Burn Magazine has a new voice for Alejandra Martinez Moreno, a well-known online casino player. As it moves forward with the intention of continuing the legacy of founder David Aan Harvey, which began in 2008, Burn Magazine will also be supported by the newly created Burn Foundation, also read
Six Florida Destinations You’d Love To Place A Mobile Wager… Once Sports Betting Is Legal Again. as soon as Sports betting will become legal again. We plan to maintain current grantmaking while expanding the continuing education, publication and outreach efforts that many online casino players support.
Is it my monitor or have the tones in this disintegrated?
or is that intentional?
I mean why not? if thats your thing.
Self portraits are VERY hard, very few [none of mine yet] get past the mind filters.
I want to see the things you do not want me to see, or yourself, for that matter, and therin lies the problem.
wow very cool portrait.
Nice one Noah; I was watching Man Ray on the T.V. last night and your photograph brought him to mind. It has a solarized quality about it. Nice the way the light catches the eyes: not a straight photograph, something subtle happening here.
Mike.
You managed to capture yourself in a moment of vulnerability and transparency, the result is a portrait that makes the viewer curious and also feel a bit awkward because we, as strangers, are seeing something so deeply personal to you. Agree with Valery, very cool portrait. Can’t wait to see more of your work!
Appears over processed. I guess deliberately. Some would find it “art” I guess.
sorry–hate it. Very “digital” looking. I agree with John that the tones are a mess and further, i am not at all engaged.
If you are seriously interested in self-portraits as worthy subject matter i would urge you to locate Lee Friedlander’s book “Self Portrait”. And while you’re at it, make sure to read the essay by John Szarkowski. In it, he discusses the self-portrait as a potential conflict of interest and a tool for self-advancement (not so good) and the rare quality of disinterest (very good). Key word “disinterest”. Friedlander’s self-portraits are humorous, highly intelligent, mysterious, shadowy intrusions into his landscapes, never “flattering” although always compelling, ironic social comments, a bit frightening and full of intriguing context and self-deprecating wit. Your self-portrait is a picture of yourself with some angular shadows playing across your face and physique. Why should i care? Because you are aesthetically handsome? mmm…no, that doesn’t hold my interest. I get no further than your eyes. Friedlander’s self-portraits are never “just” a picture of himself. There’s always more. Much more. I looked at your other work and i think potential is there for you to get out of your own head and shoot yourself without the ego, or rather, the disinterest Szarkowski mentions. I hope so anyway.
kat~
edit: without the ego and with the disinterest..
I really like it. I like all the things going on. The shadow of his face to the left, the reflection of him again in the tile behind him, the way the light makes a shape on his face and his chest, and the eyes are very sharp and engaged. yeah so what its digital thats part of the style that makes it different from someone elses style.
I would be very interested to hear from the author of this whether the ‘solarized’ look of this image was
a: intentional[maybe even a scan of an actual solarized print]
b: by product of post proccessing [creative curve doodle]
c: The file glitched during upload.[my hope]
d: my monitor sucks [unlikely :) ]
e: the authors monitor sucks [always a possibility]
Jim: a lot of people are heavily proccessing digital files [rightly so in my opinion], trying to find new boundaries and limits on what can be done.Its nothing new even to the analogue world which was the object of radical experimentation from day one.
With film i/you/we have a hundred odd film stocks, hundreds of soups, reams of papers and all the rest of the arsenal that make up our ‘creative’ choices to get the ‘look’ we want.This gives us a vast array of choice. With digital you have ‘ONE’ sensor…almost identical in every body of each particular camera. They are clones. Post proccessing is ‘ALL’ there is to get where you want to go creatively. Purists always want their digital files to look like their favourite film from the ‘good old days’. Thats cool. some people on the other hand want to see where it can go, what are its possibilities? What are its limits? Where is that very ragged edge? It is new territory and it raises the hackles on quite a few photographers, old and new, who will often refuse to see past their own prejudices and ideology to appreciate how incredible some of the work being done is. I happen to be lucky in that I share a studio/office with an ‘old school’ photographer who embraced this new media in a really radical way.He is a master at it and has such a cult following that its almost embarrassing. doesnt give a shit for anything except the image. Thats how it should be in my book, whether you shot it on an m6/kodachrome a digital rebel or a hollowed out potato with a magnifying glass taped over the end, the end result is ‘AN IMAGE!” And its the Image that counts right?
PEACE
JOHN
Right! John
John, that’s all very sophisticated. And if you are shooting primarily for yourself and your “art world” buddies, it’s very valid. But most folks who will see our stuff, if it is hopefully distributed widely enough, are going to say either “I like it,” or “This photos sucks.” There prejudices are very real and for the most part never analyzed.
DAH’s photos are sophisticated, yet they are accessible to just about anyone who looks at the photos. That universal appeal at many levels is why his work is successful. There is a limit to how far you can push the boundaries and remain accessible. You makes your choice and you pays your price.
That’s correct, John, it’s the image that counts. This is not a discussion about digital per se. it’s a discussion of extreme means used to enhance content. And content should be able to stand on its own without crutches, i.e. fancy post-processing tricks or extreme lenses or funky cameras. You wanna post-process? use a Holga? fish-eye lens? Fine. Great. But the content had better work double-time and to me, this curve-induced “solarization” has produced soupy gray tones and glistening highlights which distract from content that has no depth anyway, IMO. (Valery, i love your work, btw..)
oh thanks so much Kathleen!
Of course, Noah is an “Art Photographer.” His work on his web site is arty in the same pretentious way as a lot of art photography. But to give him his due, at least from what I see on his website, he makes no pretense at being anything else.
Right John, right Jim. Yes, there is a place for this style of photography, namely in the realms of Fine Art (from viewing Noah’s website, this is where he sees himself) and editorial portraiture.
In the wider sphere of journalism Jim is correct, primarily because when reality is shown it must be believable to the viewer.
Having said that, the bar is certainly set much higher in the digital age. We must remember that our audience are visually literate these days. I’m a big fan of Pep Bonet of the Noor photo agency. With his mastery of composition, shadow and mood setting, he manages to have a very definitive style whilst still being able to document serious subjects with honesty and empathy for his subjects. I see the same empathy in the work of Srinivas Kuruganti who blogs here at Burn Magazine (not the same style but the empathy is there). Have you applied for the Emerging Photographer Grant here at Burn Srinivas? Hope so.
What do you think of these two photographer’s work Jim?
Good light,
Mike.
Mike, in this case I don’t think it’s simply a matter of visual literacy. I like a lot of art photography. What I don’t like is the growing tendency of photographers to try and elevate the status of the banal by calling it art.
I like it, although I do agree that it looks overprocessed…I also agree, however, that it is our right and duty as photographers to experiment with the tools that are available to us to achieve the look we are seeking. But there is a point where digital manipulation is distracting and detracting from the image…it is up to the artist to determine what extreme to go to, then it is our right as viewers to offer our views and opinions on the techniques employed…this is what BURN is all about…that said, let me offer some more of my view…
If solarization is what Noah was seeking to achieve, I would say that he did not…it looks almost solarized, but I don’t think that it looks like anything reminiscent of Man Ray…no Mackie lines here. On this note, I also feel that digital solarization falls sadly short of what is capable of being achieved in a darkroom.
Things I did like about this image include, firstly, that it is black and white, and secondly, the shadows, the shadows, the shadows. It bothers me that the shadow on the right side of his face is dappled with light spots…I feel like I want that whole side of his face to be rendered in darkness. I know that this is caused by the angle of the light source to the subject, but weird nose shadows always kind of bug me…but, at the same time, this is also what intrigues me about this shot simply because this is what draws me to the right eye, the only eye that is in focus. Then I look at the left eye, which is softly focused. Now I am looking at the shadows on both eyes, and the way that the light hits them, and they look like two opposites attracting, or balanced like a ying and yang…the right eye is surrounded by shadow and is in focus, but the iris remains bright and highlighted while the left eye area is brightened by the light source, but is softly focused and the iris is in shadow. This, I love. It also makes me feel like I am engaging with the subject in the image…Hi, Noah, how are ya?
The shape of the shadows brings my eyes frantically around the image trying to make sense of them. I would like to know what is causing the shape of the shadows…I wonder if it is a beam that obstructs the light to his frame and what angle he must be at in order for it’s shadow to fall upon him like that. My eyes searching the picture are happy to find his profile shadow on the left side of the image…it’s very subtle, but it makes it’s presence known. I also like the vignetting…it seems like the appropriate finishing touch.
This was kind of my stream-of-consciousness thought process when viewing this image…my eyes bounced around it a few times, then I began to write. So far, this image has sprung a bit of a controversy in the views about it. Whether good or bad, criticism or praise, it is our job as viewers to explain our thoughts. Some imagery I like, and some I hate, but I find that it is my duty to figure out why in either and all instances. This is what makes me have a more discerning eye and be more educated about the way that I like to shoot. Always ask “Why?” It’s what keeps us engaged and learning, challenging our minds to decipher how we see, what we see, why we see while keeping our wits sharp and expanding our intelligence. That said, I love reading about the way you all think…BURN brings me back to academia…
Okay. Just checked Noahs site and the original of this is a bromide. That clears that bit up.
Looks exactly the same on the web site, so I assume this is exactly how it is supposed to look.Now i feel kind of bad as i really hoped it was a glitch. Now i have to agree fully with kathleens appraisal of this.
SORRY
.
NOTE 1
The online version is, i can only hope, a pale imitation of the ‘actual’ print and that that print, viewed in the flesh, has all the power that what i am seeing here lacks. [this is often the case]
NOTE 2
Kind of puts the film/digital argument in another light though.
NOTE 3
Artists statements. I try very hard not to read them as I have yet to read one that i did not regret reading immediately afterwords. they are a bit like late night kebabs in that respect.
john
John,
You are a class act…
I loved this portrait..
He is like.. like, coming out of the water ( into the light )..
Emerging from the darkness..
Excellent..
( the only thing.. This guy is cute.. Damn it..
He will steal all the ladies..:)))
Again, as Jim mentioned.. Yep,
“some” in here will see the artistic value in it ..
But there’s more.. This portrait has SOUL in it..
This day started “right”
Viva Burn!!!!
DAH-
Sorry to put a note to you here, but I was wondering if you got my emails regarding your workshops? I sent them to the harveyworkshops@gmail.com address. I know you must be swamped, but I would love to sign up for the NY workshops. Please let me know…
-C
Noah – your face, the face – makes all the difference. Surrealistic.
The “processing” emphasizes the face. Lack of it would have made “no photo”.
That’s my honest opinion.
Noah
I prefer your color self-portrait from your website. It’s a little bit like Goldin’s. Very nice.
This one is of course very nice portrait but it looks better in print on the wall I suppose. Here is one of the many. But very good one.
peace
i like this photograph. the face. the look. the feel. its good. for me this images is all about the content. weather digital… or shot in film… neither of that matters to me. never really does. this is your signature here and i like this. cant wait to see more. very nice website by the way!
Marcin, I, too, liked the colour (color) self-portrait on Noah’s website. If I may say, Marcin, your English is very, very good. I wish I could speak another language, maybe French, which is useful in the Middle East.
Panos, “He is like.. like, coming out of the water ( into the light )..
Emerging from the darkness..”.
Yes, thank you, Mr. P. for that; I hadn’t seen that. It’s easy to denigrate Art Photography (no dig here Jim, I’m with you on Emperor’s New Clothes) but some Art needs contemplation and time. Perhaps the problem is that Artists using “Our baby” – photography, to express themselves, rankles; it’s supposed to mirror life, right? like photojournalism, right? Boxes. boxes.
Best wishes,
Mike.
that’s pretty rad.
The most interesting aspect of this photo for me is the reflection of his face over his left shoulder and the profile shadow over the right. That’s about it…
I wonder how well the images on his website are selling in the real world?
I like the light and the shadow on the wall.
Ok, I want to take a stab at this. I have read your Artist Statement and have tried to put that into my assessment of this and I don’t get it. I am assuming this is a self exploration, but other than interesting light it seems uninteresting… to me. Ten years from now when you are commanding thousands for your vision, I will eat my crow. In the meantime, some of the interesting things you see(from what I saw at you website)may be getting away from you. Thank you Noah for sharing this.
Paul
I wonder if Jim feels empowered by his opinions?
Bundao, everyone on here is expressing opinions. Why do mine bother you?
strong self portrait..
love the light in his eye..
eyes of the soul..
also a bit mysterious..
almost looks as if half the body is shaved..
or something…
Love your bravery in posting a self portrait
on BuRN…
and your willingness for ALL comments..
very courageous,
I think….
**
Panos:
“He will steal all the ladies..:)))”
uh, Panos, not all of us are persuaded by a pretty face…far sexier are your shots of Venice and your musical taste and sometimes your text. Cumulatively, the attitude they hint at tell me you are one hot guy. And to a certain extent, Lee Friedlander’s self-portraits tell me the same thing. He’s a man i could have lost my virginity to. ahem. Noah lost me with excessive bathroom musing about self…kinda like the weight-lifters at the gym who spend too much time preening before the mirror. Now, i know a lot of you see this self-portrait as moody and deep but to me it is pure newbie stuff. I agree with Paul, i hope Noah can tear himself away from the bathroom mirror to get out and start shooting really cool stuff again.
kat~
“I wonder how well the images on his website are selling in the real world?”
That’s one very stupid and useless question/comment…. Couldn’t you find better/smarter question? I could write thousand words over your useless question but I won’t bother this space… Eh! You just made me post my second post on Burn…probably the last one… beh…
pretty good photograph, Noah… I like it…
i’m with kathleen on this one.
does nothing for me and i just can’t get past those awful tones
on the face and chest from significantly poor post-processing.
seems beneath burn. sorry.
Ali, it is a VERY relevant question. Do you think DAH would be a Magnum photographer and be able to have this magazine or be able to attract the funding for projects like the Emerging Photographer Grant if he hadn’t sold a few photos along the way. In some way, Noah has to pay for cameras and lenses and computers and rent and food and transportation, and an Internet connection, etc.
Unless you spend your life living off working at a job unrelated to photography, living off a trust fund, living off a spouse or living off grants, you’ve got to sell some photography to live. There seems to be some disdain for actually making money off images here.
Its a very relevant question about whether or not he actually sells these prints.
I just wanted to thank everyone for looking and commenting and engaging so much with my photography. Unfortunately, my work prevented me from commenting earlier. Its amazing to hear so many varied and interesting opinions, i really do appreciate all of them.
Since the process seems so important to the way the image is viewed, let me clear up a few things:
The image was taken with a medium format film camera on black and white film. I developed the film myself (as I do with all the black and white images on my site) and printed it in my darkroom.
The print is extreme in the range of tones and does not translate well digitally. That being said, maybe my monitor is very bad (or perhaps that digital nature of this (or any internet-based) forum makes people assume the worst technique), because it doesnt look as extreme on my monitor.
The light was reflected from a mirror that I was facing and was blocked my a glass door on my left and a door on my right, which is why the image appears vignetted.
Let me stress, the image was NOT post-processed in the manner that everyone assumed. The gelatin-silver print is extreme in its range of tones, but it is a straight print that has not been manipulated other than normal dodging and burning.
Its amazing to be part of this forum and hear everyone’s comments. They are both helpful and interesting.
If anyone has any more questions or comments, feel free to ask, I am happy to answer. Also, if anyone is in the New York City area, I would be happy to show them prints (I live in Brooklyn).
Thanks a lot,
Noah
Noah, thanks for posting. You must have an issue with your monitor because the image looks almost plastic online, certainly not like a straight print.
Hi Noah
You are a very good sport! i apologize for assuming the worst..mea culpa! However, it IS the fault of the digital conversion that caused the quality to go south. I really wish we could see a better scan of the print, or better, a good scan of the negative would preserve the tones. I bet the shadow play is really nice. i still don’t care for the content very much, no offense. You really are a much better photographer than this one example suggests.
Thanks for sharing this and hope to see more of your work in the future..but self-portraits are very hard to do well, imo. Just ask Cindy Sherman :)
best:
kat~
Noah, I am also attempting self portraits and know how damn hard they are to do with any degree of success. There is such a fine line between simply focusing on oneself and showing the essense of humanity that we all share. With me it is hit or miss…and to be honest, there are way more misses than hits. For every self portrait I consider a “keeper,” there are probably 150 that don’t make the cut. Not a great percentage.
I’d be interested in knowing how many of those who have posted comments have spent any significant time trying their hand at self portraits. To my eye, you’ve captured something here and it’s in your eyes. I feel a questioning, a vulnerability, an uncertainty. For this reason it works for me. But, of course, this is just the start.
I have read your artist’s statement and seen the “Spaces” gallery in which this self portrait appears. For me, the more intimate spaces work the best, especially those in b&w. But you’ll want to edit more rigorously. For instance, there are too many shots of your bed. Pick the best and go on from there.
Noah, I encourage you to go deeper, to find that edge of self awareness, the place where your mind turns off and your gut takes over. Trust me, I know this is hard. Everything in and around us fights this kind of exploration. But you have already taken the first steps towards its realization. Please stay with it. It is worth it.
Patricia
I did go look at the site and check the images. to be honest I am not crazy about the shot and in mho I found the set on the site to be a little cliche’
I think noah has to dig a little deeper.
it would be nice to hear something about his methodology other than the statement at the site.
as for my critique on this shot and site in general, I think noah has to find a little more complexity to the shots he revealed to me. i have seen a lot of work that looks like this and I found myself kind of rushing through the site.
best wishes,
Patricia, i did a lot of self-portraits at one time. But that was before i got up the nerve to even walk around the block with the camera in my hand. Once i hit the street, it was another story. i lost all interest in playing chief, cook and bottle washer. Trying to come up with a self-portrait that was worth even 1/10th the work that went into it was utterly exhausting! And that was with digital where you can just delete, delete, delete. I can’t even imagine how frustrating it would be with film although Francesca Woodman was damned good at it. i applaud the efforts of those who try self-portraits. Unfortunately quality and effort often have an inverse relationship.
best:
kat~
JIM….
you always seem to be arm wrestling with the photographers here who feel you do not understand their pursuit of anything other than journalistic photography..or, you seem to question the value of so called “art photography”..i try to keep myself out of Burn as much as possible and only jump in with personal examples when i think i might be helpful…and i think i “know you” and the world from whence you come….anyway, a quick i.e…
i am a little too sleepy to totally respond…but, i do want to write to you briefly on this subject of art and commerce…let me just say one thing before i fall asleep at the keyboard….
first of all, i never ever had the selling of my work as a priority…my passion was priority number one, two and three….a quick interview with any of my friends will confirm this statement…as a matter of fact, i was quite surprised when in my earliest years someone was willing to pay me to take pictures…even more surprised in later years when someone was pleased to buy my prints…business acumen has not been in my quiver of arrows…fate, luck, karma, timing, eye on the prize, zest for life, etc. have served me a full plate, but financial security in the traditional sense has never been my dream….
but, more to your practical point on photographers earning a living as “artists”…
there has definitely been a shift in recent years on how the photographic economy has been divided…for example, at Magnum in the early years almost everyone photographed for magazines..that was the bread and butter of HCB, Capa, Erwitt, Stock , Haas etc etc…by the time i joined Magnum in 1993, the editorial/magazine world had already collapsed as the mainstay of our agency….
surprise, surprise, for the last 8-10 years the primary business has indeed been collector’s print sales, book publishing and exhibition tours..yes, we still shoot for magazines because we love magazines…but, this is surely not much of a business anymore….yes, the “numbers” in our cultural department (art dept) have even exceeded the numbers in advertising etc….so simplistically put, this ethereal “art world” you may imagine is for REAL..
now, this is not to say that everyone who calls themselves “art photographers” are earning their living as such…but, if one were to start a career tomorrow, i would bet on the chances of success of a photographer who took the gallery business seriously over someone who wanted to do social documentary magazine/newspaper photography…
now, i will say this…the prints of mine that hang in prestigious places as “art” were usually quite simply me just enjoying a moment in photography…or , rather just a moment in life..there was no “label” to the moment…i was just taking pictures…..i.e. i have one photograph in the Celebrations exhibition curated by the late great Minor White at the Museum of Modern Art…the photograph actually came when i was supposed to be on assignment for the Richmond Times Dispatch, but sneaked away to attend a friends wedding reception..absorbed in the moment and only enjoying my friend’s good fortune and probably having had a beer or two i made “Joe’s Wedding”….in the newspaper darkroom i made i think 4 11×14 prints on double weight Kodabromide…washed them for 2 hours(i washed the hell out of all my prints) …some day these fiber prints will be very very valuable for my sons…i guess my point is this , who cares about the labels or from whence the picture came.?? is Erwitt an art photographer or a photojournalist??? he sure as hell has made more of a living selling to collectors than shooting for magazines….now, before you say “but he is Elliott Erwitt”, i will say well what about never heard of before ten years ago Alec Soth who ONLY cared about the gallery world…
one of the main discussions (NOT), at Magnum and among other serious photographers i know is what kind of photographers we are!!! we are just photographers!! ….and so damned lucky to be such…i have never never heard a discussion by any iconic photographer on this very topic that seems to get discussed ad nauseum by so many!!!.if we have labels they are put upon us by others who are often missing the point…but, what the hell…who cares??? i always said at the beginning of my career and i say it now…give me my Leica and 10 rolls of Tri-X and i’ve got the world by the balls!!! nuff said…
damned dude, i started writing on this and it woke me up!!! now i won’t be able to get to sleep….
anyway, we will continue this chat i am sure…and in good spirit for sure…..
cheers, david
KATHLEEN..
do you know the self portraits of Sig Harvey (no relation to me)?? i think she is picking up where Cindy left off (well, maybe)…once upon a time on this forum we had a little self portrait “contest”…this was before you joined us…it was really really interesting …maybe we will do that again someday….up for it?? anyway, i do hope to publish your work here soonest….
WROBERTANGELL…
i will be on the west coast most of April…i do hope we meet this time around….let’s make it happen…
NOAH….
thanks for jumping in….i am in Brooklyn as well…we have quite a few photo events, gatherings etc at my spot in Williamsburg, so please join us….
cheers, david
David
Yikes, participate in a self-portrait “contest”. i already know what an exercise in futility that would be. The best i could come up with would be a mere copy of what better people have already done…but a tough challenge..hmm..i don’t usually run away from a good one. So, maybe. As far as publishing my work, well, you’ve never seen it to my knowledge..wait, wait, there was that one photo i sent you but that was just to use the submission process as a vehicle to recommend two other photographers because i couldn’t find a way to send you an e-mail. But i think i see where you are going with this. And i’m up for it. i can take being ground into hamburger as well as the next one–i think ;) ;)
No, don’t know of Sig Harvey but will look her up pronto. Thanks for the reference.
goodnight to Brooklyn from Costa Rica
kat~
David:
I googled “Sig Harvey” and nada..in fact, i actually found you on page two of the search results..perchance do you know where i can find her work?
kat
Thanks David, that would be great.
As I said in my earlier post, its great to hear this huge range of opinions. I generally think its better not to comment on my own work, i like to think it speaks for itself. However, since this is such an abstracted way of viewing it, it I feel like some basic info is necessary.
Its a little odd (in my mind) for my photo to have sparked a digital/analog debate because I consider myself a “straight” photographer. I really value work that has not been manipulated and has merit for what was recorded rather than what was done to the record (sorry for the terrible wordplay, but I couldnt resist).
Many of the images, including the self portraits, were done while I was teaching English in South Korea (I taught there for two years). It was a very complex time for me, I was on my own immersing myself in a foreign culture, yet I often felt extremely isolated. All of the black and white pictures were taken inside a house (most inside my apt in Korea) while (most of) the color pictures were taken outside in a number of different places (Korea, NY, Scotland). So, I suppose the entire project is meant to explore how we (I) react to our (my) surrounds and how those surroundings affect us (me). Hope this gives some context to the photos.
Thanks again,
Noah
David, I’m sure you are aware that many PJ’s think strongly that Magnum lost it’s way and tends more toward art than photography of real substance these days. I don’t, in general, agree with that. But I can see why many think so. But that’s another discussion.
I don’t really care whether someone makes a living as a fine art photographer or a PJ or a documentary photographer. For many of us, those disciplines are all mixed into our photography. What I do not understand is the “screw the world, I’m going to do my thing and if I never make a cent I will remain true to myself” rhetoric that seems to be popular these days.
Whatever you want to call your photography, you have made a living with it. Whether that was your primary concern or not. Or you and I wouldn’t be here typing at each other on the Burn magazine web site. Somebody has to pay the bills. But there seems to be a disdain here for being a working photographer.
Maybe I am a hack photographer, but it has always paid the bills.
david, sounds good, just keep me posted.
noah, thanks for sharing more info, i find i need that, not sure why.
best wishes,
jim
it´s just people having fun.. think of it that way perhaps.. i know it can seem pretentious however surely if only thought of in these terms it can be easily understood.
it is by no means needed to love all that you see, since that would be daft as a brush.. opinions aside though there are more people practising photography for fun than ever before.. trends and the more obvious habits become more obvious – who cares though? it´s all photography and although some does not connect it is now part of the visual landscape and therefore needs to be considered.
within money making photographers there is always the most interesting work – personal work – to be found.. i guess you have your own selection which will never make you money and which was never intended to make you money..
make money from your personal work though.. that has to be a grand goal.. to decide what you will snap and to make a living out of it.
like you i do not agree with the assertion that magnum has lost it´s way.. in fact it has found it´s way i believe.. theoretically photography has moved on such that what magnum presents now, for modern eyes, is just as emotive and powerful as ever it was.. philosophically photography has moved on and although it could be said magnum dragged it´s heal a little, (understandable with such a hefty archive to live up to), it is now firmly amongst the zeitgeist of photography.. presenting work from photographers with modern eyes.. i think magnum could even be a little more on the edge than it is..
NOAH
astonished that you say it is a straight print, since it has all the hallmarks of a subtle solarization.. does you darkroom have a light leak?
i don´t have any real problems with the photo although i agree with the earlier poster that your colour self portrait holds more information about who you are.. to me this holds very little.
it is amazing how many people take a self portrait to be a literal representation of the physical self.. when really it says very little about our journey or interior. i can understand this physical representation within the context of your wider project – collectively they give a good idea of your self. this gives little of that atmosphere away…
while it does say something subtle, about ambiguity perhaps, to me it has become more an exercise in viewing photographic technique. i like the snap, therefore, and i like it more for the illustration of a clear technique than for the impression it gives me of your-good-self.. achieving one goal, for me, while achieving less with another.
congrats on being featured and enjoy the darkroom..
david
hmm… this shot is not particularly interesting imo: sometime when I enter a public bathroom/a hotel room’s bath/a friend’s bathroom I am struck by the light+mirror(+tiles) combination found there, but I guess that a good light is not enough to get a good (self-)portrait. Basically I agree with David B. for what concerns the “self” part in this shot.
Magnum has lost its way? I disagree Jim. I think Magnum has really taken in some fantastic, exciting talent lately. Parr, Soth, Sangunetti, Sobol, Power, Parke…how could anyone say that Magnum has lost its way. You know, watching newspapers fold makes me think that maybe PJ is not the way to make a living. Take Sobol, who simply lived in the moment and came away from Greenland with photos that later came together to become Sabine. Or non Magnm but still applicable, Richard Billingham who simply took photos of his family and later gave us maybe the most stunning visual creation of the last decade – Ray’s a Laugh. The one thing that seperates the best from the rest is that the best see their work as a passion, the rest see it as a job.
rafal
that it the distinction – some see it as a job.. and it is a job.. perhaps it is the difference between being a taxi driver, as my father was, and being an F1 driver.. as he was not :ø)
Rafal,
What has Billingham produced since? He happened to have an extreemly disfunctional family and photographed it (that takes guts) I do not disagree with you, Ray’s a laugh was ground breaking and fantastic but you need to consistantly perform. There was an article on him in PDN a while back he seems to be completely lost now.
Ian
Jim:
the great irony of much of what you’ve written (including on this thread) is that you continually refer to ‘disdain’ that some of the commentators apparently have, as you see it, for the kind of photographer you were (i still have not been able to fathom that one) or the practice that you’ve executed. And yet, time after time after time, you widdle away with the most disdainful attitude toward ideas or work or photographs of whom you feel nothing. It’s a ponderous and ridiculously patronizing mentality. Sorry Jim, but I have grown weary of your anemic comments.
To begin with, not one photographer that I know thinks Magnum has lost it’s way. If anything, many photographers that I talk with, meet with, correspond with, still think Magnum is playing catch up. Magnum is not the apotheosis of photography as a art form nor as a house of journalism: there are now olympian panthenons. Magnum certainly has the most extraordinary archive in the business and has a singular place in 20th century photographic history and still is a collective of extraordinary and interesting photographers, but it is not, and never has been, the be-all to end-all photographic practices. That sad, Magnum has had the insight to attempt to shift the strictures of HCB and company to embrace more disparate and questioning practices. A look at the recent nominees and members (anderson, arthur, bendiksen, d’agata, majoli, parke, parr, pellegin, power, sanguinetti, safarti, soth, sobol, subotzsky, van agtmael, wylie) reveals a disparate and photographically rigourous practice. You CANNOT lump any of these photographers within a nomenclature of similarity, for they are all different, all have different aims, different styles, different backgrounds. The one thing they all have in common is a visual disdain for the pedestrian image or mentality (with regard to photographic practice). In fact, i would argue that Magnum still needs to widen itself: get filmmakers into the group, or photographers who also write (write not as an adjunct but as part of the practice), get photographers who also question the entire practice of an image in anyway dictating truth. Magnum still produces great work and continues to inspire a younger generation. Is it for everyone: no fucking way. In fact, Dave Harvey and i became friends beginning from a post i’d written that i, as a photographer, would never want to be a part of Magnum. That impetuous comment created a great conversation and dialogue which has since bloomed into a real life friendship, born of trust and respect and affection and not from the fact he’s a magnum photog.
Moreover, your eye, for someone who has been a photographer for as long as you claim, is incredibly aneimic. You continue to fall back of the us vs. them mentality (we the hard working stiffs in the newspaper trade, the true bloods vs those pompous pretentious vacuous folk in the art world) which is frankly as vacuous and narrow as any of the teen-angst drivel that much of the art world generates. I dont think there is a single serious photography in the world who doesnt struggle with ‘making a living’ or struggle with putting roofbeams over their family or fruit on the table, especially those whove committed their live to this artform/profession and have families to sustain. the irony is that in the photographic world i live, if i asked the same pompous question of most of the journal/newspaper photos, “I wonder how well the images on his website are selling in the real world?”, the answer would be few few few….pics in newspapers ‘sell’ because they have a manufactured outlet (the paper) and i’ve been to tones of shows for paperjournalists and they struggle too…and much of that work, removed of the context of the paper, doesnt hold much photographic power stripped of the outlining: you watch the POY’s??…most of the work??….and yet, you dont hear me writing this dross as you do….
i really, jim, wonder about your photographic chops. I rarely call a photograher’s bluff, but it is very hard for me to believe, photographer to photograher, that you’ve spent much time exposed to the entire spectrum, including doucmentary work, begin done over the last 30 years, and still write what you write. this isn’t about Noah’s picture, but the extent of what you’ve written.
YOu are entitled to your ideas and to your reaction, i just wish you would stop couching it in terms of your ’40 years of experience’ because frankly, much of what you ‘see’ in the work showcased so far undercuts that kind of visual experience. And please resist describing to us about the real world and the working photographer. My wife and i live that working photographer’s life, and its hard and i have respect for all people who slug away at their trade in order to survive. the difference between you and i: i have admiration for the profession and love of it, not patronizing admonishment.
As for Noah’s photograph, I see it as a very young photographer trying to explore himself. The photograph does not resonate with me as i see self-portraiture as a vehicle that has less to do with outward appearance as much as the collision and contradition between who we are, the ‘me’ of the ‘I’, and the outside shell. I didn’t have any attraction to the image but I enjoyed reading Noah’s description of his struggles with identity, brought on by his experience and loneliness in Korea. I’d love to see how this struggle manifests itself as his photographic journey widens and deepens. I think the discussion of art vs. non-art is just empty fodder. to me the only question is: is the photograph interesting and/or evocative. For me, i wasn’t struck but i understand clearly how others might have enjoyed the picture.
Noah: sorry for the hijack.
all the best
bob
David,
I mean more than just a job. Im sure DAH or anyone in Magnum sees it as a job, but they also see as much more than that…and primarily as something else. Jim keeps talking about paying the bills, Ive rarely seen anything else from him…Ive never seen Jim write about passion for example. He writes about money and ranches and thing he bought…but where the passion. Ive RARELY seen DAH write about money. Theres the distinction.
Ian,
true but lets give him time.
rafal – yeps- i get it.
i guess there are many professions within the profession.. a papp could not be asked to appreciate with passion.. however, a papp COULD choose to appreciate with passion.
jim – i-m guessing you are here because you have a deep love for photography.. i´d like to echo a little of bobs post though.. surely you will have confronted your love and expanded it onto other ground over the past decades? maybe that´s what you are doing here
again – apologies noah for the high-jacking.. jim – do you shoot personal work? what might it cover?
jim–
i, for one, am very glad you’re here.
your opinions and back and forth’s with DAH are very valuable
and your comments are anything but anemic.
thank you for your presence.
sorry, noah..
BOB…
bless you…..you are right on it….
cheers, david
Katia:
questioning the legitimacy of a photographer (as Jim as done here time and time again), you’re right is not anemic, it’s partonizing. the anemia comes from a refusal to delve into the pictorial skill in imager that differs from his own prescribed set of values. As an editor, that’s an anemic eye. i’ve worked for newspapers too, and i’ve never met a editor who, even when they found work inappropriate for a given story, couldnt articulate the merits of said work.
how about the presence of dissent that at leaves gives rise to a richer photographic vocabulary??
Jim, DAH, Bob,
I’ve been following this discussion, and I think David’s late night essay really hits the nail on the head, not just for photography, not just for art, but for any pursuit that requires creative thinking and innovation (e.g. my world of academics, science, technology, invention etc).
If one’s primary goal is to make money, then the work will reflect that. Even if we’re talking about someone in the financial industry, the results will not be as successful. The best example: Warren Buffet, the most successful investor ever, who since a tender age was fascinated by company financial statements: balance sheets, cash flow, income statements. His obsession had a secondary effect- he practiced that skill, mastered it, and built a multi-billion dollar empire. Yet he has always lived a relatively very modest life, in the same house in Omaha since the 1950s, and pays himself a salary of $100,000/year (was $50,000/year even when Berkshire Hathaway was worth several billions). Clearly, pure financial gain was not his motivation, and nobody has beaten his consistency over 50 years.
If one’s primary goal is to just do the best job possible, the money will come, as David illustrated so well for photographers in his comment. People value results over motivations. If one’s primary goal is linked to one’s passion… the results will be outstanding, and the financial gains will come secondarily.
Cheers,
Asher
Asher, tell that to all those outstanding artists, both painters and photographers, who saw no financial gain from their work, which only become popular after their deaths.
Hi Folks,
Just had a quick read through some of the comments above. Seems like there’s a lot of comments about the old art v’s photojournalism debate. When are we going to get over it? Really, what is the point of bring this up? OK, It seems that Jim likes to harp on about such inanities, but its sounding like a broken record to me. Who fucking cares what you call it. If a photos moves you and communicates something to you when you look at it: its a good photo! End of! It doesn’t matter where you look at it, magazine, gallery, computer screen, shop window, book or family album: all of this is irrelevant; just like the distinction between so called genres of photography. What’s wrong with just being a photographer? Screw the labels and boxes, just do what ever you like.
I’m a fan of some magnum photographers, and I interned at Magnum’s London office, being there for a short amount of time, speaking to the photographer that came by, I really don’t get the impression that Magnum is loosing its way either. I think the proof of that pudding is in the people who have been accepted over the last few years. Also look the drive there is to produce, or to borrow DAH”S phrase, to Author work: look at Requiem in Samba and Libra Me by Alex Majoli or Minutes to Midnight by Trent Parke, etc, etc,. The diversity on show really highlights Magnums evolution. This diversity, this breaking down of the old conventions is something that is visible all through the photographic world. It should be embraced not stifled by narrow mindedness. What’s more, Magnum isn’t alone in doing this. At the end of the day, Magnum is just an agency and like the others – it must do what it can to survive.
I don’t see what’s wrong with photographer earning a living form their photography, if that mean doing assignments for mags, prints sales, stock sales – I mean, who wouldn’t want to earn their living by doing what they love. But for me, the work must come before the money. The money should be a by product, for want of a better word, of someone producing good work. I think that a photographer, who does nothing but fulfill the needs of editors, runs the risk of loosing their creative soul. Sooner or later their work will become nothing but a series of boring cliches, produced to meet the needs of an often stale media.
Anyway, I’m off.
Jason.
JIM…ALL
well, you do one thing very well my friend…Jim, you do keep the discussion interesting!!! in your antagonism, you have allowed many of us here to really express ourselves….i suppose that, in and of itself, is a good thing….
Although , somehow poor Noah’s thread did get hijacked and after this week i swear all comments will go under Dialogue ..three blog spots is too much i think….
in any case, i think Bob, Rafal, and David B. having pretty much expressed anything i would have to say about Magnum in terms of where it is and where it is going….good old Magnum has always drawn fire…from outside and from within as well…for sure Magnum is very much a living breathing organism of individuals..like any organism , some things will change…
without change all things creative die….
i mean, we could have been swallowed by Corbis and Getty a long time ago along with all the other independent agencies they bought out……they offered us a whole lot of money (something you seem to relate to) several different times… to “sell out”…and we decided to live or die by our own wits….we rejected a buy out …yes, we did….with hardly a leg to stand on we survived the most difficult last 10 years on our own..scrambled, made it work, evolved,brought in new talent, and we certainly get swamped with new portfolios every year from some of those PJ’s you mention who say we have “lost our way”..pretty funny actually to see who tries to get into Magnum…very often the loudest critics portfolios seem to end up on our desk…hmmmmmm
Magnum is certainly not for everyone…it cannot be for everyone…we are only 40 strong (active members) and that is about the size we will always be….but, the philosophy of independent production works and can be a model for many young photographers to start coops of their own …and they do…surely you must realize that both VII and NOOR and many other new coops model themselves after Magnum….and Magnum photographers in turn have great respect for the new coops….i work with young photographers all the time to help them think about setting up coops…
now Jim, you have NEVER heard me disparage your profession , your career , or the net worth of your newspaper background….you are happily married (31 yrs.no small feat!) and are “set” on your Texas ranch…cool….my only problem with some of your written blasts is that they seem to be written without you having done your homework..you often do not employ basic reporting skills….in other words, without the very research fact checking tenants that make for a good newspaper man!!
opinions are just that..opinions…but, they do hold more value when backed up by facts…and facts are what make for good newspapering, the profession which you hold so high…
so, in this regard , please take half and hour and go look up all the magazine pieces, newspaper articles, exhibitions, and books and educational programs being done by Magnum right this minute and tell me if you really believe Magnum has lost its way…
indeed Magnum may not survive the current publishing crises…so be it….but, for the last 60 years we have given it a pretty good shot and have gone through one crises after another with only one thing in our mind :placing the ultimate value on the integrity of photographers who believe in what they do regardless of commercial success…yes, we must all pay our rent and put our kids through school…
however:
i believe that if you do what you love and do it with passion and zest, then good business will follow…
this is in fact my whole philosophy with BURN…..this is my long term message for the young photographers who log in here every day…the reason i am even here at all….i do not show my own pictures on BURN..it is in fact a struggle to do this and to keep up my own work too….BURN is just part of the “educational wing” of my life..a very big wing!! i have failed at many things Jim…and dammit i will fail at many others….but, the one thing that does work for me is in putting the work first and the employment second….yes, i satisfy my “clients” and yes they pay me..BUT, that is because i give them MORE THAN WHAT THEY ASK FOR ….and the MORE is coming from my heart and yes “personal work” and not from some practical desire to “please”….
now my curious side is up….and i will be rolling across Texas at some point this spring to photograph American families….i think you may know of this project…may i photograph you and your bride on your ranch??? med format film…you get the contact sheets….you get to approve of the picture…there will be no picture in the book or exhibit without your thumbs up and mine..we both have to agree on the picture or it goes nowhere…up for it???
peace, david
bobblack, of course I see and react to photos from my own perspective. But what difference does my background and my photography have on the validity of my opinions? The majority of the people who see our photos have no background in photography, no visual language. If I had never held a camera in my hands, would that preclude me from making a judgement about a photo? You actually sound kind of elitist.
David, you are welcome any time. There’s always cold beer in the fridge.
JIm:
now that is so ironic considering ;you have CONTINUALLY spoke of YOUR EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND…not for a moment have i ever spoken of my background to ground my own reaction to work. You are the one from day one that has defined your vision and the worth of other work by your ’40 years of experience”…..and not only that, augmented your discussion of ‘value’ by reminding us of your 350 acre ranch….nothing I have ever written to you should preclude you from voicing your opinion. I just find it stupidly elitist and empty of you to preach about your journalistic and editorial background and then continually besmirch work with which you have not affinity for or background to judge. Yes, most people in the real world (sorry jim, i live in the real work, not just with photographers) are not photographically ‘elitist’ and most of the people i meet (non-photographers) have very straightforward reactions to photography, including both ‘conceptual’ work and journalism. I wonder, really, increasingly, i wonder what kind of relationship you have to photography or the photograhic world or those who earn livelihoods. the non-photographers that I meet (subjects of work, purchasers of books and prints, models, friends, fans, people who read the paper, go to museums and galleries and purchase books), are NOTHING AT ALL as you describe.
I am just so damn tired of your holier-than-thou attitude about what constitutes how to be successful. I would say, again as a working photographer, that your reality (as you’ve described it here over the last 2 months) does not square at all with the reality i experience, or the reality of my friends and colleagues: both in the newspaper business (yes, i have lots of friends working as fulltime and freelance for papers here) and the ‘art world’ business…
Im calling your ‘down home’ elitism the most nefarious kind….only because of all the garbage you’ve couched your critiques in…
the irony is that EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER I KNOW is working their ass off to survive and your kind of continual dissmissive and arrogant preaching is just so removed from the realities of working photographers that I cant believe that anyone listens to this stuff anymore…i jsut spent last friday with 6 photographers from 3 newspaopers and their working their butts off to spread themselves, reimagine work, cause you’r idolized ideas just aint fitting the bills, my friend….maybe, just maybe, your large ranch has removed you and you cant see that for the landscape…
sorry noah…my apologies..
BOB…JIM
now Bob is definitely NOT elitist…and Jim is most likely a pretty decent guy…and both of you have wives of great resolve and strength otherwise how would they put up with either one of you!!!
so, both of you and your lovely brides are invited down to stay at my old beach fishing shack on the Carolina shore (which i am going to be repairing forever and coulda shoulda been a “better” house had i been more commercial) to sit on the porch and have a cold beer and maybe do some surf fishing which if we are lucky can be our dinner which i will cook up..oh yes, maybe Jim does not eat fish..well, i will have fresh tomatoes and cucumbers too…..anyway, i will do this ONLY if we agree to talk about anything but photography!! can do???
now a cold north wind blows down here shaping the dunes by the hour…damn, where in hell is spring?? i do have a good fire going and will hunker down with some contact sheets to edit for the afternoon….when i am here , i do not miss New York, or anywhere really…although i am looking forward to shooting in Spain for the rest of this month during Fallas de Valencia…
gentlemen, i think we can agree on one thing…photography has allowed us a special place in life..to have the luxury of quibbling over what one kind of photography has over another or whether or not we appreciate one picture or another is, well, a pretty thin line of “disagreement” in the big picture of a world which for most is a more life and death matter…let’s please appreciate to the fullest this opportunity to share, exchange, and yes, to disagree….
so, come on down (and up)…i see a BURN meeting here at the beach a brewing…maybe we can just all get along???
cheers, peace, david
David, Bob and especially JIM,
I would like add some of my thoughts to your disscusion…. if I may…
Jim, I like people with claws like you are. It is good that you have a different point of view than me. That way we became friends with Panos. But for me Jim, as we say in Poland, you are walking on thin ice…
Visual art, no matter its “real Art” or just photojournalism (still visual art) it is very difficult stuff. Theory of visual arts it is one of the most difficult thig I know. More complicated than Physics or chemistry because there no exist real answers (in physics also but anyway…). I mean you can read one or another theory and then another and it will be just theory taken from air. There is no
mathematical model to say this art piece or this photography is good or not. And you are always writing like you know this strange mathematical model. Did you get this supreme knowlage? Do you really know what is good or not… excluding good or not for you…
There is no problem when someone don’t like this or that photo, but for me your argumets many times are shallow. It’s like with child arguments… “spinach is stupid and bad because I don’t like spinach”…
You wrote “If I had never held a camera in my hands, would that preclude me from making a judgement about a photo?”
yes you can… but you have to know how to keep balance on it… you have to know what you are talking about… and I have impression you have not many times…
I am oposite than you, I try to be modest in my opinion, because I am not the greates photographer on the world… I am not God also…. and the longer I try to understand photography or the art the less I know.
Maybe some day I will know nothing… who knows…
peace and keeps disscusion my friends
bobblack, why haven’t I drawn your ire when I’ve praised a number of essays and single photos since Burn has been up and running? Doesn’t my down home, hokey, holier-then-though attitude make my praise as suspect as my critique? My clear incompetence in evaluating photography invalidating each equally? Perhaps it would be simpler if you posted the correct response to each photo or essay at the top so I could react appropriately.
DAH, sorry, I’ve become a disruptive force here that is taking attention away from the photos. I’ll keep in touch via email and hold you to that visit down here in the summer!
David:
:))))….the OBX shack is on our radar screen….and i will definitely drink with jim (or anyone) and have a great chat…and yea, all the real credit goes to Marina: who is stronger, wiser and most resistant…and the real anchor in the family :))))…and I totally dont have anything against Jim on a personal level, hell i tried to write some positive words about his reactions a few essays ago…but i do think that it is critical to separate disagreement about what is ‘good’/bad from worth and especially how to pay the bills…something that cuts very close to the bone at the moment and my family works incredibly hard to pay for the pad in an increasingly difficult economic time :)))…
and anyone that things Magnum has ‘lost’ something doesnt know much about magnum: it’s a major source of brilliant work and i dont think i know any photographer that doesn’t find the work you men and women make continually inspiring….and including how ingenious their re-assesment has been…although a large group, magnum still serves as a brilliant example of how to operate in this climate…and the work, fundamentally, kicks ass :))
ok, gotta run…shit to do…
hugs
bob
Is there such a thing as ‘bad photography’? Sometimes when I read the Burn posts I find myself believing that there is no such thing, that photography is selfish self expression that doesn’t need to move an audience other than the photographer… and then I move slightly towards Jim Powers in creating the dichotomy between ‘art photography’ and ‘journalistic photography’ which is completely ludicrous because accomplished photojournalism is art and art photography can capture emotions and feelings in an almost journalistic way. Isn’t every photographer, art and journalistic alike, capturing moments that are both emotional and visual and what defines what is ‘good’ is just the poignancy of that moment.. a bit of a ramble..
Hi all,
Just one more comment about the technique. I thought I was clear enough, but I guess not. I may be young (25 years old), but I work very hard to ensure that my darkroom (or whatever darkroom I am using at that particular time) functions properly. There was no light-leak in either the developing tank or the tray. I think the confusion about the image stems from a scan that I guess looks funny on some people’s monitors (everyone’s is different), people not being familiar with what can be done with a traditional print, and the lack of context.
To provide a little more context, I exhibited this group of images (in varied form) twice while I was in Korea (here is a link to one of the galleries: http://www.gallery-now.com/html/ex_list.html?nList=57). Since I have been back in the States, I have been lackadaisically trying to exhibit them here.
It really is interesting for me to follow these discussions (not so much the more personal ones, but definitely the photographic ones). Keep them up.
-Noah
jim: my objection has never (not once) been to whether or not you like a photo (or anyone else’s reaction)…but to the way you dismiss work and much more importantly the pefunctory, way you dismiss a way of living/working as a photographer (time and time again you iterate this stance) that does not square with your own…….anyway, it’s clear you’re more succinct and wiser and wealthier than i….have a blast…all the best, bob
Kathleen …..
Ohhhhh… you made my day
( yesterday & today )…
:)))))))))))…
I feel like a million dollar bill!!!!!
Jim, Don’t be off-air again; without you we would be down to about 5 comments per post! I for-one value your comments and I can see the sense in what you say. I don’t always agree with you but I can see where you are coming from. I looked at the work you posted here previously: good, solid, bread-and-butter work and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Pays the bill, buys the ranch. I could never do that sort of work even if it were offered me. I don’t have a ranch. I’ve had some utterly boring jobs: sometimes well-paid but BORING!!!
My world has been one in which I seem to be the only person who “lives” photography. It is total love. Here at Burn I’ve found that I’m not alone.
I’m 58, Jim and I presume we are of a similar age? Remember Jim, many of the people posting here are young; they want to fly. The photograph we see may be the first time that they have been published. What they need is not faint praise but genuine comment and advice, Telling them that their photograph “wouldn’t even make page 9 in the Crawford Gazette is not helpful: at least not unless you tell them WHY NOT.
You’ve been around for a good-few years Jim and I’m sure that you can do better. Even photographs that you don’t personally like must remind you of similar work by a more established photographer – even if you don’t like that work either. Putting a link to the established work is helpful. The new photographer follows the link and says to him / herself “Wow, how did he / she do that”? They have grown. It’s all thanks to you. Positive vibes Jim, positive vibes!
I asked you on the last post (i think) do you like the work of Pep Bonet of Noor photo agency? I’d like to know what you think Jim. What’s your favorite photo book Jim? O.k. too tough a question; name 4 books that you admire?
Anyway, how did you manage to get a gratis invite to a DAH workshop AND a beer at the beach house?
Stick around,
Best wishes,
Mike.
Panos:
well you damned well should..i don´t say that kinda stuff everyday!
kat-
Panos:
;);)
MATT..
good question….some photographs move us, others do not…all very subjective and hence the discussion here….the intent of the photographer does not matter in terms of whether or not the picture “moves you”…however, there are some schools of photography that suggest that “emotion” is a negative and other schools that suggest just the opposite….studying the various “schools” and understanding clearly the history of photography (a short one indeed) and its relationship to painting and it’s role in communication will help…in the end, it is just your personal taste….but, this taste can change with time as it does in all of the arts….the more you see the various kinds of work done by the various masters in each “school” the more you will be able to discern “good” from “bad”…or at least be able to know where a photograph “stands” in relationship to what has gone on before it in that particular discipline…
cheers, david
KATHLEEN…
no Sig Harvey??? hmmmmm, let me see where we can find her…i am flat out surprised she is not on Google…give me a little time, i will track that woman down!!!
(one minute later) MY BAD…..it is Cig Harvey with a “C”….sorry…check her out…..
cheers, david
David:
Okkkk, now i found her..will check her out later..thanks for clearing that up! oh, btw…i thought all night about self-portraits..couldn´t get it out of my head..when you´re ready, i´m on!
best
kat-
JIM
now wait a minute!!! you can’t just up and leave now…nobody said you are a “disruptive force”..i only said your comments led to interesting discussion….i did challenge you to make sure you had all the “facts” straight, but that is fair enough i think and all part of the discussions you have fostered…we have all written so much based on your often blunt but provocative comments…i sure as hell have no problem with that, and if you do “push buttons”, so what???
come on back…we are ready and waiting….
cheers, david
HEY JIM,
C’mon hombre, stick around! Some of us find your bluntness refreshing. You are no more ‘disuptive’ than several other frequent commenters I can think of… including me! In fact, I have enjoyed a bit the fact that you are taking much of the flak from the defensive guns while I have lately been slipping under the radar… not that I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do agree with some of it… and I like the balance it provides (and I like watching the sparks fly).
Now, if on the other hand you find following this site an energy drain and waste of time because none of the photographs or points of view excite your interest, or because interacting with the callow, artsy, and occasionally self-righteous bloviators here is unpleasant and unproductive… then so be it, and I FOR ONE CAN DIG IT! But there’s an online community here that’s rare, and often the discussion rises to substantial heights… where else can you talk photography with this much élan? So maybe you should hang out… no need to jump on every new post if you don’t feel like it, but when the spirit moves…
Cheers,
I agree with Sidney..
Jim , please don’t go..
:))))))
..and Jim,
Marcin is right…
We became best friends after long
Fights and tons of controversy..
for ALL:
Cig http://www.cigharvey.com/
for Jim:
well, my contentious comments were never meant to suggest that you are ‘disruptive’ nor would i have ever written if the intention was to see you vanish just as sure the intent for you to write was never to share in agreement. Loss of anyone who brings themselves to the dance floor (or rodeo ring) is a loss, and one no one wishes, no matter how wide or thin the Pecos….
-bb
SIDNEY…
you are right on…after all, this is a discussion…a discussion on a topic that arouses passion just as it should…i love the fact that we are able to fly free form in all of our varied opinions…and i for one love to play “devils advocate” right from the get go…does anybody think that i put everything up on BURN because i think it would look great on my wall at home??? is it not obvious that i publish some things just to excite the kind of conversations that we have??? wouldn’t it be boring if only one kind of photography was represented here??
i will be rolling into the northwest in April…i hope this will be our chance to meet…
always good to have you here Sidney…and if Jim does not come back, then “tag”, you are it!!
cheers, david
I am blown away by Cig Harvey’s work!!! Thanks so much, David, for bringing her to our attention, and thanks, Bob, for posting her link.
Patricia
David,
Regarding Cig Harvey. If anyone ever looked around their suburban home and whined that there’s nothing there to shoot, has she ever proved them wrong. At first i was not too excited. Very stylized, i thought. But i made myself stay and study..what a color palette, what light, what a humble presence she has within the frame. She is not the point of the photograph. She uses her body to make her point. This is what i like. Her portfolios at first glance look like they’d be advertising linens. And they could do that. But they have carefully constrained claustrophobic middle-class madness going on. Yum. There’s no madness like middle-class madness because absolutely no one knows or cares beyond your own front door. Sell those linens, sweep those floors but don’t anybody drink the cool-aid.
thanks, David..more fuel for thought, you devil ;)
kat~
Kathleen,
It’s not too often that great photographers are also great teachers, but this is the case with Cig. I took her Exploring the Personal Narrative workshop at the Santa Fe Photography Workshops during the summer of 2007. And it was the most transformative, photographic experience of my life. If you are interested, she’s teaching this summer at The Workshops.
Cheers-
Krissy
thanks for the reply, David. I find quality of photography such a hard concept to grasp. I have my prejudices in composition and subject matter- but some photography is completely impulsive.. im sure a large percentage of highlighted Magnum photographs (as well as other esteemed works of photography) were snapshots in the most literal sense and the real magic of photography comes down to editing. Out of curiosity, what schools find emotion as a negative?