feel that with the opportunity of Fallas unfolding infront of you there could have been so much more. Photographing people is difficult, you have a respect for the subject, there is a natural reserve to hold that camera up and point it directly (its like staring directly at a stranger) there are barriers to overcome you just have to do it.
I look forward to seeing further images to fill in the gaps.
This is not meant to diminish your enthusiasm but is my true and honest appraisal of your documentary picture.
Grainy, fuzzy, blurry, dark. Cliche. I just don’t understand the obsession with this stuff these days.
Jim
We might have some common ground. Just by making an image B/W grainy,blurry, dark doesn’t make it a documentary picture it makes it an image in the style of documentary, there still has to be the story telling in the image.
Agreeing with Jim (and having looked at the other images on David Gimenez’s website), the image content on its own doesn’t tell me anything, and the style takes the obscurity of the photo even further away from the text, which I find more interesting anyway.
I really like the photograph David. Show this to your subjects in a couple of decades hence and they will mourn for their lost youth.
Best wishes,
Mike.
I think the picture is engaging, and paired with the text, leaves me wanting more. Love the black and white, the blur, the grain…gives it a tactile quality, like a fine grain sandpaper to the fingertips. Maybe these kids are trying to smooth out the edges…figure themselves out, and have a great time while doing it. I definitely get the “It’s all about me vibe” from the pic with the one face closer and the one eye in focus…they want us to know more, but it seems that they aren’t even sure what to tell, or how to tell it. There are secrets that they have yet to unearth, and this lies at the core of the complicated tryst in which they find themselves in with themselves… I love the composition to the right and the use of negative space and texture. Nice job.
I dont know anything here.
the writing has to tell me everything.
But the writing disagrees with the picture.
I hate that.
Why cant the picture tell me what i NEED to know and want to ask?
Or just present the picture on its own. As an image, as thats surely what it is. An impression of vague mood that We can all interpret how we will. i would be fine with that, and would enjoy this much more.
When I get TOLD what it is, I NEED it to then be that, only even more than the words that tell it.
Otherwise why?
And for me this is a bit of black and white impressionism [nothing wrong in that], without context.
let it just be that, or remake it into what you say it is.
John
i like the photograph.. something liquid about the movement and the swish of the right hand persons fringe.. they look emo and happy to be so.
as with others, it says little about the place – since kids like this are universal around the western world.. although i wonder if it needs to? can it not just be an interesting portrait which couples with words to illustrate more?
good technique and a surprising result, especially if the kids were hassling david to photograph them.. something i do not enjoy at all.
in conclusion i think it´s okay as a single.. as a portrait of young people.. i think it is publishable in youth culture magazines.. and with more context – photographs from differing distances, differing subject matter – it could be the base for an essay… certainly given the events nature.
with people having a problem with the style i would say this.. there are a great deal of every kind of photograph being looked at online and in magazines.. the over-riding amount being straight, clean and obviously crisp.. so why exert that there is too much of this kind of photograph when it is, obviously, still a style which exists in the minority?
:ø)
d
david, because to me it says, “I am frustrated with with the “reality” of photography limiting my vision. I want to be a painter.”
by virtue of creating work such as this though photography has been stretch, so there would be no need to become a painter..
paul strand said he painted what could not be photographed and photographed what painting could not represent.. or something like that.. so with this photograph, rather than being frustrated, perhaps the author has found a balance.. like our bob..
actually i have started to relate to work such as this through understanding and respecting bobs work..
having said that i do not think this kind of representation is anything particularly new.. i think it´s just easier to find online these days than it was when people produced it at collage in the darkroom.. painting with light and all that jazz..
i think it is a lucky photo, since without the fringe and the liquid feel i get from it perhaps it would not work for me.. it may be a little shallow, given the text, as a single image.. even so i think it does work.. for whatever reason.. for me :ø)
cheers jim.
d
stretched
There is a softness to this photo that I like..
and I don’t mean ‘soft’ technically speaking…
there is a tenderness about it..
the way the girls head is tilted..
the gentle smile..
innocence…
I agree with Carrie,
I too, get the feeling
they want us to know more,
but they’re not sure what to tell
or how to tell it…
**
Great, wish i’d shot it! (no time right now..am running, but wanted to give instant feedback and it’s all GOOD!)
very best
kat~
Jim..
As the famous painter Gerhard Richter once said (and i paraphrase), “Just because you can do something well doesn’t mean you have to do it”. The camera is a tool i use to interpret my world my way. Just because this tool (operative word ‘tool’, as opposed to ‘right wing dictator’ for example) is capable of shooting the wing tip of a fruit fly with a sharpness that cuts the retina doesn’t mean i have to shoot the wing-tip of a fruit fly, sharply or at all.
Furthermore, some, like me, with vision problems see our world quite often through a haze of blur or indistinct details. When I set out to capture my world it felt quite unnatural to me to suddenly see all these sharp edges that the camera told me comprised my environment. I became fascinated with blur. Not for its own sake. I don’t do contrived blur. I am not a pictorialist. Those guys DID try to emulate paintings. ICK. But when it occurred naturally, with charm and realism, there was a recognition that this was my world, not the other toasty-crisp-PS-sharpened-sizzle-edged one that others deemed superior to mine. Hence, Bones by Bob Black made much visual, intellectual and emotional sense to me and so does Los Amos Kids. Besides that, there is very little that we do see that is camera sharp. Our eye is constantly adjusting its focus between near and far, we are moving, things go by in a whir, and night time vision is a whole ‘nother thing. For me, this is reality, right here. And please don’t tell me that if i’d been sitting a foot away from this couple that i would have seen them sharply. Not so, not so. Besides that..crap, i hate getting into this when i could have gotten into the wonderfully tender, loving feeling of this photo, but that’s for another time. i am LATE!
Jim, your “painter” comment betrays your age. The stuffy “painter” slight was paid to photographers back when Ansel and Weston were shooting. Even earlier. And i KNOW you aren’t that old! As Panos says, this is 2009.
love ya anyway, gotta go
Kathie
hi wendy,
being uhh… female, i tend to be emotional about pictures but,
but btw, it is really because i dont know photography,
not at all gender based opinions (bleecchh!) just dont know anything about shooting at all…
i dont…hmmm… find this soft… gentle smile?
if you look closely,
that part of her smile in the shadows is a … a…
what the hell! a SMIRK!!!
which even punctuates the guy’s SMIRK!
this tells me ATTITUDE!!
is this what the kids are all about?
i looked at the title and then the picture… and then the title and then the picture…
and then what was written below it.
THIS entry (since i dont like the word submission)
works better for me as a part of an essay given the context it was published.
as a standalone, it’s a cool interesting in-the-moment capture but that’s all
but as PJ, as part of an essay it might blow my mind!!!
(wanting more…)
best,
gracie
I get the feeling that for some viewers, photos are simply empty vessels into which they read their own emotions, feelings, attitudes. I’m not interested in that. I know how I react to things, how I feel about things. I want photos that tell me what the photographer thought about what he was shooting. This photo fails to do that for me.
Another rock, another tree, another dark, fuzzy, grainy photo of teens. The technique gets in the way of whatever message the photographer is trying to convey.
Jim
“Grainy, fuzzy, blurry, dark. Cliche. I just don’t understand the obsession with this stuff these days.”
Jim there is a long tradition of grainy, fuzzy etc. I’m just looking at one of my books and there are many images by Stieglitz, Steichen, Imogen Cunningham and many others which fit right in to that description.
These photographs rely on their graphic content for their message. Indeed, some photographers of the time were told to deliberatly de-focus the camera to help reduce the image to a simpler state.
This technique has waxed and waned in popularity since then, but always been part of the language. There seem to be more people exploring the technique again. Digital imaging encourges such experimentation because the feedback is instant and you aren’t burning up money as you shoot.
I like Davids image a great deal. I have no problem with the text . The text tells me it is part of a larger series. The kids expressions are cocky and perfectly convey the mood intended.
Check out Davids site. He is using blur and movement to distil his images down to pure graphics. Content and mood is suggested rather than described in detail.
David, I think your vision is very sophisticated, and I like what you are doing. You have an awesome sense of composition. I’d love to see the whole project.
Gordon L.
dearest jim,
oh woww! you read me right… when i look at photos, i am sensitive to how it makes me feel.
i do not become the photographer, i do not feel what he wants to say…
i cannot dissect the photo because i might not be able to help, you know more than i do… therefore
many might find me useless here… BUT
i become the photo: the dying dinosaur, the tryst in the smelly hotel, the proud person stuck in a physically sick body, the tumbleweed burning from a random lightning strike, the gun,
once famous abandoned wall, the innocent son, the gossiper, the fly on a hapless baby
this is how i am. this is me.
hi GRACIE
I guess I’m responding to the dichotomy
between my perception of emus
and this photo…
I don’t see a smirk,
I see a smile and a light..
its not what I would expect..
it feels more gentle then I would have thought emus to be…
But what the fuck do I know?!?
the beautiful thing with photography,
there is no right
or wrong…
for me,
its what I feel
when I look at a photo,
that I respond to..
and then try oh so hard to articulate….
~of course I respond to more than just my feelings when viewing an image, but it’s my starting point…~
**
JIM
photos as
empty vessels?
read emotions..
no interest…
whoa!!
wow,
you continue to amaze me..
theres a big world out there~
feel it..
lovely tones and feeling, god bless robert frank
@ Wendy, I’m holding my hand up again and stating that I agree with Jim. I also feel nothing for this photo because there is nothing there to feel, and my current project is about exactly the same thing, I can sympathise and relate (with the text) but there is nothing within that image that makes it any more interesting for me.
I still disagree with the Black and White, and the blurry technique doesn’t bother me much, I like it occasionally, but beyond all that, it this image doesn’t amount to much considering it is a final image. I’m sure there are better ones from the project.
wonderful! thanks for this
Jim, I think it all has to do with intent, if the idea was to shoot a well lighted sharp photo then that did not happen. If the idea was to capture a fleeting emotion then it works. I call this style “shaky/blurry.” I do like this image.
Wendy, here we are with the populace thing again. I don’t know many people – even photographers – who spend much time probing the depths of their emotions when they look at photos. I understand that these photos are intended for “sophisticated” viewers, not the proletariat. Another trend that getting kind of old.
Thank you for good editing. No story necessary, either. I’m a lover not a writer, too. ;) And color would have ruined it for me…but i’m biased (like everyone else) – in this case b&w fuses the duo together into one mosaic of curvilinear tiles, though I will say it is important to me that the kids are looking directly at the camera.
May I ask what gear you used?
Jim wrote: “I get the feeling that for some viewers, photos are simply empty vessels into which they read their own emotions, feelings, attitudes.”
This is reader-response criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-Response_Criticism
And it has a long history. I happen not to care for it, but it is one of the many interpretive tools available when considering a work of art.
It’s funny how, here on Burn, the debates about photography tend to move — innocently, naively — among well established schools of critical thought and aesthetics, some of which were formulated by Aristotle. But people aren’t really aware of them. There is a rich, complex, and important history of criticism, in art, literature, and philosophy, that has a direct bearing on photography and is worthy of one’s passing attention, especially when learning how to respond critically to photography (and, perhaps, to inform one’s own work).
My point is not that one needs to be a professor or autodidact (like Bob Black or Sidney Atkins), but criticism is a useful tool. And the photographers we all admire tend to know that they are working in a tradition informed by this criticism. Though it is late in arriving, photography is part of a conversation that goes back millennia.
Hmmm!
It’s funny, too, how every single time there is a photo or essay posted which incorporates blur or motion or, really, anything that doesn’t look like it’s from the f64 Group, Jim chimes in about not liking it… does nothing for him… cliche… blah blah… why jim WHY can’t photography convey motion and emotion without being shot in bright light at f16? You are a curmudgeon of the highest order, it’s consistent and unbelievable… the world looks like this jim, it does, people see this way, it’s valid, please please break the shackles which you’ve tightened on that brain of yours.
Grainy/sharp/blurry…
http://www.fullframeimages.com/ffi07.html
I like it. I can see it in a magazine.
Patricia, where are you?
Mike.
David: I enjoy the esthetics of this. Good use of negative space and proportion. Maybe lighten his eye to make it more captivating, and darken (some would clone) her button because it distracts a bit. Dodge and burn–something that is completely valid I think.
I agree with others that it leaves one curious or wanting more. It would, therefore, I think, make a good teaser for a series. And in that light the text certainly does reinforce the expectation. Without the text is becomes simply another very well composed picture. So good that one will recognize it years hence if seen again, but will perhaps not recall off-hand.
If it became part of a powerful series, people would likely be inclined to favor it more and even want it as a stand-alone because it “belongs” to something grander and has enough esthetics to be liked. I am speculating. This is as far as my comments directly to you go concerning this image. What continues may interest you as part of a larger discussion that your picture evokes in others.
Jim, Kat, Jonathan, et al:
Why Jim and his like don’t relate to this? Why is blurry, grainy considered intellectual and trendy?
Jim’s opinion is terribly important to understand because it indeed represents the proletariat, and it is often to the “proletariat” (Jim’s word, not mine) that we entrust directly or indirectly the acceptance and therefore success of our images. It is unlikely this type of image would sell well in certain communities, particularly the smaller and less culturally diverse they are. This may sound condescending but it is an empirically made comment. I will likely get under Jim’s skin for saying this but, it is therefore very important to deconstruct and analyze this type of psyche.
Jim is correct in observing that this type of image is likely more present today than before. The reasons are many. The most obvious one is the prevalence of forums, web, etc. that facilitate individuals who do not pander to the proletariat’s taste to show their work and overcome the prejudice of the proletariat. (Love ya Jim, you give me the perfect excuse to relish the use of the word…you tempt me to dismiss any poor soul that labels my imagery as too artsy or intellectual as an unfortunate proletarian.) But I sense there are two underlying social currents emerging with greater strength, particularly in Western (and mostly US) society.
The most immediate trend is one of doubting photography. Generation Y is thoroughly cynical of pictures, and a good deal of Generation X is as well. They know that what is presented is not necessarily true. They believe the President will distort the facts to justify war. They are bombarded and saturated with news that is really disguised editorial. On one level this means that photography must incorporate more than documentation to retain its legitimacy, and this opens the door to more ephemeral representations of reality. On another level there, and likely because of the overwhelming presence of video and news, one realizes that the issues at stake (i.e. 9/11, War in Iraq, China friend or torturer, etc.) that dominate these mediums are issues that are not easily represented in black and white lines. Sharp, matter of fact photography is often too inflexible and incorporating elements such as blur, grain, etc. insert the vagueness that we already have in our minds but that the media does not generally acknowledge. In the same regard this is in many ways a simplification of photography. The use of b&w is an example of simplifying the elements in the image to an essence that reinforces the vagueness.
The second trend is the proliferation of point-and-shoots. Jim says, ” I understand that these photos are intended for “sophisticated” viewers, not the proletariat. Another trend that [is] getting kind of old.” It is actually the proletariat that is pushing the trend, and the sophisticated viewer is simply on the vanguard of this movement (another evolution and exploration is the use of new media). In this sense the masses have nobody to blame but themselves for buying millions of point-and-shoots. They simply over-saturated themselves with a lack of esthetics—rather like a culture that no longer knows what fresh orange juice tastes like. Would you dismiss somebody who drinks fresh squeezed orange juice as an pretentious person? For them a photograph is something anybody can present and is the standard accompaniment to the local and national parochial news stories–which incidentally go hand in hand with pasteurized orange juice. For a photograph to become more–to return to a form of art and expression–it needs to break away from this. Although anecdotal, I get evidence of this every time I shoot in a bar, almost always somebody will remark that I am not using a flash, and to them that is the sign of knowledge and mastery and magic that a “pro” has (if only they knew the truth…). Another growing sign of this is the increased use and acceptance of cel-phone cameras. The limitations of them are such that “the proletariat” (who gave them the right to have phones?!?) are now posting millions of fuzzy, dark, grainy (actually noisy) pictures–the difference being that they are also mostly BAD pictures. But you know why they insist on doing this? Because it is their personal expression, and this is evidence of how they legitimately relate to the individualism that such elements introduce to an image.
Furthermore, “the proletariat” that Jim refers to is an American one (as in USA). It is a mass of people that is capable of reading and performing a high degree of mathematical applications (computers, grocery shopping, understanding CC interest rates, miles per hour, etc)—hence a comparatively high level of education. Like societies any where in the world it does not care much for what happens beyond the front porch. But unlike other societies that have 80% of the population at or under the poverty line, it can read, sum, and access an enormous amount of information if it so wishes. Like societies any where else, it likes to gossip and naturally the information it most wants to access are about people around it. One peculiarity (if you call the proletariat peculiar would it translate to “before-letter sheepish behavior” therefor implying farmers and not the labor class?…hmm need to brush up on my etymology) of American society is that this interplay with the community embraces of all things wholesome and good. Like apple pie, honest Abe, hot dogs on the 4th of July, and turkey thanksgivings, and pictures of my cat, and of a sunset, and, oh another sunset, and look my baby’s face (isn’t he cutter than Gerber), or, hey look! a cute squirrel eating Cheetos (sorry Jim) because all of this reminds us of the comfort of our community.
But for the other 80% in the 90% of the world? They tend to relate to emotions in another sense, with another logic. I won’t indulge as to how the societies I’ve lived in each express this, but I can say from personal experience only, that they enjoy the abstractness of images as photographs once were nearly a century ago. Pictures are representations of who they are, not so much where they live, and these people, whether in Mauritania, Bolivia, Mozambique are in awe with the magic of a picture…and only the picture. Have you ever given a polaroid out, or shown your digital screen to them? If you have, you know what i mean. They are not interested in the caption or the earnestness of the photograph. They take it for what it means to them. So in this sense, I find irony that this type of emotive photography is labled too gimicky, false and catering to intellectuals, and casts aside the proletariat. I believe it goes deeper, it casts aside the filter of media and speaks to the individual regardless of class and condition.
It may not resonate as strongly (although I indicated why this was changing) with the American proletariat, as per Jim’s interpretation of it, but I believe it does so with the larger huddled masses who don’t have a camera. (Admittedly, cel phone proliferation is making this a debatable issue, but still, there remains the issue of printing those images, and the pictures held hostage to the life of the phone). Having a camera by this greater sense of measure makes any such owner an intellectual.
Jan, i’m not even going to try to respond, i’m too busy reflecting and rethinking.
This is the second delivery of yours that has really blasted my paradigms and helped me to understand the blurry part of what i sorta thought to understand.
You create words about photography that are just as exciting as exploring photography. Bravo!
MORE MORE MORE!!!!
Calling a photograph cliche is in itself cliche.
Photography is cliche. Straight. Loose. Blurry. Sharp. B&W. Color. Action. Still life. Documentary. Artsy. Gritty. Magnum. VII. Nat Geo.
It’s all cliche. Why even get out of the bed in the morning? But we do anyway. Why? Because, acting like Brian Wilson would be cliche! ;^}
I think banning the words “cliche” and “derivative” from these discussion threads would be a noble thing.
@David Gimenez…
Groovy picture, dude!
Jan, I do agree with you that the proliferation of forums like this strongly drive certain kinds of images. Street photographers in general and those who like the kind of dark, grainy, fuzzy, zero DOF photos we’re are talking about here, now have many places to gather and create their own little sub-world to talk to each other. It’s not, I think, that there is a growing interest in this stuff, it’s just that those with interest in it have now congregated in the same places and it “seems” the interest is large.
One non-image example of that is the various forums dedicated to those who love rangefinder cameras. Rangefinder camera users (and I use several along with DSLR’s) are a tiny part of a tiny part of the photo world. Yet, you see threads all the time advocating that Nikon or Canon could really clean up financially if they would just start making rangefinders again! Nonsense. They have lost perspective in their tiny world. The RF was effectively killed off in the 1970’s. (Well, except for some holdouts like DAH :)
Outside the world of forums, I don’t really see that folks are very interested in these kinds of photos. I think it’s an illusion created by the connectedness of the Internet.
Mental Note to Self:
If Burn goes to print, beg, i mean get on my hands and knees and beg David to use Jan’s commment as the introdution to the book, it’s the only explaination needed to justify why all the images that follows will be any thing but ‘average’ or anything but ‘for the masses’.
I will miss Bob Black alot. I know bob in person, long before Burn or road trip. I am happy than Jan has stepped in and offered a terrific perspective. I know that when bob brought to bare long comments with philosophical or sociological perspective, often he was dismissed (including by Joe, how ironic). I am happy that Jan has contributed a great philosophical perspective and hope he takes off where bob left off (Jan, did you read bob’s analysis of your picture?)…
the question: where is the person to bring to bare both poetry and philosophy now?…
How do i know this? some of what I learned about photography was from meeting him 3 years ago and reading some of his essays at an online magazine he wrote for (i cant remember the name). I used to also teach at the same school. I wish he were here to add his imput, but he has said, today was it.
yup, groovy pic. did you do this for David’s workshop?
i love what michael kircher wrote too….but that is cliche ;-)
one of the unwashed mass
One Question Jim. A Simple One.
Since most of the people that create this kind of photography that you find ‘less’ appealing can actually create the kind of photography that you ‘do’ find appealing (it’s pretty average really), then why is it that these same people move past that type of photography and strive for this less appealing photography?
They certainly don’t start here, why do they end up here Jim?
@Jan, I’m not one of Jim’s ‘like,’ I will make a point when I disagree with Jim, this time I agree with Jim. Second, I don’t mind the blur, nor mind the desaturation (though I prefer some colour as I mentioned before), it is the content I have an issue with, the image says nothing to me, and betrays the accompanying text.
@anonymous proletarian reader.
Don’t worry Bob will be back. I used to be worried Bob was too sensitive, so I would bite my tongue when he really stuck his chin out for a haymaker.
I’ve learned that it’s not that he’s too sensitive, quite the opposite, Bob is too resilient. He will shake it off and come back; tabula rasa? Who knows, but no more kid’s gloves from me.
WTF?! Bob is dropping out? I read his analysis to me and it struck deep. It was only then that I found (hunted) out Bones and his words made even more sense.
I’ll shut up now and let David Gimenez have his due place. David, aun no he visto to sitio web en detalle. Te mando un correo despues.
With all of this talk of the proletariat, it seems we are engaged in Marxist criticism. ;>)
Jim,
You do bring up a good point and i find myself siding with you on this if this is what you are saying:
there is a bit of a cult following for a kind of photography that is just ‘harder to do’ photography, maybe for you rangefinders fits this (i don’t agree with this example, but never mind) but yes, cult following for hard-to-do photography (maybe using expired film with a holga?) does seem a little bit senseless at times.
but as far as the dreamy painteresque images like this, they are not the same as the product of ‘hard-to-do’ photography. This is beautiful and desirable to look at regardless of how it was constructed, even if it was done with an easy to use camera.
i took in a beautiful exhibit of equally painteresque images at a very reputable location in London called the Photographer’s Gallery. I was elbow to elbow with others that had an equal admiration of the work and i don’t think they learned to like these images from the internet Jim, and I don’t think they were all just a bunch of perverts (it’s just not the place for that)
Anyways, here’s more dreamy paintersque pleasing to look at and ‘think about’ images (that you might dismiss with your acceptance critera Jim), but maybe the name behind these will make them more reputable Antoine D’Agata
David Gimenez i can only tell you that i find it very peasing to look at your image and your site is filled with a string of additional images i like to look at, please do more!
I really like this image, and for some reason it reminds more me of 1960’s imagery. Why? I can’t quite put my finger on it yet. However I do feel it would sit better as part of an essay rather than a stand alone image.
To me, it doesn’t say “Emo” but it does say “Fancy dressed teenagers, perfectly eye lined, and tight jeans”. But that is probably because here in New Zealand, Emo is more Goth-like or should I say “Goth-lite!!” :-))
I don’t think the grainy quality is out of place at all for this image. It enhances rather than detracts.
Jim, Jim, Jim, “I don’t like – not for me – arty stuff” etc. Why do we care what Jim thinks?
Because it’s so short-sighted, that’s why. We want the old fart (one old fart to another) to spread his wings; to fly!!!!!
Someone throw a shoe at Jim. A big shoe.
Grimacing Jim, grimacing.
What’s your newspaper called, Jim?
Mike.
Mike, why would you care what I think? I’m just pixels on a screen. And easily ignored. :)
Jim, because I want you to fly, to see beyond your horizon.
Patricia Lay-Dorsey,
are you o.k.?
Mike.
Jim, if this was a photograph of you and your wife a teenagers, would it provoke nostalgia? Reminds me of Bruce Davidson’s “Brooklyn Gangs”
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOY9MWNPC&IT=ImageZoom01&PN=59&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Album&IID=2K7O3RJDLKF&SAKL=T&SGBT=T&DT=Image
Best wishes,
Mike.
Mike, I’ve spent a lifetime asking questions. And along the way I came to conclusions about what I truly like and what I don’t like. I don’t have to figure it out now. I did when I was younger, but I don’t need to revisit all of that again. Photography is something specific to me. And at age 58 I’m not going to blow all of that up and start questioning again, only to arrive at the same conclusions.
If you want someone to fly, you need to look elsewhere.
Mike, I’m afraid I’m not a nostalgic person. I’ve been so busy living in the present I haven’t spent much energy on the past.
Jim, you’ve said some things that stick with me in a good way, one of them that i can’t find for the life of me to quote perfectly was,
‘photographers are running the risk of only talking to or only being meaningful to each other’.
It was then that i really began to appreciate your crusade. I do think there’s a real audience anchor that you bind us to and i wouldn’t want you any other way Jim, somebody needs to play this role or we will perish at those words you delivered.
Sometimes it seems like an ‘either/or’ with visual appeal, i really wish it was an ‘and’ when it comes to audiences. It sure seems to be the case with the pure orange juice analogy, but there are some quantum gaps in the visual media, weird huh?
i don’t have an answer as to why, sometimes I think it’s just a case of becoming visually literate, but safe to say that the more sophisticated your photographic literacy/appetite/work gets the smaller the audience, but certainly not a small clueless audience.
It’s just really rare to find something as complex and popular in the visual world as the Beatles were in the world of music I guess.
Joe, I guess my fear continues to be that only we (photographers) will ultimately be able to love the children of our incest.
¨Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you. ¨
yoda.
jim – sometimes you have given up on life itself.. having reached conclusions ? sounds a little bigoted ya know.
my conclusion to burning myself is not to stick my hand in fire, however what we are talking about here is photos.. photography as an artform which can provoke, illustrate and move.. it justr seems to me that most of what is on burn is just not your cup o chai, and thats okay.. really though.. you have a habit of presenting a rather overblown stance as above..
within music.. most people listen to pop.. it is bland.. it appeals to the masses.. it is music made by business for business.. yet how much of lesser known music is more successful in itself?
how many streams of music have a cult following.. and how do you think these streams chan ge the overall perception of music as well as the creation of music over time?
how small was the blues – and how big was what it led into?
i think if you think of photography and music side by side and look at the development of both over time, to say we are producing just for ourselves and only to talk with ourselves is daft as santa-claus..
:ø)
d
Well, david, I’ve never liked grainy, fuzzy, dark photos. I’m never going to like them. I also don’t like liver or buttermilk, although over the years I’ve sampled them on occasion just to be sure.
I’m not sure what you would have me to do? Live life without evaluating it? Waste my time continually revisiting what I have learned by experience I do not like?
The photo posted here is not the first one I’ve seen like it. I’ve seen hundreds. Every time I looked at one I didn’t like it. I don’t have to evaluate that anymore. Geeze.
¨I guess my fear continues to be that only we (photographers) will ultimately be able to love the children of our incest.¨
_______________
apply that sentence to the music industry.. and some of the small scenes which have broken new movements unknowingly.. yes the music market is much bigger, although elevator music is not what people think represents change within it, is it?
so why is it that the mainstream of photography is all important rather than smaller scenes within photography?
is mainstream photography not just reactive as is the elevator music?
have new bands been inspired by that glockenspiel version of ´up, up and away´ they caught between the 7th and 8th floor?
it´s the way you seem to extrapolate your personal dislike into some kind of fear for the industry / photographers income.. or more.. or.. ´geeze´..
it just does not hold water for me – a photo does not appeal to you and then a crisis is soon to be presented.. by you.
your concerns over the industry and incomes of photographers are from such a specific place.. that´s good for promoting discussion.. it needs to be balanced.
d
Ok, we gotta stop picking on poor Jim. (big grin here)
Jim says “why would you care what I think?” If he didn’t care what we think, and didn’t find this discussion fascinating, he would not be here, commenting. Maybe his motive is to provoke us, and make us “think about what I think” as Jim once put it. Wether it is his motive or not that is the case.
C’mon Jim, I’m older than you, I’m not ready to set my opinions and my vision in stone. Hell, I think my best is yet to come. (although I’ve been reviewing the stuff I did in my twenties and gained a new appreciation for my vision then). But I can’t believe your perception and vision hasn’t been affected by what has been presented and written here. I’d love to hear what you have gained from being here. And please, I don’t want to hear how it has re-inforced and hardened your attitudes, you wouldn’t be here if that were the case.
Finally Jim, thanks for being straight shooting, to the point, not afraid to say what you think. I think you are one of the reasons this forum is so amazing. (sorry for the back-slapping)
Gordon L
:ø)
i utterly agree that jim is of great benefit.. of course you are jim as similarly to gorden i like the way you present your views.. straight down the line.. like an editor without a doubt.
it would be great to see why you like coming to burn jim – what you are getting out of the increasing time you spend here.. or are newspapers really that quick to lay-out :ø)
d
Gordon, I’m actually at the point of removing the link to this magazine from my shortcut bar. Photography is moving in a direction that concerns me for its future, and David posts too many images here that remind me of that. It serves no useful purpose for me to add to all this noise. Take photography to whatever logical end you wish. I just don’t want to go along. The interaction here has helped me define that in my own thinking.
Have fun!
ahh, jim..
:ø/
photography is young.. the future is bright.. burn needs more editors to post.
Getting back to David Gs’ photo, and Jans’ comments, I’ve been thinking about how we view photographs, and “visual literacy” in general.
A photogaph is a magical thing. It’s kinda like a clay impression, it is an image that has a direct relationship to the subject, as opposed to a drawing. Howeve, like a drawing, a photograph fools the eye into seeing something that is not really there; an interesting phenomenon on its’ own. However, unlike the drawing, photographs have real connection with reality of the moment depicted, a shadow frozen in time and all that.
We view photographs almost as reality. A story involving Picasso describes a person showing him a photo and saying “this is my wife” . Picasso replies, “what a pity she is so small and flat”.
Is it inate that we all learn to view a photograph the same way, or do we learn how to respond to it? Is how we respond to a photograph filtered by our experiences and expectations and pre-conceptions? Absolutely. I think as photographers, the filter is much more powerful than the “proletariat”, maybe to our detriment sometimes. Maybe Jim has a point.
Getting back to “fuzzy, grainy out of focus” photographs.
What kind of photograph most accurately mimic how we see? Is it the sharp from corner to corner infinite depth of field kinds of photographs? Well, no, we don’t see like that. We actually see more like a lens-baby, sharp in the center, fuzzy on the edges. And while were at it, we see in three dimensions, in real time. Not only that, most of us see in full colour, except as the light level drops, then you see colour as less intense, and you see less sharply. When I wander around my house at night with the lights off (older guys get up to pee a lot), I just see big shapes, no shadow detail, no colour.
The point is (yah what the hell is your point Lafleur?), the point is, that David Gs’ fuzzy photo, and those like it, just may be a more accurate reprsentation of how people see.
Great discussion
Gordon l.
I can appreciate what this photographer was trying to achieve. I suppose not liking dark, grainy images is a matter of personal taste. Certainly though it is not something which determines in and of itself the quality of an image. Case in point, many images from my favorite photographer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/museums/photogallery/bresson/gal_3-4.htm
Having known several “emo kids,” I can say this image speaks to them as a social group — absolutely. It seems that was what the photog was trying to achieve with this. One must sometimes look deeper into a photograph to see its true value, something I have slowly started to learn, often on this web site. I believe this is what Mr. Harvey is trying to teach us as well. It is not always obvious, but it is rewarding when you can look at “the same” subject matter with new eyes.
“photographers are running the risk of only talking to or only being meaningful to each other”
I have simple similar answer but about fine arts witch reference to photography too. Even if photography is much younger or because (!) photography is younger.
When peope ask me (all the time); “why Art is so difficult, why artist, curators and galleries making exhibitions only for them selfs????”
“Why art is not for regular people??? (nice)”
And my answer is (always):
“why phisics is so difficult? Why scientist and institutes making knowlage only for themsels?”
“Why phisics can’t be for regular people??”
“why we can’t stay with Newton???? (nice)”
This is our reality and we have to agree with, if we want go further.
Why? how? when?
Asking the questions is most important thing, but this questions CAN”T be rethorical for purpose.
And my impression is the “why” is rethorical. No need the answer, no looking for answer.
Photographers talk and do for themself???
Excellent!!!!
Emo kids..that’s what they’re called? hahahaha, i thought they were Goth kids..well! No matter! I have shot these kids extensively in Costa Rica. I have shot a million and one people on the street, both from the hip and spontaneous street portraits with permission from the subjects. So i come to this subject with experience. These kids are THE nicest, kindest, most tolerant of ALL my subjects. Hands down, period. Some here say they see smirk and attitude, some see tenderness. Well if my experience counts for anything, i will say it is closer to tenderness and affection. They are unbelievably affectionate and close with each other. Very young girls with older boys will lean their heads on the boys’ shoulders and the affection between them is almost fraternal, i can see the guy easily going to the mat to protect this girl in case of problems on the street. I have observed them very closely. They huddle in tight little groups, speaking respectfully to each other, not bothering anyone. They float from one knot of kids to another and always the same thing, respect for one another. I went to one of their concerts and the same thing. They have my complete respect. I have also overheard others talking about these kids, making harsh fun of them. I cringe inside with the pain of their words.
Many or all of these kids have been marginalized by society. Look closely at them in r/t..often they have very unusual features or body build, there’s something about them that has made them struggle for mainstream acceptance and when they don’t find it they find each other and their own style. Not only do they accept each other but they are tolerant to others, like, right, photographers! I don’t think it’s because they have huge egos, they’re just open and receptive. I was amazed that they welcomed me into their group which changed every time i went to shoot them and yet they always were the same with me. No matter where i found them, they let me in. And inevitably they would invite me to whatever was going on that night. I never went but their invitations were heart-felt. I mean, i’m a foreigner in this country and so am also marginalized. This kind of sincere welcome and acceptance does not usually happen on the street to me except with these kids. I am crazy about them and i love their styles, i love the fabulous graphic qualities of their unusual features, eye makeup, hair and unique body types. I look at them through the lens, see right to their souls through their big eyes, and i can only gasp, it catches in my throat and in my heart..it’s absolutely an emotional experience for me to shoot them.
Well, i could comment more but that’s really about it..this is a wonderful photograph. i will not explain it, describe it, emote about it. it’s a photograph i absolutely get, no mystery, no doubt, i KNOW what moved this photographer. I KNOW what he saw.
Well done, big time well done.
best~
kathie
Tough photo. I want to like it, I just don’t. It sucks me in with all that space on the left, dude on the rights face is priceless, but it doesn’t make a photo. I’d like to see this softer. Like emo kids really are, unsure of themselves… they look too confident here. That’s the surface.
It feels a bit contrived. Edgy for edgy’s sake.
As far as Jim goes, I’d be sorry to see him go, he keeps the place active somewhat, I kind of like him. Like my uncle that I argue with over Thanksgiving dinner every year, but… if he’s gonna say the same thing every time, well, I won’t miss him too much. I’ll Imagine what he says and structure my thoughts accordingly. :)
Going to ht a couple bars in San Fran tonight… Burning.
Kathleen, please email me, I miss my Costa Rica (lived there for a couple of years). I lived in Escazu and Cariari… wish I was photographing at the time like I am now.
Glad you’re BACK on burn.
jarediorio@gmail.com
Jared
oh my..i can’t see that girl being any “softer” than she is, she’s like a warm chocolate chip cookie smack out of the oven..she’s melting..her body language, the tender curve of her mouth, her trust and confidence in both the boy and the photographer. She’s all heart this girl. The boy is a boy..i mean, he may be unsure but he’s not going to look like a wimp..he’s not being cocky..it’s more like bravery..there’s a distinction. He’s taken great care dressing for the night, he’s the girl’s protector and the way the light caught his eye and the curve of his upper lip gives him a sneering quality but it’s coolness he’s projecting. I mean, that’s it. He’s cool and he knows it but the trust the girl shows as she leans into him tells the viewer what kind of person he really is. To see him any softer would belie his youthful masculinity. Perhaps if the photographer were to shoot him alone he would show more of himself but i get the feeling this was a quick photo-op…maybe i’m wrong (?)
Contrived..no..no..this is all night-time ooze and grit..that’s when these kids come out. Consider the atmosphere.
best to you, Jared..
kathie
Jared, wow, Escazu and Cariari…i live clse to Escazu..am there every day! will write you!!!
kat~
Jan and Preston and Gracie (wow, what a varied trio!)…
Jan, just read your long post and am speechless..i need a second and probably third read to comment but wanted to say thank you for a thoroughly fascinating look at the Proletariat, of which i am certainly one, just maybe a few rungs higher up on the visual evolution ladder. But to see what you are writing, perhaps the climb up the visual evolution ladder leads to a case of diminishing returns. Heaven help the day that i begin to view photos purely from the brain. That’s the day i would sell my cameras. So, Gracie? Unless i missed Jan’s point entirely, maybe emoting is not such an embarrassment. And i thought i was the only one :)))…though i also want to read Preston Merchant’s link about criticisim because the critic’s craft fascinates me as almost an art in itself. However, Jan, it’s your post i am going to mull over tomorrow..interesting..thank you!
best to all
Kathie
ALL
This guy Jim..he’s like a hub..all our comments revolve around his opinions. We love to hate him, hate to love him but in the end we do love him because he gives us something to react to and write about. But what about the photograph or essay that’s getting kicked to the curb in the meantime? If Jim left, and i wouldn’t care one way or the other if he did..what then? Would we have to actually peer into these photos and get beyond our initial intellectual response to technique or text (text? never have i heard so much written about text as here at Burn), we’d have to um actually feel the thing? And then throw out those feelings and discuss them with each other? Well, yeah, that would be the start of something good.
Puhlleeeeeeeeze, he is ONE guy who shoots farmers in overalls sitting in lawn chairs looking like overstuffed scarecrows. No offense Jim, this is what you like to shoot. If i had to imagine his world from his photos, (which i don’t because i know personally where he lives and i’m not denigrating it so Jim don’t go there), one would imagine that life there is one long country bbq, church supper, high school car wash fundraiser or Memorial Day parade (which it most decidedly is not). Nobody looks weird or out of sorts or ready to commit a hatchet murder. There’s no racism, no losers, no falling down drunk wife abusers. If we see in a blurry fashion much of the time, well, in Jim’s world, we all see 20/20 and view life right down the middle of the road. He shoots the proletariat for the proletariat. I think he has dumbed down his photography over the years to make it digestible to the majority of the people. And that’s OK for JIM! Ain’t no way at his age that he wants to wake up one day and realize he made a wrong turn somewhere. Stop trying to open his mind. This has been a Burn hobby since the day i came here. Let’s talk Jim into being somebody more like, well, like us. Well, that’s damned insulting to Jim! I mean, who are WE? Highly evolved and enlightened creatures trying to nudge forward an exceptionally bright peasant who isn’t living up to his potential? But beyond insulting Jim, we are missing so many opportunities to make, for example, Herve the hub of our wheel for the day, or Rafal, or Patrica or Haik or Marcin..day after day, photo after photo, essay after essay, it’s JIM JIM JIM…declare your independence, throw out something provocative, daring, dug right out of the gut and tossed out for debate. Let’s cut ourselves loose from this Jim addiction.
And i don’t even know what Jim gets out of all this. That would be an interesting psychological case study all by itself. phew..well, ok,here, go for my throat..this is my opinion…
best to all and goodnight
kathie~
ALL..
i want to start a thread where we really discuss the psychology of how people READ pictures or READ INTO pictures…it is quite literally a function of either right or left brain side emphasis…some people see a photograph as an OBJECT in and of itself as they would look at a piece of sculpture…others see the ELEMENTS or the “key words” of a photograph and then try to analyze either meaning or intent….where some would FEEL an emotional attachment, others would only SEE technique or try to imagine what the photographer should or could have been thinking…
some see photography as a primarily visceral experience …others see pictures in the same way they would look at a road map….
a right side brain person trying to explain a photograph to a left side brain person or vice versa is always going to be a problem…and that is what i see here all the time in the comments..anyway, i will try soonest to write a new post specifically discussing this issue which is somehow leaving now blood all over the floor…and it should not…..
i must now go into a room full of young Spanish photographers who have been shooting their hearts out for a couple of days…in this room there is the same division of the subjective “right and the left”..in this room it is easier to get to the points quickly and without anger….what is with the anger i see here so so much??? or is it that many of our words on the page SEEM ANGRY when they would not be interpreted as such were we in the same room??
anger is internal….the problem of the person who is angry…anger should never play a role in discussing photographs…photographic discussion, no matter how passionate should be respectfull….i mean , we are showing pictures here…we are not shooting guns nor dropping bombs…a picture published here is never intended as a personal affront to someone who may like another type or style of photography….nor does every picture here represent what i might like hanging on my wall either…
the photographs here represent only a very small slice of what young photographers are doing today…over time, or even edited down today, i think we would have a selection representative of all styles of our medium…so enjoy some, dislike some…
mostly, for heavens sake go out and make a photograph TODAY… submit it to me…IF you are a photographer, your best “position” for discussion always is what you can put down on the table in the form of your work..this should be your real statement to all of us here…
now, please enjoy your day…it is springtime….a time of love, energy and possibility…see if you can depict any of that with a photograph…poems accepted also…
peace, david
A little bee, sat on a wall, buzz, buzz, …. and that was all.
I’ve posted this link before but in view of DAHs left / right brain comment I’ll post it again.
http://dirckhalstead.org/issue0711/e-bits.html
With compliments to Beverly Spicer for the original article on the Digital Journalist.
Perceiving the figure spinning clockwise indicates perceptual dominance by the right side of the brain, and counterclockwise indicates left-sided dominance.
The right side of the brain is used for imagination, perception of symbols and images, philosophical thinking, spatial perception and emotion. The left side of the brain is detail-oriented, uses logic, words, language and facts, comprehends order, perceives patterns and is reality-based.
So, folks; which way does she spin for you?
And Jim, if she’s not moving at all for you: keep it to yourself.
Laughing Jim, laughing.
Mike. (Definitely right brain).
@Mike R.
Man! That was a great trip! Thanks.
mike r
brilliant..
when i first looked at the spinning girl it was going clockwise – right sided..
she began spinning counter clockwise in my peripheral vision as i was reading.. going to work on controlling it if i can :ø)
the natural hallucination was good.. lasted far too short a time for me.. ahh.. i miss those days on occassion.
cheers
david
.. and DAH.. no anger here..
i think written the interweb is a terrible place to have discussion at times.. loosing so much from the world of body language and micro-expressions.. especially for a group of people with visual orientation and a preference for seeing over reading.
:ø)
Dave: Ditto.
predominant left[anti] random flips to right[clock]. Sounds about right[or is that left]. Goes with the left handedness i guess.
Agreed. very difficult to maintain discussion over an extended thread on the web. Passion is often read as anger.
Disagreement slander…etc etc. Give me a room full of people most any day. But.. We do get to connect to the WHOLE world simultaneously, and that really is something when you think about it.
John.
DAVID B…
i cannot get online with you until early in the week…i am totally crazy busy in Madrid….
JOHN…
are you in L.A.??? heading west in April/May….maybe meet??
cheers, david
DAVID. Confined to europe for a while. Flat being decorated, darkroom fitted, etc.. Cutting a documentary[dont ask, really boring..pays the bills though] together. TRYING TO SHOOT ESSAY. And boy do I suck at that :) And just generally burning up film.
john
i think your right on this david. i think this has been going on for a long time but it has been taken personally… with no analysis. i think this is a good thing for burn and i think it will help burn grow further into a place were we can get good and bad reviews on work and at the very same be constructive at the same time. a new direction. will i see you at contact this year?
RE: EMOS & GOTHS (for Kat?)
the kids in this photo really don’t look emo OR goth. they look like regular good-looking kids.
the “trademark” of an emo is their hair which is very long in the front and sweeps over to the side hiding half of their face. they dress stylishly and, if they’re emo-ravers, they dress extraordinarily colorfully. they are generally, as kat stated, very welcoming and open.
goths are generally very pale and cloak themselves in black with lots of zippers, studs and chains on their clothing. they can be open as well but generally exude a darker persona.
the two groups are very distinguishable from each other. just wanted to help clarify
(and if you image google either term, you’ll see what i mean).
best all!
katia
girls and guys:
my apologies to the kids… i dont know who they are…
and my comments (SMIRK) were based on pure ignorance
and how i viewed this picture of them at face value…
like hmmm…
if i wore a tutu, does that mean i am a ballerina
if i sport M8 does that mean im photographer
if i wore no shirt, does that mean i cant afford it
if i wore bling bling, does that mean i am rich…
if i look bodacious, does that mean i am?
John G: aren’t lefties and righties dominated by the same hemisphere. If I remember correctly in righties the corpus callosum crosses at the base of the skull. In lefties it doesn’t.
David, I look forward to that, and perhaps from a practical standpoint (for the audience, certainly not the staff) more content posted more frequently would relieve just a bit of the tension and the intellectual acrobats getting all wrapped around each other in midair. Just a thought. Things can get a bit … carnivorous … around here at times.
Katia, being an Emo sounds like fun. I’m thinking about becoming one but I have a problem: I’m as bald as an egg: free range, but still, an egg. So the hair sweeping over half the face is a problem. Do you know if a syrup (syrup of fig – wig) is acceptable attire for an aging emo? Any help gratefully accepted.
Best wishes,
Emo Mike.
YOUNG TOM…
“more content, posted more frequently”….. well, we post new content every day amigo…are you suggesting twice a day???…can’t make it dude…not unless you jump in and help us out…you just gave me a headache….
cheers, david
Yes. us sinisters are ‘cut off’ so to speak. But we got the dreams man so we did all right :)
mike–
you could always get a wig.
http://www.wigfx.co.nz/images/emosm.jpg
;))
Katia, that syrup is for me!
Thanks for the link, in return, please check out this Mangnum link.
http://expression.magnumphotos.com/expression_award/index.php?p=the_theme
The theme is Community and I immediately thought of you.
Best wishes,
Mike.
“And at age 58 I’m not going to blow all of that up and start questioning again”
Jim, I am your age and I personally plan on exploring new thoughts/ideas and technology as they arrive during the coming years. Are you really locking into a thought process that was developed by you years ago? No room left in you brain for new ways of seeing the world?
your
One for Jim…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert_m_johnson/1486448440/sizes/o/
David,
I am never and ever angry here. (I was for Panos one time long time ago)
Mostly I am happy. :)
Sometimes I am sad. (just sometimes)
Sometimes I am tired.(rare)
We should put more smiles into comments.
:)
Today my wife bought me three velvias (Treasure!).
IF I am a photographer I should made a few frames tomorrow.
peace and joy :)
Katia
i think my problema here is that the Goths and Emos tend to mix and match..they are friendly with each other, at least that´s how it seems to my totally out-of-the-loop eye. They all seem to have piercings, faces half covered by hair (but then, i was a hippie and it wasn´t that much different), chains are a big part of the package, stripey tinted hair, lots of times blue, pink, red or purple and very cool, clothing..often black but also little pleated skirts and converse sneakers and stuf..they seem to have their leaders who are REALLY cool and, well, whatever they are, they sure are good people. That´s pretty much all i know.
there are a number of street portraits of ¨my¨ Emo/Goth kids here:
http://altphotos.com/Gallery.aspx?&a=MemberGallery&memberid=1319
thanks for elaborating, Katia. It´s interesting how the song remains the same regardless of the country, eh?
bestest:
kathie-
Gracie
You viewed this photo and that´s how you read the expressions..nothing to be sorry for. There´s very little light on these faces and very few clues that tell us how to read them. Maybe these kids WERE smirking and sneering..hard to really tell with the blur and grain. But that´s what´s really nice about this photograph. It´s connotative, not denotative. We get a few clues, we interpret them our way. I was aided by my previous experience with kids like this but if i didn´t know better i would probably have been somewhat intimidated by their cool aura and read the expressions the same way you did.
DAH
I was not angry above. I have been angry here once and upset twice. I was frustrated last night because these essays and photographs get shuffled off to buffalo in favor of trying to talk somebody into seeing things differently, which never happens, ever. It really seems to be a diversionary tactic to give us something to do, including me! So why not just let this person be, let him come here and be happy, love or hate the photos for his own imponderable reasons while we also focus on the photos and essays, each in our own right or left brained way? My outbirst was a product of late night passion but i´m not really sorry. I like this person and think he has just as much right to be, well the way hs is, as we do to be the way we are. It´s all good!
all the best to Madrid!
kathie
I like this image and think the grainy style suits it. I don’t think it is a case of jumping on the “grainy bandwagon”, it works in its own right. I think the image would work best as part of an essay rather than a stand alone image.
To me though; it doesn’t say “Emo”, but it does say “Fancy dressed teenagers, perfectly eye lined, and tight jeans”. Here in New Zealand Emos are more goth like (or maybe goth-lite!!) than depicted here.
Cheers
Me encanta David, muy sensible por tu parte, quizas no es la que mas me gusta de todas las de tu reportage pero és maravillosa! Me gusta como ha quedado la chica, parece pintada practicamente.
GRANDE DAVID….. !!!
esto es solo el principio.
David, I just knew you would say that :)) Is it really everyday, hmmm, seems a little less. Am I really spending so much time here that I’m losing track of days? Chuckling. You know I’m always ready to jump in behind the curtain to help in ANY way I can. Sorry for the headache.
just had a look at the shot and through the link, to be honest, this photography is doing nothing for me. sorry, just not impressed with this work.
just going to Davids thread comment, i think alot has to do with where we are looking at images. eg DG’s photo might have more impact if it was an ad and the left side had some mega brand stamped on it, billboard on Sunset etc, or some toff in an art gallery had it enlarged and beautifully matted and framed or whatever, or here in my media room, one click from oblivion, i think our perception of what we see has to be influenced by how we percieve it. i don’t think there are absolutes, left side right side?
i wonder why people who shoot film and present scans as the image to be seen, don’t clean dust and marks from there images.
best,
IF you are a photographer, your best “position” for discussion always is what you can put down on the table in the form of your work..this should be your real statement to all of us here…
————————————–
Amen!
PS: back later…
To all. Right of left brained.
First of all, my apologizes for not jump here during the discussion, it has been a very busy week at work after the superb workshop with DAH.
I’m astonished with the all the writing about my picture, mainly for the number and quality of the comments.
Now it’s Sunday evening and I’ve spent a lot of time reading all from the beginning, and I swore you guys it has been a real pleasure.
The text companion was just and introduction of the context where the photograph was taken.
To Jim.P
I don’t mind you don’t like “Los EMO Kids” nothing at all, in my case I love your comments. Don’t delete BURN from your bookmarks; you’re a perfect catalyst and great stimulus to the discussion. Love.
To Ms. Rosa
The gear for “Los EMO Kids” was a Nikon D70 with a 35mm prime lens open wide.
To Jan
Ohh, Jan, I think I have to read several times your longest post. I’m not native English reader, so it takes me more time to think and reflect about your post. Thanks for the time. We have to talk about your impressive work at Gunkanjima. I’ll send you a e-mail soon.
To Biel, Gustavo and Fragan.
Gracias por vuestros comentarios. Ha sido genial compartir con vosotros el workshop.
Goth & Emo stuff.
It seems that there are different uses of the term EMO depending the part of the world you are. Anyway I think there is a very thin line between them. Goth kids in Spain are somewhat different, apart of the black costumes and their pale faces, we see or think about them more close to Epic Fantasy and also to manga culture. Many people, wrongly i think, refer to them as Otaku, but this term hasn’t the same meaning as in Japan, scorn and related to be a maniac. We refer to EMO, on a basic level, to more sophisticated look guys.
As I’ve said before, a real pleasure to follow your comments. See you at BURN.
Cheers
David G.