redisburning wrote:

Does anyone want to talk about Daido again?

Yup !!!


I feel like Daido must be forcing things

I tend to agree, at least it comes across to me that way. It's hard to explain, but I can tell the difference in my own efforts from when I'm "in the zone" vs. when I'm "doing it because I'm supposed to be doing it". I suspect that we've all been in both modes.

redisburning wrote: simply lacking in the level of technical skill we expect from modern work.

I don't disagree that some of this applies ... but for me, it is more about the message that I'm unable to derive from the image, i.e. lacking the point, as in the case of the bathtub. Even with an attempt to dissect the image for message or to follow where he may have been trying to "draw the eye" ... I came up empty. That could certainly be on my end of things ... but it seems to be a bit recurrent with his work/style that I often "miss the message".

Which brings me back to asking about the voice / message of Daido? Bif answered some of that I think, but I've yet to get my head into Daido's world. I'm sure that many aren't able to get their head into "my world" either ... so that's fair and understood that not everyone will "get it". But while I'd like to think that I can explain my intent behind each image, I'm left feeling that Daido would prefer to just shrug his shoulders, have some more sake and go take a nap (not that there's anything wrong with that ) when asked about his imagery.

In the case of my "Twisted Knob" ... I can refer its intent to showcasing the texture of the iron, and the detail of the workmanship. Also, the "play" of light & dark tonal values, as well as lines & curves, (ad naseum ), etc ...if asked. Or someone can simply say "I like it" or "I don't like it". For me, I'd rather they look at it sufficiently to try to understand it ... even if they don't "like it" (which is perfectly fine) I'd hope that they can "see it" once it is explained a bit (if necessary).

With Daido ... I'm still grappling for the explanation that helps me "see it" or "get it", irrespective of whether or not I "like it" ... and feeling like it would never be forthcoming, even if I asked.

Rusty, I think that the reason you don't get it is because, like you yourself said, his work is antithetical to your own.

Unlike you, my photography is driven overwhelmingly by subconscious thought and I cannot appreciate landscapes and magazine shoots as anything other than technical exercises (with a few examples, e.g. Kenro Izu or Jean-Loup Sieff respectively). I really only like spontaneous work and for me spontaneous moments of both beauty and ugliness are appealing, and the more towards each extreme that you move the more I tend to like it.

As a result, I not only like Daido's dirty 70s Japan but Nobuyoshi Araki's perverted one and Ralph Gibson's beautiful women. I must admit myself to being no big fan of Ansel Adam's photographs on the whole.

Im with Daido, if you ask me for intent for any of my photographs it will be simply "I took it because I wanted to see what it would look like as a photograph", because I can't do anything more than borrow Winnogrand's words on the matter.

Guys, I think there is no point dissecting Daido Moriyama's work into composition studies. Quoting from an interview with Flippo Magia in the 2010 book, Moriyama, Daido; "The World through My Eyes" , his ideas about photography was in line with the Provoke magazine concept of "expressions through images and not word, and the rejection of traditional artistic approaches". So those of you trying to make compositional sense of his work will probably be disappointed. Daido's photographs are an expression to what he felt (and feels) when he walks the streets of Toyko and elsewhere, and by taking a photograph, he is trying to react to his feelings at that time. In the same interview, he said that "different realities coexist within a single image. That is the magic of photography."

And if some of you are interested to read more on Daido's work and style, then I suggest you also look up the work of two other very prominent Japanese photographers (if not more prominent then Daido), Eikoh Hosoe and Shomei Tomatsu. Daido learned the technical aspects of his photography while studying and assisting Hosoe-san, while most of his photography related inspiration and expression came from studying with Tomatsu-san.

Even if many of you are not familiar with Daido's work, some of you would probably have seen a T-Shirt or poster with one of his most famous photos of a stray dog taken in 1971 when he walked out of a hotel near a US Military base, saw a stray dog and snapped a few photos. This photo is now in the collections of many of the most prominent museums in the world. See for instance here. http://www.culturevulture.net/ArtandArch/Moriyama.htm

Hope this was useful.

Joe

joe88 wrote:
Guys, I think there is no point dissecting Daido Moriyama's work into composition studies. Quoting from an interview with Flippo Magia in the 2010 book, Moriyama, Daido; "The World through My Eyes" , his ideas about photography was in line with the Provoke magazine concept of "expressions through images and not word, and the rejection of traditional artistic approaches". So those of you trying to make compositional sense of his work will probably be disappointed. Daido's photographs are an expression to what he felt (and feels) when he walks the streets of Toyko and elsewhere, and by taking a photograph, he is trying to react to his feelings at that time. In the same interview, he said that "different realities coexist within a single image. That is the magic of photography."


Your analysis of Daido's work refers primarily to his earlier pieces, which more people on this thread (myself included) are inclined to appreciate. Perhaps some of the negative sentiment towards his more recent work, specifically the "Color" series posted at the start of this thread, is that it has lost the spontaneity and sense of place of the earlier works. Note how RustyBug specifically mentions the magenta-water-filled "bathtub" image --- this did not arise from being emotionally swept along in the currents and rhythms of Tokyo street life. Instead, it is an artificial, intellectually constructed image from within the "bubble" of an elite modern art world; an homage to Eggleston, meant to be appreciated by those "in the know," while lacking a raw emotional connection to a broader audience.

redisburning wrote: "I took it because I wanted to see what it would look like as a photograph"

That concept is to me what constitutes "an experiment" or "curiosity" ... not that there is anything wrong with that, but I'm remiss to find the uber-interest in it. Having a curious mind, and photographing "hmmm, I wonder" ... been there done that, put a bunch on the burn pile. I don't really expect others to get excited at my "wonder" pics, just because I "wondered".


So @ react to his feelings ... I guess the bathtub was, "Hey, this is something that reminds me of another image I saw" ... "Click". Is that the inference?

carstenw wrote:
and my B&W work is actually film

You were under the impression that by shooting film your results will be magical by default?


What on earth have you been doing in the last eight years in this forum when you have not even figured that simple truth?

Haha, look people, he's back. So funny

mpmendenhall wrote:
joe88 wrote:
Guys, I think there is no point dissecting Daido Moriyama's work into composition studies. Quoting from an interview with Flippo Magia in the 2010 book, Moriyama, Daido; "The World through My Eyes" , his ideas about photography was in line with the Provoke magazine concept of "expressions through images and not word, and the rejection of traditional artistic approaches". So those of you trying to make compositional sense of his work will probably be disappointed. Daido's photographs are an expression to what he felt (and feels) when he walks the streets of Toyko and elsewhere, and by taking a photograph, he is trying to react to his feelings at that time. In the same interview, he said that "different realities coexist within a single image. That is the magic of photography."


Your analysis of Daido's work refers primarily to his earlier pieces, which more people on this thread (myself included) are inclined to appreciate. Perhaps some of the negative sentiment towards his more recent work, specifically the "Color" series posted at the start of this thread, is that it has lost the spontaneity and sense of place of the earlier works. Note how RustyBug specifically mentions the magenta-water-filled "bathtub" image --- this did not arise from being emotionally swept along in the currents and rhythms of Tokyo street life. Instead, it is an artificial, intellectually constructed image from within the "bubble" of an elite modern art world; an homage to Eggleston, meant to be appreciated by those "in the know," while lacking a raw emotional connection to a broader audience.
That's a good point. And I think it happens not infrequently to established artists, especially as they grow older. Maybe it's because they feel they have extra leeway to make less accessible work. Maybe they think they've earned enough clout to get people to hunt more for comprehension of what they're trying to do. Whatever the reason it does leave a large audience out in the cold. But then again, it also spurs debates and discussions and some interesting things can emerge in those.

While I don't connect to the bathub image on an emotional level, I do find it intriguing in the context of Eggleston. Because Eggleston, in large part, was one of the first photographers to start exhibiting color prints (and of course much to the derision of critics at the time). So Daido, who is more widely recognized for his black-and-white work, moving to color, and then echoing Eggleston, yeah, I think that's kind of interesting.

S Dilworth wrote:
He has said Klein’s photos shocked him into taking up a camera. The current Tate Modern exhibition pairs Klein and Daido.

I think there are millions of ‘wannabe Daidos’, as ayler puts it, simply because his photos strike a chord with many people (especially young people). The vast majority of those people resonate with the basic aesthetic of are-bure-bokeh (rough, blurred, and out of focus) rather than any highfaluting philosophy behind it all.

There’s just something very visceral about edgy street scenes full of speed and motion. Printed large enough, the grainy off-kilter photos can be pretty intense to come face-to-face with in a gallery. They induce feelings of displacement, the contradictions of both feeling at home in the anonymous city and feeling rootless, the daily low-level panic of unfulfilled potential and desires, etc. – familiar themes for many people today. Because these themes are still highly relevant today, I think Daido’s appeal will not fade so easily. The art world can do what it wants, but new photographers will always want to emulate this, much as they still want to emulate Ansel Adams and HCB.

That’s what I like about Daido, actually. It’s only as conceptual as you make it. When I first came across his work I liked it at first glance, knowing nothing about it. Only later did I learn that in the sixties there was a short-lived Japanese magazine called Provoke, which pushed this unsettling aesthetic at a time when art critics expected to understand the photographs they looked at. Given the social context (the usual sixties stuff, breakdown of traditional mores, shaking off of postwar austerity, etc.), this magazine and its aesthetic signposted the way for a new generation of Japanese photographers eager for change. They lapped it up.

Curiously, given the current trend for printing very large, those Japanese photographers in the sixties and seventies didn’t originally shoot with the intention to print large, or make standalone prints at all, but rather photo-books. Photo-books were big in Japan (still are, I guess, but they’re big everywhere now). Daido still says he prefers them to fine prints. They encourage a different way of looking at photographs, where individual photos are subsumed by the overall body of work.

Spyro P. wrote:
I realised a long time ago that making photos is one thing that requires some kind of talent, but talking about photos and particularly about art in photography, without sounding like a complete knob, requires an entirely different talent altogether.

Eggleston would appear to agree with you, in this wonderful chat with director Michael Almereyda (from the William Eggleston in the Real World documentary I mentioned earlier).

For some reason..... I must hate myself , I actually read through this entire thread. The above quoted post was the only post that actually held any merit to me. It was thoughtful, insightful, and well mannered.

I first looked at Moriyama's work when I opened this thread. I was not impressed, it just looked like more artsy bull to me and I quickly dismissed it as such, I've never been a fan of such work. Let others pay millions of dollars for it, I don't like it.

S Dilworth however explained why people like it and what makes him appreciate it. After reading his post I had to reevaluate my opinion and it made me see things from a slightly different perspective, which is what "art" is all about in my opinion.

I still don't like the work, but I can appreciate it a bit better now. S Dilworth accomplished in a few paragraphs of thoughtful writing what all the fanboyism and pretentiousness of Exdsc has failed to in an entire thread. If Exdsc's goal is to make people like Moriyama better, he is failing spectacularly. Then again that probably isn't his goal, the more obscure and under appreciated he is the more Exdsc will probably like him. Clearly everyone else just doesn't get it, but I do, therefore I am special.

To each their own, let me know when you guys figure out what is art and what isn't. Cheers.

redisburning wrote:
Rusty, I think that the reason you don't get it is because, like you yourself said, his work is antithetical to your own.

Unlike you, my photography is driven overwhelmingly by subconscious thought and I cannot appreciate landscapes and magazine shoots as anything other than technical exercises (with a few examples, e.g. Kenro Izu or Jean-Loup Sieff respectively). I really only like spontaneous work and for me spontaneous moments of both beauty and ugliness are appealing, and the more towards each extreme that you move the more I tend to like it.

As a result, I not only like Daido's dirty 70s Japan but Nobuyoshi Araki's perverted one and Ralph Gibson's beautiful women. I must admit myself to being no big fan of Ansel Adam's photographs on the whole.


This also made me think of another curiosity. Similar to Daido, Ansel Adam established his reputation doing B&W work. But he also did color work, which wasn't nearly as popular.

mpmendenhall wrote:
Your analysis of Daido's work refers primarily to his earlier pieces, which more people on this thread (myself included) are inclined to appreciate. Perhaps some of the negative sentiment towards his more recent work, specifically the "Color" series posted at the start of this thread, is that it has lost the spontaneity and sense of place of the earlier works. Note how RustyBug specifically mentions the magenta-water-filled "bathtub" image --- this did not arise from being emotionally swept along in the currents and rhythms of Tokyo street life. Instead, it is an artificial, intellectually constructed image from within the "bubble" of an elite modern art world; an homage to Eggleston, meant to be appreciated by those "in the know," while lacking a raw emotional connection to a broader audience.

Good point. I admit I have not seen Daido's bathtub picture as a piece in isolation but more as a series of pictures as part of his new book. This book was shot mostly (I think) with a Ricoh P&S digital camera. There are also pictures of flowers (?), doors (?) and other still life objects. I still feel that these color pictures carry Moriyama-san's "style" and emotion somewhat consistent with his earlier B&W work, kind of a streams of consciousness photography but with color as part of the emotion content. The DNA is still there, at least to me. I regret not picking up a copy of this book while I was in Tokyo earlier this year. When I got back to the USA, most online retailers wanted to charge 2 to 3x more for the book.

For those interested, see excerpts of the book including the "bathtub" here.
http://www.photobookstore.co.uk/photobook-color-_signed%5E.html
https://vimeo.com/42756805#

Exdsc wrote:
carstenw wrote:
and my B&W work is actually film

You were under the impression that by shooting film your results will be magical by default?


What on earth have you been doing in the last eight years in this forum when you have not even figured that simple truth?



...and YOU were under the impression that recently joining this forum with a very negative attitude against fellow forum members would magically improve YOUR images?

Hate to break it to you, but your own work is not up to par for sporting that attitude, far from it.
I find Carstens level quite a few notches above your own, making your petty lash-outs even more sad.
You know, judging from your own level you are quite an easy critique target so I would take it down a notch or two with the sour comments.

I wonder what drives people like you.

kosmoskatten wrote:
Exdsc wrote:
carstenw wrote:
and my B&W work is actually film

You were under the impression that by shooting film your results will be magical by default?


What on earth have you been doing in the last eight years in this forum when you have not even figured that simple truth?



...and YOU were under the impression that recently joining this forum with a very negative attitude against fellow forum members would magically improve YOUR images?
Hate to break it to you, but your own work is not up to par for sporting that attitude, far from it.
I find Carstens level quite a few notches above your own, making your petty lash-outs even more sad.




Abusive ad hominem?

Ignoratio elenchi, more likely.

None of this is relevant to discussing photography in friendly manner. I have met up with FM members from and in various parts of the world for a hi and hello and we generally think this is a very friendly and positive forum - even though we don't always agree on some matters we share photography. But to share you must want to see the person behind the camera. In Exdsc's case I am simply thinking he is just signed up here to let out some steam. That is what I think is sad.

Also makes me wonder what on earth got him to sign up here in sept 2012? Kicked out of other Forums, needing to find other venues to spread the bile?

I thought newcomers were interested in getting to know the other members, cordially sharing and discussing on a level with other people. I guess I was wrong.

artd wrote:
This also made me think of another curiosity. Similar to Daido, Ansel Adam established his reputation doing B&W work. But he also did color work, which wasn't nearly as popular.

Ansel Adam's color work was less popular with... Ansel Adams

The reasons are perhaps more explicable in this case, at least following AA's own commentary. Color film technology at the time didn't offer the fine level of technical control / darkroom manipulation that AA was able to use to match his B&W works to his visualization of the scene. AA's color photos are well composed, attractive subjects in interesting lighting, but they are basically stuck with "Kodachrome colors." As much as the classic Kodachrome look is attractive on its own (and put to excellent use by many photographers), it couldn't match what AA wanted for a photo given unlimited control over color reproduction.

artd wrote:
That's a good point. And I think it happens not infrequently to established artists, especially as they grow older. Maybe it's because they feel they have extra leeway to make less accessible work. Maybe they think they've earned enough clout to get people to hunt more for comprehension of what they're trying to do. Whatever the reason it does leave a large audience out in the cold. But then again, it also spurs debates and discussions and some interesting things can emerge in those.

I wonder if it isn't just a loss of drive? One hears of young artists with fire in their bellies, but once success sets in, a lot of that fire is extinguished. Some people drop out completely at that point. How many bands worked and worked until they got a hit album, and then disappeared, never to be heard from again? Others just continue churning out mediocre swill forever. Example: Rolling Stones. I don't think I like a single song since Hot Rocks, except Angie.

mpmendenhall wrote:
artd wrote:
This also made me think of another curiosity. Similar to Daido, Ansel Adam established his reputation doing B&W work. But he also did color work, which wasn't nearly as popular.

Ansel Adam's color work was less popular with... Ansel Adams

The reasons are perhaps more explicable in this case, at least following AA's own commentary. Color film technology at the time didn't offer the fine level of technical control / darkroom manipulation that AA was able to use to match his B&W works to his visualization of the scene. AA's color photos are well composed, attractive subjects in interesting lighting, but they are basically stuck with "Kodachrome colors." As much as the classic Kodachrome look is attractive on its own (and put to excellent use by many photographers), it couldn't match what AA wanted for a photo given unlimited control over color reproduction.

I am not sure if that argument holds water though. B&W films also each have their own character. AA's colour work just somehow looks a lot more ordinary than his B&W landscapes.

I do love Ansel Adams' work, although I find myself looking at it a lot less the more time goes on. He was a master, no question, but unfortunately, as so often happens, his high quality landscape work helped launch an avalanche of similar work, and so while his work is undoubtedly still near the top, it is surrounded by other good, similar work. This is not so much the case with HCB, to take another famous example. Ansel Adams was technically a master, but it is possible to copy him. It isn't really possible to copy HCB, as countless wanna-bes have proven over the years.

carstenw wrote:

Ansel Adams was technically a master, but it is possible to copy him. It isn't really possible to copy HCB, as countless wanna-bes have proven over the years.


And the Daido wanna-be's

Are they able to readily copy (emulate) Daido (for those who desire to do such) ... is Daido, more akin to HCB than AA ... regarding wanna-be emulation comparison (moreover than style comparison).

carstenw wrote:
I am not sure if that argument holds water though. B&W films also each have their own character. AA's colour work just somehow looks a lot more ordinary than his B&W landscapes.

My "argument" here is based on AA's own writings; he was frustrated with the lack of control, and dis-satisfied with the results of, his own color works. B&W films certainly have their own character, but AA used/developed methods for precisely measuring, quantifying, and manipulating the characteristic tone curves of B&W films so that he could get the results he wanted (and, by publishing these techniques, allowing many following photographers to successfully "copy" his style). When AA was working, he couldn't develop color films on his own; he had to send them to commercial processors, just like everyone else. Nearly all the methods that AA had at his disposal for manipulating B&W tones were inapplicable with color technology at the time. Hence his color works are more "ordinary" --- they look like a lot of other (highly competent) color work from the same period, without the added "vision" that AA was able to impose through processing on the B&W film medium.

Ah, that is interesting. I didn't know he didn't develop his own colour film; I just assumed that he did. I am surprised that he did any colour work under those circumstances.